Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library 9781407358987, 9781407358994

Table of contents :
Front cover
Title page
Copyright page
By the same author
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of drawings and prints
List of figures
Abbreviations
Preface
1. Introduction
The drawings and prints of mosaics
Previous studies
Information given on the drawings and prints
Assessing the drawings and prints
Other collections
Terminology
2. Richard Topham
Topham’s family
A possible elder brother
The source of Topham’s wealth
Education and political career
A prominent local citizen
Fellow collectors and friends
Topham’s home and possessions
The bequest to Eton College
3. Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome
Mosaics displayed in Santa Maria in Trastevere
Harbour scene
Waterfowl
Mosaics displayed in the Massimi collection
Victorious Charioteers
Gladiatorial scenes
Nilotic scenes
The Mosaics of Santa Costanza
Geometric mosaic with crosses and octagons
Geometric mosaic with dolphins
Figures and animals
Vintaging scene
Circles with busts
Mosaic with foliage, birds and vessels
Mosaic from the cupola
Bacchic scene said to be from Santa Costanza
4. Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime
Mosaics from Vigna Moroni
Pluto and Proserpina
Pan and Eros
Mosaics from the Aventine
Elephant, bull, lion and camel
Bull and bear
Horseman and bulls
Bestiarii on foot and bears
Bestiarius on horse and bear
Dancers and musicians
Mosaic from Domine Quo Vadis
Circus race
Gladiatorial scenes
Mosaics said to be from Hadrian’s Villa
Bacchic figures
Drunken Bacchus
Seated woman with two figures
Venus and Cupid
5. Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime
Mosaics found in Vigna Moroni
Silenus reclining
Diana
Silenus riding leopard
Pan and Eros
Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo
Nilotic scene
Centaur
Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti alla Navicella
Nilotic scene
Wader and snails
Mosaics found in unspecified locations
Sol
Nilotic scene with animals
Architectural scene (towers)
Architectural scene (obelisk)
Pan holding a syrinx
Silenus riding ass
6. Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy
Lion and leopard
Rape of Europa, Palestrina
Rape of Europe, Baths of Caracalla
The Cavalieri mosaic
Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief
7. Drawings of Romano-British mosaics
Geometric mosaic, Great Tew
Birds, Caerleon
Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford
Bacchus, Stonesfield
The Great Pavement, Woodchester
Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester
8. Prints of mosaics
Prints of mosaics from Rome and Palestrina
Mosaic from the cupola of Santa Costanza
The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina
Marine mosaics found in Rome
Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo
Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard
Prints of mosaics from Vigna Moroni, Rome
Dolphin, peacocks and griffins
Pan and Eros
Pluto and Proserpina
Mosaic with decorative strip in floor
Prints of Romano-British mosaics
Bacchus, Stonesfield
Geometric mosaic, Denton
9. Discussion
Depicting the mosaics
Format of the drawings
Evoking tessellated surface or not
Complete or fragmentary
Indications of context
Borders: presenting the drawings to best effect
Subjects of the drawings and prints
Artists, their sources and techniques
Francesco Bartoli (1670-1733)
Gaetano Piccini (1681-1736)
Giovanni Domenico Campiglia (1692-1775)
William Webb (active early eighteenth century)
Richard Bradley (1688-1732)
Sources
Techniques
Appreciating and evaluating the drawings
Significance of the drawings: comparing other collections
Topham’s approach to collecting
Catalogue
Bibliography
Appendix 1. Evidence for mosaic
Appendix 2. Monetary values
Setting Topham’s wealth into context (National Archives Currency Converter figures in brackets)
A note relating to the cost of the Stonesfield prints and their modern equivalents (using the National Archives Currency Converter)
Appendix 3. Other versions of the Bradley drawing of the Great Pavement at Woodchester
Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 9, 26B, c
Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 9, 26B, d
Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 43, no. 215
British Library, Add. MS 5238.3 [Sloane]
British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101b
British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101c [Combe]
Gloucestershire Archives, D1009, loose with page 23 [Gibson]
Shropshire Archives, Maw & Co. 6001/5231, no. 526 [Maw]
Society of Antiquaries of London, Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc II, 18 [Harley]
Drawing used as basis for Caylus 1756, 407-408, pl. CXXVI
Appendix 4. Drawings and prints of figured mosaics arranged by subject
Appendix 5. Artists
Appendix 6. Comparison with Holkham drawings
Appendix 7. Mosaics shown in drawings in Topham collection and in drawings in some other major collections
Appendix 8. Discovery dates
Index
Back cover

Citation preview

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library PAT R I C I A W I T T S

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 6 4

2021

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library PAT R I C I A W I T T S

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 6 4

2021

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3064 Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library isbn isbn doi

978 1 4073 5898 7 paperback 978 1 4073 5899 4 e-format

https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407358987

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Patricia Witts 2021 cover image

Drawing Bn.4:31 – Sol (Topham Collection, Eton College Library).

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK email [email protected] phone +44 (0)1865 310431 fax +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

By the same author A Mosaic Menagerie Creatures of Land, Sea and Sky in Romano-British Mosaics Patricia Witts Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016

For more information, or to purchase this title, please visit www.barpublishing.com

BAR British Series 625

Acknowledgements At Eton College Library, I warmly thank Lucy Gwynn, Deputy Director of Collections at the time of my research, and her colleagues Stephie Coane and Sally Jennings, for their friendly and efficient help on my visits.

While in the early stages of writing this book I had the opportunity of contributing an essay about Richard Topham to Une histoire en images de la collection Borghèse. Les antiques de Scipion dans les albums Topham, a beautifully produced publication by the Louvre which was largely written and directed by Marie-Lou Fabréga-Dubert. I thank Marie-Lou for useful references and stimulating discussions. The essay was written in collaboration with Lucy Gwynn whose contribution on Topham’s book collection has prompted useful insights into his interests.

I am also grateful to Nick Baker, then of Eton College Library, who not only helped by fetching material and providing references on my initial visit some years ago but also invited me into the library itself. It made such an impact to see the many albums of drawings in the Topham collection for the first time, stored in such beautiful surroundings on shelves designed to meet Topham’s requirements, that it inspired me to learn more about him and the drawings.

An important note of thanks is due to those who have granted permission to reproduce the photographs used in this book, in particular the Provost and Fellows of Eton College.

Chris Atkins, Librarian: Local Information & Studies, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, provided much assistance on my visits to the public library in Windsor.

As well as my gratitude to all those named above, the final note of appreciation must go to Richard Topham, not only for putting together such an important collection but for leaving detailed provisions in his will for it to be preserved and made available for future generations to study and enjoy.

Michael Harding, Churchwarden at the Church of St John the Baptist in Windsor, kindly showed me around parts of the church that are not normally open to the public. Clare Hopkins, Archivist at Trinity College, Oxford, provided useful information about Topham’s time at the university. David Noy generously shared his knowledge of Richard Topham gleaned from his work on Topham Beauclerk. Jeremy Potter has been most helpful in reading and commenting on Chapter 2. He has also shown me his notes about Topham which have been invaluable in ensuring that nothing relevant has been missed. Biography is not my normal field and it is reassuring to know that Jeremy’s reading of the evidence substantially accords with my own. I thank Mac Graham for facilitating access to the two volumes of drawings at Holkham Hall. It was a great pleasure to consult these beautiful works in such a splendid and atmospheric setting. I am grateful to the staff of Archives & Special Collections at Glasgow University Library who made the volume of Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawings – as unwieldy as it is special – available to me for study. Pamela Hunter, Archivist at Hoare’s Bank, was most helpful not only in producing records for inspection but in answering my many queries.

v

Contents List of drawings and prints................................................................................................................................................... x List of figures....................................................................................................................................................................... xi Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................................... xiv Preface................................................................................................................................................................................. xv 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 The drawings and prints of mosaics................................................................................................................................. 3 Previous studies................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Information given on the drawings and prints................................................................................................................. 5 Assessing the drawings and prints................................................................................................................................... 5 Other collections.............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Terminology..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Richard Topham............................................................................................................................................................11 Topham’s family............................................................................................................................................................. 12 A possible elder brother................................................................................................................................................. 12 The source of Topham’s wealth..................................................................................................................................... 14 Education and political career........................................................................................................................................ 15 A prominent local citizen............................................................................................................................................... 18 Fellow collectors and friends......................................................................................................................................... 19 Topham’s home and possessions.................................................................................................................................... 21 The bequest to Eton College.......................................................................................................................................... 24 3. Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome............................................... 29 Mosaics displayed in Santa Maria in Trastevere............................................................................................................ 29 Harbour scene............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Waterfowl.................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Mosaics displayed in the Massimi collection................................................................................................................ 32 Victorious Charioteers............................................................................................................................................... 32 Gladiatorial scenes.................................................................................................................................................... 34 Nilotic scenes............................................................................................................................................................ 37 The Mosaics of Santa Costanza..................................................................................................................................... 38 Geometric mosaic with crosses and octagons........................................................................................................... 39 Geometric mosaic with dolphins............................................................................................................................... 39 Figures and animals................................................................................................................................................... 40 Vintaging scene......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Circles with busts...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Mosaic with foliage, birds and vessels...................................................................................................................... 41 Mosaic from the cupola............................................................................................................................................. 42 Bacchic scene said to be from Santa Costanza......................................................................................................... 43 4. Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime...................... 53 Mosaics from Vigna Moroni.......................................................................................................................................... 53 Pluto and Proserpina.................................................................................................................................................. 53 Pan and Eros.............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Mosaics from the Aventine............................................................................................................................................. 54 Elephant, bull, lion and camel................................................................................................................................... 54 Bull and bear............................................................................................................................................................. 55 Horseman and bulls................................................................................................................................................... 55 Bestiarii on foot and bears........................................................................................................................................ 55 Bestiarius on horse and bear..................................................................................................................................... 55 Dancers and musicians.............................................................................................................................................. 56 Mosaic from Domine Quo Vadis.................................................................................................................................... 57 vii

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Circus race................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Gladiatorial scenes.................................................................................................................................................... 57 Mosaics said to be from Hadrian’s Villa........................................................................................................................ 58 Bacchic figures.......................................................................................................................................................... 58 Drunken Bacchus...................................................................................................................................................... 59 Seated woman with two figures................................................................................................................................ 60 Venus and Cupid........................................................................................................................................................ 60 5. Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime.............................................. 69 Mosaics found in Vigna Moroni.................................................................................................................................... 69 Silenus reclining........................................................................................................................................................ 69 Diana......................................................................................................................................................................... 69 Silenus riding leopard................................................................................................................................................ 69 Pan and Eros.............................................................................................................................................................. 70 Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo.............................................................................. 70 Nilotic scene.............................................................................................................................................................. 70 Centaur...................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti alla Navicella............................................................................................ 70 Nilotic scene.............................................................................................................................................................. 70 Wader and snails........................................................................................................................................................ 70 Mosaics found in unspecified locations......................................................................................................................... 71 Sol.............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Nilotic scene with animals........................................................................................................................................ 72 Architectural scene (towers)...................................................................................................................................... 72 Architectural scene (obelisk)..................................................................................................................................... 72 Pan holding a syrinx.................................................................................................................................................. 72 Silenus riding ass....................................................................................................................................................... 72 6. Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy........................................................................................................... 79 Lion and leopard............................................................................................................................................................ 79 Rape of Europa, Palestrina............................................................................................................................................. 79 Rape of Europe, Baths of Caracalla............................................................................................................................... 81 The Cavalieri mosaic..................................................................................................................................................... 81 Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief........................................................................................................................................ 84 7. Drawings of Romano-British mosaics......................................................................................................................... 89 Geometric mosaic, Great Tew........................................................................................................................................ 89 Birds, Caerleon............................................................................................................................................................... 90 Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford............................................................................................................................... 90 Bacchus, Stonesfield...................................................................................................................................................... 91 The Great Pavement, Woodchester................................................................................................................................ 96 Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester.................................................................................................................................. 98 8. Prints of mosaics......................................................................................................................................................... 105 Prints of mosaics from Rome and Palestrina............................................................................................................... 105 Mosaic from the cupola of Santa Costanza............................................................................................................. 105 The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina................................................................................................................................. 105 Marine mosaics found in Rome.............................................................................................................................. 106 Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo.............................................................................................................................. 106 Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard............................................................................................ 108 Prints of mosaics from Vigna Moroni, Rome.............................................................................................................. 108 Dolphin, peacocks and griffins................................................................................................................................ 109 Pan and Eros............................................................................................................................................................ 109 Pluto and Proserpina................................................................................................................................................ 110 Mosaic with decorative strip in floor....................................................................................................................... 110 Prints of Romano-British mosaics............................................................................................................................... 110 Bacchus, Stonesfield.................................................................................................................................................111 Geometric mosaic, Denton.......................................................................................................................................111

viii

Contents 9. Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Depicting the mosaics.................................................................................................................................................. 119 Format of the drawings........................................................................................................................................... 119 Evoking tessellated surface or not........................................................................................................................... 119 Complete or fragmentary........................................................................................................................................ 120 Indications of context.............................................................................................................................................. 120 Borders: presenting the drawings to best effect...................................................................................................... 120 Subjects of the drawings and prints............................................................................................................................. 121 Artists, their sources and techniques............................................................................................................................ 122 Francesco Bartoli (1670-1733)................................................................................................................................ 122 Gaetano Piccini (1681-1736).................................................................................................................................. 123 Giovanni Domenico Campiglia (1692-1775).......................................................................................................... 123 William Webb (active early eighteenth century)..................................................................................................... 123 Richard Bradley (1688-1732).................................................................................................................................. 123 Sources.................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Techniques............................................................................................................................................................... 124 Appreciating and evaluating the drawings................................................................................................................... 125 Significance of the drawings: comparing other collections......................................................................................... 127 Topham’s approach to collecting................................................................................................................................. 129 Catalogue.......................................................................................................................................................................... 137 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Appendix 1. Evidence for mosaic..................................................................................................................................... 165 Appendix 2. Monetary values........................................................................................................................................... 169 Appendix 3. Other versions of the Bradley drawing of the Great Pavement at Woodchester.......................................... 171 Appendix 4. Drawings and prints of figured mosaics arranged by subject...................................................................... 173 Appendix 5. Artists........................................................................................................................................................... 177 Appendix 6. Comparison with Holkham drawings........................................................................................................... 181 Appendix 7. Mosaics shown in drawings in Topham collection and in drawings in some other major collections........ 183 Appendix 8. Discovery dates............................................................................................................................................ 185 Index................................................................................................................................................................................. 187

ix

List of drawings and prints Bm.9:74 Bm.9:75 Bm.9:76 Bm.9:77 Bm.9:78 Bm.9:79 Bm.9:80 Bm.9:81 Bm.9:82 Bm.9:83

Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla Bacchus, Stonesfield Great Pavement, Woodchester Birds, Caerleon Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester Geometric mosaic, Great Tew Geometric mosaic, Denton Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford Bacchus, Stonesfield Bacchus, Stonesfield

Bn.7:1 Bn.7:3 Bn.7:34 Bn.7:35 Bn.7:36 Bn.7:37 Bn.7:38 Bn.7:89 Bn.7:90 Bn.7:91

Bn.3:31

Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

Bn.7:92 Bn.7:93 Bn.7:94 Bn.7:96 Bn.7:98

Cavalieri mosaic Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli Bull and bear, Aventine Horseman and bulls, Aventine Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine Dancers and musicians, Aventine Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza Figures and animals, Sta Costanza Circles with busts, Sta Costanza Half cupola, Sta Costanza Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa, Palestrina

Bn.4:11 Bn.4:20 Bn.4:21 Bn.4:22 Bn.4:23 Bn.4:24

Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni Diana, Vigna Moroni Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo Bn.4:26 Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo Bn.4:29 Nilotic scene, Navicella Bn.4:30 Wader and snails, Navicella Bn.4:31 Sol Bn.4:32 Nilotic scene with animals Bn.4:33 Architectural scene (towers) Bn.4:34 Architectural scene (obelisk) Bn.4:35 Pan holding a syrinx Bn.4:36 Silenus riding ass Bn.5:2 Bn.5:4 Bn.5:14 Bn.5:17 Bn.5:35 Bn.5:36 Bn.5:37 Bn.5:38 Bn.5:39 Bn.5:40 Bn.5:42 Bn.5:43 Bn.5:59 Bn.5:71

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Bn.6:1

Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’ Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

Bn.6:2 Bn.6:13 Bn.6:50 Bn.6:51

Bn.13:2 Bn.13:6 Bn.13:9 Bn.13:15 Bn.13:16

Cupola, Sta Costanza Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni Bn.13:26 Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo Bn.13:27 Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard Bn.13:37- Nile Mosaic, Palestrina Bn.13:41 Note: The items in this list are all original drawings except for Bm.9:80, Bm.9:82, Bm.9:83 and those in album Bn.13.

x

List of figures All photographs are by the author with the exception of Figure 2.3, which is by Clare Hopkins, Trinity College, Oxford. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 are reproduced by permission of the Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor. Figure 2.3 is reproduced by permission of The President and Fellows of Trinity College, Oxford. All other figures are reproduced by permission of The Provost and Fellows of Eton College. Figure 1.1 – Eton College..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.2 – Eton College Library........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 1.3 – Finding Aid 4, title page................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2.1 – Bust of Arabella Reeve (née Topham) and her husband Sir Thomas Reeve, Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor...................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2.2 – Bust of Topham Foote, Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor........................................................... 27 Figure 2.3 – Entry of Richard Topham in the Admissions Register, Trinity College, Oxford, Archive............................. 27 Figure 2.4 – Topham’s signature and date in his copy of Martianus Capella, Satyricon.................................................... 27 Figure 2.5 – Shelves with the Topham albums of prints and drawings, Eton College Library.......................................... 28 Figure 3.1 – Bn.5:4, Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere............................................................................................. 45 Figure 3.2 – Bn.7:98, Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere................................................................................................. 45 Figure 3.3 – Bn.5:35, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection...................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.4 – Bn.5:36, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection...................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.5 – Bn.5:38, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection...................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.6 – Bn.5:14, Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection............................................................................................ 47 Figure 3.7 – Bn.5:17, Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection............................................................................................ 47 Figure 3.8 – Bn.5:2, Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.9 – Bn.5:71, Nilotic scene, Massimi collection.................................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.10 – Bn.7:92, Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza................................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.11 – Bn.7:91, Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza............................................................................. 49 Figure 3.12 – Bn.7:93, Figures and animals, Sta Costanza................................................................................................ 50 Figure 3.13 – Bn.7:89, Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza....................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3.14 – Bn.7:94, Circles with busts, Sta Costanza.................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.15 – Bn.7:90, Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza....................................................................................... 51 Figure 3.16 – Bn.7:96, Half cupola, Sta Costanza.............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 3.17 – Bn.6:50, Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’.............................................................................................. 52 Figure 4.1 – Bn.5:59, Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni............................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.2 – Bn.6:13, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni............................................................................................................ 61 Figure 4.3 – Bn.6:51, Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine......................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.4 – Bn.7:34, Bull and bear, Aventine.................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.5 – Bn.7:35, Horseman and bulls, Aventine......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.6 – Bn.7:36, Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine............................................................................................... 63 xi

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Figure 4.7 – Bn.7:37, Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine............................................................................................ 63 Figure 4.8 – Bn.7:38, Dancers and musicians, Aventine.................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4.9 – Bn.5:37, Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis....................................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.10 – Bn.5:39, Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis.......................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.11 – Bn.5:40, Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis.......................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.12 – Bn.5:42, Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’................................................................................................... 65 Figure 4.13 – Bn.5:43, Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’................................................................................................ 66 Figure 4.14 – Bn.6:1, Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’............................................................................ 67 Figure 4.15 – Bn.6:2, Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5.1 – Bn.4:11, Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni...................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.2 – Bn.4:20, Diana, Vigna Moroni....................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.3 – Bn.4:21, Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni............................................................................................. 75 Figure 5.4 – Bn.4:23, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni............................................................................................................ 75 Figure 5.5 – Bn.4:22, Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo................................................................................................... 76 Figure 5.6 – Bn.4:24, Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo............................................................................. 76 Figure 5.7 – Bn.4:26, Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo............................................................................................................ 77 Figure 5.8 – Bn.4:29, Nilotic scene, Navicella................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 5.9 – Bn.4:30, Wader and snails, Navicella............................................................................................................. 77 Figure 5.10 – Bn.4:31, Sol.................................................................................................................................................. 78 Figure 5.11 – Bn.4:32, Nilotic scene with animals............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 5.12 – Bn.4:33, Architectural scene (towers).......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.13 – Bn.4:34, Architectural scene (obelisk)......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.14 – Bn.4:35, Pan holding a syrinx...................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.15 – Bn.4:36, Silenus riding ass........................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 6.1 – Bn.7:3, Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli............................................................................................... 85 Figure 6.2 – Bn.9:4, Rape of Europa, Palestrina................................................................................................................ 85 Figure 6.3 – Bm.9:74, Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla................................................................................................ 86 Figure 6.4 – Bn.7:1, Cavalieri mosaic................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 6.5 – Bn.3:31, Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief.......................................................................................................... 88 Figure 7.1 – Bm.9:79, Geometric mosaic, Great Tew........................................................................................................ 99 Figure 7.2 – Bm.9:77, Birds, Caerleon............................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 7.3 – Bm.9:81, Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford................................................................................................ 99 Figure 7.4 – Bm.9:75, Bacchus, Stonesfield..................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 7.5 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (southern part with Bacchus and birds).......................................................................... 101 Figure 7.6 – Detail of Bm.9:75 showing Webb’s signature (in the fawn rectangle)......................................................... 102 Figure 7.7 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (northern part)................................................................................................................. 102 Figure 7.8 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (bearded head)................................................................................................................ 102 Figure 7.9 – Bm.9:76, Great Pavement, Woodchester...................................................................................................... 103 Figure 7.10 – Bm.9:78, Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester.............................................................................................. 104 Figure 8.1 – Bn.13:2, Cupola, Sta Costanza..................................................................................................................... 113 xii

List of figures Figure 8.2 – Bn.13:38, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)...................................................................................................... 114 Figure 8.3 – Bn.13:39, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)...................................................................................................... 114 Figure 8.4 – Bn.13:40, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)...................................................................................................... 114 Figure 8.5 – Bn.13:41, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)...................................................................................................... 114 Figure 8.6 – Bn.13:26, Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo........................................................................................................ 115 Figure 8.7 – Bn.13:27, Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard..................................................................... 115 Figure 8.8 – Bn.13:6, Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni.............................................................................. 116 Figure 8.9 – Bn.13:9, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni.......................................................................................................... 116 Figure 8.10 – Bn.13:15, Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni......................................................................................... 117 Figure 8.11 – Bn.13:16, Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni................................................................... 117 Figure 8.12 – Bm.9:82, Bacchus, Stonesfield (coloured print)......................................................................................... 118 Figure 8.13 – Bm.9:83, Bacchus, Stonesfield (uncoloured copy of the print).................................................................. 118 Figure 8.14 – Bm.9:80, Geometric mosaic, Denton......................................................................................................... 118 Figure 9.1 – Bn.7:3, Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli............................................................................................. 133 Figure 9.2(a) – Bn.13:9 and Bn.4:23, Pan and Eros mosaic, Vigna Moroni (Gaetano Piccini)....................................... 134 Figure 9.2(b) – Bn.6:13, Pan and Eros mosaic, Vigna Moroni (Francesco Bartoli)......................................................... 134 Figure 9.3(a) and (b) – Letter from Imperiali to Topham dated 24 July 1730 (pages 1 and 2)........................................ 135 Figure 9.3 (c) and (d) – Letter from Imperiali to Topham dated 24 July 1730 (page 3 and address)............................... 136

xiii

Abbreviations BAV

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

BnF

Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Capponi codex

Unless otherwise stated, this refers to BAV Capponi codex 284.

Corsini codex

Unless otherwise stated, this refers to Codex 158 I 5, Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica, Rome.

dal Pozzo drawings Drawings from the Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo, Royal Library, Windsor. Glasgow volume

Volume HX110 (formerly MS General 1496), Glasgow University Library.

Holkham drawings Two volumes of drawings and sketches of ancient mosaics and wall paintings at Holkham Hall, Norfolk. LIMC

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae.

RCHM

Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England.

RIBA

Royal Institute of British Architects.

RL

Royal Library, Windsor.

VCH

The Victoria History of the Counties of England.

Vittoria album

Vittoria album, Royal Library, Windsor.

xiv

Preface The Topham collection first came to my attention many years ago in a footnote to an article by M. V. Taylor, who mentioned that it contained a coloured copy of a print of the Stonesfield mosaic.1 As I was familiar with other copies of the print in question it did not seem a priority, but I tucked this information away to follow up at a later date when circumstances permitted.

Two other drawings seen on the initial visit particularly caught my eye. One was a beautiful record by Bernard Lens showing four views of the well known head of Minerva found at Bath.7 This made me curious to learn whether Topham had collected drawings of other Romano-British artefacts, although it turned out that he had few records of such items apart from the small collection of drawings of mosaics. The other drawing I was particularly intrigued to see was a sketch of the Rape of Europa mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla, which I discovered was thought to be the only record of it.8

I eventually visited Eton College Library, where the Topham collection is held, on a bitterly cold day in early December 2004. The main purpose was to look at the print but I was curious to see what else there might be in the same album (Bm.9).

The contents of the album exerted such a fascination that I have been working on the collection on and off ever since. It was my initial intention to focus on the RomanoBritish items and on Topham himself but I was keen to set this work into the context of the collection as a whole. I therefore made further visits to Eton to look through the entire collection of drawings and prints, with a view to identifying those relating to mosaics and to assessing the extent of Topham’s interest in them.

As well as two copies of the Stonesfield print – one coloured and one uncoloured – the album contained an original watercolour of the mosaic signed by William Webb, which was exciting to encounter. Taylor was aware from Thomas Hearne’s diaries that a drawing of the Stonesfield mosaic had been made at the time of discovery by a man named Webb,2 but her information came from Francis Haverfield’s papers.3 Neither Taylor nor Haverfield had studied the Topham collection themselves and seen this drawing. Although Webb’s watercolour was subsequently noted by Tom Freshwater,4 it had never been reproduced.

The albums of prints form a relatively small proportion of the collection as a whole, which numbers nearly 3,000 items. Topham’s main focus was on the acquisition of original drawings, many of which are known to have been commissioned by him. It might be usual in a book of this nature to focus only on the drawings but some of the prints collected by Topham are particularly important: a set of 12 items relating to tombs in Rome, four of which include mosaics, are an apparently unique survival from a failed publication project by Ficoroni.9

Turning the page, I saw that the next item in the album was a particularly elegant version of Richard Bradley’s watercolour of part of the Great Pavement at Woodchester. This was followed by a watercolour of the birds mosaic from Caerleon, previously known only from the small and crudely drawn plate in Gibson’s edition of Camden’s Britannia.5

I was interested to know more about the man himself and began by consulting articles by Louisa Connor and Paul Quarrie, former members of Eton’s staff. These were a valuable starting point. Thereafter, whenever I was visiting a library or archive for other research I would also check for anything relevant to Richard Topham. In addition, I spent some time in the public library in Windsor reading up on all the references to Topham that I could find. This was followed by many visits to the British Library to consult original material and rare books.

It was so captivating to see these records of figured mosaics, which are my main area of study, that I merely noted in passing a drawing showing a fragment of an apparently geometric mosaic with a caption written in Latin. It was not until much later that I realised this was a unique illustration of the mosaic found in the garden of the Bishop’s Palace in Chichester with the hint of a possible figure.6

My aim has been to collate factual information about Topham and to assess what has already been written about him. Jeremy Potter has kindly read and commented on Chapter

Taylor 1941, 5, n.2. Taylor 1941, 2, n.3, describing it as ‘an inaccurate sketch’; 3, n.2. 3  Then in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and now held in the Sackler Library, Oxford. 4  Freshwater 2000, esp. 6, 25, n.27, and fig.1, giving a ‘family tree’ of known sketches of this mosaic. 5  Gibson II, 75, no. 7 in the 1722 edition owned by Topham. 6  These drawings are all discussed in detail in Chapter 7. They are designated Bm.9:82 and Bm.9:83 (the coloured and uncoloured Stonesfield prints), Bm.9:75 (Webb’s watercolour), Bm.9:76 (Woodchester), Bm.9:77 (Caerleon) and Bm.9:78 (Chichester). 1  2 

Bm.9:72. Bm.9:74, discussed by Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 119, 129, n.25. During the course of writing this book I have realised that the Topham collection contains another drawing of the same mosaic, albeit with a different centrepiece (Bn.5:42). 9  Bn.13:6-Bn.13:17, discussed by de Polignac 2007. 7  8 

xv

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library 2 and has generously shared his notes. He emphasises that Topham was a pioneer in the study of classical art at a critical period in the development of knowledge of the ancient world and of modern thought. It is beyond my remit to consider in detail the sort of education Topham is likely to have acquired, the extent of his knowledge of the classical world, and how he came to be inspired to create his collection. Another area outside the scope of this book, primarily because most of the evidence is lacking, is whether Topham and other collectors of the period used the same sets of dealers/agents to acquire their drawings, and what networks might have existed between them. I hope, however, that my research will encourage others to broaden the scope of the work and to add to our awareness of the context in which Topham and his fellow collectors lived.

encourage specialists with greater knowledge of the other collections to undertake further analysis. The main aim of this book is the simple one of making the drawings and prints of mosaics in the Topham collection better known and readily accessible. Most are published here for the first time. The 14th Colloquium of AIEMA (l’Association internationale pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque antique) held in Nicosia in October 2018 provided the opportunity to introduce Richard Topham to an international audience and to give a brief introduction to his collection.11 The interest it sparked on that occasion was greatly encouraging. When I set out to write up many years of work on Topham and his collection, I anticipated that it would fit into a relatively straightforward article. It was intended to offer some light relief between lengthier, more demanding, projects. The fact that it took on a life of its own and expanded into something rather more extensive is a testament to the importance and fascination of the drawings and their collector.

I have a longstanding interest in antiquarian records of Romano-British mosaics and have compared the Topham drawings of these items with those in other collections, notably the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the British Library, and the library of the Society of Antiquaries of London. This has highlighted what is special about the Topham items and has added to our understanding of the early recording of the important mosaics from Stonesfield and Woodchester.

Patricia Witts Wraxall, Somerset September 2021

I am able to bring more background knowledge to the Romano-British items than I can offer for the mosaics from Italy, but I hope that the observations on the latter in this book might be helpful to others. For comparative material, I took the decision early on to focus on major collections within Britain but not to attempt to visit collections abroad, especially since the most relevant material has been published comprehensively or is available online. It was a privilege to visit Holkham Hall in Norfolk, particularly since the drawings held there are items which Topham himself had scrutinised and compared with the versions in his collection. At Glasgow University Library, the superb album of drawings by Pietro Santi Bartoli, the father of one of Topham’s most prolific artists, offered invaluable background. Before finalising this book, it had been my intention to visit the RIBA collections at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and the Royal Collection at Windsor to see their holdings of comparative material for myself. This was thwarted by the advent of Covid-19 but fortunately almost all of the key material has been published or can be accessed online. In uncertain times, it has seemed preferable to finish the work so that it is available to others rather than risk keeping it in abeyance indefinitely. By providing a detailed discussion of one category of the Topham drawings in the context of the comparative material, I hope this book will serve as a useful complement to the pioneering work carried out by Rodolfo Lanciani and Thomas Ashby over 100 years ago10 and that it will

10 

Lanciani 1894; Lanciani 1895; Ashby 1914.

11 

xvi

Witts forthcoming.

1 Introduction This study brings together one category of drawings and prints in the collection formed by Richard Topham (16711730), now held in Eton College Library (Figures 1.1-1.2).

a source for British Neo-Classicism, providing inspiration to Robert Adam (1728-1792), Charles Cameron (17451812) and other eighteenth-century architects.7

The Topham collection invariably attracts superlatives from specialists familiar with its contents. Louisa Connor Bulman, whose work on Topham is discussed in the next chapter, regarded it as ‘the largest, most comprehensive ... corpus outside Italy’, ‘one of the jewels of Eton College Library’, ‘a monument to the single-minded drive of this exceptional classical collector’, and ‘the gold standard for all other eighteenth century collections. For quality, quantity and coherence it is unrivalled.’1 Macandrew described it as ‘certainly the finest collection of copies of classical sculpture to have survived from this or any period’.2 It has also attracted praise from foreign scholars. For instance, Rodolfo Lanciani (1847-1929) regarded it as ‘la più preziosa per gli studî topografici ed archeologici romani, a me nota in Inghilterra’.3

Throughout the collection, the drawings are remarkable for their varying artistic qualities. This suggests that the acquisition of a record of the antiquities was Topham’s overriding concern even if the standard of the work left something to be desired. It is not always easy to identify the artists or the sources from which they worked. Close analysis of the drawings can offer some clues. Connor estimated that the Topham collection as a whole contains work by some 35 identifiable artists.8 Notable among them for the number of works they produced were Bernardino Ciferri (c.1684-1760) and Carlo Calderi (1681-?).9 Another major contributor was Giovanni Domenico Campiglia (1692-1775), one of whose bills is a unique survival from what must have been a large number of accounts rendered to Topham.10

The collection as a whole has been summarised as representing ‘a reconstruction on paper of the staggering collections of antique sculptures, reliefs, frescoes, and other classical remains to be found in early eighteenthcentury Rome’.4

A major highlight of the collection is the work of Pompeo Batoni (1708-1787) whose exquisite drawings are important records of sculptures in Rome. Macandrew has identified 53 such drawings ‘of great beauty and refinement’, of which nine are signed.11 The quality of Batoni’s work is remarkable given his young age: he was only 19 when he arrived in Rome in 1727, three years before Topham died.12 By contrast, the drawings by William Kent (c.1685-1748), one of the few British artists whose work is in the collection, are aptly described by Connor as ‘leaden’ and ‘stiff’.13 They have been overshadowed by Kent’s many later achievements, to the extent that Topham receives only two brief mentions in the recent magisterial work on Kent.14

The idea of bringing together drawings of classical antiquities was not unique. It is probable that Topham was aware of the Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo (c.1588-1657) since it was widely known, featuring for instance in Nota delli Musei ..., an early guidebook to the museums, galleries and libraries of Rome.5 There is also a more personal link. One of Topham’s most prolific artists was Francesco Bartoli (1670-1733),6 the son of Pietro Santi Bartoli (1635-1700) who had worked for dal Pozzo. Francesco made many drawings of Roman mosaics and wall paintings for Topham and in some cases the subjects of his drawings were the same as those previously drawn by his father. Although Topham was not the first to have the idea of creating a paper museum, his collection is outstanding for its almost exclusively classical focus. It later became

Aymonino with Gwynn and Modolo 2013; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 32-33. See also Joyce 1990, 355, n.36, 358; Connor 1993, 39; Connor Bulman 2001a, 346. 8  Connor 1993, 36. See also Pomponi 1994, 260-261. 9  For biographical notes on these previously little known artists, see Fabréga-Dubert with Loisel 2020. 10  For these and other artists, see the numerous papers by Connor/Connor Bulman listed in the Bibliography. For Campiglia’s bill, which is filed with Bm.9:83, see Connor Bulman 2002b, 354; Connor Bulman 2006, 327, fig. 3; Connor Bulman 2008, 298. 11  Macandrew 1978, 134. 12  Macandrew 1978, 135; Clark 1985, 48-49, 388; Connor Bulman 2002a, 60; Bowron and Kerber 2008, 143-148. 13  Connor 1993, 34; Connor Bulman 2008, 295. For other references to Kent in the works of Connor Bulman, see 2002a, 60; 2002b, 351; 2003, 28; 2006, 328. 14  Edited by Susan Weber (2014, 99, 102). Mowl’s slightly earlier account of Kent’s life contains only one reference to Topham and appears to confuse him with a John Topham (no relation) (2007, 25 and entry in index). 7 

Connor Bulman 2001a, 343; Connor Bulman 2006, 330; Connor Bulman 2002a, 60, 61. 2  Macandrew 1978, 133. 3  Lanciani 1894, 165. More recently, Almagno has described Topham as ‘uno dei più importanti collezionisti inglesi dei primi decenni del Settecento’ (2007, 457). 4  Aymonino with Gwynn and Modolo 2013, 5. 5  1664, 46; Zocca 1976, 19-20; Whitehouse 2014, 277, n.33. This guidebook gives a general indication of well known collections in Rome but it does not appear that Topham owned a copy of it. The question of whether he ever visited Rome is addressed in the next chapter. 6  For Bartoli’s dates of birth and death, which are cited differently in various publications, see the detailed explanations in Almagno 2007, 454, 460-462. 1 

1

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library For the drawings of mosaics, Topham’s main artists were Francesco Bartoli and Gaetano Piccini (1681-1736).15 Their work is discussed in more detail in the following chapters, particularly Chapter 9 where the artists of the drawings of mosaics in Italy and Britain are considered.

‘at Eaton to see Mr Tophams Collection of drawings From Italy now fixd in the library of Eaton Coll. for ever – to be viewd by the learned and Curious – ‘the library finely adornd with pillars of wanscot. shelves. drawings book casses – 3 rooms. on the South side of the Quadrangle – with an upper story or range raild in with Iron for small books. the middle room a fine room. in two presses are the books of Drawings shut up with brass wire – securely. the other contains the manuscripts. and near them are large shelves for the books of prints gravings – or Sculpture.

As well as drawings and prints, the collection includes approximately 1,300 books, a large number of which are concerned with antiquities. They include major illustrated works and rare items.16 Perhaps stemming from his bibliographic interests, works on paper seem to have been Topham’s main interest rather than collecting original pieces. No portrait of Topham is known and virtually none of his private papers survive. This has led to him being described as a ‘shadowy figure’ and a ‘discreet, singleminded man’.17 Nevertheless, the information that can be gleaned about him dispels much of the air of mystery. A more rounded, engaged person emerges, albeit one with an enduring passion which he had the money, and later the time, to pursue assiduously. Chapter 2 gives a detailed account of Topham, building on work done by others, adding new information gained from fresh research, and explaining how the collection came to be housed in Eton College Library after his death.18

‘about 30 large Volummes of Drawings. put loose each between leaves of blew paper. the out sides of the Books. the names of the contents being roman Antiquities different Volumms. the palaces seperately in Volms. what peices of Sculpture there is exactly and Skillfully drawn – most are chalk drawings redd or black – the antient paintings on Walls are in water colour by Santo Bartoli.22 – very beautifull and exact and laborious ...’ A summary of the contents of each album has recently been provided by Aymonino and Modolo to accompany an essay which provides useful context for the Topham collection.23

Shortly after the collection arrived at Eton each item was stamped with a mark consisting of a small caduceus flanked by the letters RT.19 The whole collection was then catalogued by two Fellows of Eton College, Stephen Sleech (d.1765) and John Reynolds (1671-1758). It seems that they divided the work between them, with Reynolds dealing with the books and Sleech, who was the Bursar and later became the Provost of Eton, concentrating on the visual material: Finding Aid 4, a manuscript catalogue of the drawings and prints, appears to be in his handwriting (Figure 1.3).20 Sleech annotated each item with the designation of the album in which it was filed, followed by the number of the drawing within that album.

Sleech calculated that there were 2,232 drawings and 703 prints, giving an overall total of 2,935 items.24 There are some minor discrepancies between the subtotals for the different headings in Finding Aid 4 and the number of items listed under those headings. Overall, however, Sleech’s figures are likely to be broadly correct. Arriving at a precise total is not entirely straightforward since some drawings and prints cover more than one object, some objects appear in more than one drawing or print, and in a few instances the size of the drawings is so great that they spread over sheets large enough to warrant two numbers. The majority of the illustrations are of ancient sculptures then in Rome. Macandrew usefully summarises their significance: ‘The collection as a whole constitutes a magnificent (albeit incomplete) survey of those classical sculptures, both the famous and less well known pieces, contained in Roman collections of the period c.1725-30, and not only those sculptures which belonged to the great patrician families, but to the more obscure collections too. It is a unique visual record of the greatest importance, and of particular value in view not only of the imminent removal from Rome of some of the great collections, but also of the sale and dispersal of certain of the smaller ones which began in earnest shortly after this record was made.’25 It is the drawings of sculptures that have so far received the most attention.

An early visitor to the library was George Vertue (16841756), whose description in his notebook can still be recognised today:21 Connor Bulman discusses Bartoli in many of her papers, in particular 2001b, 222; 2006, 328-329. See also Almagno 2007. For Piccini, see Fileri 1991, 93; Fileri 2000, esp. 79-80; Connor Bulman 2001b. 16  For a breakdown of the subjects in Topham’s library and an outline of some of the highlights, see the section on his books by Lucy Gwynn in Witts with Gwynn 2020, 72-75. See also Birley 1970, 37-38; Quarrie 1990; Quarrie 1993; Gwynn 2013, 6-7. 17  Connor 1993, 25; Connor Bulman 2002b, 343; Connor Bulman 2008, 287. 18  Photographs of the library are contained in Witts with Gwynn 2020, figs 23-24. 19  There are a few exceptions including Bn.13:26, Bn.13:42 and Bn.13:48. Their subject-matter is consistent with the nature of the Topham collection and they might simply have been overlooked. Bn.13:5 and Bn.13:76, on the other hand, relate to Mr Temple of Moor Park and appear to have no connection with Topham, perhaps being filed here by Eton for convenience. 20  Witts with Gwynn 2020, 86. This Finding Aid, along with Finding Aids 1-3, is held in Eton College Library. 21  British Library Add. MS 23072, f.15 (original page 19); Vertue 17361741 [1936], 118-119. 15 

A misattribution as Topham did not have any original drawings by Pietro Santi Bartoli. His son Francesco must have been intended. 23  Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 20-47 at 35-37. 24  Finding Aid 4, 38; Witts with Gwynn 2020, fig. 21. 25  Macandrew 1978, 134-135. For a recent example of the use of the Topham collection in this respect, see Enegren 2005. 22 

2

Introduction The second largest category covers Roman wall paintings, mosaics and stuccoes.26 Thomas Ashby (1874-1931) studied most of the albums with drawings of this material. His numbered entries suggest that a figure around 400 would be a reasonable estimate for the number of drawings in this category.27 There are also drawings of architecture, figurines, jewellery, gems and coins. The subject index to an unpublished typescript catalogue by Jean Sampson held in Eton College Library indicates the full range of objects depicted in the drawings.28

mosaics. Although the designs in Bn.6:1 and Bn.6:2 might suggest ceiling decorations rather than mosaics, I have chosen to include them here in the hope that by making them better known to modern scholars more information might come to light.32 Two of the drawings in this study show mosaics that are regarded as suspect: the unusual relief of Hercules in the Garden of the Hesperides (Bn.3:31) is thought to be spurious, while it is doubtful whether the Bacchic mosaic shown in Bn.6:50 ever existed. One curiosity is Bn.5:43 which depicts a mosaic known from another source, although Ashby recognised that the Bacchic scene at the centre was taken from a decorative silver panel from the front of a wooden chest seen in a drawing at Holkham Hall.33

Historically, mosaics have not enjoyed the prestige of other types of antiquity but they often survive when images in more fragile media do not. Since the founding of AIEMA (l’Association internationale pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque antique) in 1963, mosaics have been recognised as worthy of study in their own right.

As part of the process of identifying which drawings depict mosaics, I have searched Eton College Library’s online catalogue34 and have also looked systematically through the entire collection. As well as ensuring that nothing was missed, this gave a valuable feel for Topham’s collecting interests. The items relating to mosaics represent fewer than 2.5% of the total and even those for the Picturae Antiquae as a whole are well under 15%. They are far from typical of the works Topham acquired and are likely to have been collected for the images they depict rather than because of an interest in the medium.

The drawings and prints of mosaics Of the large number of items in the collection as a whole, 58 drawings and 15 prints definitely or possibly relate to mosaics. The total of 73 items covers 61 mosaics since some mosaics feature in more than one illustration, and the prints include four sheets together illustrating the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina along with a further sheet of text;29 I treat this set as a single item for the purposes of the analysis in the remainder of this chapter. A number of factors have enabled the drawings and prints of mosaics to be singled out. About a third of the illustrations have a caption referring to the medium such as ‘musaico’, ‘pavimentum’ or ‘lithostroton’.30 Most of these also contain an indication of tessellation, usually in the form of hatching or cross-hatching. Nearly half of the original mosaics still survive, enabling the medium to be identified even if there is no caption or hatching to assist. Evidence within the collection confirms that three of the drawings show mosaics because the same images are also depicted in prints that contain indications of tesserae.31 The evidence for identifying each drawing or print as depicting a mosaic is summarised in Appendix 1.

As a discrete subject for study, the illustrations of mosaics offer a body of work which is not so large that it becomes unmanageable but is sufficient to enable some conclusions to be drawn. As well as being of interest in their own right, these drawings make a contribution to our understanding of the collection as a whole and of Topham’s approach to creating it. Images of both drawings were published by Ashby (1914, pl. 15), but in black and white. 33  Ashby 1914, 24-25; Ashby 1916, 38; Holkham I, 33. 34  http://collections.etoncollege.com/home, accessed 10 November 2020. A general text search for ‘mosaic’ with ‘Topham’ under ‘name’ produces 73 results but in the entries for Bn.4:27, Bn.5:18 and Bn.5:57 the word ‘mosaic’ appears only in a note and does not indicate the nature of the item depicted. Most of the remaining 70 entries correspond with my analysis but the differences are: (a) The search reveals three engravings of animals – Bn.12:61Bn.12:63 – by Antonio Lafreri (1512-1577), also referred to as Antoine Lafrery, which appear in his compilation entitled Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae. Although they are catalogued as ‘mosaic or painting?’, I exclude them as they are generally thought to depict wall paintings: see, for instance, the description in http://speculum.lib.uchicago.edu/ for Chicago Numbers A129-A131, accessed 10 November 2020. (b) The search results are supplemented by six illustrations of mosaics which are not catalogued as such: Bn.3:31 (‘Relief’), Bn.5:59 (‘Painting’), Bn.6:13 (‘Drawing of ancient ceiling’), Bn.7:96 (‘Ceiling painting’), Bn.13:2 (‘Painting in cupola’) and Bn.13:16 (‘Columbarium’). Also note Bn.6:8/1 (‘Drawing of ancient ceiling’). Although it is not catalogued as depicting a mosaic, Joyce identifies it as showing the Late Republican ceiling mosaic from the cryptoporticus beneath the Library Court at Hadrian’s Villa (1990, 353, n.25). Sear describes the ceiling as ‘...a big panel of mosaic... This highly complicated panel ... is composed of small white marble chips set into red, blue and green painted plaster. The painted zones form the actual patterns ...’ (1977, 49. For Sear’s full catalogue entry, see 48-50, no. 6, fig. 5, pl. 4,1-3). As this is not the traditional use of mosaic seen in the other items, I have excluded this drawing from my totals and discussion. 32 

It is unclear whether five of the drawings – Bn.4:32, Bn.4:33, Bn.4:36, Bn.6:1, Bn.6:2 – show paintings or Connor 1993, 27. For the stuccoes, see Ling 1979 [1999]. Ashby 1914. His numbers add up to 387 but some numbers appear more than once, some are missing, and there are also some additional drawings of paintings and mosaics in albums he did not study. 28  See also Connor 1993, 26-28. 29  The mosaics appearing more than once are shown in Bm.9:74 and Bn.5:42; Bm.9:75, Bm.9:82 and Bm.9:83; Bn.4:23, Bn.6:13 and Bn.13:9; Bn.4:24 and Bn.4:26; Bn.5:59 and Bn.13:15; Bn.7:96 and Bn.13:2. For the purposes of this book, I treat drawings of individual panels as separate items since this is how they were collected, although some panels might originally have come from the same mosaic. Examples include the Victorious Charioteers from the Massimi collection and the panels from the Aventine. 30  For a discussion of the term ‘lithostroton’, which is used in the text with the Nile Mosaic prints (Bn.13:37), see Meyboom 1995, 15-16. 31  Bn.5:59 and Bn.13:15; Bn.6:13 and Bn.13:9; Bn.7:96 and Bn.13:2. The Pan and Eros mosaic in Bn.6:13 is also shown in another drawing (Bn.4:23) which has cross-hatching. 26  27 

3

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library A number of considerations have a bearing on the importance and usefulness of the drawings: whether the original mosaic survives; whether the mosaic has been heavily restored in subsequent years; whether the drawing is accurate; and whether it is a unique record.

Although he did not study all the drawings in the collection, nor did he consider the prints, the majority of the drawings of mosaics are found within the albums he catalogued. Ashby’s paper was accompanied by 24 black and white plates, many of which contain more than one item. This was generous by the standards of the time and has led to those items being quoted in other works, notably by Reinach and Blake.36 As Ashby himself made clear, however, his paper was only intended to be a preliminary study of the subjects depicted.37 His descriptions were brief, often consisting of only a few words, but he usefully included references to comparative items in other collections where they were known to him.

Looking at the drawings in detail offers an insight into how the different artists approached the task of depicting a mosaic. What format did they use: square, rectangular or circular? Did they attempt to evoke a tessellated surface? Did they show areas of damage or instead restore incomplete designs? Was any additional information provided, either visually or in writing, to indicate the context of the mosaic? What approach did they take to presenting their work, such as the addition of borders?

Ashby’s work followed that of Lanciani, who drew attention to the Topham collection in papers published in the Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma towards the end of the nineteenth century. His first paper, published in 1894, gave a brief introduction to Eton College and to the collection. He then grouped most of the material alphabetically, palazzo by palazzo, briefly summarising the contents of the album(s) relevant to each location. There are few references to mosaics.38 Lanciani did, however, cover what is now known as album Bm.9 in some detail, listing the drawings and prints of RomanoBritish mosaics. He also paid particular attention to folio 74 in this album, the drawing of the mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla, regarding this as so important that he included a plate showing a sketch of part of it.39

It is notable that the drawings are almost exclusively of figured mosaics, making them of particular interest not only from the perspective of iconography but also for how they shed light on what was regarded at the time as worth collecting. In this book the drawings and prints of mosaics are described in detail. They are compared with the original mosaics where they survive, and with other drawings and prints of the same items. Comparison with drawings in other collections and with published images not only helps to identify the artists but sheds light on the significance of the collection and on Topham’s primary interests. The information written on the drawings is also considered, along with the subjects depicted and an assessment of whether the artists studied the original mosaics or based their work on drawings made by others. Close attention is paid to the way the mosaics are shown and to the borders around the drawings as these factors can suggest the likely artist where this information is otherwise unknown. The significance of the drawings as works of art and as an archaeological record is assessed: some of them are the only known records of mosaics that no longer survive.

Lanciani’s second paper, published in 1895, was on the subject of the Picturae Antiquae Cryptarum Romanarum. This covered a variety of collections and catalogued the drawings topographically, making specific mention of a number of the Topham drawings of mosaics.40 A curiosity of Lanciani’s paper is that he often cited the numbers of the drawings incorrectly, although the items to which he was intending to refer can be identified from his descriptions. It is unclear how this error arose as the numbers are clearly visible on the original drawings. Where the mistake occurs, Lanciani has generally used the number immediately preceding the correct number, although Bn.7:94 is further adrift and is intended to relate to Bn.7:98.

Previous studies The sheer quantity of drawings in the Topham collection probably explains why, despite its importance, no comprehensive catalogue raisonné has so far been produced. Sampson’s helpful typescript catalogue covers much of the collection but excludes most of the drawings and prints of mosaics as these had already been catalogued by Ashby.

Since Lanciani’s and Ashby’s time, the Topham drawings of mosaics have been mentioned in studies of other collections41 or of particular subjects,42 but have otherwise received little attention. Reinach 1922; Blake 1936; Blake 1940. Ashby 1914, 6. 38  Exceptions are Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief (Bn.3:31) on page 175, although not mentioning its use of mosaic, and the Rape of Europa (Bn.9:4), discussed in relation to the Palazzo Barberini on page 182. 39  Lanciani 1894, 181-182, pl. IX. On page 183 he tentatively referred to a drawing (Bn.9:36) of another possible mosaic, commenting ‘Rilievo? mosaico?’. I have excluded it from this study as there is nothing to suggest that it showed a mosaic. 40  Lanciani 1895, 170 (for the Topham collection in the list of collections) and 171-192 (for references to individual drawings). 41  Especially Pace 1979; Fileri 2000; Whitehouse 2001; Modolo 2016. 42  For instance, Wattel-de Croizant 1995. 36  37 

The first part of Ashby’s paper on ‘Drawings of Ancient Paintings in English Collections’ was published in 1914 and covered the Topham drawings, which he described as being by far the most numerous collection.35 Mosaics fell within his remit of ‘ancient paintings’, making his work an essential starting point for this aspect of the collection.

35 

Ashby 1914, 2.

4

Introduction Both Lanciani and Ashby referred to the Topham albums in a way that does not relate to the main album numbers now in use. This owes its origin to Sleech’s approach when he catalogued the drawings after their arrival at Eton: in addition to the usual designation of Bm or Bn for each album, which refers to its place on the library shelves, Sleech numbered the albums of Picturae Antiquae from I to V. He went on to describe the items that followed as a ‘Mahogony Box on the Table in the Room B’ and an album ‘Letterd Miscellanea’, which became known as numbers VI and VII. To assist with reading the older works, the following short table relates the Roman numerals to the album numbers in the main sequence used at Eton today:43 Number/description for Picturae Antiquae

that no longer survive. For instance, drawings of the Santa Costanza vault mosaics have ‘No. 22’ added in what appears to be Bartoli’s hand. In album Bn.5 a consecutive run of drawings bear the numbers I to VI prominently below each scene (Bn.5:35-Bn.5:40). As these drawings show mosaics from two different locations found at different times, the numbering in this instance does not relate to the location but perhaps to the artist’s catalogue. Ashby noted that drawings belonging to a set, such as those depicting the wall paintings on the four sides of a room, often have their own numbering.45 The numbers 1 to 10 on a run of drawings from Bn.4:31 to Bn.4:40 possibly link them in a similar way, since some of the preceding drawings in this album bear captions showing their association with one another as images from or of the same tomb.

Main album numbers

I Bn.4 II Bn.5 III Bn.6 IV Bn.7 V Bn.8 Mahogany Box/VI TP Miscellanea/VII Bn.9

In other cases the significance of the annotations is not readily apparent. For instance, some of the drawings bear upper case or lower case letters and a few contain Topham’s initials.46 They might have been added by the artist or agent and could relate to the batches in which the drawings were sent to Topham rather than having any relevance to the drawings themselves.

‘TP’ is an abbreviation for ‘Topham Portfolio’ and contains particularly large items formerly in the mahogany box.

Assessing the drawings and prints

Information given on the drawings and prints

In the main chapters the drawings are grouped by artist as this has proved to be more useful than a numerical approach. In some cases it can enable the probable source to be identified where close scrutiny suggests that one drawing has been based on another. It can also point to the identity of the artist where this is otherwise unknown. For convenience, the entries in the Catalogue at the rear of this book contain the page numbers where the main discussion of each drawing can be found.

Many of the drawings are unsigned but some bear the signature of the artist, in most cases Francesco Bartoli; Topham also added Bartoli’s name to further drawings. Several prints bear the artist’s name or initials. The location of the mosaic, either given by the artist or added by Topham, appears on most of the drawings although, as will be seen, this information is not always correct. About a third of the drawings have a caption indicating that the object illustrated was a mosaic. A few drawings and prints contain additional information such as the date of discovery of the mosaic or its measurements. The information on the drawings is brought together in the Appendices.

Following Chapter 2, which focuses on Topham himself, Chapter 3 covers sets of drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics displayed in Rome that were already well known in Topham’s time: the two small emblemata in Santa Maria in Trastevere, the mosaics in the Massimi collection, and the Santa Costanza vault mosaics. They represent early discoveries and most had previously been drawn by Pietro Santi Bartoli. This raises the question of whether Francesco simply copied his father’s work. Unlike the later discoveries which have in many cases been lost, most of the early discoveries still survive, enabling comparisons to be made with the original mosaics.

It is probable that Topham knew far more about the subjects of the drawings than is apparent today. Numbers appearing on some drawings relate to other records, such as Topham’s addition of ‘No. 138’ to Bn.9:4. This example is easy to decipher since it refers to the entry numbered 138 for Palazzo Barberini in Finding Aid 2, a manuscript list in Topham’s hand of antiquities in palazzi in Rome and elsewhere in Italy.44 Numbers on other drawings hint at further lists

The next two chapters deal with drawings of mosaics discovered, or probably discovered, in Italy during Topham’s lifetime. Chapter 4 discusses the drawings by Francesco Bartoli of finds from the Vigna Moroni, the Aventine, the Via Appia and – allegedly – Hadrian’s Villa. Chapter 5

Carinci provides a full concordance between the Eton volume numbers and those used by Lanciani and Ashby (1982, 91-92). 44  The numbers of Finding Aids 2 and 3 were transposed at some point, probably during rebinding. Finding Aid 3 still bears the title ‘Finding Aid 2’ on the spine. In some papers – such as Carinci 1982, which has a focus on the drawings of items in Palazzo Mattei – ‘Finding Aid 3’ refers to what is now known as Finding Aid 2. The Finding Aids are discussed further in Witts with Gwynn 2020, in which fig. 22 illustrates the title page of Finding Aid 2. See also Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 104106, figs 33-35. 43 

Ashby 1914, 6. In his catalogue he provides this type of information in brackets after the folio number. 46  For instance, ‘RT III’ appears in pencil on Bn.6:50. 45 

5

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library turns to the drawings made by Gaetano Piccini, mainly of mosaics from the Vigna Moroni and other vineyards.

begins with details of the artist, captions/annotations, and where applicable a description of any hatching used in the drawing. The location of the original mosaic is noted if it survives. It is not the aim of the Catalogue to duplicate the material in the Eton online catalogue but to provide a succinct summary of the images on the drawings and a select bibliography for each drawing, any comparative drawings, and the mosaic itself. The bibliographies focus on material that is either contemporary with the drawings or represents recent scholarship, with other publications included only where they are significant to the understanding of the drawings.

Chapter 6 rounds up mosaics from Italy not covered by the previous chapters, namely the lion and leopard mosaic from Gubbio now at Holkham Hall, the Europa mosaics from Palestrina and the Baths of Caracalla, the Cavalieri mosaic, and the curious relief mosaic from the collection of Sir Andrew Fountaine (1676-1753). Chapter 7 covers the drawings of Romano-British mosaics. For some of these items little information is available, while others generate substantial discussion.

The main Bibliography is followed by a series of Appendices. Appendix 1 covers the criteria for including the drawings in this study. Appendix 2 explores monetary figures from various documents, comparing them with one another as well as offering a rough indication of their current values. Drawings of the Woodchester mosaic found in other collections are detailed in Appendix 3, to supplement the discussion in Chapter 7. Appendices 4-8 summarise various aspects of the discussion chapters: subjects, artists, comparisons with other drawings, and discovery dates of the mosaics.

Chapter 8 turns to the prints of mosaics, ranging from famous discoveries to some rare items. Most are filed in one of the albums devoted to prints (Bn.13) but those relating to Romano-British mosaics are filed in the same miscellaneous album as the drawings (Bm.9). Chapter 9 provides an overall discussion of the material, considering how the mosaics were depicted and the drawings presented, as well as touching upon the subjects shown and the artists involved. An evaluation of the drawings as works of art and as archaeological records compares them with drawings of mosaics in other collections. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what the drawings of mosaics can tell us about Topham’s approach to collecting.

Other collections Throughout this book reference is made, where they exist, to drawings of the same mosaics in other collections, in particular the dal Pozzo drawings, the Glasgow volume, the Holkham drawings and the RIBA collections which are all now held in Britain.

Within each chapter the mosaics are considered in the order in which they were discovered. For ease of reference, each of the chapters is followed by illustrations of the items discussed in that chapter. As some of the drawings are small in relation to the sheet, the illustrations omit the blank areas in order to give prominence to the images. This does, however, mean that some of the captions are not included. To give an example, Figure 9.1 reproduces the sheet with Bn.7:3 – the Holkham lion and leopard mosaic – in its entirety. This not only shows the drawn image but also the Topham collection stamp appended at Eton which overlaps the lower part of the drawing, Sleech’s designation of the drawing number towards the bottom of the sheet, and Topham’s caption ‘Musaico antico nel Palazzo Mignanelli’ below that. Smaller sheets were used for some of the drawings of Romano-British mosaics, and Topham’s captions can be seen in Figures 7.1, 7.3 and 7.10.

The dal Pozzo drawings of ancient mosaics and wall paintings were part of the Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo and are now in the Royal Library at Windsor. They have been handsomely published with colour illustrations by Whitehouse.48 The Glasgow volume is a large and sumptuous album of drawings by Pietro Santi Bartoli showing ancient mosaics and wall paintings. The title page bears the date of 1674 and contains a dedication to Cardinal Camillo Massimi (1620-1677) whose coat of arms features on the binding. The volume is now held in Glasgow University Library and its contents have been discussed, catalogued and partly illustrated in black and white by Pace.49

Full details of all captions, signatures and other annotations, including those on the back of the drawings, can be found in the Eton online catalogue. The captions and annotations are also included in the discussions of the drawings in the relevant chapter.

The Holkham material consists of drawings and sketches of ancient mosaics and wall paintings by Pietro Santi Bartoli and Francesco Bartoli. Now in two volumes at Holkham Hall in Norfolk, the material was originally acquired by Thomas Coke (1697-1759) in Rome in 1714

The Catalogue lists the drawings and prints of mosaics in the order in which they are filed at Eton.47 Each entry

48 

Whitehouse 2001, who cites the Royal Library (RL) numbers in use at the time. The records have since been computerised and are now cited as 6-digit Royal Collection Inventory Numbers (RCIN). These are based on the RL numbers with the addition of ‘9’ at the start of RL 5-digit, or ‘90’ at the start of RL 4-digit, numbers. 49  HX110, formerly MS General 1496; Pace 1979; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 38-39.

Throughout this book, the format used for citing the drawings follows that used in the Eton online catalogue, employing a colon to separate the drawing number from the album number. 47 

6

Introduction as a single book.50 The Holkham drawings have been listed and described by Ashby and, more recently, by Aymonino and Modolo.51 Black and white photographs are held in the Warburg Institute Iconographic Database.52

and the discovery dates of some of the Romano-British mosaics. Until 1752, Lady Day (25 March) was regarded as the start of the year in England. This is known as Old Style dating and for dates between 1 January and 24 March it can cause confusion for the unwary. Many contemporary writers gave both years but there is no consistency of approach with later writers: some retain the Old Style year while others convert dates to the New Style, often without explaining that this is what they have done. For clarity, throughout this book I use double dating for dates falling between 1 January and 24 March. For example, the discovery date of the Stonesfield mosaic is given as 25 January 1711/12, which would equate to 25 January 1712 in modern (New Style) dating.

The RIBA collections held at the Victoria and Albert Museum contain a number of drawings of ancient mosaics and wall paintings. Some – but not all – belong to a collection which is now divided between London and the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. A full account with colour illustrations has recently been published by Ortona and Modolo.53 Other significant comparative material is contained in the Corsini and Capponi codices in Rome, mostly in Corsini codex 158 I 5 held at the Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica which has been published in black and white by Engelmann and Fileri,54 and Capponi codex 284 held at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Unless the text states otherwise, references in this book to ‘the Corsini codex’ or to the ‘Capponi codex’ refer respectively to these codices.

This is also an appropriate place to mention that no official birth records were kept in Topham’s time. Instead, it is usually necessary to rely on the dates of baptisms which were recorded in parish registers. It is generally thought that baptism took place shortly after birth although the age at baptism increased during the eighteenth century and there was, in any event, considerable variation.55

Some of the collections referred to in this book have been digitised in colour. Where this is the case, links are contained in the relevant footnotes to the chapters and in the Catalogue. All web links were correct at the time of writing.

The Abbreviations at the beginning of this book cover the abbreviations used when referring to other collections of drawings as well as those appearing in the Bibliography.

Terminology For simplicity I describe all the original items in this study as drawings although most also include watercolour. Colours are only mentioned in the text where they are significant. The Eton online catalogue contains information about dimensions, materials and techniques; following its wording, I refer to the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the drawings rather than ‘recto’ and ‘verso’. The words ‘top’, ‘bottom’, ‘left’ and ‘right’, when used in relation to the whole drawing, assume that the subject at the centre is being viewed from the appropriate direction. If an isolated image is being discussed, ‘left’ and ‘right’ assumes that the image itself is being viewed from the correct way. For instance, if a figure is ‘facing left’ the head is to the left. A special note of explanation needs to be given about dates. This particularly affects information in Chapter 2 Connor Bulman 1999, 208, 216, n.22; Connor Bulman 2001a, 343, 347, n.3. See also Michaelis 1882, 323. 51  Ashby 1916, 35-48; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 40-41. 52  https://iconographic.warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/results_ basic_search.php?p=3&var_1=bartoli&var_2=holkham for the first volume, and https://iconographic.warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/ results_basic_search.php?p=1&var_1=bartoli&var_2=holkham&var_3= 2&var_4=&var_5= for the second volume. 53  Ortona and Modolo 2016. For the BnF section, see also Caylus and Mariette 1757 and Engelmann 1909. 54  Engelmann 1909; Fileri 2000. Another Corsini codex, 158 HI 5, contains two comparative drawings and has been published in black and white by the same authors (Engelmann 1909; Fileri 1991). 50 

55 

7

See Berry and Schofield 1971.

Introduction

Figure 1.1 – Eton College

Figure 1.2 – Eton College Library

9

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 1.3 – Finding Aid 4, title page

10

2 Richard Topham of the parish church (Figure 2.1).6 A large monument to Topham Foote, erected some years after his death and also by Scheemakers, is displayed prominently in the entrance to the church (Figure 2.2).7

Richard Topham invariably fascinates those who study his collection. The subject of Topham and his books, prints and drawings was first discussed in the 1990s by Louisa M. Connor (later Connor Bulman), then Keeper of Prints and Drawings at Eton, and Paul Quarrie, then Librarian and Keeper of the College Collections.1 More details, with references, are given in Connor’s subsequent papers.2 A recent essay I have written with Lucy Gwynn, then Deputy Director of Collections at Eton College Library, covers Topham’s book collection, the background to the drawings collection, details of its cataloguing and arrangement at Eton following Topham’s death, and the use of the collection since arriving at Eton.3 It also summarises some of the information in this chapter, which explores Topham’s life, career, family and friends, and how the collection ended up at Eton.

A group portrait by John James Baker of The Whig Junto in 1710, while not depicting Topham himself, provides a good impression of the attire he is likely to have worn and the company he kept. The gentlemen seated around a table examining books and coins or medals are not only exact contemporaries of Topham engaged in an activity with which he would have been familiar, but most if not all were personally known to him.8 Contemporary descriptions of Topham are rare. In 1707 Thomas Hearne (c.1678-1735) referred to him in favourable terms as ‘Mr. Topham of Windsor, … who is a Gentleman who has Years over his Head, a man of a strong Body, a Lover of Learning, & a Collector of good and curious Books’.9 Shortly after Topham’s death, Hearne described him as ‘a man very curious in Classical Learning, and being a Batchelour & very rich, he made a very fine Collection of Books and Prints’.10 As will be seen, however, Hearne was not always so complimentary, especially concerning Topham’s role as Keeper of the Records in the Tower.

Little is known about Topham’s private life and there is no entry for him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. He was baptised in the Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor, on 5 December 1671 and buried in the same church on 14 September 1730.4 He did not marry although it was not uncommon at the time for men to remain bachelors, as did Topham’s friend Henry Boyle, Baron Carleton (1669-1725), and many other members of the KitCat Club.5 Although Topham did not have children of his own, the young Sidney Beauclerk (1702/03-1744), who is discussed below, lived as a member of his household.

With a few exceptions, Topham’s private papers do not survive. Two manuscript Finding Aids, a few loose notes, and a letter from his agent Francesco Imperiali (16791740), which is discussed in Chapter 9, are held at Eton.11 Several letters written by Topham now in archives in the UK are considered below where they contain relevant information. The almost wholesale absence of his papers suggests deliberate destruction. In the circumstances, the provisions of his will and codicil12 are significant

No portraits of Topham have been traced but some idea of his likely appearance can be gained from the busts of his sister Arabella and of her son Topham Foote. Arabella is shown along with her second husband, Sir Thomas Reeve (1672/73-1736/37), in an elaborate marble monument by Peter Scheemakers (1691-1781) now in the north vestibule

Pote 1749, 12, pls 1-2; Hakewill 1813, 21; VCH Berkshire III, 67; Badham 1967, 19. 7  VCH Berkshire III, 67; Badham 1961, 19. For the two monuments, see Grout 1997. 8  https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/baker-the-whig-junto-t15046, accessed 10 November 2020. 9  Hearne 1707-1710 [1886], 18, entry for 5 June 1707. For Hearne, see Douglas 1951, 178-194 incl. fig. opp. 192. 10  Hearne 1728-1731 [1915], 333, entry for 19 September 1730. 11  Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 287. Eton College Library has three folders of bibliographic notes and copies of manuscripts once belonging to Topham (MS 272). These have been catalogued recently by Lucy Gwynn who has kindly drawn them to my attention. The pandemic has prevented me from being able to study them in person but I mention them here for the benefit of future researchers. Some were sheets of notes in Topham’s hand which were originally inserted loosely into printed volumes in his library. As such, they have a bearing on the way he used his books and on his interests. 12  The National Archives, PROB 11/641/38. The probate copy is held in the papers of the Reeve and Mead families, The Berkshire Record Office, 6 

Connor 1990; Connor 1993; Quarrie 1990; Quarrie 1993. 2  See the works listed in the Bibliography. Birley had previously written briefly about Topham’s book collection (1970, 37-39). 3  Witts with Gwynn 2020. 4  New Windsor Parish Records, The Berkshire Record Office (D/P149). A transcription of the registers in Windsor Library contains a few minor differences in the dates of members of Topham’s family but these do not affect the information for Topham himself. Quarrie gives the dates as 5 October 1671 and September 1729 (1993, 9; cf 23, giving 1730 for the year of death) but these dates are not supported by the records. Topham died on 7 September 1730 (Foster 1968 (reprint), 1496; Sterry 1943, 334). 5  See the comments in Field 2008, 339, 484, n.58: ‘A golden age of bachelors.’ For Henry (‘Harry’) Boyle, with hints that he was something of a ladies’ man, see https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ volume/1690-1715/member/boyle-hon-henry-1669-1725, accessed 10 November 2020. For a portrait of Boyle by Sir Godfrey Kneller at Hardwick Hall, see http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/ object/1129124, accessed 10 November 2020. 1 

11

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library indications of what was important to him. These are discussed in detail at the end of this chapter.

was buried on 7 August 1712.22 In his will, Richard Topham provided for a memorial to be erected to his nephew for a sum not exceeding £100. Given that Topham Foote had died some years earlier, this was perhaps primarily to commemorate the last of the Topham line.23

Topham did not make any reference to his personal papers in his will: if he gave any instructions for the treatment of his papers after his death, they were evidently not intended for a public document. The destruction of papers was not unknown at the time. For instance, Thomas Reeve, Topham’s brother-in-law, gave certain directions to this effect in a codicil to his will.13

In 1714 Arabella married Thomas Reeve at St Paul’s Cathedral, London.24 Reeve was evidently close to Richard Topham since he was named as one of his executors, was a beneficiary under his will, and – as suggested below – was largely responsible for the collection ending up at Eton. Most tellingly, Topham’s will expressed his wish to be buried in the family vault and stipulated that no one else except Reeve was to be buried there.

Topham’s family Topham’s parents, John Topham and Joan Stoughton, were married at Windsor on 26 February 1655/56 where Joan was then living. The parish records refer to ‘Mr John Topham of St Martins August in London & Mrs Jone Stoughton of this psh’.14 No parish named ‘St Martins August’ has been traced but if the spelling was phonetic, as was the case with ‘Jone’, it probably referred to St Martin Orgars which is listed with St Clement Eastcheap in a 1682 map, London &c actually surveyed, by William Morgan.15

A possible elder brother It seems that Richard had an elder brother who has virtually disappeared from the record. If so, we can only imagine the possible impact on Richard who would have grown up as the second son but, at some point before his father’s death, had become the heir with all the responsibilities that would have entailed.

A white marble tablet set up by Richard Topham in the south porch of the parish church records that John Topham died on 8 December 1692 aged 63.16 Joan Topham outlived her husband by almost thirty years, being buried on 28 March 1721.17

The tablet commemorating the death of John Topham shows that certainly by then – when Richard had just turned 21 – he was regarded as John’s ‘son and heir’. There is no reference to any other son. Similarly, no such person is mentioned in the wills of John, Joan or Richard Topham,25 nor is there any reference to a baptism or burial in the New Windsor Parish Records.

Richard Topham had two sisters. The first died in infancy before he was born and is not mentioned in any previous accounts of his life: Rebecca was baptised on 31 December 1662 and was buried on 23 February 1663/64. Arabella was slightly older than her brother and outlived him: she was baptised on 18 December 1667 and was buried on 17 or 27 September 1732.18

The source drawing attention to an elder brother is Foster’s Alumni Oxonienses which lists ‘Topham, John, s. John, of Windsor, Berks, gent. CHRIST CHURCH, matric. 28 April, 1676, aged 18; perhaps of Gray’s Inn 1680, as “serviens attend. Dom. Com.”; brother of Richard 1689’. The corresponding entry for Richard Topham refers to him as ‘s. John, of Windsor, Berks, gent.’ and describes him as ‘brother of John 1676’.26 This information is followed in the History of Parliament entry for Richard Topham, which describes him as ‘2nd but 1st surv. s. of John Topham, serjeant-at-arms, of New Windsor’ and adds that ‘the John Topham who entered Christ Church, Oxford in 1676 and Gray’s Inn in 1680 is conjectured to be his elder brother’.27

In 1689 Arabella married Samuel Foot (sic) at St Alban Wood Street in London.19 Their son Topham Foote was baptised in London on 2 June 1690.20 Samuel Foote (sic) was buried at Windsor on 31 March 169721 and Arabella remained a widow for some years. Topham Foote died of smallpox while a young man and

D/EX797/1/17. 13  The National Archives, PROB 11/681/132. 14  See n.4. In the online transcription of Berkshire Marriages, Topham’s mother’s name appears as ‘Jane Straughton’ (accessed via findmypast. co.uk 30 August 2018). Quarrie gives Joan’s name as Maria (1993, 10) but this appears to be an error. 15  Barber and Harper 2010, 132-133. 16  VCH Berkshire III, 67. I have not been able to find a record of John Topham’s baptism but the information on the marble tablet shows that he must have been born in 1629 or the very end of 1628. The parish records show that he was buried on 9 December 1692. 17  See n.4. 18  See n.4. The day of burial varies in the different records. 19  England, Boyd’s marriage indexes, 1538-1850 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk. 20  England, Births & Baptisms 1538-1975 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk. 21  See n.4.

Foster’s Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn adds little. It merely shows that John Topham ‘serviens Attend. Dom. Com.’ was admitted on 1 November 1680 and gives no See n.4; cf Connor Bulman 2006, 326 who gives 1714. For an assessment of this and other sums mentioned in this chapter, see Appendix 2. 24  England, Boyd’s marriage indexes, 1538-1850 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk. 25  The National Archives, PROB 11/412/481 for John Topham’s will; PROB 11/580/115 for Joan Topham’s will; see n.12 for Richard Topham’s will. 26  Foster 1968 (reprint), 1496. 27  https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/ member/topham-richard-1671-1730, accessed 10 November 2020. 22  23 

12

Richard Topham indication of his age.28 Connor Bulman seems to have regarded this entry as applying to Richard Topham’s father whom she describes as a lawyer29 but there is no evidence that this was the case. There is no other reference to John Topham in the surviving records of Gray’s Inn which might clarify the identity of the person in question. It is plausible that this entry could refer to Richard Topham’s father, especially if the expression ‘serviens Attend. Dom. Com.’ was intended to refer to the father’s role as serjeantat-arms attending the House of Commons; admission to one of the inns of court did not necessarily imply that a person intended to study the law.30

The lack of any reference to him in the church tablet or family wills suggested that a simple error in the eighteenthcentury records was a more likely explanation than the existence of a figure who had survived at least into young adulthood but then apparently disappeared.

While the Grays’s Inn reference could possibly be explained in this way, the Christ Church information poses a problem since it clearly does not relate to the father. No other John Tophams of Windsor have been traced, so unless the John Topham who matriculated at Christ Church in 1676 aged 18 claimed a false parentage or a mistake was made, it appears on the face of it that Richard Topham did indeed have an elder brother.

A further indication of the identity of this John Topham is provided by his place of baptism. Marston Moretain was also where a Joan Stoughton, daughter of Gilbert Stoughton, was baptised on 22 October 1629.35 The name is not common and the date would make her the same age as Richard’s father. It seems probable that this entry refers to Richard’s mother.

Research showed, however, that a John Topham, son of John Topham, was baptised at Marston Moretain in Bedfordshire on 26 January 1657/58.34 If he was the John Topham listed in the Oxford University documents, he would have been 18 years of age in April 1676 as Foster records.

Although the entry for Richard Topham in the History of Parliament refers to his mother as ‘Joan, da. of ? George Stoughton of Pirton, Herts.’, I have been unable to find a George Stoughton associated with Pirton and it is unclear where this information originated. It could perhaps be a mistaken transcription. In his will, Richard Topham left a bequest to the daughter of ‘Rebecca Warburton Daughter of George Stoughton late of Marston in the County of Bedford’. 36 This bequest is introduced by the words ‘… in Gratitude to the Memory of my late most dear and excellent Mother I give and bequeath the sum of Three hundred pounds to be disposed of among her Relations for whom she expressed a tender regard’. This is a clear statement that Richard’s mother was related to the Stoughton family of Marston.

The original records at Christ Church do not provide any clarification. The admissions book merely shows that John Topham matriculated as a commoner in March – not April – 1676 but gives no further details.31 The University’s matriculation register describes both John Topham and Richard Topham as the sons of John Topham of Windsor. The entries in the register would have been made by an official of the University, presumably on the basis of information supplied by the student, and it is not clear whether this was corroborated independently.32 The entry for Richard Topham in the Admissions Register for Trinity College, Oxford, was written in his own hand (Figure 2.3). He described himself as ‘filius Johannis Topham Armigeri de Windsor’, with no reference to whether he was the only son. However, he was described as the eldest – not youngest – son in the College Benefactors’ Book when he gave £15 in 1689. At the time, the College President was keen to attract ‘gentlemen of quality’ who were expected to contribute to on-going building projects.33 If Richard was regarded as a moneyed student perhaps the assumption was made that he was the eldest son.

It is also notable that the name ‘Rebecca’ appears in the bequest, which suggests that it was a family name. It recalls the name of John and Joan Topham’s first daughter. Richard Topham was not named after his father, as might be expected, but was instead given the name of his uncle: John Topham’s will refers to ‘my Loveing Brother Mr. Richard Topham’. This is readily explained if an elder brother had already been named after the father. All the information suggests that John and Joan Topham had a son early in their marriage at a time when they appeared to be living with Joan’s family in Marston Moretain. I have been unable to trace what became of this

For some years I was inclined to think that the idea of the putative elder brother must have originated in a mistake. Foster 1889, 329. Connor Bulman 2006, 326. 30  Many men were admitted as an honour, or to oblige a patron, or for the usefulness of the connections they could make. I am indebted to Andrew Mussell, Archivist, The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, London, for this information, suggestion and comments. 31  Information kindly supplied by Judith Curthoys, Archivist, Christ Church, Oxford. 32  Information kindly supplied by Simon Bailey, Keeper of the University Archives, Bodleian Library, Oxford. 33  Information kindly supplied by Clare Hopkins, Archivist, Trinity College, Oxford. 28 

England, Births & Baptisms 1538-1975 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk. One entry gives the year as 1657 but an otherwise identical entry gives 1656, both presumably Old Style. The latter entry did not come up on an earlier search so I am inclined to regard it as a recent and less reliable duplication. 35  England, Births & Baptisms 1538-1975 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk. 36  Joan Topham seems to have been the sister of George Stoughton. He was the son of Gilbert Stoughton and was baptised at Marston Moretain on 10 October 1627. (England, Births & Baptisms 1538-1975 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk).

29 

34 

13

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library son after he matriculated in 1676, at which time Richard was only five years old. Perhaps there was a burial record that no longer survives. As Richard Topham’s will expressed the desire ‘to be privately interred in the Chancel of the parish Church of New Windsor in the same vault wherein my ffather Mother and Nephew lye interred’, with no reference to a brother, it suggests that John Topham was buried elsewhere, perhaps even abroad. He was evidently out of the picture by 14 January 1690/91 when John Topham senior made his will as it contains no reference to him.

1678 until his death, as well as a freeman, alderman and poll tax commissioner of New Windsor. He was described by a contemporary as ‘a good fellow and a loyal man, but ill natured and covetous’.40 Connor Bulman suggests that he engaged in profiteering during the English civil war, and that this was the source of Richard’s inherited wealth.41 The references to John Topham in the Hall Books for the Borough of New Windsor demonstrate that he was a prominent and well known local citizen.42 The initial entries cover routine matters such as leases of his house and adjoining land but relations with him were not always smooth. On 14 March 1681/82 he was summoned to pay arrears of rent for part of the ground on which his house stood, and on 12 June 1682 a declaration of ejectment was made as the rent had not been paid.43 On 21 December 1682, ‘itt was agreed that the common seale should be set to the letter of Attorney for recovering the way which adjoynes to Mr Plumptons wall from Mr Topham’.44

There is a curious postscript to the story of Richard Topham’s elder brother. Windsor Old and New by T. Eustace Harwood, published in 1929, recorded that ‘Richard and Arabella had lost their father and brother in 1692’. Harwood set out lines of verse from a monument said to have been in New Windsor Churchyard which recorded that Richard Topham was John Topham’s heir and also referred to an Edward – not John – Topham, son of John Topham.37 There is no record of an Edward Topham in the New Windsor Parish Records. It is possible that the name was a misunderstanding caused by confusion with the later and better known Edward Topham (no relation) (1751-1820) who was a journalist and playwright. The source of Harwood’s information is not stated and his wording is in the past tense, as if the monument no longer existed. I have been unable to locate it in the churchyard.

It would appear that none of this affected John Topham’s standing. He was one of the first signatories to a document recorded on 29 May 1683 congratulating the king on his deliverance from a ‘Cursed Conspiracy’ and pledging loyalty to him. His name began to appear as a member of the Corporation. On 21 July 1685, the Hall Book notes that ‘John Topham Esqr. is desired to write to Mr Chiffinch to request a Bucke for to present the Judge with at the Assizes’. He was evidently playing a major role in civic life. On 26 July 1685, ‘Att A meetinge of the Mayor Aldermen Bayliffes and major parte of the Burgesses of the said Corporacion then present Itt is Agreed That John Topham Esqr. doe Provide A Dinner for the entertainment of the Judges to morrow next att the Charge of the Corporacion not Exceedinge the summe of Three Poundes, over and above what shall bee presented to the Judges by the Corporacion in Wine & venison …’ On 4 January 1685/86 he was elected ‘Chamberlaine for the Corporacion’.45 John Topham was involved in the payment of £60 by order of Charles II for land on which a new tennis court was to be built. He also became a J.P.46

Harwood’s account must be regarded with a degree of circumspection since he seems to have exaggerated genuine information. For instance, he described Richard Topham’s ‘magnificent house ... adorned with marble fountains and a fine collection of statues, pictures, and medals’,38 but this is an embellished description based on details in Topham’s will. It is possible, however, that when the church was rebuilt in 1822 memorials concerning the Topham family were removed and displayed in the churchyard as well as repositioned in the church itself.39 Harwood’s reference to an elder brother might have originated in something that had once been common knowledge in Windsor and perhaps the elder brother had indeed been commemorated, indicating that he had not been expunged from the Topham family memories. If so there is no mystery, merely an absence of records.

Under his will, John Topham’s main bequests were to ‘my deare and Loveing wife Joan Topham’ who received an annuity of £100 a year together with the sum of £1,000. Joan also received ‘one full third parte of all and singular my plate whatsoever (Except the great Tankard)’. 47 She was to live in his dwelling house in New Windsor for the rest of her life ‘if she soe think fitt’ and ‘enjoy the said house with the Gardens and appurtenances thereunto

The source of Topham’s wealth Topham’s father held a number of prestigious positions, notably serjeant-at-arms in the House of Commons from

Information about John Topham from the History of Parliament entry for Richard Topham, see n.27. 41  Connor Bulman 2008, 287. 42  The Hall Books contain the records of the Common Council or Hall (Langton 1973, ix). 43  Bond 1968, 39-40. 44  Bond 1968, 40-41. 45  Bond 1968, 41-42, 46, 49; see also 51 for another dinner to be provided by John Topham. 46  Tighe and Davis 1858, II, 371, 413. 47  See n.25. 40 

Harwood 1929, 150; followed by Austen-Leigh 1936, 202. 38  Harwood 1929, 150; followed by Macnaghten 1976, 21. 39  A drawing by Wenceslaus Hollar of the town of Windsor, showing the parish church c.1666, is reproduced in Farrar 1990, fig. 67. For Knyff’s drawing of the church as it was in Topham’s time, see Tighe and Davis 1858, II, 150. The rebuilding of 1822 followed the earlier walls, with the old vaults lying beneath the present floor and many old memorials retained and positioned on the present walls (Windsor Parish Church of St John the Baptist leaflet, RWB/AMB/10 May 1999). See also Lewis 2015, pl. 4.4 with a watercolour of the church in 1810 by John C. Buckler. 37 

14

Richard Topham belonging in Comon together with my sonne Richard Topham’. The exact location of that house is unknown.

dispute involving a property in Eton.54 While it is possible that he was being asked to inspect the property in a legal capacity, it is more likely that he was approached as a respected local citizen, especially since it was around this time that he became the local MP. The other is a letter he wrote to Eton College dated 19 February 1728 following an inspection of a catalogue of manuscripts at Cambridge to check references to Eton.55 The inconclusive nature of these services and the absence of any other records of legal work suggest that Topham did not formally set himself up as a lawyer. Legal training would, however, have stood him in good stead in his parliamentary career and in managing his property interests.

Among other bequests were £100 to ‘my Loveing daughter Arbella Ffoote whom I lately advanced in marriage with Mr. Samuell Ffoote Merchant’, and a further £50 to Arabella and her husband to buy mourning. His grandson Topham Foote was to receive £200 when he attained the age of seven years; ‘the great Tankard’ was also bequeathed to him. After various other personal and charitable bequests, the remainder of his estate, including ‘my Mannors Messuages Lands Tenements and hereditaments’, was left to Richard Topham, who was appointed sole executor. Although the value of John Topham’s estate is unknown, it seems clear that Richard’s inheritance was substantial.

Topham was mentioned in a letter from the Duke of Marlborough (1650-1722) to his wife Sarah on 12 May 1707, in which the Duke wrote: ‘… I desire [Francis Godolphin] would lett Mr. Topham know that I would holly relye on him to make the bargain for the estate in Oxfordshire; for the tytle, that must be judged of by some loyer’.56 The reference to ‘some loyer’ suggests that the Duke was not regarding Topham in that light and is a further indication that Topham was not practising law.

Education and political career Richard Topham was educated at Eton from 1685 to 1689.48 He then studied at Trinity College, Oxford, where he was admitted as a Gentleman Commoner in September 1689 aged 18.49 An entry in the Trinity College Caution account shows that he paid the highest rate of £10 in 1689 and that this sum was returned to him in ‘1689/90’, in other words the first quarter of 1690 in New Style dating. This indicates that he only spent two terms in the College.50

There is no information to show how Topham spent his time before being elected to serve as MP for New Windsor in 1698. This has led to speculation that he set off on a Grand Tour in 1692, something for which his considerable classical interests and financial standing made him eminently suitable. It does not seem, however, that this was the case.

On 19 October 1691 he was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn, London, described as ‘Richard Topham of Parish of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, gent, late of Thavies Inn’.51 The Lincoln’s Inn records do not give a date of Call but this was not particularly unusual at the time. Attending one of the Inns of Court was often used as a way to make good social contacts. As a result, individuals were admitted who did not necessarily have a desire to be Called to the Bar.52

The suggestion that Topham undertook a Grand Tour rests mainly on Connor’s analysis of his account with Hoare’s Bank. She initially wrote that he withdrew a large sum of money in 1692, and that there was then a break in the pattern of payments until 1695 which could suggest a Grand Tour in these years, although she modified her position in subsequent papers.57

Connor Bulman suggests that Topham practised as a lawyer.53 She mentions in particular that he carried out legal work for Eton College in 1707 and 1728 but the two Eton references she quotes do not necessarily support this. One is an opinion Topham gave on 17 July 1707 on a

In fact, the bank records do not show a large withdrawal in 1692, nor was there a break in the pattern of payments in the following years. The account at Hoare’s Bank was initially opened by Topham’s father and was continued in Topham’s name from December 1692, the date of his father’s death. The accounts were signed by John Topham on 8 November 1692, then by Richard Topham on 3 April 1693, 28 July 1693 and 8 December 1693. Richard Topham did not sign again until 30 May 1695, and this is

Berkshire, Eton College Register, 1441-1698 Transcription, accessed 30 August 2018 through findmypast.co.uk; Sterry 1943, 334; Connor Bulman 2008, 302, n.4; contra Austen-Leigh 1936, 202, who suggests that Richard was not educated there. 49  Trinity College Admissions Register; cf Foster 1968 (reprint), 1496: 25 October 1689. 50  Information kindly supplied by Clare Hopkins, Archivist, Trinity College, Oxford, who explains that the Caution account recorded money paid against damages or unpaid bills when a man was admitted, and was returned to him when he left. Cf Quarrie 1993, 10, surmising that Topham spent two years at Oxford. 51  Records of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn I.2, Lincoln’s Inn Admission Register 1420-1893, 344 (f.152b). 52  Information and observations kindly supplied by Megan Dunmall, Archivist and Records Manager, The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn. Presumably Topham attended Thavies Inn between leaving Oxford and being admitted to Lincoln’s Inn. 53  Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 292, 301. 48 

ECR/54/74. For this and other items from the Eton archives, I am grateful for help received from Eleanor Hoare, College Archivist, Eton College. 55  ECR/CHKM/14 (now COLL/ARCH/27). 56  Snyder 1975, 764. Francis Godolphin is discussed below. 57  Connor 1993, 25-26; Connor 1998, 52; followed by Scott 2003, 294, n.13; Bowron and Kerber 2008, 145; and, more cautiously, Noy 2013, 186. Cf Connor Bulman 2002a, 60 (giving 1691 as the date of the possible Grand Tour); Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 288. Recently Aymonino and Modolo have adhered to the idea of a Grand Tour while acknowledging the lack of evidence and that the point is controversial (2020, 35). 54 

15

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library presumably the gap noted by Connor. It is not necessarily significant as accounts were signed at irregular intervals and there could be many reasons to explain the timing.

a Grand Tour, he might well have aspired to do so but been prevented by his father’s death. Birley draws attention to ‘a collection of seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century guidebooks to towns in France and Italy’ in Topham’s library64 which could represent preparation for travel. However, Birley mentions that Topham also owned a volume of maps made in China dating to c.1640 including coastal defences against Japanese pirates.65 Items such as this suggest that Topham’s interest in other countries was wide-ranging. He might have collected guidebooks and maps for their intrinsic interest and not for any practical purposes.

Payments went out of the account almost every month during the period in question. The exception is a gap after 25 May 1694 and before 15 August 1694, when Topham withdrew the first of three payments that month ‘to himself’.58 One of these was for £600 and is perhaps the large withdrawal Connor had in mind. However, it did not precede the gap in payments and this gap itself seems far too short for even the briefest Grand Tour.59 Quarrie draws attention to books acquired by Topham between 1692 and 169460 which suggest that he was not away on a Grand Tour at this time (Figure 2.4). Furthermore, Macandrew plausibly interprets a letter to Topham from John Talman (1677-1726) of 18 November 1709 as evidence that Topham had not visited Italy by that date, and he considers it was unlikely that Topham did so thereafter.61

Much of Topham’s young adulthood was probably occupied administering the properties inherited from his father. He is also known to have pursued his classical interests since he translated one of the Orations of Demosthenes into English from Greek.66 Although Quarrie considers that the translation did Topham little credit,67 Topham’s interest in Greek learning was evidently a serious one. A contemporary description of him in the printed list of subscribers to a 1707 edition of the Septuagint referred to him as a ‘great encourager of Greek learning, [who] hath kindly procur’d several of these inscriptions’.68 One of the most significant early books in his collection was a Greek dictionary published in 1525.69

Given that Topham’s father had died in 1692, it would be surprising if he had gone abroad at this time. There is no entry for him in the Dictionary of British and Irish Travellers in Italy 1701-1800, ruling out the possibility of a later tour after his political career had ended.62

Topham’s activities become clearer after he was elected to parliament in 1698 to represent New Windsor. He was granted leave of absence because of ill health for three weeks on 2 March 1699 and again on 31 March, although the nature of the ill health is not specified. His parliamentary career seems to have been solid rather than dramatic, and it is clear that he took the interests of his home town seriously.70

The annotations Topham made to the drawings often contain errors about the locations where some of the antiquities were found, suggesting that he was not personally familiar with the ancient buildings. He seems to have been reliant on information provided by others which was not always accurate. It is particularly notable that watercolours of mosaics in the vault of Santa Costanza – an unusual and memorable location – are wrongly labelled in his hand as ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’. Furthermore, drawings of two gladiatorial scenes lack the inscriptions that appear in the originals, something that Topham is likely to have queried if he had been aware. 63

Topham remained an MP until 1713 when he did not seek re-election in the general election of that year. His nephew had received few votes in a recent by-election and this could have influenced his decision,71 but it is equally possible that he wished to focus on building up his collections.

Although the evidence indicates that Topham did not make

In the early years Topham was better known by his contemporaries for his book collection. Hearne mentioned only ‘Books’ in 1707 but ‘Books and Prints’ in 1730.72 In Erndtel’s list of ‘Valuable Libraries’ in and around London, Topham’s was mentioned in a list that included such renowned figures as the Earls of Sunderland (16751722) and Pembroke (1656/57-1733) along with Robert

C. Hoare & Co Archive, Customer Ledger D, folios 121, 192, 231, 232, 286. I warmly thank Pamela Hunter, Archivist at Hoare’s Bank, for help in relation to the records held at the bank, in particular for producing the ledgers for inspection and answering queries about the interpretation of the accounts. 59  By way of comparison, John Talman’s letters give an indication of the time it took to reach Italy. He wrote that his ship was still at Spithead on 7 August 1709 and he did not report his arrival in Pisa until 20 October 1709 (Parry 1997, 76-81, Letters 29-42). 60  Quarrie 1993, 17. 61  Macandrew 1978, 135; for the letter, see Parry 1997, 82-83, Letter 44. See also Griffiths 1997, 191: ‘Topham, who never himself went to Italy’. Ian Jenkins also considers that Topham was never a Grand Tourist (in Wilton and Bignamini 1996, 265, catalogue entry 219). 62  Ingamells 1997. The Brinsley Ford Archive holds two pages of notes about Richard Topham (RBF/3/19) but these are on matters unrelated to any Grand Tour. I am grateful to Jenny Hill, Assistant Archivist & Records Manager at the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, for information about these notes. 63  Santa Costanza: Bn.7:89-Bn.7:94, and also Bn.7:96, a watercolour of the lost mosaic from the cupola. Gladiatorial scenes: Bn.5:14, Bn.5:17. 58 

Birley 1970, 37. Birley 1970, 38-39. 66  ‘The fourth Philippick’ in Somers 1702. 67  Quarrie 1993, 11; see also Connor Bulman 2008, 289. 68  Quoted in Quarrie 1993, 11. 69  Birley 1970, 38. 70  For Topham’s parliamentary career, see n.27. 71  Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 292. 72  See n.9-n.10. 64  65 

16

Richard Topham Harley (1661-1724) and Richard Mead (1673-1754).73 It is not certain when he turned his attention to drawings. John Talman’s letter of 18 November 1709 shows that the idea of making a collection had occurred to Topham by then since Talman referred to ‘a design, you was pleased to mention, of copying all the antiquitys in such manner as to form a compleat corpus of the antick statues and gems &c’.74 The handwriting in Finding Aid 1, a manuscript catalogue of books in Topham’s library, shows that it was around this time that Topham began making the entries himself, demonstrating a close involvement. 75

Hearne was perhaps not an unbiased commentator. He lacked Topham’s Eton education, status and wealth and there is no reason to think that his views were widely shared. On the contrary, his comments are at variance with a report quoted by Quarrie which Lord Halifax (16611715) made to the House of Lords in April 1709 that ‘the Lords committee, appointed to enquire into the manner of keeping the records &c, went to inspect the records at the Tower of London; where they find great progress has been made in sorting and digesting them, especially since Mr. Topham was admitted into the office of keeper, &c.’81 Although Quarrie comments that the actual work would have been done by clerks who were largely supervised by Topham’s deputy, George Holmes (1661/62-1748/49), this perhaps underestimates Topham’s influence. He was clearly well organised and directly involved with his own collections, and this experience can only have been helpful to the organisation of the nation’s records.

In March 1706/07, while still engaged in his political career, Topham was appointed Keeper of the Records in the Tower of London.76 For this he received a salary of £500 per annum. The appointment was confirmed on the accession of different sovereigns.77 Although Topham wrote a letter in 1725 expressing his wish to resign,78 he appears to have held this post until his death.

Connor Bulman also disagrees with Hearne’s damning assessment and argues that Topham made a success of the role: ‘He demonstrated real administrative flair … both in using his connections to propose “proper repositories” for the most frequently required Parliamentary Rolls and in wisely promoting … George Holmes, to be his official deputy.’82 Holmes had been appointed Clerk to the Keeper of the Tower Records in 1695 and held the post for sixty years.83 He was appointed Deputy in October 1707,84 a few months after Topham took over as Keeper.

Despite the favourable way in which Hearne had regarded Topham only a few years earlier, on 22 October 1711 he referred in rather vitriolic terms to ‘Mr. Topham of Windsor, who is Keeper of the Records in the Tower, tho’ he knows little or nothing of the Business. And I have some reason to think he is not much better Skill’d in other Parts of Learning’. 79 This was followed by Hearne’s diary entry for 15 November 1713, when his comments were even stronger: ‘Mr. James Tyrrell tells me that he should have been very glad, if they had made him Keeper of the Records in the Tower, at that time when it was last vacant. But, tho’ he be a Whigg, & is well versed in these Affairs, yet the Whiggs got another put in, viz. Mr. Topham of Windsor, a Person, not at all, at least but very meanly, qualifyed for the Place, who therefore does little, or none, of the Business himself, but leaves it, as it were, wholly to the Under-Keeper Mr. Holmes, who, as I am well informed, understands this Business perfectly well, and hath been very serviceable in the Place. Indeed I am fully satisfyed, from several Instances, that Mr. Topham is far from being fit for a Post of this nature, it being his Custom to despise our ancient English Records and Monuments, rather than to set any value upon them.’80

Topham evidently held Holmes in high regard as he left Holmes the sum of £100 in his will. This was a more generous sum than many of the other bequests. Holmes seems to have facilitated a visit to Topham’s library by Samuel Gale (1682-1754). This is the only contemporary reference to the library being shown to visitors. In 1721 Gale wrote to William Stukeley (1687-1765): ‘I went to Windsor, to Mr. Topham’s, Mr. Holmes being there, & see his fine library & drawings.’85 A Catalogue of Richard Topham’s Library in Stukeley’s hand is held in the Faculty of Advocates Library in the National Library of Scotland. The National Library has no further information about this item nor how it was acquired.86 As its catalogue entry for this item notes, Stukeley recorded a visit to Topham’s library in 1748.87 However, Connor Bulman comments that the catalogue ‘was compiled before many of Topham’s 1720s acquisitions had been made, and therefore well

Erndtel 1711, 40. See also Connor 1998, 52; Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 288: ‘Topham was first and foremost a bibliophile.’ 74  See n.61. 75  Witts with Gwynn 2020, fig. 20. See also Quarrie 1993, 11. Such personal involvement was not uncommon. For instance, Delbourgo comments in relation to Sloane that his ‘devotion to the mundanities of cataloguing is clear from the huge amount of time he spent writing out entries himself’ (2018, 261; see also 263). 76  Luttrell VI [1857], 148, entry for 13 March 1706/07; Bayley 1830, 252; Bond 1984, 71: ‘the nation’s archivist’. For an account of the Tower Record Office, see Impey and Parnell 2011, 86-89. 77  For the grant by George II, reciting grants by Queen Anne and George I, see British Library Add. MS 36126, f.304. 78  Letter dated 15 August 1725 in the archive of Sir Robert Walpole in the Cholmondeley (Houghton) Collection, Cambridge University Library (Ch(H) 1244); Connor Bulman 2008, 302, n.5, 303, n.33; Noy 2013, 186, 192, n.8. 79  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 251; Connor Bulman 2008, 290, 303, n.33. 80  Hearne 1712-1714 [1898], 257. 73 

Quarrie 1993, 10. Connor Bulman 2008, 290. 83  Evans 1956, 39. 84  Quarrie 1993, 10. 85  Stukeley [1882], 153-154. Noted by Connor Bulman in most of her publications, in particular 2008, 290 (also noting the bequest to Holmes), 292. 86  Adv.MS.5.1.8. I am grateful to Sally Harrower and Ralph McLean, Manuscripts Curators respectively of Modern Literary Manuscripts and of the Long 18th Century Collections, Archives and Manuscripts Collections, National Library of Scotland, for answering queries about this manuscript. 87  Stukeley [1887], 462. 81  82 

17

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library before the attributed date’ of 1748.88 As this timing ties in with Gale’s communication to Stukeley, perhaps it inspired the latter to make his own enquiries.

Topham and Reeve were also two of the executors of Theodore Randue (1642/43-1724) who had been Keeper of Windsor Castle from the time of Charles II.100 Their names are mentioned in the lengthy inscription on Randue’s monument in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.101 In an entry dated 21 May 1724, the Hall Book refers to a charitable bequest made by Randue and records how Richard Topham had been ‘pleased in person to acquaint the Corporacion’ with this information. The entry continues: ‘this Corporacion being sensible that the said Mr Topham was very instrumentall in promoting the said Mr Randus Benefactions & assisting in settling the same, It is therefore unanimously agreed and ordered That the thanks of this Corporacion be given to the said Mr Topham for his good services therein to this Corporacion & Town …’102

In 1725 Topham attempted to resign from the position of Keeper, writing that he had made an application to do so in the previous autumn and was ‘desirous to retire quite from business’. He referred to being in ill health.89 This suggests that he did not regard the role as a purely honorary post. His resignation evidently did not take effect since he was confirmed in this position by George II in 172790 and his successor was not appointed until after his death.91 A prominent local citizen Topham lived in Windsor throughout his life and was evidently one of its most distinguished and influential local citizens.

Not all of the mentions of Topham in the Hall Book record happy occasions. On 8 June 1726, Thomas Rowland (later to be one of the witnesses to Topham’s will) complained that at a meeting of the Corporation to drink the King’s health on His Majesty’s birthday, Rowland had been abused and assaulted by Christopher Clark, a fellow member of the Corporation. The entry goes on to refer to Clark’s conduct in relation to Topham: ‘at the said last meeting as also at divers other times and places frequently and publicly in a rude, unhandsome and unbecoming manner abuse, illtreat and speak disrespectfully of Richard Topham Esqr. formerly Member of Parliament for this Borough’ and in particular had wished Topham’s death. Topham seems, however, to have been generally well liked. The entry recording this incident in the Hall Book refers to him as ‘a great friend and benefactor to this Town and Corporation’ and records that it was unanimously agreed to reprimand and rebuke Christopher Clark and publicly ask him to seek Topham’s pardon. The Court of the Corporation had ‘a very great respect and due regard for the said Mr Topham and a grateful sense of the many great and good services and favours which he, the said Mr Topham, hath frequently done and is yet willing and ready to do for this Town and Corporation’. At the next meeting, Mr Clark was suitably contrite.103

He first appears in the Hall Book of the Borough of Windsor on 6 September 1693 in connection with leases formerly granted to his father.92 In 1698, he was made a freeman of the borough.93 In 1701 the Borough Council ‘Ordered That A letter be sent to Mr Topham to Desire him to agree with his Majesties surveior to bee as Kind to this Corporacion in his Reports as he hath beene to others in the Like Nature’,94 showing that Topham was regarded as a person of influence. An entry for 22 December 1702 mentions the sale of a shop Topham had owned.95 On 19 March 1710/11 the Corporation sought Topham’s help in connection with payment of tolls for use of Windsor Bridge.96 Other more personal matters also appear. On 3 February 1706/07 the Borough Council ordered that ‘Thomas Heath Corne Chandler bee made free of this Corporacion, without paying any Fyne, his Freedom being given upon the request of & in respect to Richard Topham Esqr. his Late Master’.97 On 23 March 1723/24, his servant James Arno was made a freeman along with a servant of Thomas Reeve, Arabella’s husband.98 The high status of Topham and his brother-in-law is demonstrated by their inclusion in a list of illustrious and influential figures as overseers of the will of Samuel Travers, Auditor-General to the Prince of Wales.99

During his lifetime, Topham gave money to the Free School and in his will he made a number of charitable bequests which were significant enough to be noted in the Victoria County History, along with bequests made by his sister.104

Connor Bulman 2008, 302, n.17. See n.78. 90  See n.77. 91  Bayley 1830, 252-253. 92  Bond 1968, 88. 93  Bond 1968, 97; Quarrie 1993, 10. 94  Bond 1968, 103. 95  Bond 1968, 107. 96  Bond 1968. 125. 97  Bond 1968, 116. 98  Bond 1968, 159. 99  Tighe and Davis 1858, II, 567. The other overseers were ‘the Earl of Godolphin, the Lord Townshend, Lord Carlton, Mr. Compton, Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Walpole, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Justice King, the Ld Chief Baron Eyre’. 88 

Connor suggests that Topham participated in a local archaeological excavation in 1720105 but the source on

89 

For Randue’s portrait and biographical information, see https://www. royalcollection.org.uk/collection/404070/theodore-randue-1643-1724, accessed 10 November 2020. 101  See Pote 1749, 17, 375-376; Bond 1958, 173-175, no. 281. 102  Bond 1968, 160. 103  Langton 1973, 2-3. 104  VCH Berkshire III, 69-70. See also Pote 1749, 18, 23; Hakewill 1813, 25, 31; Tighe and Davis 1858, II, 518, 637. 105  Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2008, 290, 304, n.40, giving the year as 1721. 100 

18

Richard Topham which she relies is Humfrey Wanley (1671/72-1726), whose notes do not bear this out. Item 3 in Wanley’s diary entry for 23 May 1720 simply reads: ‘My Lord [Robert Harley] sent in some Prints to be presented to Mr Topham & Mr G. Holme (sic); & I to send a [letter] with them.’ His Memorandum Book for 1721 contains a heading ‘Notes of Things proper for the Library in the Hands of Particular Persons’, with No. 17 in this list reading: ‘Mr. Topham ha’s Antiquities dug up at Windsor.’106 Although this information does not confirm archaeological activity on Topham’s part, it shows that he was regarded as an appropriate custodian of local finds. As well as indicating Topham’s acquaintance with such a notable person as Harley, Wanley’s notes demonstrate that Topham’s interests were not exclusively confined to antiquities from Italy and Greece. This is also indicated by the drawings of Romano-British mosaics and Egyptian artefacts seen, in particular, in album Bm.9.

the Resta Collection. John Talman sent an abstract of the collection to Lord Somers (1651-1716), who ultimately acquired it, ‘as I have done to Mr. Topham’.110 Talman asked Topham to show the catalogue to Talman’s father and to ‘the noble Lords as his Grace of Devon, & Ld. High Admiral’.111 These were references to the 2nd Duke of Devonshire (1670/71-1729) and to the Earl of Pembroke. As Connor Bulman comments: ‘By then Topham was evidently in contact with Queen Anne’s most cultured aristocratic collectors.’112 Topham’s relationship with Vice-Chamberlain Coke of Melbourne (1674-1727) was such that he had permission to swop some of his own prints for those in the ViceChamberlain’s collection.113 A letter written by Topham on 29 August 1725 refers to the Vice-Chamberlain calling upon him at Windsor and indicating that Topham could seek permission to ‘have access to his Majties Closet at Kensington, & be permitted to Copy the little Polydore’s there’.114 Topham was also acquainted with Thomas Coke of Holkham. When Coke published Thomas Dempster’s De Etruria regali in 1723 he presented a copy to Topham, and Topham had access to his drawings collection.115

Fellow collectors and friends The well known and much-quoted poem by Alexander Pope (1688-1744) shows that Topham was regarded as a leading collector of drawings at the time:

It is clear from these contacts that Topham mixed easily with members of the peerage. By contrast, he did not join the Society of Antiquaries of London116 whose members included John Talman. He would no doubt have been aware of its activities since George Holmes, his deputy as Keeper of the Records, was one of the earliest members of the original Society and a founder member of its 1717 revival.117

‘… He buys for Topham, drawings and designs, For Pembroke, statues, dirty gods, and coins; Rare monkish manuscripts for Hearne alone, And books for Mead, and butterflies for Sloane.’107 The wording suggests that Topham’s name must have been familiar to readers and that his collection was regarded as comparable to those of the other notable figures who are named: Thomas Herbert (c.1656-1733), 8th Earl of Pembroke; Thomas Hearne, the antiquarian; Richard Mead, the renowned doctor and one of Topham’s executors;108 and Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), whose collection of antiquities ‘was the principal founding collection of the British Museum’.109

Two satirical poems in a small volume in the British Library show Topham in a light-hearted context and suggest that he had a sociable side. The first is dated July 1708. In a verse attributed to him, he refers informally to his friend Hopkins as ‘Hoppy’. Topham’s interest in classical languages is reflected in the inclusion of the line ‘For Cato learnt Greek at the same Age’. The reply

The poem was published in 1731, the year after Topham’s death, but the wording suggests that it was written while he was still alive. Although the need for the verse to rhyme no doubt played a part in the order of words, it is remarkable that Topham’s name comes first.

Letter dated 2 March 1709/10 from Talman to Dean Henry Aldrich of Christ Church, Oxford, quoted in Gibson-Wood 1989, 169 and in Parry 1997, 170-172. For the Resta Collection, see Parry 1997, 16, 48. 111  Quoted in Gibson-Wood 1989, 169-170 and in Parry 1997, 93-94, Letter 65; Connor Bulman 2008, 290-291. See also Parry 1997, 111, Letter 94, from Talman to Henry Newton from Rome dated 31 May 1710 in which Talman wrote: ‘… I was in hopes Mr Topham wou’d have shewed it [the catalogue] to the Virtuosi Lords & for that purpose I directed it to him’. 112  Connor Bulman 2006, 326. 113  Letter from Topham to Vice-Chamberlain Coke dated 10 January 1719/20 (Manuscripts of the Earl Cowper, K.G., Historical Manuscripts Commission Derbyshire Vol. III, London 1889, 121); Connor Bulman 2006, 326; see also Connor Bulman 2002b, 344, n.6; Connor Bulman 2008, 291. 114  British Library Add. MS 66950, f.192; Connor 1993, 26, commenting that this indicates exceptional inside knowledge; Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 291. 115  ECL Bi.3.06-Bi.3.07; Quarrie 1993, 18. Imperiali’s letter to Topham of 24 July 1730, discussed in detail in Chapter 9, shows that Topham had compared some of his own drawings with those of Coke. 116  Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 287. 117  Evans 1956, 37, 39, 52. 110 

Topham’s reputation as a serious collector is also emphasised by correspondence concerning the sale of British Library, Lansdowne MS 677, f.3; Wright and Wright 1966, I, 48; II, 427. Wanley was Harley’s librarian. For Wanley, see Douglas 1951, 98-118 incl. fig. opp. 112. 107  Moral Essays. Epistle IV, An Epistle to Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington¸ lines 7-10. The published version of the poem differs slightly from a copy in Pope’s hand (Connor Bulman 2008, 301; see also Connor 1998, 52; Connor Bulman 2002b, 344). For the manuscript, see Mack 1984, 156-160. As discussed below, Richard Boyle knew Topham through his uncle, Henry Boyle. 108  Connor Bulman suggests that Mead, who was a friend of Pope, might have encouraged Pope to include the reference to Topham (2006, 327). 109  Jenkins 2006, 339. For Sloane, see Delbourgo 2018; the Pope poem is quoted in part on 289, not including any reference to Topham. 106 

19

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library attributed to Hopkins refers to Topham as ‘a Wiseman of Windsor’. Lord Halifax is then quoted as continuing with a verse about Topham:

Names that feature in Topham’s will122 show that he maintained some of his political friendships with influential figures throughout his life. For instance, Francis Godolphin (1678-1766), a fellow MP and a member of the Kit-Cat Club, was named as one of the trustees of the life interest of two of Topham’s beneficiaries.123 Godolphin later became famous in equestrian history as the owner of the ‘Godolphin Arabian’.124 He married Henrietta (16811733), the eldest daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, who achieved notoriety by becoming the lover of the playwright Congreve (1670-1729). Godolphin seems to have been well regarded by his father-in-law125 and his connections were impeccable. Narcissus Luttrell, writing on 27 May 1704, related that on Thursday last ‘her majestie in person stood godmother, the earl of Sunderland and the lord treasurer godfathers, to the second son of Mr Francis Godolphin, son to the lord treasurer’.126

‘Tho your worships antique And vers’d in Old Greek With moderns you never could pass Till the Chancellors wine Did your Fancy refine And taught you Records thro’ a Glass.’ In his reply, Topham refers to the Chancellor (Henry Boyle) and also to his own classical interests: ‘I owe nothing to Boyle For his wine or his byle To feed my Poetick Invention … ‘Great Demosthenes In my English shall please And my notes on Herodotus last.’118

Henry Boyle, ‘the Chancellor’ in the satirical poem, seems to have been held in particular esteem by Topham. The codicil to Topham’s will made special mention of ‘the pourtrait of my ever honoured friend Henry late Lord Carleton’. Boyle’s death in March 1725 was followed in August of the same year by Topham’s letter confirming his wish to surrender the post of Keeper of the Records. In the letter offering his resignation, he referred to being confined to his room ‘above four months by Lameness, wch hath left such a Weakness, that I am not yet able to undertake a Journy’.127 Despite the death of a close friend and his own ill health, Topham’s letter to Vice- Chamberlain Coke later the same month128 shows that he was still concentrating on his drawings collection at this time.

Another poem in the same collection also refers to Hopkins as ‘Hoppy’ and to Topham as ‘Toppy’ and includes the lines: ‘… Toppy will sigh like Polypheme … ‘… Why may not I Encourage Hoppy and Toppy Since they their passions own These are the Witts Of Windsor Town In Verse and Prose of High renown Why may not I.’119

Boyle was the uncle of Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington (1694-1753), to whom Pope’s poem was addressed. Burlington was a major patron of William Kent, who had also worked as an artist for Topham.129 Henry Boyle himself evidently had an art collection: in 1725 a portrait of Mary Queen of Scots was engraved from a painting in Boyle’s collection.130 Both Burlington and Topham were among the executors named in Boyle’s will131 in which Boyle left Topham the sum of £1,000. A letter sent to Topham on Burlington’s behalf on 4 August 1725 refers to the legacy which ‘is ready in Mr Hoares

Although many of Topham’s associates were members of the Kit-Cat Club, it has generally been assumed that he himself was not.120 Ophelia Field, however, takes a different view.121 At the very least, it is clear that Topham mixed in Kit-Cat circles. British Library Add. MS 40060, f.74-f.75. Quarrie misunderstands the initial verse attributed to Topham as a lampoon on him and misreads ‘Hoppy’s’ as ‘Toppy’s’. In the verse about Topham, he reads ‘bought’ for my reading of ‘taught’ (1993, 13). Boyle was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1701 to 1708 and, on a more evocative note, was renowned among his contemporaries for his rancid wig (Field 2008, 108; see also 179, 199, 307). Hopkins is thought by some to refer to Edward Hopkins (1674/751736) (Quarrie 1993, 13; Connor Bulman 2008, 289-290, attributing the authorship of the poem to Arthur Mainwaring). For Edward Hopkins, see https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/member/ hopkins-edward-167475-1736, accessed 10 November 2020. Field, however, identifies Hopkins as Thomas Hopkins (after 1641-1720) and suggests that the poem was a composition by a number of members of the Kit-Cat Club (2008, 186-187). This identification is adopted in the British Library catalogue entry for this poem. For Thomas Hopkins, see https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/member/ hopkins-thomas-1641-1720, accessed 10 November 2020. 119  f.81; Field 2008, 191. 120  See, for instance, Connor Bulman 2008, 290. 121  Field 2008, 187, 191, 426, 443, n.12, 457, n.35. In her list of members Topham is no. 29, while Henry Boyle is no. 23. See also Field’s online list of members in which Topham is no. 51 and Boyle is no. 50. (https:// img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/2d4b6719-1f56-4f40-abd6-b45a987d1775/ downloads/1c3mci6ke_279827.pdf, accessed 10 November 2020.) 118 

See n.12. For Godolphin, see https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ volume/1690-1715/member/godolphin-hon-francis-1678-1766, accessed 10 November 2020; Field 2008, 110, 141-142, 366. He was known as Viscount Rialton from 1706, when his father was made an earl, to 1712 when he became the 2nd earl. 124  http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Bios/GodolphinArabian.htm; accessed 10 November 2020. 125  See, for instance, the correspondence in Snyder 1975, 174-175. 126  Luttrell V, [1857], 428. 127  See n.78. 128  See n.114. 129  A number of drawings and engravings in the Topham collection are attributed to him: Bm.9:67, Bm.14:44, Bm.14:47-Bm.14:49, Bm.14:51, Bm.14:52, Bn.10:43, Bn.14:98, Bn.14:101. 130  Clayton 1997, 60. The engraver was George Vertue. 131  The National Archives, PROB 11/602/198. 122  123 

20

Richard Topham hands when ever you please to call for it’.132 Topham received payment of this legacy from Burlington’s account on 16 August 1725.133 It is clear, therefore, that Topham and Burlington were acquainted with one another. Some years after Topham’s death, Burlington evidently still recalled Topham’s library since he donated a copy of Palladio’s Fabbriche Antiche to Eton ‘in Bibliotheca Tophamiana collocandum’.134

demonstrated in a letter he sent to Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (1660-1744), on 15 July 1729 following a poaching incident in Windsor Great Park in which Sidney had been involved. Topham wrote: ‘As I have a kindness for Ld Sidney, who hath lived wth me the greatest part of eleven Yeares, yr Grace may easily conceive, that I feel some pain, whenever the heat of youth leads him into any blame, but I hope when this warmth is a little worn off, his Good sense & good behaviour will justify the Esteem I have had for him.’142 Topham’s character assessment was evidently correct: Sidney went on to study at Oxford, become an MP, and hold various posts at court.143

Topham evidently enjoyed a close relationship with his brother-in-law, Arabella’s husband Thomas Reeve, since he appointed Reeve as one of his executors and indicated in his will that Reeve could be buried in the Topham family vault. Like Topham, Reeve was a prominent citizen in Windsor. He became a judge and late in life, after Arabella’s death, he was appointed Lord Chief Justice.135

Noy notes that Sidney must have been living in Topham’s house while Topham’s mother was alive and residing there.144 It was evidently still Sidney’s home at the time of his marriage in 1736 because the London Evening Post referred to ‘the late Mr. Topham’s House in Prescott-street (sic)’ being fitted out for the celebrations.145

The most colourful of Topham’s connections was Sidney Beauclerk, known as Lord Sidney, who lived in Topham’s household and ultimately became his heir. Under the provisions of Topham’s will, his residuary estate went first to Arabella and then to Thomas Reeve for life, and only then to Sidney who named his own son after his benefactor. As Noy points out, this shows a high regard for Topham as it was not a condition stipulated in the will.136 Topham Beauclerk (1739-1780) became a well known book collector in his own right and was a friend of Dr Johnson.137

As well as receiving the reversion of the estate when Arabella and Thomas died, Sidney received £200 under the terms of Topham’s will to which an annuity of £100 a year was added in the codicil. The latter also provided that the profits of Topham’s property were to be divided between Thomas Reeve and Sidney, the annuity to the latter being taken into account in the calculations. It is notable that in his own will made on 10 July 1734 Reeve made a bequest to Sidney ‘as a Testimony of my respect to him’ of ‘All the Goods and ffurniture in the late Dwelling house of the said Richard Topham in Pescod Street in New Windsor’.146 In his first codicil dated 28 August 1736, Reeve also gave ‘to the Right Honble the Lord Sidney Beauclerk over and above what I have given him in my Will all the Plate which was Mr Tophams at the time of his Decease’. Clearly Sidney was held in high regard by Reeve, which is a valuable corrective to the impression often given that he was something of a rogue.

Sidney Beauclerk was the fifth son of the Duke of St Albans and a grandchild of Charles II and Nell Gwyn.138 In 1726, when Sidney was in his early 20s, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu wrote of him: ‘The man in England, that gives the greatest pleasure and the greatest pain, is a youth of royal blood, with all his grandmother’s beauty, wit, and good qualities. In short he is Nell Gwyn in person with the sex altered, and occasions such fracas amongst the ladies of gallantry that it passes description.’139 Sidney was regarded as a legacy-hunter but, as Noy notes, he was only 15 years old at the time when he entered Topham’s household.140 It therefore seems unlikely that this was the basis of his relationship with Topham. The entry for Topham in the History of Parliament suggests that he adopted Sidney after the death of his own nephew.141 Topham’s connection with the young Lord Sidney is

Topham’s home and possessions At some time after his father’s death in 1692, Topham moved to the house in Peascod Street, Windsor, which was to be his home for the rest of his life. The house was British Library Add. MS 61471, f.24; Quarrie 1993, 12; Connor Bulman 2006, 332, n.16; Connor Bulman 2008, 288; Noy 2016, 8. 143  https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/ member/beauclerk-sidney-1703-44, accessed 10 November 2020; Noy 2016, 6-7. 144  Noy 2016, 8-9. 145  Noy 2016, 9. 146  See n.13. Although not strictly relevant to Topham, Reeve’s will sheds interesting light on funerals of prominent people at the time. He stipulated that: ‘I desire to be buried decently but without Pomp in the same vault with my late Dear Wife and layd as near to her as may be I would have no Escocheons on my hearse the only use of which I have Observed to be to make disorder at a ffuneral.’ However, in a second codicil dated 31 December 1736 he added: ‘Whereas I have in and by my said Will directed that there should be no Escocheons on my hearse Now in regard to the publick Station I am in I do hereby revoke that part of my said Will and do leave it to the Discretion of my said Executors to do as they shall think proper in that respect.’ 142 

London Metropolitan Archives, Q/CML/016. C. Hoare & Co. Archive, Customer Ledger H, folio 378. I am indebted to Pamela Hunter, Archivist at Hoare’s Bank, for locating this ledger entry. 134  ECL Bi.1.23; Quarrie 1993, 24. 135  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, entry for Sir Thomas Reeve, accessed online 19 August 2019. 136  Noy 2016, 2, 10. 137  Austen-Leigh 1936, 203. For a detailed study of Topham Beauclerk, see Noy 2016. 138  Noy 2016, 6, noting that the Duke of St Albans had twelve children. 139  Quoted in Harwood 1929, 152; Beauclerk 2005, 373; Connor Bulman 2008, 288, 302, n.12; Noy 2016, 7. 140  Noy 2016, 8. Cf Quarrie 1993, 12, who describes him as ‘a notorious wastrel and fortune-hunter, who succeeded in “netting” Topham’. 141  See n.27. 132  133 

21

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library bought with a contribution from his mother: in her will dated 17 January 1707/08 Joan Topham recorded that ‘… five hundred pounds of my money was employed in the purchase of the house wherein I now dwell with my Son in Pescod Street in new Windsor …’. She went on to give him that sum along with the remainder of her estate.147

There are no known contemporary descriptions of the house apart from the wording in the codicil to Topham’s will, in which he referred to ‘my dwelling house with the Stables Outhouses Yards Gardens and appurtenances’. There was mention of a summer house, and a reference to ‘my New Library’ suggests that improvements had been made.

Peascod Street, opposite the entrance to Windsor Castle, is thought to be the earliest built-up street in Windsor and the oldest to be recorded.148 Early plans of Windsor such as John Norden’s map of 1607149 concentrate on the area around the castle and the parish church and do not include the whole of Peascod Street. Collier’s plan of Windsor published in 1742 shows development on both sides of ‘Prescod Street’ but without distinguishing the individual buildings.150 A note on the map indicates that the ‘Books Drawings & Paintings of the late Richd Topham of New Windsor Esqr’ were part of the reason why Eton College Library was ‘well stocked with ye best Authors’.

A number of commentators have referred to Topham’s house as Pilgrim Place156 but there is no evidence for this. Topham himself gave his address simply as ‘Windsor’ in his correspondence and received letters addressed in this way. Pilgrim Place was the name of the later apartment building built on the site of Topham’s house, presumably named after the family named Pilgrim who were associated with the property.157 No probate inventory has come to light but some idea of the contents of Topham’s house can be gleaned from his will. He stipulated that ‘the Marble ffountain in the hall the Marble Tables the three Marble Statues and two Vases and the Basso Relievo in the Summer house the picture by Bassan the picture of Lewis the fourteenth of ffrance and all such other pictures Goods and Utensills as shall be thought proper by my Executors may remain from time to time in my dwelling house and go together with my dwelling house’.158 Noy notes that the wording of the will could suggest that some care had gone into the arrangement of the items on the premises.159

The exact position of Topham’s house in Peascod Street is uncertain. His will refers to the alms-houses erected by Richard Reeve ‘in the Pitt Fields near my Garden Gate’, which places it on the south side of the street.151 It is thought that it was in the area now occupied by the Royal Mail and by William Street, with the house being pulled down when William Street was constructed in 1831.152 There is no known visual record of the house but a photograph taken in 1963 at the time of demolition of a nineteenthcentury apartment building constructed on the site showed the brick cellars of Topham’s house underneath.153

Topham’s will provides no further information about these items. Given his considerable interest in amassing drawings of antiquities, it is striking that he appears to have owned so few original items.160 Noy’s research into the antiquities ultimately inherited by Topham Beauclerk from Richard Topham has led him to conclude that those objects for which a provenance can be established had been acquired by Richard Topham from other collections and not from excavations.161

The extent of Topham’s house and grounds seems to have been substantial. A map of Windsor in 1869-1875 in the volume for Windsor and Eton in The British Historic Towns Atlas154 shows the location of Reeve’s Alms-houses in relation to the later street plan. Topham’s garden gate would have been about half way down the modern William Street. The sheet also shows that a ‘Keppel Row’ existed in Sun Passage. Mrs Keppel later became the owner of Topham’s property155 and it seems likely that the name reflects this. The line of Sun Passage still exists, leading from Peascod Street to Windsor Library. It is about a third of the way along Peascod Street from William Street to the High Street.

With the exception of the marble fountain, Noy believes that Richard Topham’s antiquities ‘seem to correlate with objects listed in Topham Beauclerk’s sale of 1780’.162 His See for instance Harwood 1929, 150; Austen-Leigh 1936, 202; Hedley 1950, 103; Macnaghten 1976, 20-22; Bond 1984, 71; Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2008, 287. 157  See, for instance, the documents listed in the Schedule to a Deed of Release dated 19 July 1839 which includes indentures dated 6 and 7 May 1763 between Topham Beauclerk (1) and John Pilgrim (2) (The Berkshire Record Office D/EX1391/1/3). Macnaghten explains that the site was also later occupied by a store named Creak’s (1975, 125). For a photograph of Pilgrim Place fronted by William Creak’s store, and a sketch showing the store with Pilgrim Place named prominently in large letters behind, see Hedges 1988, 58-59. 158  Some of the spellings in the copy in the National Archives differ from those in The Berkshire Record Office copy. (See n.12.) The spellings adopted in this extract follow the latter. 159  Noy 2013, 185. 160  Scott notes that Topham only owned three statues, a bas relief and a few inscriptions (2003, 294, n.13), while Noy concludes that his collecting interests lay elsewhere (2013, 185, 192). He might, of course, have owned more items which he did not specify in the will. 161  Noy 2013, 192. 162  Noy 2013, 185. See also Noy 2016, 191. 156 

See n.25. Lewis 2015, 68; VCH Berkshire III, 3. See also Harwood 1929, 101. 149  Reproduced in Farrar 1990, fig. 54. 150  British Library, King’s Topographical Collection VII. 151  See n.12. For Pitt Fields, also known as Pit’s Field and Pitts Field, see Harwood 1929, 103, 128; Hedley 1950, 103; Macnaghten 1976, 20-21. 152  Macnaghten 1976, 20, 22. 153  Reproduced on page 12 of the Mercury for 2 September 1976, in ‘Notes and Queries’ by F.M. Underhill, ‘History revealed by old premises in Peascod Street’. This article also contains a photograph of the apartment building later erected on the site and since demolished. I am indebted to Chris Atkins of Windsor Library for drawing this information to my attention. 154  Lewis 2015, Sheet A. 155  Topham Beauclerk, Sidney Beauclerk’s son, eventually sold all his local estates, including Topham’s house, to Sir Edward Walpole who left them to his eldest daughter, Mrs Keppel, in 1784 (Harwood 1929, 153, 283; Macnaghten 1976, 22). 147  148 

22

Richard Topham suggestion that the fountain was also an ancient artefact which stayed in the house when it was sold to Edward Walpole seems probable.

by Bassan’ was presumably by a member of the Bassano family. Louis XIV was renowned as a cultural figure and this perhaps explains why Topham had a portrait of him.

Noy interprets the ‘Marble Tables’ as tablets with an inscription or device. He believes that they can be identified with objects that the British Museum ultimately acquired in 1805 from the collection of Charles Townley.163 Two have Greek inscriptions and one has an inscription in Latin. Noy cites a description of the latter written when it was in Townley’s house which recorded that Townley had bought it at the sale of the effects of Topham Beauclerk, who had inherited it from ‘Mr. Topham of Windsor’.

In his codicil, Topham referred to ‘the Copy that was done for me at Rome of the antient Marriage in the Villa Aldobrandini’. Connor suggests that the reproduction of the Aldobrandini Wedding, ‘perhaps can be identified as the version by Imperiali in Richard Mead’s sale’.168 Topham did not make separate provision for the paintings and antiquities but specified in his will that they were to go with the house, unlike the books, prints and drawings. He left his sister Arabella ‘all my plate and all such peices of Gold (Guineas excepted) as shall be in my Scrutore in my Chamber at the time of my Decease and all my antient Medalls kept in a little Mohogony Cabinet’. These ‘medals’, perhaps ancient coins,169 have gone virtually unremarked.170 It is not known what became of them. Topham’s interest was evidently long-standing as Connor Bulman mentions that his earliest surviving letter dates to 1690 and was about ancient coins.171 The fact that Topham took the trouble to specify the type of wood used for the cabinet probably reflects the novelty and prestige of mahogany at this time. 172

Topham did not identify the subjects of the three statues but Noy suggests that they might have been the two statues of Venus and a small statue of Hercules in the Topham Beauclerk sale.164 The highest price in the Topham Beauclerk sale – £11 11s – was achieved by ‘An antique Greek vase in basso relievo, no inscription’. Noy believes this was probably one of the vases mentioned in Topham’s will165 but as other vases were included in the Topham Beauclerk sale this is uncertain. Noy considers that the bas relief from Topham’s summer house might be a funeral relief now in the British Museum. It features a lengthy Greek inscription and shows a helmeted warrior on the right standing beside a trophy, with a horse to his rear. On the left, a female figure holds a jug in her upraised right hand as if pouring the contents into a dish in her left hand. A snake is coiled around the trophy and appears to be drinking from the dish. Noy notes an entry in the British Museum accessions book for 13 October 1780 relating to ‘An ancient marble Basrelief of Greek workmanship brought to England by Mr Topham in 1725; from Joseph Banks Esqre and the Hon. A. C. Fraser.’ He suggests that Banks would have known about the connection with Richard Topham from Topham Beauclerk. Because Banks was aware of the year when the item came to England, Noy considers that Banks had seen some notes written by Topham since, as Noy says, ‘it is unlikely that any oral tradition about it could have been passed on’.166

‘Scrutore’ was another name for a scriptor, an escritoire or writing cabinet.173 These were substantial, prestigious pieces of furniture consisting of a chest of drawers surmounted by an upper section usually containing drawers, pigeonholes and secret compartments, with a fall-front writing surface. Nothing is known of Topham’s ‘Scrutore’ save for the reference in his will. His sister Arabella also had a writing desk which her husband continued to use after her death. Thomas Reeve referred to it in his will and mentioned in his second codicil that items he had added to it were part of his own estate, giving Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2006, 326; Connor Bulman 2008, 288, commenting that Topham was expecting this from Rome at the time he wrote the codicil. This seems unlikely given that he referred to ‘the copy that was done for me’ in the past tense. It seems to be a misunderstanding of Imperiali’s letter to Topham of 24 July 1730 in which he wrote: ‘Your picture has been finished many days ago. I will send it when I have enough to make a sufficiently large parcel, and in my next letter I will tell you about its subject’, (translation by Ashby 1914, 4). If this had been the copy of the Aldobrandini Wedding, there would have been no need for Imperiali to describe the subject since this was a famous work: see, for instance, Pace 1979, 121, 138, no. 33, listing drawings and reproductions; de Grummond 1996, 27-28; de Lachenal 2000, 637-638. Topham had two 1627 prints of it by Bernardino Capitelli (Bn.15:79 and Bn.15:80, the latter now held in the large Topham Portfolio and particularly notable as it is a counterproof: see Whitehouse 2001, 225-226). On Topham’s possessions generally, see also Connor Bulman 2006, 326, commenting: ‘His classical tastes extended to the decoration of his house in Windsor.’ 169  Scott 2003, vi, 10. 170  They are noted briefly by Connor Bulman (2002b, 344), and Noy (2013, 185). 171  Connor Bulman 2008, 288. 172  The first specific mention of mahogany in English Customs returns was in 1700 and the quantity of imports of it increased in the 1720s. It was ‘the most widely admired and arguably the finest cabinet wood in the world’ (Bowett 2012, 119, 121). The spelling ‘mohogony’ used by Topham was one of the common variations. 173  Bowett 2002, 39. 168 

The other items in the will have not been studied but are mentioned in passing by Connor Bulman.167 The ‘picture 2013, 185, 188, 191; https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/, Museum Nos 1805,0703.187, 1805,0703.188 and 1805,0703.210, accessed 10 November 2020. 164  Noy 2013, 189. 165  Noy 2013, 189. 166  Noy 2013, 190, figs 3-4; https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/, Museum No. 1780,0913.1, accessed 10 November 2020; A description of the collection of ancient marbles in the British Museum, Part II (London 1815, pl. XLI); Michaelis 1882, 114; Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2002b, 344 (interpreting Topham’s will as meaning that the statues and vases were also in the summer house); Connor Bulman 2008, 287-288 (similarly interpreting the vases – although not the statues – as being in the summer house), 303, n.30. 167  Connor Bulman 2008, 287-288. 163 

23

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library an insight into how these items of furniture were used: ‘I have from time to time put into the said Escritoir several Parcells of Old Gold Coin and other Curiositys for safe Custody which are tyed up in a bundle together in the lower part of the said Escritoir ...’174

It is not known for certain what caused Topham to revoke the original bequest. As Connor Bulman notes, one of the witnesses to the original will was Thomas Rowland, who was responsible for Eton’s new library.178 It is therefore probable that Topham would have been well informed about progress and would have been aware of any delays in the building work. It seems, however, that the crucial question might have been one of access to the collection. The wish that ‘learned persons’ should be able to consult it was not only expressed in the will but reiterated in the codicil, with the words ‘some publick Repository’ appearing. Although it was clearly important to Topham that the fruits of his lifelong activity putting together the drawings collection and amassing his library should be useful to others, Eton had no facilities at the time to make its resources available to researchers. Topham’s insertion of the phrase ‘which I have collected with great Care and Expence’ shows that he wished to emphasise the efforts he had made in forming the collection.

As well as his home and possessions, Topham had substantial landholdings in the Windsor area which no doubt brought him income. His will refers to land in New Windsor, Old Windsor, Clewer, Sunninghill, Bray and Burnham.175 The bequest to Eton College Topham made his will on 2 June 1729, leaving to Eton College ‘All my Books Prints and Drawings that are kept and placed in my New Library’.176 These items were to be delivered as soon as Eton had ‘finished and fitted up a safe and convenient Repository in their new Library for receiving and keeping them and the said place shall be dry seasoned and fit to receive the same’.

Topham’s executors were his sister Arabella, her husband Thomas Reeve, and Dr Richard Mead, whom Topham described as ‘my kinsman’. Arabella described Mead in the same way in her will dated 1 May 1731.179 Many scholars have noted that Mead was a distant relation180 but the nature of that relationship is unclear. A blood connection is indicated by the use of ‘cognatus’ in the inscription to the monument to Thomas and Arabella181 but the precise details are unknown.

Topham stipulated that ‘all Learned persons at convenient seasons may have Recourse to and Reasonable Use of the said Books Prints and Drawings sufficient Care and Caution being taken that they may receive no Damage thereby or be in any means diminished’. He directed that ‘all the Prints and Drawings and all other loose and single sheets by me hereby given shall be kept locked up in proper presses or Cases for the safe keeping and preserving the same’.

Topham’s will was initially proved by Thomas Reeve on 2 November 1730 and then by Richard Mead, the sole surviving executor, on 28 April 1737 after both Arabella and Thomas had died.

As Noy notes,177 the importance Topham accorded to his collection of books, prints and drawings is reflected in the fact that these were the first items to be mentioned in the will.

It has generally been considered that Mead was the surviving executor who ensured that the collection stayed together and that he was responsible for the eventual choice of Eton.182 However, the prominence of Mead’s role in the preservation of the collection seems to owe more to his continuing renown than to events in the 1730s.

A year later, on 19 June 1730 and only a few months before he died, Topham added a codicil in which the opening provisions declared the bequest ‘utterly void and null … but being very desirous that the said Books Prints and Drawings which I have collected with great Care and Expence may be carefully preserved and kept together and be of use to learned and skillfull persons I do hereby give the same to my Executors in my Will named upon special Trust and Confidence that they shall cause the same to be placed in some publick Repository where they may be carefully preserved … and where all learned and skillfull persons may at reasonable times resort and have a reasonable use of the same … and till such time as such a publick Repository can be fixed upon my Will is that the said Books Prints and Drawings shall be carefully kept in the Library where they now stand …’

Reeve had a closer relationship to Topham than Mead and he was still alive when the collection was formally handed over to Eton in 1736, some six years after Topham’s death. His name precedes Mead’s in Topham’s will; in the indenture dated 27 December 1736 transferring ownership

Connor Bulman 2006, 332, n.12; Connor Bulman 2008, 288. For the new library, see Quarrie 1990, 43. 179  The National Archives, PROB 11/654/214. Thomas Reeve also referred to Mead as his wife’s kinsman in his will (see n.13). 180  See, for instance, Quarrie 1993, 23; Jenkins 2003, 129; Connor Bulman 2006, 327, 331. For Mead, see Maty 1755; Jenkins 2003, esp. 129 where he notes that Mead had drawings similar to Topham’s and suggests that Mead might have kept duplicates from the Topham collection; Jenkins 2006, esp. 341-342; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 38. 181  See n.6. 182  See, for example, Connor 1993, 26; Connor Bulman 2002a, 61; Connor Bulman 2006, 327, 331; Jenkins 2003, 129; Scott 2003, 294, n.13; Bowron and Kerber 2008, 145. 178 

See n.13, referring to ‘my Dear Wifes Escritoire in her Chamber’. See also Macnaghten 1976, 20; Connor Bulman 2008, 287; Noy 2016, 20. 176  See n.12. 177  Noy 2013, 185. 174  175 

24

Richard Topham of the collection to Eton;183 and in the inscription in Eton College Library recording the donation. An entry in the Eton accounts for a payment to a Mr Brookland for the indenture refers only to Reeve and not to Mead, suggesting that Reeve was regarded as Eton’s main contact.184 Early records also gave him more prominence. For instance, Reeve was named before Mead in the note to Collier’s plan of Windsor,185 while Reeve alone was referred to in Defoe’s work as presenting the collection to Eton186 and was described as ‘Mr. Topham’s Executor’ by Pote.187

guineas was made ‘To Mr Vowles Mr Tophams Library Keeper’.193 This is the only known reference to Mr Vowles. It is unclear whether he was Library Keeper during Topham’s lifetime as Quarrie implies,194 or perhaps managed the library during the gap between Topham’s death and the collection arriving at Eton. As he was not mentioned in Topham’s will, the latter seems more likely. Whatever problems caused Topham to revoke the bequest to Eton, the eventual outcome was a happy one. The prompt collection and stamping of the items once ownership had been transferred shows that Eton took its responsibilities seriously. The books, prints and drawings were ‘methodis’d’ and catalogued by Stephen Sleech and John Reynolds, two Fellows of Eton College, in 1737.195 They remain in the accommodation designed for them in Eton College Library in accordance with Topham’s requirements (Figure 2.5).196 His wish that his collection should be kept together and be made available to ‘learned and skillfull persons’ has been fulfilled.

Connor Bulman suggests that the will was disputed and that Mead, ‘by energetically opposing the claims of Lord Sidney Beauclerk …, the heir whom Topham befriended, ensured that the drawings were not dispersed’.188 However, Noy explains that the litigation took place in 1741 – which was several years after the drawings had arrived at Eton – and concerned income that Sidney considered he was entitled to receive under the terms of Topham’s will.189 It does not seem to be relevant to the collection. The timing of the transfer of the collection to Eton was probably linked to Sidney Beauclerk’s marriage, which took place in the autumn of 1736 and brought him access to his wife’s properties elsewhere.190 If Sidney was proposing to spend less time in Topham’s house, where he had – at least nominally – taken care of the collection, it might have prompted the need to make other arrangements for it. An entry in the Eton archives for 1736 records a payment to three men for ‘removing ye books in ye library’.191 The following entry records a payment for carriage of ‘Mr Tophams books’ and a payment ‘To Collier for Stamping’ them. The ‘Stamping’ refers to the mark stamped on all the books, prints and drawings to identify the items as belonging to the Topham collection. It consists of the letters ‘RT’ flanking the small caduceus that was Topham’s own seal.192 What appears to have been a one-off payment of four ECR 47/89. The counterpart is held at Hoare’s Bank in London (HB/8/S/3/17). I am grateful to Pamela Hunter, Archivist at Hoare’s Bank, for bringing this and the indenture mentioned in n.192 to my attention and producing them for inspection. 184  ECR 62/18, page 248. 185  See n.150. See also Knight 1793, 129; Hakewill 1813, 44. 186  Defoe, Daniel 1661?-1731 [2008], 70. 187  Pote 1749, 23. In a later book, both names are given with Reeve’s listed first (Pote and Pote 1755, 83). 188  Connor Bulman 2002a, 61; see also Connor Bulman 2001a, 345; Connor Bulman 2006, 327, stating that Mead brought the lawsuit; Connor Bulman 2008, 301. 189  Noy 2016, 19. See also British Library Add. MS 36050, f.115-f.117, 121. 190  Noy 2016, 9. 191  ECR 62/18, page 209. 192  A good example can be found affixed to a deed of settlement dated 19 January 1725/26 which Topham signed and sealed in his capacity as one of the executors of the late Theodore Randue (Hoare’s Bank HB/8/S/3/11). It is also featured in Topham’s bookplate which he used in some of his books (Quarrie 1993, 19, fig. 5), its inclusion presumably based on his seal. See also Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 103, fig. 32. 183 

ECR 62/18, page 248. Quarrie 1993, 24. 195  Endorsement on the indenture transferring ownership of the collection to Eton (see n.183). Connor (1993, 26) refers to Sleech and Reynolds producing the first English catalogue in 1737. This is thought to refer to Finding Aid 4 since Lucy Gwynn confirms that Eton has no other catalogue in English of this date. 196  For an overall view, see Witts with Gwynn 2020, fig. 24. 193  194 

25

Richard Topham

Figure 2.1 – Bust of Arabella Reeve (née Topham) and her husband Sir Thomas Reeve, Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor

Figure 2.2 – Bust of Topham Foote, Church of St John the Baptist, New Windsor

Figure 2.3 – Entry of Richard Topham in the Admissions Register, Trinity College, Oxford, Archive (Photograph: Clare Hopkins, Trinity College, Oxford)

Figure 2.4 – Topham’s signature and date in his copy of Martianus Capella, Satyricon

27

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 2.5 – Shelves with the Topham albums of prints and drawings, Eton College Library

28

3 Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome This chapter analyses sets of drawings by Francesco Bartoli showing images of early discoveries of mosaics, most of which had previously been drawn by Pietro Santi Bartoli. Almost all of the mosaics survive and were displayed in Rome during Topham’s lifetime. It would theoretically have been possible for Francesco to work from the originals but with a few possible exceptions it seems that he used records made by his father or by Gaetano Piccini.

has been made to reproduce the dentil border around the scene with waterfowl. Several factors suggest that the drawings were not produced and/or acquired at the same time: the small difference in the treatment of the borders, the location of the drawings in different albums in the collection, and the slightly different wording of Topham’s annotations. Harbour scene

All the drawings are in Bartoli’s distinctive ‘uniformly sweet style’1 and are usually attributed to him. Some bear his signature, while for a number of others his name has been added, usually in Topham’s hand.

The original emblema depicted in Bn.5:4 is fragmentary, with its left side missing. It shows a sailing ship and a small boat in front of a portico which runs around two sides of a harbour. Behind the rearmost section of the portico are buildings amid trees. The other section of the portico terminates in a plinth surmounted by equestrian statues. On the left, a man carries a basket on a pole over his shoulder as he walks on what appears to be a quay. Between the ship and boat are two dolphins.

Mosaics displayed in Santa Maria in Trastevere Two drawings show small emblemata displayed in the sacristy of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome. They are notable for their extensive use of glass tesserae. Bn.5:4 depicts a harbour scene and Bn.7:98 shows waterfowl and snails.2

In the drawing (Figure 3.1), the small boat in the foreground is shown slightly further to the right, with the dolphins also moved to the right and one of them turned into a prominent rock. The man walking on the quay is instead depicted as a man standing in a small boat, propelling it with a pole.

The exact provenance of the mosaics is unknown but the emblema with the waterfowl is said to have been found in ‘la rovine dell’ospedale de’ soldati benemeriti, detto Taberna meritoria’.3 As both pieces were displayed together in Santa Maria in Trastevere from an early date, it is thought that they came from the same location and that this was in the vicinity of the church.4 It is not known when they were discovered but Whitehouse suggests that they could have been moved to the church during renovations undertaken between 1585 and 1605.5

The drawing shows only two figures in the sailing ship whereas there is a third, and possibly a fourth, to the right of the standing figures in the original. It also omits the net being cast by the man on the left in the small boat. All the figures are clothed, whereas they are naked save for loincloths in the original.

The drawings are unsigned and are not annotated with the artist’s name but they are usually attributed to Bartoli.6 Both bear captions in Topham’s hand: ‘in ecclesia Stae Mariae Trans Tiberim’ for Bn.5:4 and ‘in Stae Mariae trans Tiberim’ for Bn.7:98.

The surface of the water is indicated by pale and dark blue shading, unlike the mosaic itself which uses dark lines on a white background. The sky is also white in the original but is blue in the drawing, with no differentiation between the sea and sky.

Each drawing has a red border and the harbour scene also has a thin black line within this. Although traces of a black border remain in the original fragment, it is likely that the line on the drawing is purely decorative since no attempt

The building at the angle between the two sections of the portico is drawn as a pedimented structure through which some of the trees can be seen, with the trees themselves being similar to one another. In the original, however, the structure is solid and represents a tower with a domed roof. There are different types of tree: two with wider shapes and one, on the right, much narrower and probably a cypress. The drawing shows the windows of the buildings to the rear of the portico in a stylised fashion. In particular, the building parallel to the portico is represented with two rows of four windows on the side and two windows above a large door in the gable end, whereas the original has a greater number of narrower windows and a smaller door.

This apt phrase is used by Connor Bulman (2001a, 344). For colour reproductions of the original mosaics, see Whitehouse 2001, 134, 136. A particularly clear colour reproduction of the scene with waterfowl is included in Andreae 2003, 182. 3  Ficoroni 1744, II, 27. 4  Fileri 2000, 134; Whitehouse 2001, 132. 5  Whitehouse 2001, 132. 6  Whitehouse 2001, 134, 136. Gasparri attributes these drawings to Gaetano Piccini (1984, 672-673) but, as discussed below, this is not plausible. 1  2 

29

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library The drawing is close to the original in showing the number of arches in the portico, save that the lower right part of the domed tower has been turned into an extra arch.

Although the Topham drawing differs significantly from these records, it is close to a drawing in the Corsini codex.12 This shows the pedimented structure rather than the domed tower, the trees are similar to each other, there are only two figures in the sailing ship, the figure walking on the quay has become a man standing in a boat, the second dolphin has been turned into a rock, and the figures are clothed. Despite these divergences from the original, the boat in the foreground is correctly aligned parallel to the sailing ship and its seated occupant merely has an outstretched hand not holding any object.

These discrepancies suggest that the drawing was not made from the original fragment but copied from another record. Bartoli’s probable source can be identified from an analysis of other illustrations. The dal Pozzo drawing is the earliest. Whitehouse suggests that it might date to the 1620s.7 Although it is more faithful in reproducing the buildings and uses the correct number of arches in the portico, it shows a rectangle in the plinth on which the statues stand rather than the vertical shading in the original. It includes small details such as the finial on the pedimented building in the background and the vase on the monument with two columns to its right, details which are missing from the Topham drawing. It correctly shows the building between the two sections of portico as a tower with a domed roof and reflects the different types of tree to the rear. Three small figures in the sailing ship are included, two standing as they attend to the ropes and one seated to the right. The man walking on the quay, and the presence of two dolphins in the harbour swimming in the same direction, match the original mosaic.

The Corsini drawing is not a copy of the dal Pozzo or Glasgow versions, nor does it match the engraving published by Ciampini. It is unsigned but is usually attributed to Gaetano Piccini.13 It is in his style, particularly in his characteristic use of cross-hatching to indicate tessellation. As the caption is in capital letters, it is difficult to compare with the handwriting in a caption to another drawing in the Corsini codex which is signed by Piccini,14 but the attribution seems secure. Gasparri also attributes to Piccini two rough sketches in the Capponi codex, one of the harbour itself and the other showing the boats and a single dolphin.15 In the second drawing, the man on the quay is indicated so sketchily that it is easy to see how this might later have been misunderstood as a man standing in a boat.

The dal Pozzo drawing does, however, depart from the original in several respects, all of which concern the small boat in the foreground. This is not aligned parallel to the sailing ship but is at an angle, perhaps to make the casting of the net look more dramatic. The figure seated within the boat is looking straight ahead, whereas his head is turned to his left in the original and in most of the other drawings. He holds an object in his outstretched right hand but in the original and in most of the other drawings his arm is merely extended outwards. This object appears to be one of the benches in the boat whose colouring has been continued up to the hand.8

The overall impression is that Piccini could have made the sketches from the original fragment, although not entirely accurately, and introduced further errors when working up his final drawing. Bartoli might then have copied this when creating the Topham drawing, omitting the net being cast by the man in the small boat – either in error or to ‘improve’ the composition – and introducing stylisation to the buildings at the rear. Waterfowl

A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume matches the dal Pozzo drawing in all material respects and would appear to be a copy of it.9 In particular, the figure seated in the boat is holding an object and looking ahead.

The original emblema depicted in Bn.7:98 is arranged in two registers of unequal height. The upper part is occupied by three ducks, with the duck on the right lowering its head into the upper part of the lower register. On the left is a clump of foliage. The lower register is taller and contains two long-legged birds flanked by reeds. The birds have the red beak, red legs, small head and overall body shape of purple gallinules (porphyrions) and are usually identified

Ciampini published an engraving which is reasonably faithful to the original although it is cruder and reproduced in reverse.10 The main differences are that an arch is shown in the plinth, there is an additional person in the sailing ship hanging over one end of the vessel, and the dolphins are swimming in opposite directions to one another. As Whitehouse notes,11 it is clearly derived from another source but the identity of that source is unknown.

158 I 5, 130168; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 68, pl. 12,1; Gasparri 1984, 672-674, pl. CII,3; Fileri 2000, 134-135, no. 67, fig. on 128. 13  Gasparri 1984, 672; Whitehouse 2001, 134. 14  Fileri 2000, 81. Engelmann gives the caption but it is cropped from his illustration (1909, V, no. 2, pl. 1,2). 15  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.85-f.86, accessed 23 November 2020; Gasparri 1984, 672-673, pls CIII,1-2. Gasparri’s attribution to Piccini of the Topham drawing is contradicted by its completely different style, although the use of shading for the water instead of lines is common to both Piccini and Bartoli. Whitehouse (2001, 134) lists the Capponi sketches as if they are by Bartoli, but the use of cross-hatching, along with the presence of the net, and the extravagant treatment of the dolphin’s tail in one of them, makes it more likely that they are by Piccini. 12 

RCIN 919220; Whitehouse 2001, 132-135, no. 25. Also noted by Whitehouse 2001, 133, suggesting that one of the thwarts might have been mistaken for a paddle. 9  Glasgow CXXXV; Pace 1979, 152, no. 114, pl. XXVIIIa. Whitehouse comments that this drawing could be a reduced version of the dal Pozzo drawing (2001, 134). 10  Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXII,II. 11  Whitehouse 2001, 134. 7  8 

30

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome as such.16 They stand next to a basket which is lying on its side. Three snails crawl on or near the basket.

which is not the case with the original mosaic. It should have six thin bands and one wider band around it, whereas the drawing shows four similarly-sized bands all parallel to one another. The snails’ shells are drawn with coils on their left which run anticlockwise from the centre, whereas in nature the shells usually have coils which run clockwise from the centre and are positioned on the right. Although the original mosaic also shows the shells on the left, only one has spirals running anticlockwise from the centre.22

Purple gallinules featured in mosaics throughout the Roman empire.17 They were renowned for their beauty and Aelian describes them as being kept either as a pet in rich households or in temples.18 As well as being eaten by birds, snails were a popular part of the Roman diet. Varro records that areas for snail breeding should be enclosed by water and it is therefore probably no coincidence that the birds in the mosaic are waterfowl. He describes fattening snails in a jar with holes and keeping them alive at the dealer’s by giving them a few laurel leaves sprinkled with bran.19 The basket in the mosaic, which has leaves in its mouth and from which the snails seem to be emerging, probably served a similar function to a jar.

As with the harbour scene, the significant differences between the drawing and mosaic suggest that Bartoli was not working from the original. Again, his probable source can be identified from an analysis of the other illustrations. The dal Pozzo drawing is close to the original mosaic, with only minor differences.23 For instance, the artist has shown the head of the gallinule on the left standing out against the pale background rather than slightly overlapping the base of the upper register.

Along with other illustrations of this mosaic, the Topham drawing (Figure 3.2) shows it as rectangular whereas the original is square. None of the drawings includes the dentil border.20

Unlike the harbour scene, Pietro Santi Bartoli did not make a copy of the dal Pozzo drawing for the Glasgow volume but Ciampini included an engraving of the mosaic.24 More stylised and in reverse, the scene shows the snails at diminished size. It omits the ground in the lower register and the pillar-like shape. There are eight bands around the basket, all parallel to one another.25

The ground-line of the upper register in the Topham drawing is fawn, giving the impression that the ducks are seated on the ground. However, this area is blue and pale grey in the original, indicating that the ducks are meant to be regarded as in the water. They are intended to be part of the same scene as the purple gallinules: the reed growing to the right of the latter is grasped by the beak of the duck on the right. This detail is not reflected in the drawing, which also omits the grey pillar-like shape behind the base of the basket which Whitehouse interprets as a stake.21 The function of this shape is unclear. It seems too wide for a stake but probably indicates a man-made setting, emphasising that the scene is not taking place in the wild.

A drawing in the Corsini codex is closest to the Topham drawing.26 It also reflects the confusion in the depiction of the mouth of the basket, which appears as a thin band in addition to the four main bands. Cross-hatching is used and the caption27 resembles Piccini’s signed caption mentioned above. This drawing is usually and plausibly attributed to him.28

By accentuating the height of the lower register and widening the ground on which the purple gallinules, snails and basket are located, the drawing creates an atmosphere that is different from the original. The birds are diminished in size and do not engage with their surroundings. For instance, the gallinule on the left is pecking a reed in the original but just turns its head in the drawing. The other gallinule merely lowers its head towards its foot but in the original mosaic it is about to peck one of the snails. The vivid blue of most of the birds’ plumage as shown in the original is toned down in the drawing, although the red of the beaks and legs is still apparent.

Gasparri also attributes to Piccini a drawing in the Capponi codex.29 This is similar to the Corsini drawing although not identical. The basket is shown with only three bands, and the reed on the left is more emphatic and runs in front of the tail of the purple gallinule on the left. It has a caption in handwriting that looks consistent with that of Piccini. The Corsini and Topham drawings are closest to one another, especially since both show four bands around Cf Bn.4:30 discussed in Chapter 5, in which one of the snails also has an unusual shell. 23  RCIN 919221; Whitehouse 2001, 136-137, no. 26. 24  Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXII,I. 25  In another plate, Ciampini publishes a similar mosaic from the collection of Cardinal Flavio Chigi, showing a basket of snails with four birds, perhaps a hen and three doves (1690, I, 83, pl. XXXIV,I; Whitehouse 1992, 110, fig. 1; Whitehouse 2001, 136). 26  158 I 5, 130169; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 69, pl. 12,2; Fileri 2000, 134-135, no. 68, fig. on 129. 27  Included in Gasparri 1984, pl. CII,4. 28  Gasparri 1984, 672; Whitehouse 2001, 136. 29  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.100, accessed 23 November 2020; Gasparri 1984, 672-673, pl. CIII,3. As with the harbour scene, Gasparri’s attribution to Piccini of the Topham drawing is contradicted by its style. Whitehouse (2001, 136) lists the Capponi drawing as if it is by Bartoli, but the style and use of cross-hatching makes it more likely that it is by Piccini. 22 

The basket is drawn in an unrealistic way, with no mouth or handle. One of the birds appears to rest a foot on it, Gasparri 1984, 675; de Lachenal 2000, 639; Whitehouse 2001, 136; Andreae 2003, 182. These birds are not ostriches as Lanciani suggested (1895, 190). 17  Witts 2016, 102, 104. 18  De natura animalium III.42; Witts 2016, esp. 139-140. 19  Rerum rusticarum III, XIV. 20  Whitehouse 2001, 136 makes identical points in relation to the dal Pozzo drawing. 21  Whitehouse 2001, 136. 16 

31

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library the basket. The exaggerated height of the lower register in the Topham drawing takes it further away from the original and was probably introduced to create what might have been regarded as a more successful composition. It seems likely, therefore, that Francesco Bartoli copied and amended the version Piccini drew for the Corsini codex.

black line as an inner border, as does Bn.5:71, but Bn.5:2 has only the red border in a darker shade than usual. The three drawings of Victorious Charioteers are numbered I, II and IV in an unknown hand. They appear in a series of six numbered drawings, the other three of which are discussed in Chapter 4: Bn.5:37 shows a chariot race in progress, while Bn.5:39 and Bn.5:40 depict gladiators. These mosaics were, however, later discoveries found in a different location. The inner borders of yellow and then black and white chequered motifs resembling the dentils in the originals appear around the Victorious Charioteers but not in the other three drawings in the series. This is an indication that the different provenance was appreciated by the artist. It suggests that Bartoli perhaps did not prepare the drawings at the same time and could have put the set together for sale to Topham.

The Holkham drawings include another version also thought to be by Francesco Bartoli.30 This is virtually identical to the Topham drawing but the separation between the two registers is less extreme. In other words, it is closer to the Corsini drawing which could suggest that it was produced earlier than the Topham drawing. A similar sequence of drawings is suggested by the position of the lowest snail in the composition: in the Corsini drawing it matches the original in being shown against the backdrop of the basket, but it has moved slightly in the Holkham drawing so that it partly overlaps the basket, while in the Topham drawing it has crawled away completely.

Victorious Charioteers The exact provenance and date of discovery of the Victorious Charioteers is uncertain. It has been suggested that these mosaics were found in the Orto del Carciofolo in 167033 but Ashby disputed this, conflating these panels with later discoveries from the Via Appia near Domine Quo Vadis.34 Ashby’s views led to some confusion, not only about the discovery but whether all three mosaics belonged together.35 Whitehouse provides a clear assessment, emphasising that as Pietro Santi Bartoli drew all three Victorious Charioteers they cannot be part of the discovery made after his death.36

Mosaics displayed in the Massimi collection Seven of the drawings in album Bn.5 depict mosaics in the collection of Cardinal Camillo Massimi in the seventeenth century and recorded in the inventory compiled after his death.31 They are now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid where most are on display. Three show Victorious Charioteers (Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38), two depict gladiatorial combats (Bn.5:14, Bn.5:17) and two are Nilotic scenes (Bn.5:2, Bn.5:71).32

Given that Victorious Charioteers usually appear in mosaics as single individuals or in sets of four,37 it is thought that the original mosaic might have included another charioteer, perhaps a member of the Whites since the Blue, Red and Green factions are represented in the panels.38 While this is likely, it is feasible that the three panels could have formed a coherent arrangement on their own, with the two scenes in profile flanking the frontal depiction. It is not certain that the traditional fourfaction system was always rigidly followed. For instance, Thuillier draws attention to the presence in each panel of an attendant wearing a different colour from the charioteer, suggesting a pairing of the factions.39 It is possible that this was always a set of three.

Topham added Bartoli’s name to the drawings of the Victorious Charioteers and to Bn.5:71 but not to those of the gladiatorial combats or Bn.5:2. He annotated all the drawings with references to the Palace of Titus but the precise wording varies slightly: ‘Palazzo di Tito’ for the Victorious Charioteers, ‘del Palazzo di Tito’ for the gladiatorial combats, ‘e Palatio Titi’ for Bn.5:2, and ‘Mosaico nel Palazzo Massimi’ for Bn.5:71. These differences suggest that the drawings of the Victorious Charioteers and gladiatorial combats were labelled – and therefore probably acquired – at different times from each other, with the drawings of the two Nilotic scenes being obtained separately on other occasions. The placement of the drawings in the album supports this and suggests that the order of these drawings is Topham’s.

The Victorious Charioteers each hold a palm branch in their left hand or arm and a whip in their upraised right

All the drawings of the Massimi mosaics have a red outer border. The drawings of the gladiators also have a thin

Lanciani 1895, 171-172; de Lachenal 2000, 657. Lanciani also attributes the chariot race shown in Bn.5:37 and the gladiators in Bn.5:39 and Bn.5:40 to the Orto del Carciofolo discoveries. 34  Ashby 1914, 22-23. See also Reinach 1922, 295, including the mosaic in Bn.5:38 as part of the Via Appia discovery. 35  For example, Blake 1940, 113; Dunbabin 1982, 73, 88, who attributes one of the Massimi charioteers to the Via Appia discovery; Thuillier 2003, 295, n.3, 296, n.4. 36  Whitehouse 2001, 186. 37  See, for instance, Dunbabin 2016, 157. 38  Whitehouse 2001, 186, perhaps frontal; Thuillier 2003, 302, 307. In the original, the blue colouring is mostly rendered in shades of turquoise, possibly because this was an easier or less costly shade to obtain. 39  Thuillier 2003, 306-309, noted by Dunbabin 2016, 158-159, n.72. 33 

Holkham I, 17; Ashby 1916, 37, no. 17. Whitehouse is only tentative in ascribing this drawing to him (2001, 136) but it shows his distinctive style and strong use of colour. Aymonino and Modolo give a more confident attribution (2020, 41). 31  Whitehouse 2001, 179. For a transcription of the inventory, see Pomponi 1996a. See also Beaven 2010, 295-301. 32  For colour reproductions, see Lavagne 2001, pls on 51, 83, 85, 87, 93, 95, covering all except the scene in Bn.5:71; Whitehouse 2001, 181, 182, 188, 190, covering the Nilotic scenes and two of the Victorious Charioteers; Dunbabin 2016, figs 7.34-7.35 and Modolo 2016, pls LXXVI and LXXVII for the gladiatorial scenes. 30 

32

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome hand. Each charioteer rides in a quadriga, a two-wheeled chariot drawn by a team of four horses.

him as a sparsor.44 The amphora is visible between the heads of the two horses on the left of the scene but is not clearly legible in the drawing, where the horses’ heads are closer together.

In the mosaic depicted in Bn.5:35 the charioteer is riding towards the left (Figure 3.3). He is accompanied by a bearded figure who lifts his right hand in acclamation. A sparsor stands in front of the horse in the foreground and sprays water into its mouth from his own.40 He holds a small amphora in his right hand and a similar amphora rests on the ground nearby. It seems likely that the bearded figure accompanying the charioteer also held a small amphora as there is a white area adjacent to his left hand, although this is not shown in the drawing. As discussed below, a similar object is visible in the original panel shown in Bn.5:36.

The drawing omits a rear leg from the horse on the left which is indistinct in the original, but plausibly adds the ends of one or two tails to the centre between the two pairs of horses. As with the previous drawing, the angle of the wheels is more realistic in the drawing than the original. The drawing also shows the reins passing behind the charioteer’s body, whereas in the panel itself they stop just before his left hand.

The eight rear legs of the horses are shown correctly in the drawing but only five forelegs are apparent plus the hooves of two more. In the original there is some intermingling and overlap in the way the forelegs are depicted, but the drawing shows them in pairs with those of each horse side by side, perhaps in the interests of a clearer composition.

In the mosaic depicted in Bn.5:38 the charioteer is moving towards the right (Figure 3.5). He is accompanied by figure to his left who is largely obscured by the horses but who holds a staff. In the original panel as it now exists, the scene has been curtailed on both sides. Some of the horses’ legs are cut off by the border on the right, while on the left the tail of the horse in the foreground has been narrowed and has lost some of its dark outline, with a single row of white tesserae inserted to separate it from the border. The chariot is not seen. In the drawing, on the other hand, the whole scene is complete, with a generous amount of space around it. It includes the chariot and both of the wheels although, as Blanco Freijeiro notes, one wheel is missing in the original.45

In some respects the drawing is more plausible than the original which has undergone repairs during its long history. For instance, the tail of the horse in the foreground is shown. The shape of the chariot is realistic, being drawn as a curved three-dimensional object in which the charioteer is standing, rather than seeming to be a twodimensional surface appearing to terminate in a point as seen today in the mosaic itself. The wheel at lower right is at a more natural angle. The palm branch continues below the charioteer’s hand and the reins pass around his waist.

Thuillier comments in relation to the original mosaic that this is the only charioteer in the set who has the reins clearly around his waist,46 a point that the drawing reflects.

The details of the charioteer in the original panel have been described as ‘un peu bizarres’.41 He does not wear the usual helmet or protective bands around his torso like the charioteers in the other two panels, but is bare-headed and dressed in a loose tunic, aspects that the drawing reflects. Whitehouse notes repair in the area of the rear legs of the horses and the wheel.42 It seems probable, as Dunbabin suggests,43 that the area with the charioteer has also been repaired, possibly at more than one time. Not only is he unusually attired but his head looks as if it was made by a different hand from that of his companion.

The original panels show the clothing of the various figures in multi-coloured stripes. One colour predominates for the charioteers, respectively blue, red and green indicating the circus factions. The Topham drawings make little attempt to reflect this, save that the charioteer in Bn.5:35 is correctly dressed in blue, albeit with red and yellow decoration, and the bands around the torso of the charioteer in Bn.5:36 are red, albeit that the underlying garment is blue. These small indications of faithfulness to the original colours, which were an important part of the original representations, might be coincidental. It is also notable that the clothing of the sparsor in Bn.5:35 does not match the colour of the charioteer he attends, whereas this is the case in the original. Similarly, there is a discrepancy in the colours of the clothing worn by the other accompanying figures in these panels.

In the mosaic depicted in Bn.5:36 the charioteer is shown frontally with his head turned slightly to his left (Figure 3.4). He is flanked by two figures. The man to his left holds a staff, and the man to his right raises his right hand in acclamation. Blanco Freijeiro notes the small amphora held in the left hand of the latter figure which identifies

The colour of the horses also differs from the originals. In all three drawings the animals are mostly shown in

The horses cannot, therefore, be galloping as Dunbabin suggests (1982, 88). 41  Thuillier 2003, 296. 42  Whitehouse 2001, 186, 188; see also Dunbabin 1982, 73, noting ‘considerable restoration’; de Lachenal 2000, 657. 43  Dunbabin 2016, 158, n.72: ‘Restoration has affected some of the details, especially the driver of the Blue chariot, who wears an unparalleled costume.’ 40 

Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138-139; Thuillier 2003, 300-302, also discussing the role of the figure to the charioteer’s left. 45  Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138. 46  Thuillier 2003, 303. He also discusses (304-305) the role of the figure accompanying the charioteer. 44 

33

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library shades of brown with one grey horse in Bn.5:38. The original panels depict the horses in each team in a variety of colours, with the individual shades varying from cream to dark grey and fawn to mid-brown. Despite the free approach to colour, the drawings faithfully include the small amulets worn by some of the horses.

versions Pietro Santi has shown his clothing as pale yellow with blue decoration, a colour-scheme repeated for the accompanying figure. Francesco used the same colours for the charioteer’s clothing but not for that of the man accompanying him. The position of the whip in relation to the palm branch is shown differently in the various records. In the original panel it slightly overlaps the tip of the palm and this is reflected in most of the drawings. In the dal Pozzo drawing, however, the whip stops short of the palm, and in the Topham drawing it extends across and beyond it.

The chariots are also drawn in colours that depart from the originals: red and gold instead of red and white in Bn.5:35 and yellow instead of red in Bn.5:36. The chariot in Bn.5:38 is missing from the original but yellow in the drawing.

In all of Pietro Santi’s drawings of the three panels the fronds of the palm branches are more luxuriant than in the originals, but they are most varied in his versions of the mosaic shown by Francesco in Bn.5:38. The number and placement of the fronds differs from drawing to drawing, but those in the Glasgow version are closest to the Topham drawing.

Pietro Santi Bartoli had previously drawn all three panels for the Glasgow volume.47 Another two of his drawings are in the dal Pozzo collection48 and two are at Holkham,49 in both cases omitting the frontally-depicted charioteer seen in Bn.5:36. Sketches by Pietro Santi of the three panels are included in the Vittoria album.50 All of Pietro Santi’s drawings of the panel in Bn.5:35 are close to the original. The depiction of the horses’ forelegs is more accurate than Francesco’s rendering. The blue colouring of the clothing worn by the charioteer and sparsor is reflected in the coloured versions. Like his son’s drawing, Pietro Santi shows the reins, palm branch and wheel more realistically than in the restored original. However, the horse in the foreground lacks a tail and the chariot, although the correct colour, has the unconvincing shape seen in the panel. This could suggest that the restoration had taken place before Pietro Santi made his records but that he rationalised some elements.

Although he did not use cross-hatching, Francesco’s work is otherwise similar to that of his father. This is especially notable in the colouring of the horses and also in the charioteer’s clothing in Bn.5:38, the colours of which differ markedly from the original but match those used by Pietro Santi. It seems likely that Francesco worked from his father’s records but made ‘improvements’ in the process. Gladiatorial scenes The mosaics shown in Bn.5:14 and Bn.5:17 were wall emblemata found in 1670 in a bath building in the Orto del Carciofolo. They came from the same location just outside Porta Capena as the Nereids mosaic in Bn.13:26 which is discussed in Chapter 8.52 Each emblema shows a gladiatorial fight in two registers.

Pietro Santi’s coloured drawing of the panel in Bn.5:36, which is included only in the Glasgow volume, shows the correct number of horses’ legs as well as the mouth of the amphora which is just visible.51 The colour of the charioteer’s attire is more muted than in the original but his chariot is correctly shown as red. The traces of the horses’ tails seen near the centre of the Topham drawing are not included. The Vittoria sketch is similar to the Glasgow drawing but the mouth of the amphora is not indicated.

The original emblemata have recently received detailed and authoritative treatment from Dunbabin, who has reviewed previous discussions and clarified a number of issues.53 The gladiators in the mosaic depicted in Bn.5:14 have in the past been described as murmillones but are now accepted as equites.54 Those in Bn.5:17 are a secutor and a retiarius.55

All of Pietro Santi’s drawings of the panel in Bn.5:38 are similar to the Topham drawing in showing the chariot with two wheels, but the body of the chariot is small and placed low down. In the original mosaic and the dal Pozzo and Vittoria drawings, the charioteer’s head is turned slightly to his right, but it faces straight ahead in the Topham drawing while his gaze is directed to his right. In the coloured

The Topham drawings are unfinished. They both omit the inscriptions that are a feature of the originals. Bn.5:14 also omits the two shields in the upper register, while the strikingly colourful shields in the lower register are rendered in shades of grey.

Glasgow CXX-CXXII; Pace 1979, 150, nos 99-101. RCIN 911402, RCIN 911401; Whitehouse 2001, 188-191, nos 43, 44. 49  Holkham I, 36-37. Whitehouse accepts these drawings as by Pietro Santi (2001, 188, 190; 2014, 286, n.44); cf Ashby (1916, 38, nos 36-37) and Aymonino and Modolo (2020, 41), attributing them to Francesco. 50  https://rct.uk/collection/909664, https://rct.uk/collection/909665, https://rct.uk/collection/909669, accessed 23 November 2020. 51  Pace does not mention this item but instead regards the figure as holding the whip (1979, 150). This seems to have been a common misconception: see Thuillier 2003, 300-301. 47 

In the lower register of the emblema depicted in Bn.5:14 (Figure 3.6) the two gladiators fight one another. Each

48 

Blake 1940, 112; de Lachenal 2000, 630; Whitehouse 2001, 176, 178; Dunbabin 2016, 217; and especially Modolo 2016, 198-201, fig. 58. 53  Dunbabin 2016, 217-222. 54  See, for instance, Dunbabin 2016, 217; Modolo 2016, 203. 55  For clarification of the costume and weapons of the various types of gladiator, see Dunbabin 2016, 226-229. 52 

34

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome carries a small round shield in his left hand and brandishes a sword in his right hand. They wear visors over their faces, short white tunics, fasciae (leg-bindings), and wide-rimmed helmets in which feathers are inserted. The drawing omits the visors and shows the tunics as yellow and red respectively. The fasciae are drawn as knee-high boots. The feathers are turned into wings in the helmet worn by the gladiator on the right and are missing completely from the helmet worn by the gladiator on the left.

them or had some other means of identifying the prone figure. Maternus appears on the left in the lower register and on the right in the upper register of the original. The yellow clothing in the drawing matches the figures in these positions which seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Habilis, however, is shown with a red tunic in the lower register but a white one in the upper register, presumably because Bartoli interpreted this figure in the upper register as an umpire.

The gladiators are flanked by a pair of umpires who also wear white tunics.56 The umpire on the right holds a staff. They are bare-legged and wear shoes but in the drawing they have knee-high boots.

A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume and another in the Berlin Staatliche Museen originally from the dal Pozzo collection include the inscriptions and all of the shields.61 Only the gladiator at lower right has feathers – drawn as wings – in his helmet, and the shields are much plainer than in the original.

The upper register shows the combatant on the right lying face down amid copious quantities of blood. A helmet lies on the ground beside him. In the drawing his tunic is yellow instead of white and there is no helmet on the ground. He is approached by his adversary who is now bare-headed. An umpire stands to the left holding a staff.

The inscriptions in both drawings show an I in place of Y in the two instances of SYMMACHIVS. The Glasgow drawing gives NELO instead of NECO, a spelling also used in the sketch of the mosaic in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.62 The Berlin drawing splits the word MATERNVS in the lower register differently, so that only the letters MA are to the left of the gladiator’s head. The umpires are bare-legged and wear shoes as in the original but some of the gladiators wear knee-high boots; only the upper right gladiator in the Glasgow drawing wears fasciae, while all except the upper left gladiator wear fasciae in the Berlin drawing.

All three figures in the upper register have been given knee-high boots in the drawing. In the emblema, the fasciae worn by the central figure confirm that he is one of the gladiators and not an umpire, contrary to some previous suggestions.57 He is the victor bending over his opponent to deliver the fatal blow. The Greek letter theta after MATERNVS in the original inscription indicates that the outcome was death.58

Both drawings show the visors being worn by the fighting gladiators in the lower register and by the prone gladiator in the upper register. The helmet lying beside the latter figure appears in the Glasgow drawing but has been replaced by a rock-like feature in the Berlin drawing. The shield at upper left, which directly abuts the umpire in the original, slightly overlaps his tunic in the Glasgow drawing as if it is in front of him, and overlaps even more in the Berlin drawing.

The gladiator on the left in the lower register is holding his sword awkwardly, with his wrist to the front, whereas his pose is more realistic in the drawing. Similarly, the visor of the prone gladiator is replaced by colourful stripes in the original. These factors suggest that restoration was carried out at a later date. The helmet lying on the ground might also have been restored since it looks more realistic in the Glasgow drawing discussed below, which shows it upside down with a hint of its feather.

Of these two drawings, the Glasgow version has fewer inaccuracies and for that reason was probably the first.63 Another drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the RIBA collections seems to represent a subsequent version since it follows the Berlin drawing in the spacing of MATERNVS but tidies up the M of FERRVM which is placed above the line in the original inscription.64 The helmet on the ground is omitted entirely. Colours are introduced for three of the gladiators’ tunics and for the shields, although the latter

Two other names appear in the inscriptions in the original emblema - SYMMACHIVS and HABILIS. This has led to discussion as to which applies to the victorious gladiator.59 It is now generally accepted that Habilis is the gladiator’s name and Symmachius is not depicted but played an important role in the event.60 Although the inscriptions have been omitted from the drawing, it seems that Bartoli might have been aware of

Glasgow CXXIII; Pace 1979, 150, no. 102, pl. XXVIb. Berlin Staatliche Museen Kupferstichkabinett KdZ 27789, cited by de Lachenal 2000, 656, fig. on 657; Modolo 2016, 203-204, fig. 61. 62  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.lat.4423, f.27 [no. 32], accessed 23 November 2020. 63  See also the comments in Modolo 2016, 199, 203, n.23, noting that it was commissioned soon after the discovery of the mosaic. 64  RIBA VOS/84, f.29(1); https://architecture.com/image-library/ ribapix.html?keywords=RIBA82228, accessed 23 November 2020; Modolo 2016, 199, 203-204, no. 21, pl. LXIV. The drawing correctly reads NECO, suggesting that there was a simple error in the Glasgow version. 61 

Blake describes these figures in both emblemata as trainers (1940, 112113) but they are now generally accepted as umpires. 57  See, for instance, Blake 140, 113. 58  Blake 1940, 113; Dunbabin 2016, 218. 59  See, for instance, Hübner 1862, 196; Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 136; de Lachenal 2000, 656. 60  Sabbatini Tumolesi gives a detailed analysis of the scene and the inscriptions, explaining why Habilis and not Symmachius is Maternus’s opponent (1988, 103-105). For the role of Symmachius, see also Dunbabin 2016, 219: the editor, the presiding magistrate; Modolo 2016, 203 : the editor or munerarius. 56 

35

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library In the drawing the drapery worn by the retiarius is yellow and green, whereas the colours in the mosaic are a variety of muted earth tones. The clothing of the secutor is also muted in the original but red in the drawing. The colours of the shield seen in both registers are brighter in the drawing and some of the details of the shield in the upper register are missing. The white tunics worn by the umpires in the drawing reflect those in the mosaic, albeit with red rather than blue stripes. The umpire on the right of the upper register is shown as bearded whereas he is clean-shaven in the mosaic.

are still not as bright as in the original mosaic. Two of the gladiators wear fasciae and none wears a visor. The Topham drawing is closest to the version in the RIBA collections.65 By giving knee-high boots to all figures and distinguishing Maternus in both scenes by the colour of his tunic, Francesco Bartoli has added a further amendment of his own. A drawing at Holkham, which is much more in the style of Pietro Santi than Francesco to whom it is usually attributed, appears to be an unfinished version of the scene.66 Like the Topham drawing, it lacks the inscriptions and also omits the staffs held by the two umpires but there are significant differences: all the figures wear white tunics, the rock on the ground is included in place of the helmet, and the visors are shown.67

The drawing lacks the inscriptions in the mosaic, which record the name of the victorious secutor as ASTYANAX and his defeated opponent as KALENDIO, followed by the Greek letter theta.69 As with Bn.5:14, a drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume includes the inscriptions.70 It shows an I in place of a Y for ASTYANAX. The secutor has bindings on both legs in both scenes, suggesting a lack of understanding of the role of the greave in the original. His visor is visible in the upper register but not the lower, where the face matches the flesh tones of the body and legs. The retiarius has bare feet in the lower register and a sandal on his visible foot in the upper register. The umpires all wear short boots. The umpire at upper right is not bearded, as is also the case in the sketch of this mosaic in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.71

The second emblema is depicted in Bn.5:17 (Figure 3.7). In the lower register, a secutor is shown on the left fighting a retiarius on the right. An umpire stands to the right, holding a staff and raising his right hand. The retiarius wears drapery around his lower body and left arm and has a galerus (shoulder guard) protecting his left shoulder.68 He wields a trident whose prongs are not delineated and has thrown the net over his opponent. The secutor wears a loin-cloth and helmet. He holds a large rectangular shield in his left hand and a short sword in his right hand. The upper register shows the retiarius after he has fallen to the ground with blood pouring from his wounds, having cast away the trident which appears horizontally between the two registers. In the drawing the trident is wrongly shown at the top of the lower register. The retiarius holds a short sword in his outstretched right hand. His opponent is in the same pose that he adopts in the lower register. Umpires stand to left and right with their right arms raised. The umpire on the left holds a staff in his left hand.

Another version by Pietro Santi Bartoli is similar to the Glasgow drawing and was later published by Caylus and Mariette.72 A notable variation, however, is that the umpire at upper right has been given a beard as in the Topham drawing and in a sketch by Pietro Santi in the Vittoria album.73 A drawing at Holkham also shows the beard but introduces some differences: the secutor’s visor is not shown in either register, he has acquired armour around his chest in the lower register, and the trident wielded by the retiarius is clearly defined. The Holkham drawing is evidently unfinished as the horizontally-placed trident is barely sketched in and lacks its prongs, and the inscriptions are not included. It is usually attributed to Francesco Bartoli74 but it has the delicate palette and characteristic shading of Pietro Santi, who is the more probable artist.

The drawing shows the two gladiators wearing sandals and fasciae, although the fasciae of the gladiator on the right in the lower register are coloured as if they are bindings for the sandals. The umpires are shown wearing knee-high boots. In the mosaic, however, the left leg of the secutor is protected by a white greave, while the right foot wears a sandal in the lower register but is bare in the upper register. The retiarius is bare-footed in the lower register but straps around his ankle suggest that he is wearing a sandal on his visible foot in the upper register. The umpires wear short boots similar to those in the drawing, save that the left foot of the umpire in the lower register is unshod. Restoration of the mosaic probably accounts for some of the discrepancies.

As with the theta after MATERNVS in the other emblema; see Blake 1940, 113; Dunbabin 2016, 219. Sabbatini Tumolesi gives an analysis of the scene and the inscriptions (1988, 106). 70  Glasgow CXXIV; Pace 1979, 150, no. 103. 71  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.lat.4423, f.28 [no. 34], accessed 23 November 2020. 72  Caylus and Mariette 1757, fig. XXXI; Modolo 2016, 202, no. 20. 73  https://rct.uk/collection/909668, accessed 23 November 2020; Modolo 2016, fig. 59. 74  Holkham I, 50; Ashby 1916, 39, no. 50. Modolo accepts this drawing as by Francesco (2016, 202; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 41). It is not included in Whitehouse’s list of those she considers are by Pietro Santi (2014, 286, n.44). 69 

Modolo reaches the same conclusion (2016, 204). Holkham I, 61; Ashby 39, no. 61. Whitehouse attributes this drawing to Pietro Santi (2014, 286, n.44) but Modolo regards it as by Francesco, following his father’s work (2016, 203-204; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 41). 67  Modolo regards the drawing originally in the dal Pozzo collection as Francesco’s model for the Holkham drawing (2016, 204). 68  Not a small shield as Blake has suggested (1940, 113). 65  66 

36

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome In Francesco Bartoli’s version for Topham, the shape of the drapery hanging over the wrist of the retiarius in the lower register resembles his father’s drawing published by Caylus. The end of this piece of cloth looks like a ribbon in the Glasgow and Vittoria drawings and is missing from the Holkham drawing altogether, where a much more sleeve-like effect is created. On the other hand, a feature in the shape of a reverse L appearing vertically by the lower trident in the Topham drawing – perhaps a misunderstanding of the line of the net – does not appear in the Caylus or Holkham versions but only in the Glasgow and Vittoria drawings. It seems probable that Francesco Bartoli was drawing on notes and sketches made by his father which Pietro Santi had not necessarily used in a consistent manner.75

As well as the sketch in the Vittoria album, Pietro Santi Bartoli had previously drawn this mosaic for the dal Pozzo collection and for the Glasgow volume,82 and is regarded as the artist of the drawing at Holkham.83 There is also a drawing of this fragment by Gaetano Piccini in the Corsini codex.84

Nilotic scenes

In the original mosaic the crocodile’s scales are rendered by jagged edges along its back and by four stylised scales on its flank. The Glasgow drawing is closest to this, with the scales being less prominent and/or more numerous in the other drawings. On the other hand, the drawings all exaggerate the teeth. They are indistinct in the original but there are perhaps four on the lower jaw and at least one sharp tooth on the upper jaw. The Topham drawing shows six in the lower jaw and two in the upper. It does not match any of the other versions: the Glasgow drawing shows five and three respectively; the dal Pozzo drawing seven and four; the Holkham drawing six and four; the Vittoria sketch seven and three; and the Corsini drawing six and perhaps three. This lack of unanimity suggests that the artists added the teeth spontaneously each time, perhaps because the details were not clear in the original.

All the drawings show an apparent bracelet around the left wrist of the man. It is uncoloured in the Topham and Vittoria drawings, red in the dal Pozzo, Holkham and Corsini versions, and yellow in the Glasgow drawing. Although it is tempting to interpret this as a misunderstanding of the wrist joint, 85 there is a yellow line here in the original, together with a small pale grey diagonal line which is difficult to interpret but could perhaps be the end of a cord or ribbon.

Three of the fragments now in Madrid are thought to be parts of the same Nilotic mosaic. It is not known when or where they were found but this must have been before 1674, the date of the Glasgow volume containing drawings of them.76 The Topham collection has drawings of two of them, omitting the third fragment which shows five figures in a cart.77 The scene shown in Bn.5:2 depicts a crocodile emerging from water onto land to attack a man who has his back against a tree trunk (Figure 3.8). Although the top of the tree is not shown, the trunk resembles that of a palm, while a second palm is included to the right. Hübner describes the man as wearing a loincloth78 but this is not apparent in the original and not clearly shown in any of the drawings of this fragment. In a sketch in the Vittoria album the blood gushing from the man’s wound bears some resemblance to a loincloth.79

Only the Topham drawing shows the palm tree on the right as complete, with a generous area of sky above. All the other drawings more accurately reflect the original in showing it as slightly cropped, indicating that Bartoli ‘improved’ the composition here.

The Topham drawing is reasonably faithful to the original mosaic, which shows signs of restoration.80 It replicates the effect of the crocodile’s tail seen under water and captures the way blood is spurting from the wounded man, but the single rock at lower right has been rendered as a small pile of boulders.81 The whole of the palm tree on the right is shown in the drawing and the trunk of the central tree is taller. The man has dark hair and a suitably intense expression in the original but in the drawing he is shown with fair hair and his expression does not capture the sense of alarm.

The Glasgow drawing is closest to the original, suggesting that it was the first to be made. It shows a single rock at lower right, as does the Vittoria sketch, whereas in the dal Pozzo and Holkham versions, as well as the Topham drawing, the pale area of ground adjacent to the rock has become a pile of stones, and there is a hint of this in the Corsini drawing. Only the Glasgow drawing correctly shows the forked upper frond in the plant between the two tree-trunks. It depicts the paler area at lower left as a patch of earth between areas of grass, whereas a degree of stylisation is introduced in the other drawings, with the earth resembling a path. This is notable in the Topham drawing but even more so in the Corsini version.

Modolo suggests different models for the Topham and Holkham drawings (2016, 204). 76  de Lachenal 2000, 630, 658; Whitehouse 2001, 179-180. For a detailed discussion of all three fragments, see Versluys 2000. 77  Lavagne 2001, 52, pl. on 53; de Lachenal 2000, 630, 658, cat. 30, fig. on 659; Whitehouse 2001, 184-185, no. 42. She notes (180) that the three scenes do not form a coherent narrative and plausibly suggests that ‘they were probably the only retrievable fragments of a badly damaged mosaic’. 78  Hübner 1862, 198. 79  https://rct.uk/collection/909681, accessed 23 November 2020. 80  Fileri 2000, 135; Whitehouse 2001, 180. 81  The suggestion by Versluys that this feature is a large lotus flower is not convincing (2000, 240). 75 

RCIN 911404; Whitehouse 2001, 180-181, fig. 40. Glasgow CXVIII; Pace 1979, 149, no.97. 83  Holkham I, 30; Whitehouse 2001, 181; Whitehouse 2014, 286, n.44; cf Ashby (1916, no. 30) and Aymonino and Modolo (2020, 41) attributing it to Francesco. 84  158 I 5, 130172; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 72, pl. 13,1; Fileri 2000, 135, no. 71, fig. on 131. 85  Cf Whitehouse 2001, 180: ‘perhaps shading’. 82 

37

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library The scene shown in Bn.5:71 depicts two men (Figure 3.9). One is bearded and wears a loin-cloth and a pointed hat. He holds a linear feature vertically in one hand while pouring something from a large vessel which rests on its side on a plinth which obscures his legs. On the left of the drawing, the incomplete figure of a naked man is moving out of view.

Unlike the Topham drawing, these other records are not reversed and do not feature the additions made by Francesco Bartoli. The colours are more accurate and the rod is shorter. The Holkham drawing only hints at the lines indicating water in the background. The contents being poured from the vessel have the flowing lines of water in all the drawings, albeit that only the Topham drawing uses blue.

In the Eton Finding Aid, Sleech recorded this scene as: ‘Two men one pouring water – Strange’.86 Reinach lists this item under ‘Sujets mythologiques très obscurs’.87 Versluys interprets the scene as taking place on a narrow strip of land next to a river and considers that it shows grain being poured into a basin.88 Whitehouse, on the other hand, notes that in the original fragment the background depicts water. She plausibly suggests that the scene is intended to show a water-lifting device typically seen in Egypt.89 Although the original fragment shows signs of damage and perhaps restoration, the contents of the vessel are depicted in shades of grey and white similar to the water in the background and inconsistent with the colour of grain.

Bn.5:71 remains an oddity within the collection as it is unclear why it shows the fragment in reverse. The most likely explanation is that it was drawn from or for an engraving but no engraving or publication project is known.95 Perhaps Bartoli worked from a drawing by another artist which had been reversed with publication in mind. Given that the Corsini codex contains drawings by Gaetano Piccini of the scene in Bn.5:2 and the fragment depicting figures in a cart, it is likely that Piccini would also have drawn this fragment if it had been available. Bartoli and Piccini worked closely together and, as discussed in Chapter 8, Piccini was involved in preparing engravings for publication. A drawing by him, so far unidentified, is a possible source.

Whitehouse identifies the pointed hat worn by the man in this fragment and by two men in the fragment not illustrated in the Topham collection as ‘probably the large floppy leaves of the pink lotus, Nelumbo nucifera, which could be worn inverted as improvised sun-hats’.90 A similar hat with its stem visible is seen in Bn.4:22 discussed in Chapter 5.

The Mosaics of Santa Costanza Seven drawings in album Bn.7 show mosaics from Santa Costanza in Rome. Six are details of the barrel vault mosaics which still survive, though restored, in the ambulatory (Bn.7:89-Bn.7:94). One shows half of the destroyed mosaic from the cupola (Bn.7:96) which also features in an engraving discussed in Chapter 8 (Bn.13:2). An eighth drawing of the Bacchic pavement allegedly from Santa Costanza is also considered here for convenience, although its provenance is uncertain and its authenticity is controversial (Bn.6:50).

Comparison with the original fragment shows that, as Pace notes,91 the Topham drawing is reversed. Bartoli has completed the upraised arm and hand of the man with the vessel and has also shown more of the second man than survives. Instead of depicting the water in the background with horizontal grey and white lines as in the original, he has used a solid bright blue. The first man’s hat and loincloth are shown as yellow and red respectively but are grey/green in the original. The ground is depicted as fawn with shadows from the second man’s legs, whereas this area has mostly dark-coloured tesserae in the original. The rod92 extends across the mouth of the vessel to rest on the plinth, whereas in the original it appears to end at the horizontal bar of the cross-piece in the vessel’s mouth.

Much has been written about the Santa Costanza mosaics and the various early records of them.96 It is a large and specialised topic which extends far beyond the scope of this book. As it has been addressed thoroughly by others, the interested reader is referred to the key references provided in the Catalogue entries. The aim here is a modest and limited one: to focus on the Topham drawings and to highlight some points of interest that arise from comparing

Pietro Santi Bartoli had previously drawn this mosaic for the dal Pozzo collection and for the Glasgow volume.93 He is also the probable artist of the drawing at Holkham.94

n.44). Ashby (1916, 39, no. 63) and Aymonino and Modolo (2020, 41) attribute it to Francesco. Versluys illustrates a drawing which he attributes to Gaetano Piccini but the presence of the caduceus and initials stamped by Eton shows that this is Bartoli’s Topham drawing reproduced in reverse (2000, 238, pl. 18b). 95  I am grateful to Lucy Gwynn for double-checking that the drawing is not in chalk (in which case it could have been related to an off-set) and to Celeste Farge of the British Museum for discussing the reverse orientation. The explanation I tentatively offer here is speculative but is included in the hope that it might prompt further research. 96  See especially Amadio’s succinct summary of previous work, different interpretations of the imagery, and the later restorations (1986, 5-6, 1017. Figs 1-11 show the extent of the original vault mosaics, taken from G. Matthiae, Mosaici Medioevali delle Chiese di Roma (1967)). For background about the mosaic in the cupola and those in the ambulatory vault, see Stern 1958, 166-169, 192-194; Modolo 2016, 252-254. In the footnotes that follow, and in the Catalogue, I cite only the main entries from Amadio’s catalogue.

Finding Aid 4, 23. Reinach 1922, 218, no. 3. 88  Versluys 2000, 240, 248-249; 2002, 85. 89  Whitehouse 2001, 182. Cacciotti also considers that liquid is being poured (1996, 230). 90  Whitehouse 2001, 179; see also 182, 184. 91  Pace 1979, 149, no. 96. 92  Whitehouse 2001, 182: a rod or taut rope. 93  RCIN 911403; Whitehouse 2001, 182-183, fig. 41. Glasgow CXVII; Pace 1979, 149, no. 96. 94  Holkham I, 63. Whitehouse (2001, 182) does not include this drawing in her later list of those she considers are by Pietro Santi (2014, 286, 86  87 

38

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome them with the mosaics as they exist today and with other records.

All the drawings of the ambulatory mosaics are in a rectangular format, making no attempt to reflect the curved surface of the original or to indicate the position of the windows.

Bn.7:89-Bn.7:94 and Bn.7:96 are signed on the back by Francesco Bartoli and have the incorrect annotation ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ in Topham’s hand.97 Bn.6:50 bears the name of Francesco Bartoli between the borders, with ‘Fran.co’ at bottom left and ‘Bartoli’ at bottom right.98 A caption on the back reads ‘Pavimento di Bacco del Palazzo d’Augusto’ in Topham’s hand.

Although these are attractive drawings based on the originals rather than accurate records, they are a valuable resource since they reflect the mosaics before extensive restoration was carried out in the nineteenth century. Stern noted the importance of the Topham drawings in this respect, even though they are ‘reproductions très libres et même des variations sur le thème de ces mosaïques plutôt que des copies’.101

The drawings of the vault mosaics each have a red outer border but the treatment of the inner borders varies. Bn.7:89 and Bn.7:90 each have an inner border in a darker shade of red, suggesting that they were made at the same time. Bn.7:93 is similar but with a thin blue line within the darker red inner border. Bn.7:91, Bn.7:92 and Bn.7:94 each have colourful ribbon borders replicating the borders in the mosaics themselves. They appear, for instance, in some of Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawings of the vault mosaics.99 In the case of Bn.7:92 and Bn.7:94, the ribbon borders are edged with blue and red respectively, while in Bn.7:91 the edging consists of two thin lines in the darker shade of red. Bn.7:96, showing part of the cupola mosaic, has the usual red outer border with a thinner black inner border, and the edge of the semicircle is a thin line in the darker shade of red. Bn.6:50 has a red outer border with a thinner black inner border.

Geometric mosaic with crosses and octagons Bn.7:92 is a purely geometric design showing rows of alternating crosses and octagons (Figure 3.10). The drawing represents only a small area extracted from Vault I of the mosaic.102 Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawing in the Glasgow volume is slightly more extensive, while his version in the RIBA collections shows only a corner of the mosaic.103 Amadio considers that Francesco Bartoli did not base his drawing on the mosaic itself but must have worked from a drawing made by his father, since his drawing does not correspond to the original.104 In fact, Pietro Santi’s drawings are reasonably faithful and any discrepancies or ‘improvements’ appear to have been introduced by Francesco.

To be consistent with the main studies of the vault mosaics the drawings of these are discussed here in the order in which the mosaics appear to a visitor walking around the building, but this does not match the order in which they have been numbered in the Topham collection.

Geometric mosaic with dolphins Bn.7:91 shows a geometric design based on star and lozenge shapes (Figure 3.11). Alternating stars include four dolphins arranged diagonally with their heads converging on a motif of four wavy red lines emanating from a blue circle, identified as an octopus by Stern,105 or one of two foliate motifs.

The mosaic above the entrance is the geometric design shown in Bn.7:92. The other designs appear twice, in similar but not identical form, on either side of the ambulatory. The geometric design incorporating dolphins (Bn.7:91) is followed by the design with figures and animals (Bn.7:93), the mosaic with vintaging scenes (Bn.7:89), the design with circles enclosing busts (Bn.7:94), and finally the scheme with branches, birds and vessels (Bn.7:90).100 The discussion below explains which of the paired vaults is featured in each drawing. Four of the five drawings all reflect the mosaics in vaults on the same side of the ambulatory (Vaults IX-XII), with only Bn.7:90 being based on part of Vault VI rather than Vault VIII. Whether this choice was made for aesthetic reasons or was influenced by factors such as ease of access or the state of preservation is unclear, but it does seem significant.

In the mosaics as they exist today, the number of stars is considerably greater than the four rows of three stars that Bartoli has included. In Vault II the dolphins occupy each star,106 but in Vault XII some of the stars have heart-shaped leaves107 or other foliate motifs; unlike the arrangement in the drawing, there is no regular pattern to the appearance of the dolphins or the other motifs.108

Stern 1958, 193-194, n.197. See Stern 1958, fig. 30. 103  Glasgow LXXVII; Pace 1979, 143, no. 60; Amadio 1986, 60, no. 31. For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. 104  Amadio 1986, 73. 105  Stern 1958, 195. 106  Stern 1958, fig. 31. 107  Stern 1958, 195, n.207, citing the Topham drawing as evidence that these were original features. 108  None of the works I have consulted has an illustration of Vault XII. Photographs can be found online, including in the Wikipedia entry, by searching for ‘Santa Costanza mosaics’ (accessed 23 November 2020) but not in any scholarly sources that I have been able to locate. 101  102 

For incorrect locations, especially on drawings of the Santa Costanza vault mosaics, see Lanciani 1895, 171. 98  This can be compared to the placement of Bartoli’s name/initials on the Holkham drawings II, 26-28 mentioned below. 99  Glasgow LXXVI, XCI; Pace 1979, 143, no. 59, 145, no. 71. RIBA VOS/84, f.15 (one drawing covering all six of the vault designs); https:// architecture.com/image-library/ribapix.html?keywords=RIBA82212, accessed 23 November 2020; Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII. 100  Oakeshott 1967, 61, fig. 2. 97 

39

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawings in the Glasgow volume and in the RIBA collections show the dolphins in each star.109 The Glasgow drawing depicts four rows of four, while the RIBA drawing shows only a corner of the mosaic. Unless Pietro Santi produced other drawings or notes of which we have no knowledge, it would seem that Francesco based his drawing on the actual mosaic in Vault XII.

suggesting that Francesco did not work from his father’s records. Only the lamb – which also features in the small extract in the RIBA drawing – and the woman in a long tunic with a veil floating above her head can be identified in each drawing, with the woman’s tunic shown as yellow and the veil as blue by each artist. An engraving of this mosaic published by Ciampini is very different from the drawings, being much cruder, less detailed, and with some of the circles blank.115

Figures and animals In Bn.7:93 an interlacing red line bordered by white creates two rows of three circles (Figure 3.12). Each circle contains a full-length figure. All the figures in the upper row are female and wear long tunics. The central female is flying towards the left and has large wings. The two flanking females are shown frontally and have smaller, butterfly-like wings. From left to right, they hold a vessel and a dish with ? fruit; a large basket of fruit; and a dish and a torch with flames emerging from a cornucopia-like feature. The central figure in the lower row is also female. She wears a long tunic and there is a veil shown floating above her head. She faces left and holds a dish of ? fruit in her left hand. On the left, a winged Cupid holds a dish in his right hand and cornucopia in his left hand. A similar Cupid on the right holds a dish in his left hand and a pedum in his right hand.

Vintaging scene Bn.7:89 shows a wreathed, apparently female, bust depicted frontally in the centre of the design (Figure 3.13). The bust is surrounded by vines in which two birds perch. Naked winged Cupids are harvesting grapes. On either side are scenes showing the grapes being transported in a cart pulled by oxen and then trodden in a vat contained within a pedimented structure by three figures who each wear a loincloth and hold a stick.116 The juice pours through animal-headed spouts into large jars on the ground.117 The oxen in the scene at upper left partly obscure the man who is guiding them. He is shown frontally with his whip extended sideways. Another man walks behind the cart and carries a basket of grapes. There are two winged Cupids in the vine above and another near the pedimented roof at lower left. At lower right, the man guiding the oxen is to the rear of the animals and wields his upraised whip energetically. Another man stands in front of the oxen tugging on the reins. A winged Cupid climbs the vine behind the cart.

In the space between the rows and left of centre is a recumbent lamb with a staff on which is a circular feature, perhaps a type of flabellum,110 while the equivalent space to the right of centre has a recumbent griffin with a thyrsus. Each of the ten spaces around the edge of the design contains a different species of bird. Floral motifs occupy the small circles around the medallions.

In Vault X of the mosaic as it now exists,118 the central bust is not wreathed and is looking to his or her right. The scenes with the ox-carts are shown in the opposite positions to those in the drawing. In all, there are six wingless figures clambering in the vines and many birds. The corresponding Vault IV is slightly different. In particular, each ox-cart is only accompanied by one man,119 making it clear that Vault X is the one shown in Bartoli’s drawing.

The mosaics in Vaults III and XI contain far more figures than are shown in the drawing, and they are not all viewed from the same direction.111 Although winged Cupids abound, most of the female figures lack wings.112 A recumbent lamb appears in both vaults but neither has a griffin. A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume covers a much greater extent than the Topham drawing. It shows three whole rows of three circles with half-circles on each of the four sides.113 His version in the RIBA collections shows only a corner of the mosaic.114 Like the Topham drawing, the main figures are all viewed from the same direction.

The identity of the central bust is uncertain, as is that of its counterpart in Vault IV. Given that the latter represents later restoration,120 it is not clear whether these busts were intended to represent a man and a woman. If so, the possibility has been raised that they could depict Constantia and her husband,121 but other scholars recognise the difficulties and prefer not to settle on an identification.122

Comparison of the main figures and their attributes in Pietro Santi’s Glasgow drawing with those in the Topham drawing reveals that there are few figures common to both,

Ciampini 1693, pl. XXX; Amadio 1986, 68-70, no. 42. The context of the stick suggests that its purpose was related to the grape-harvest and that it was not a pedum or lagobolon. Such sticks were used to pull down vines that were too high to reach: see the comments by Jubaru about the similarly-shaped stick seen in Bn.6:50 (1904, 460, n.1). 117  Compare the similar scene in the well known mosaic from SaintRomain-en-Gal (Lancha 1981, 208-225, no. 368, esp. 217 (compartment XXIV), pls CVIII, CIX, CXVIIIb). 118  Stern 1958, fig. 33. 119  Oakeshott 1967, pl. 38. 120  Cf Amadio 1986, fig. 4. 121  Oakeshott 1967, 62. 122  For instance, Stern 1958, 200; see also Amadio 1986, 63, 69-70. 115  116 

Glasgow LXXVI; Pace 1979, 143, no. 59; Amadio 1986, 60, no. 32. For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. 110  Stern 1958, 197. 111  Stern 1958, fig. 32, for Vault XI; Oakeshott 1967, colour pl. VII and Dunbabin 1999, fig. 263, for Vault III. 112  Stern notes a Psyche in Vault XI and a winged Cupid in Vault III (1958, 197). 113  Glasgow LXXVIII; Pace 1979, 144, no. 61; Amadio 1986, 60, 63, no. 33, fig. on 61, suggesting that this drawing is from Vault XI. 114  For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. 109 

40

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume is also of Vault X and shows the ox-carts in the locations depicted in the Topham drawing.123 As in the actual mosaic, it shows two additional Cupids in the vines to the right of the central bust; these Cupids all lack wings. It omits the Cupid at lower left which features in the Topham drawing. Three birds are included, none in the same location as the Topham drawing and only loosely corresponding to some of the birds in the mosaic itself. Another drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the RIBA collections shows only half of the mosaic.124 Two birds perch in the vine above the pedimented roof which do not feature in the mosaic or the other drawings. In both drawings the figures in the vines are wingless as in the original.

is closer to the shape in the actual mosaic which suggests knowledge of it. Both artists include a small knob at the base of each bowl which is not present in the original. Pietro Santi’s drawing in the RIBA collections has five rows of three circles.128 It is less refined than the Glasgow version but lacks the unrealistic addition of the knob at the bases of the bowls. Mosaic with foliage, birds and vessels Bn.7:90 shows a well balanced arrangement of leafy branches, some bearing fruit, around a centrally placed two-handled vessel (Figure 3.15). The design includes a number of other vessels including drinking horns and bowls as well as 11 attractive birds of different sizes and colours. At top left (when the central vessel is viewed correctly) is a feature which Stern describes as a disc crossed by a pedum.129 It resembles a tambourine and lagobolon comparable to the similar motif in Bn.6:50 discussed below.

An engraving of the mosaic published by Ciampini is notably different from any of the drawings, being much cruder and less detailed.125 Compared with the mosaic itself, the vine-scrolls have been simplified in all the drawings and the leaves encircle the central bust in a more aesthetic way.

The actual mosaics, which are not identical to one another, are far more extensive than the area shown in the drawing and have a greater number of vessels and birds. The mosaic in Vault VIII, as seen today, is notable for including a centrally placed bowl on which two doves perch.130 This is not seen in the Topham drawing but it appears to be a restoration since little of the original mosaic survives.131 The mosaic in Vault VI includes the two-handled vessel which Bartoli has used for the centrepiece of his drawing although the colour is a less intense shade of blue.132 The other vessels he depicts below this can be identified in the lower part of Vault VI in the side away from the windows. The shell-shaped bowl to the left of the central vessel in the drawing is seen in the mosaic further towards a window, as is the two-handled bowl which is fluted in the original but appears filled with ? nuts in the drawing, and the drinking horn seen at upper right in the drawing. The ? tambourine and lagobolon motif in the drawing appears to have been restored in the mosaic as a long-handled wine-strainer.133 Stern illustrates a drawing of this part of the mosaic by an unknown hand in the Berlin Kunstbibliothek134 which shows these features and suggests that they are not an invention by Bartoli. In the Topham drawing Bartoli has added ribbons or castanets to the possible tambourine.

Given that the Topham and Glasgow drawings show the ox-carts in the same locations – differently from the original – it is possible that Francesco Bartoli worked from his father’s records but adopted a freer approach to the vines, the figures climbing in them, and the birds. Circles with busts The design in Bn.7:94 is based on five rows of six circles (Figure 3.14). Each circle contains either a young male bust, a foliate motif or a bowl of fruit. Each row has two examples of each motif, placed in the same order in relation to each other but with the arrangement staggered so that the same motif appears in the rows that run diagonally from lower left to upper right. Rows 1 and 4 replicate one another, as do rows 2 and 5. The male busts are similar but not identical. They all look to their right. In the mosaics in Vaults V and IX, the busts are distinct from one another and are not all looking in the same direction. Full-length figures also appear in parts of both vaults but the bowls of fruit are only included in part of Vault IX.126

In short, the Topham drawing is a simplified version of the mosaic in Vault VI with its central part edited out. Although there are some correspondences, the birds and branches have been inspired by the mosaic rather than reproduced accurately.

A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume is less extensive than the Topham drawing, showing only four rows of three circles together with half circles on the left and right sides.127 The bowls are taller and less squat than in the Topham drawing, although Francesco’s version

For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. Stern 1958, 193, 203. Stern interprets it as a simple musical instrument. 130  Stern 1958, fig. 38; Dunbabin 1999, fig. 264. 131  See Amadio 1986, fig. 7. 132  Stern 1958, fig. 28; Oakeshott 1967, pl. 36. 133  But see Amadio 1986, fig. 6, showing the areas of original mosaic, which depicts the wine-strainer. For a discussion of the extent to which Vault VI has been restored, see also Stern 1958, 193. 134  Stern 1958, fig. 29. 128 

Glasgow LXXX; Pace 1979, 144, no. 63; Amadio 1986, 63, no. 34. 124  For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. 125  Ciampini 1693, pl. XXX; Amadio 1986, 68-70, no. 42. 126  Stern 1958, fig. 36. None of the works I have consulted has a reproduction of the whole of Vault V. I have therefore worked from a postcard of the original. 127  Glasgow LXXIX; Pace 1979, 144, no. 62; Amadio 1986, 63, no. 35, fig. on 64.

129 

123 

41

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library A drawing by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume also follows the design in Vault VI.135 While it is closer to the original than the Topham drawing, it still adopts a relatively free treatment of the birds and branches. The tambourine and lagobolon are not shown. Pietro Santi’s drawing in the RIBA collections depicts only part of the mosaic, omitting the areas shown in the upper part of the other drawings.136

is a large fish held by a man identified as Tobias.142 The following scene shows a man seated beside some buildings who is approached by two figures. This is interpreted as Lot receiving the angels.143 In the next scene, a heavily robed figure holds an open book on the left, while several men hasten away on the right. In the background, a man sits on a platform approached by steps. This is thought to depict part of the story of Susanna and the Elders.144 The following scene shows a seated figure flanked by a man playing a violin and a man carrying a sheep. This scene is interpreted as Cain and Abel making offerings to God, with the usual sheaf of corn turned into a musical instrument.145 The final scene showing three figures is thought to depict the miracle at Capernaum when Christ healed the centurion’s servant.146 In the water below each scene, the drawing shows a boat or floating platform containing a pair of Cupids, while others are seen on the land. They are in lively postures, mostly in the act of fishing. Many birds, fish and other small marine creatures abound.

Mosaic from the cupola Drawing Bn.7:96 shows one half of the lost decoration in the cupola (Figure 3.16). It comprises six main biblical scenes facing outwards in an elaborate and decorative semicircular setting. The scenes are separated by caryatids in candelabra-like structures at the base of which are the foreparts of felines. Above the caryatids are paired dolphins whose tails become scrolls. Above each main scene is a small Bacchic figure on a red background, separated by groups of three small caryatids. Water is shown running around the outer edge of the semicircle and is peopled with fishing Cupids, many in boats, as well as birds and sea creatures.

Rectangular drawings by Pietro Santi Bartoli in the Glasgow volume and in the Baddeley codex show a smaller area than the Topham drawing.147 They cover only the central four scenes from Tobias to Cain and Abel. These two drawings are similar to one another but the Glasgow version is brighter, while the Baddeley drawing extends the blue colouring upwards to occupy the decorative areas coloured pale green or yellow in the other drawings. Both drawings include the watery scenes at the bottom but omit the upper parts with the small figures. Those parts of the Topham drawing which are shown in these drawings are similar but not identical. Pietro Santi’s versions are more detailed and delicate, particularly in his depiction of the building which appears in the scene with Lot and the writing in the book held by Susanna. In the Topham drawing, Francesco has rendered the central caryatid in a realistic pose with her hands above her head, whereas Pietro Santi followed de Hollanda in showing both arms extended outwards.

The mosaic is known only from drawings and sketches as it was deliberately destroyed in 1620 because of its allegedly licentious iconography.137 A watercolour of part of the design had been made in 1538-1540 by Francesco de Hollanda (1510-1583)138 which inspired other illustrations. Pietro Santi Bartoli is usually regarded as the artist of several later drawings of the cupola although he cannot have seen the original as it had been destroyed before he was born. It is thought that he based his work mainly on copies of de Hollanda’s drawing that had been ordered by Cardinal Massimi.139 Stern comments that Bartoli’s illustration in the Baddeley codex – coincidentally also in Eton College Library – was taken from de Hollanda’s watercolour itself,140 but Bartoli might also have had access to records of other parts of the cupola since some of his work extends beyond the area covered by de Hollanda.

A second drawing in the Glasgow volume shows these four scenes in the context of the whole cupola, with the other scenes left blank.148 Pietro Santi’s drawing in the Vittoria album is similar but shows half of the cupola. It is more delicate and complete than the Glasgow drawing, with the scene on the right sketched in along with the marine scene below it. In this version the hands of the central caryatid are shown above her head.149

The main scenes in the Topham drawing start on the left with a column and tree flanked by a seated faun on the left playing a pipe, and a small boy on the right. This scene was inserted by Francesco Bartoli to fill a lacuna.141 Next Glasgow XCI; Pace 1979, 145, no. 71; Amadio 1986, 64, no. 36, fig. on 65. 136  For the RIBA drawing, see n.99. 137  Stern 1958, 166; Amadio 1986, 10. 138  For a good colour reproduction of the drawing, which is now in the Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de El Escorial (28-I-20, f. 27v), see Wilpert 1916, III, pl. 88.2. 139  For the possible sources of Bartoli’s work, see Amadio 1986, 54-56; de Lachenal 2000, 662; Whitehouse 2014, 313, n.(l); Modolo 2016, 254. For Massimi’s knowledge of de Hollanda’s work, see Pace 1979, 124125. 140  Stern 1958, 215-216. Baddeley codex: Eton College Library MS 354; Ashby 1916, 48-51. Modolo argues that this watercolour can be attributed to A. M. Antonozzi (d.1662) and not to Bartoli (2016, 253, esp. n.10; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 34). For the purposes of this book, I follow the traditional attribution to Bartoli (see, for instance, Ashby 1914, 3) but Modolo’s case is well argued. 141  Stern 1958, 216; Amadio 1986, 73; de Lachenal 2000, 663. 135 

Stern 1958, 175-176, (d). Stern 1958, 176-177, (e). 144  Stern 1958, 169-171, (a). 145  Stern 1958, 172-173, (b). 146  Stern 1958, 180, (h). 147  Glasgow LXXXI; Pace 1979, 144, no. 64; Amadio 1986, 56, no. 27, fig. on 55. Baddeley CV; Stern 1958, fig. 57; Amadio 1986, 57, no. 28, fig. on 56. Engelmann lists the Baddeley version of this drawing as a copy from de Hollanda (1909, XVIII, no. 49). Modolo suggests that Bartoli might have copied the Baddeley drawing for the Glasgow volume (2016, 254, figs 109-110). 148  Glasgow LXXXII-LXXXIII; Pace 1979, 144, no. 65; Amadio 1986, 58, no. 30, fig. on 59; Modolo 2016, fig. 111. 149  https://rct.uk/collection/909576, accessed 23 November 2020; Stern 1958, fig. 59; Amadio 1986, 58, no. 29, fig. on 57; Modolo 2016, fig. 112. 142  143 

42

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome Drawings in the RIBA and Holkham collections also show half of the cupola and render the hands of the central caryatid with her hands above her head.150 They depict areas of damage along the top edge and leave the area on the left blank. They do not feature Francesco Bartoli’s scene of the faun and small boy. The background is a stronger shade of blue than in the Glasgow, Baddeley and Vittoria versions. The RIBA drawing is acknowledged to be by Pietro Santi151 and de Lachenal regards the Holkham drawing as also by him,152 although others attribute it to Francesco Bartoli.153

The figures are surrounded by a vine-scroll in which four birds are depicted: clockwise from top left, an owl, a peacock, a cockerel and perhaps a dove. At the top is an altar on which is a shallow two-handled vessel. The altar is draped with a garland and a butterfly hovers above the vessel. At the bottom is a similar altar on which is a vessel resembling a cantharus or crater. The altar is decorated with ribbons and a pedum or lagobolon. On either side, suspended from the vines, are respectively a set of Pan pipes on the left and a disc on the right. A note in an unknown hand on an almost identical drawing in the Bibliothèque nationale de France suggests that the mosaic was found not in the Palace of Augustus, as the caption to the Topham drawing indicates, but in Santa Costanza.160 Caylus had previously published an engraving of it in reverse, observing that it was said to relate to Santa Costanza.161 The original drawing was published by Jubaru in 1904 following a written description by Müntz in 1876.162 Although it is unsigned and was found among the works of Pietro Santi Bartoli, it was thought likely that it was drawn by Francesco, several of whose other drawings feature in the same collection.163

Comparing the Holkham and Topham drawings, the former has a delicacy lacking in Francesco’s work. Its close similarity to the Vittoria drawing suggests that Pietro Santi was the artist, although the colourful clothing of the figures on the right is more characteristic of Francesco, who perhaps had some involvement here. The Holkham and Vittoria drawings recall the plate by Pietro Santi published by Ciampini.154 Another engraving by Pietro Santi later formed the basis of a published plate which reconstructs the entire cupola.155 Topham owned a copy of this print (Bn.13:2) which is discussed in Chapter 8.

The authenticity of the mosaic was questioned by Wilpert. Both he and Stern noted that an early description and drawing of Santa Costanza indicated that its floor was composed of marble plaques. Stern concluded that the drawing is wrongly captioned and could record a lost ancient mosaic.164

Bacchic scene said to be from Santa Costanza Bn.6:50 is a black and white drawing of a circular design with Bacchic imagery (Figure 3.17). In the centre is a youthful figure seated on an ass, holding a cup in his upraised left hand. He is naked and has a vine-wreath on his head. In front of him is a naked young boy with a cup in his upraised right hand and a stick in his left hand.156 His pose suggests that he is dancing. To the rear of the ass is a two-handled vessel on a square plinth.

In the Bibliothèque nationale drawing the position of the altars at top and bottom is reversed when compared with the Topham drawing, as is the position of the motifs to left and right. The simple hanging disc in the Topham drawing is more elaborate and accompanied by a stick, while a bird has been added flying below each motif. Jubaru identifies the hanging disc as a patera for libations, and Stern as a disc perhaps with a hollow centre and a pedum. 165 However, its position opposite the Pan pipes suggests that it is another musical instrument, perhaps a tambourine with a lagobolon as seen in Bn.7:90 discussed above. The owl appears at lower right instead of upper left. The figure of the cockerel is reversed and appears at upper right instead of lower right. The ? dove looks over its shoulder and is at upper left instead of lower left. The fourth bird differs from any of those in the Topham drawing. It is seated rather than perched on the vine-scroll, suggesting that it is perhaps a duck.166

The figure on the ass has been described as an infant Silenus157 or an infant Bacchus.158 Silenus is often shown mounted on an ass whereas Bacchus would normally ride a feline. For Blake, these figures are ‘innocent babies aping Silenus and his companion’.159

RIBA VOS/84, f.11; https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82208, accessed 23 November 2020; Modolo 2016, pl. XLIV. Holkham I, 52; Ashby 1916, 39, no. 52; Stern 1958, fig. 61; Amadio 1986, 76, no. 51, fig. on 77. 151  Modolo 2016, 161. 152  de Lachenal 2000, 663. Whitehouse does not include this drawing in her list of those she considers are by Pietro Santi (2014, 286, n.44). 153  Stern 1958, 216; Amadio 1986, 76; Modolo 2016, 256; Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 41. 154  Ciampini 1699, II, pl. 1; Stern 1958, fig. 55; Amadio 1986, 70, no. 43, suggesting that it could have been based on the Vittoria drawing; cf de Lachenal, who considers that the RIBA drawing was perhaps the drawing Pietro Santi delivered to Ciampini for the engraving (2000, 662). See also Modolo 2016, 255. 155  Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix, pl. II; Stern 1958, fig. 56; Amadio 1986, 81-83, no. 57. 156  Perhaps for use in the grape-harvest, cf Jubaru 1904, 460, n.1. 157  Stern 1958, 216; L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 46. 158  Caylus 1767, 185; Ashby 1914, 37, no. 50; Ortona 2016, 55. 159  Blake 1940, 122. 150 

BnF Gd-9b, f.70, cited by Ortona 2016, 54. Caylus 1767, 185-186, pl. XLII. 162  Müntz 1876; Jubaru 1904, fig. on 460; see also Stern 1958, 216-218, fig. 58; L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, pl. VIII; Ortona 2016, pl. LXX. 163  Jubaru 1904, 459, n.2; Wilpert 1916, I, 299; Stern 1958, 217; Ortona 2016, 55, noting that Francesco’s name appears on the engraving published by Caylus. 164  Wilpert 1916, I, 299-300; Stern 1958, 218. 165  Jubaru 1904, 460; Stern 1958, 217. 166  In addition to the owl, Müntz identifies the birds as a duck, a parrot and a pheasant (1876, 406) but the ? dove lacks the pointed tail of a parrot and the putative pheasant has the characteristic comb and tail-feathers of a cockerel. 160  161 

43

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library The four birds which feature in the Bibliothèque nationale and Topham drawings appear to have been copied from the birds that appear in plates XX and XXI published by Bartoli and Bellori in their 1706 volume. Similarly, the elaborate disc and pedum in the Bibliothèque nationale drawing is derived from plate XX. A drawing in the Corsini codex of the mosaic in plate XX has a caption stating that it was found in 1704 near S. Stefano Rotondo.167 The Bibliothèque nationale and Topham drawings are circular and similar to one another, but a drawing of the same subject at Holkham is rectangular and more elaborate.168 At the top and bottom is a roundel with a large bird, flanked by narrow rectangular panels decorated with an ivy scroll. To left and right are narrow rectangular panels with leaves and flowers. The altars and other motifs match the positions shown in the Topham drawing but there are no birds associated with the vine-scroll. The Holkham version of the Bacchic scene is more accomplished than the Bibliothèque nationale or Topham drawings, which were perhaps based on it.169 Perhaps the caption referring to Santa Costanza was added to the Bibliothèque nationale drawing because the circular form recalled the area within the ambulatory and prompted the idea, not necessarily because of any evidence that the mosaic came from this location. My conclusion, on the basis of present evidence, is that a circular mosaic as shown in the Topham and Bibliothèque nationale drawings probably did not exist. It is also questionable whether an ancient mosaic in the rectangular form of that shown in the Holkham drawing had ever been found, especially as the design has the feel of a later work. The suspicion is that Francesco Bartoli could have been inspired by what was then a relatively modern mosaic and created a composite design incorporating details from Roman mosaics such as those published by Bartoli and Bellori.

158 I 5, 130103; Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2, fig. on 81. Also see the discussion of this mosaic in Chapter 5, in relation to its alleged similarity to the mosaic in Bn.4:31. 168  Holkham II, 25. Ashby notes this but does not comment on the differences (1916, 42, no. 25). 169  In the Holkham volume this drawing is followed by three drawings of mosaics bearing the initials ‘FB’ or ‘Fran B’ in similar writing to that on Bn.6:50 (Ashby 1916, 42, nos 26-28). All four drawings have borders consisting of a series of pale yellow and black lines. The other three depict mosaics published by Bartoli and Bellori in 1706: Holkham II, 26 shows Medusa and has ‘Tav. XXI’ although it is of plate XXII; Holkham II, 27 is of plate XX; and Holkham II, 28 is of plate XXI. 167 

44

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome

Figure 3.1 – Bn.5:4, Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Figure 3.2 – Bn.7:98, Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

45

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 3.3 (above left) – Bn.5:35, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection Figure 3.4 (above) – Bn.5:36, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection Figure 3.5 (left) – Bn.5:38, Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

46

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome

Figure 3.6 – Bn.5:14, Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

Figure 3.7 – Bn.5:17, Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

47

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 3.8 – Bn.5:2, Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

Figure 3.9 – Bn.5:71, Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

48

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome

Figure 3.10 – Bn.7:92, Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

Figure 3.11 – Bn.7:91, Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza

49

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 3.12 – Bn.7:93, Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

Figure 3.13 – Bn.7:89, Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza

50

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of early discoveries of mosaics displayed in Rome

Figure 3.14 – Bn.7:94, Circles with busts, Sta Costanza

Figure 3.15 – Bn.7:90, Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza

51

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 3.16 – Bn.7:96, Half cupola, Sta Costanza

Figure 3.17 – Bn.6:50, Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

52

4 Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime This chapter discusses drawings by Francesco Bartoli mostly of mosaics known to have been found in Rome in the first two decades of the eighteenth century. It ends with a summary of four drawings said to be of mosaics found at Hadrian’s Villa but for which there is little background evidence.1 It seems likely that these mosaics – if they existed – also represent early eighteenth-century discoveries since there are no known records of them by Pietro Santi Bartoli, who died in 1700.

A drawing of this mosaic by Piccini in the Corsini codex is captioned ‘Pauimento di musaico di camera sepolcrale’.3 The figures are moving to the left in a plain setting as in the Topham drawing, but the man’s drapery is more revealing and the woman does not wear a diadem. Two rudimentary wavy lines in the border were perhaps intended to represent guilloche around the original mosaic. Another drawing of the mosaic by Piccini in a different Corsini codex bears the caption ‘Musaico antico in un pauimto di Stanza Sepolcrale’.4 It confirms the more flimsy state of the man’s drapery, the absence of the woman’s diadem, and the sketchy indication of probable guilloche.

The fate of most of the mosaics is unclear, the likelihood being that they did not survive. The exceptions are the scenes from the Aventine, most of which are preserved. Mosaics from Vigna Moroni

Ashby listed the Topham drawing as part of a series of paintings. He noted the caption to the drawing in the first Corsini codex as showing a mosaic but added, without further explanation: ‘This indication is probably quite incorrect.’5 There is, however, no reason to doubt the caption, especially since the hatching used in both of Piccini’s drawings confirms the medium.

The finds from the excavations in the Vigna Moroni between 1705 and 1710 were mainly recorded in drawings in the Corsini codex by Gaetano Piccini but Topham collected records of several of them: drawings Bn.5:59 showing Pluto pursuing Proserpina and Bn.6:13 depicting Pan and Eros, both by Francesco Bartoli and discussed below; a drawing by Piccini of the Pan and Eros mosaic discussed in Chapter 5 (Bn.4:23); and prints of both mosaics discussed in Chapter 8 (Bn.13:9 and Bn.13:15).

The print (Bn.13:15) shows the scene in reverse and reflects Piccini’s drawings in showing little drapery with the man and no diadem worn by the woman. It seems clear that Bartoli embellished both figures. The upper part of the print depicts a niche with a painting of a stag which is featured in two drawings in the first Corsini codex. One of them is captioned ‘Camera sepolcrale discouerta l’anno 1708 [?] nella uigna de SSri. Moroni …’.6 It is therefore probable that the mosaic was found in this tomb.7 In any event, it seems clear that the mosaic was found in the Vigna Moroni excavations and not at Hadrian’s Villa.

Both of Bartoli’s drawings are annotated on the back in Topham’s hand with ‘Bartoli’ and ‘Villa Hadriani’ but this location is incorrect: the evidence of the Corsini drawings and the prints shows that these mosaics were found in the Vigna Moroni.2 Each drawing has a thick red outer border. Bn.5:59, which is a simple composition of just two figures, has a thin black inner border. Bn.6:13 is much more elaborate and has been given a decorative inner border by Bartoli which is not seen in the other records of this mosaic.

Engelmann and Fileri both plausibly identify the scene as showing the Rape of Proserpina by Pluto, referring to them by their Greek names of Persephone and Hades.8 The subject would be appropriate for the decoration of a tomb.

Pluto and Proserpina

Pan and Eros

Bn.5:59 shows a bearded man on the right, naked save for drapery around his lower body and thighs, moving to the left as he pursues a semi-naked woman who wears a diadem in her hair (Figure 4.1). Both have their arms outstretched and the man appears to be touching the woman’s shoulder as she turns her head to look at him. The setting consists only of brown colouring for the ground and blue for the sky.

The contest between Pan and Eros is depicted in the central roundel of Bn.6:13 (Figure 4.2). In the centre of

158 I 5, 130129; Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 28, pl. 5,4; Fileri 2000, 107, 109, no. 28, fig. on 101. 4  158 HI 5, f.30; Fileri 1991, no. 30, incl. fig. 5  Ashby 1914, 27. 6  Engelmann 1909, VIII-IX, nos 47-48, pls 8,5-6; Fileri 2000, 114-115, nos 47-48, incl. figs. They both read the discovery date as 1710. 7  The significance of the prints with two scenes, and whether they are definitely linked, is considered further in Chapter 8. 8  Engelmann 1909, VII; Fileri 1991, 119. 3 

The attribution to Hadrian’s Villa is not necessarily reliable. See the comments in MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 241 and Joyce 1990, 353. 2  Information about the location of this vineyard is contained in the following chapter. 1 

53

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Mosaics from the Aventine

each side of the drawing is a draped female bust emerging from half of a sunflower. The busts are similar to one another and are looking slightly to their right. They wear wreaths on their heads with different decoration: corn for the bust at the top, leaves for the bust on the right, fruit and leaves for the bust at the bottom, and flowers and leaves for the bust on the left. Although Bartoli seems to have been inspired by the Seasons, the order is not sequential and there is no clear indication of Winter.9 An extensive but delicate scroll flows from the base of each bust to fill the remaining spaces, creating a compartment near each corner of the mosaic which contains a depiction of a bird in flight. The birds are identical to one another save only for their orientation, as they each face inwards.

Six rectangular panels were found in the vicinity of Santa Sabina on the Aventine in 1711. Captions to drawings in the Corsini codex of some of the panels give the location and year of discovery. 14 Five of the panels survive and are in the Vatican.15 The Topham drawings uniquely cover all six (Bn.6:51 and Bn.7:34-38). The panels probably came from a single mosaic but it is not known how they were arranged in relation to one another. Bn.6:51 is captioned ‘e Templo Dianae in Monte Aventino, hodi’ on the front in Topham’s hand.16 Although Bartoli did not sign this drawing, he signed the other five ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ and also added ‘nell Aventino’ to Bn.7:34 and ‘Aventino’ to Bn.7:35, Bn.7:36 and Bn.7:38. For Bn.7:37, which is the only known record of this lost panel, he provided a longer caption: ‘Musaico Antico trovato nell Monte Aventino il disegnio e Appresso, a Nostro Sigre’. Topham also annotated most of the drawings on the back with ‘nel Monte Aventino’.

The image is a more elaborate treatment of the scene shown in Piccini’s drawing in Bn.4:23, the print in Bn.13:9, and other records including a drawing in the Capponi codex.10 In all the records Pan is shown touching Eros’s head with his left hand and holding his right hand behind his back, but Bartoli has placed a pedum or lagobolon in the right hand. He has clothed the four busts and differentiated between their wreaths. His series of borders around the central roundel is more extensive than shown in the other records and the scroll is much more detailed. The addition of the birds appears to be a decorative touch which Bartoli also included in a pencil sketch of part of this mosaic in the RIBA collections.11 The drapery for the busts and the inclusion of birds might have been inspired by the mosaic depicted in Bn.4:31 which is discussed in the next chapter and features similar busts and scrolls.

The drawings all have a red outer border. Bn.6:51 has a grey inner border of similar thickness. The other five drawings have a black inner border of thickness similar to the red, within which is a thin black border. In the drawings of all three panels with bulls – Bn.6:51, Bn.7:34, Bn.7:35 – Bartoli has shown a greater amount of space between the tails and the tops of the panels than is seen in the surviving mosaics or in other records. Presumably this was to give a more pleasing effect. Elephant, bull, lion and camel

The upper part of the print shows the interior of a sepulchral chamber with niches containing urns.12 Drawings of this tomb and mosaic are also included in the Corsini codex, with captions respectively reading ‘Camera sepolcrale discouerta l’anno 1706 nella uigna de SSri. Moroni auanti di uscire della Porta Appia’, and ‘Pauimento di musaico della da. camera sepolcrale’.13

Bn.6:51 shows two mounted bestiarii (Figure 4.3). They wear helmets and short tunics, have bare feet, and sit on saddles. The bestiarius on the left holds a stick in his right hand. The elephant on which he sits is fighting a bull which is harnessed and tethered to a ring shown on the left of the scene. The bestiarius on the right is seated on a camel and holds a lead in his right hand which is attached to a harness around an apparently tame lion.17

As with the Pluto and Proserpina mosaic, it is likely that the pavement came from the tomb depicted in the print. In any event it seems to have come from the Vigna Moroni excavations and not from Hadrian’s Villa.

The drawing is broadly accurate when compared with the original.18 It includes the depiction of the shadows beneath the animals but does not show the cross-hatching used to replicate the elephant’s hide and gives the lion a more elegant tail.

The sequence would start on the left with flowers for Spring then proceed clockwise with corn for Summer. The fruits indicating Autumn are opposite Summer, which would leave Winter unusually represented by leaves. 10  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.84, accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 84. For Piccini’s drawing and the print, see Chapters 5 and 8 respectively. 11  RIBA SB4/1(12); https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA84269, accessed 29 November 2020, also showing the stick behind Pan’s back. The scene is attributed to a ceiling in Hadrian’s Villa and there is a catalogue note that this is a copy of a drawing by Bartoli which he made c.1721, although the source of this suggested date is not provided. 12  The Topham collection includes a drawing of this tomb (Bn.4:25). 13  158 I 5, 130135, 130140; Engelmann 1909, VII-VIII, nos 34 and 39, pls 6,4 and 7,4; Fileri 2000, 110-111, nos 34 and 39, figs on 105 and 107. 9 

Fileri 2000, 136, 140, nos 73-74, figs on 132. Nogara 1910, 6; Blake 1936, 174; Blake 1940, 115; Lavin 1963, 257. The panels seem to have been lifted soon after discovery: four feature in drawings in the Corsini codex and each drawing bears the caption ‘in aedibus Vaticanis’ or similar (Fileri 2000, 135-136, 140, nos 70, 72-74, figs on 131-132). 16  ‘Hodi’ ends at the extreme edge of the paper and is plausibly restored as ‘hodie’ by Ashby. 17  Blake 1940, 115; Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74. 18  Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,1; Blake 1940, 115-116, pl. 31,1; Werner 1998, 46 incl. fig. 14  15 

54

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime The Holkham drawings include a depiction of this panel by Francesco Bartoli but not any of the others.19 It is identical to the Topham drawing in all material respects.

Before wrestling the bull, the horseman would first have to catch it.27 Bestiarii on foot and bears

Piccini’s drawing of this mosaic in the Corsini codex indicates the cross-hatching of the elephant’s hide. Unlike the Topham and Holkham drawings, the man riding the camel has his back to the viewer and holds the lion’s lead in his left hand, instead of being shown frontally with the lead in his right hand.20 The plate published by Montfaucon is similar to the Corsini drawing.21

Bn.7:36 shows two bestiarii wielding spears as they fight bears28 (Figure 4.6). Each bestiarius has a wreath on his head and wears a short tunic and short boots. The bestiarius on the left also has drapery over his left arm. This depiction departs from the original mosaic in a number of respects.29 The animals are closer together in the drawing. The bear on the left is shown leaping up as the spear pierces its chest, whereas both bears are standing stolidly and as yet unharmed in the mosaic. The bestiarii are viewed respectively from front and back, whereas they are both seen from the rear in the original mosaic. There is no drapery with the bestiarius on the left and the helmet worn by each of them has been replaced in the drawing by a wreath.

Bull and bear Bn.7:34 shows a fight between a bull and a bear (Figure 4.4). The bear is not wholly realistic, especially the snout and ears, but the shape of the rear legs and the shaggy fur confirm its identity.22 The unusual draftsmanship of the bear in this and other drawings discussed below – Bn.7:36 and Bn.7:37 – is not a quirk of the artist but reflects the way the animals have been depicted in the mosaic.23

Piccini’s drawing of this panel in the Corsini codex is significantly different from the Topham drawing as it shows a large area of damage affecting the bestiarius and bear on the left.30 It would seem that, after lifting, the bestiarius on the left was restored incorrectly using a mirror image of the undamaged bestiarius on the right.31

Bn.7:34 appears to be the only known drawing of this panel. There is no record of it in the Corsini codex and it was not included in Montfaucon’s plate. Horseman and bulls Bn.7:35 shows a bestiarius mounted on a horse pursuing a bull (Figure 4.5). He wears a helmet, short tunic and leggings, and sits on a saddle. The drawing shows the rear of a second bull to the left which is not included in the panel as it survives today.24 A lacuna is indicated in this part of the drawing, affecting the bull’s torso. It suggests that this animal was fragmentary when found and probably for that reason was not lifted.

The plate published by Montfaucon shows only the bear and bestiarius on the right, omitting the damaged area. While the plate is reasonably accurate in its essentials, the bear looks more like an unruly dog. The accompanying text reflects the uncertainty about the type of animal: ‘…une bête fauve, dont il est difficile de reconnoître l’espece’.32 As Bartoli indicated damaged areas on two of the other drawings – Bn.7:35 and Bn.7:37 – it is probable that he would have done so here if this panel had been incomplete when he drew it. Possibly it sustained damage at a subsequent stage, perhaps during the lifting process. It is seems likely that the Topham drawing is in essential respects the most accurate record of this panel.

Piccini’s drawing in the Corsini codex is similar to the Topham drawing but only shows one of the rear legs of the bull on the left and gives the horse a less elegant tail. The bestiarius appears to be bare-legged and to wear boots rather than leggings.25 The plate published by Montfaucon resembles the Corsini drawing.26 In particular, it shows only a single leg of the bull on the left.

Bestiarius on horse and bear

This scene probably depicts the preliminary stage of taurokathapsia (bull-wrestling), an activity that became one of the spectacles sometimes seen in venationes.

Bn.7:37 shows a scene that does not survive and is the only known record of it. A horse is falling to the ground while its rider aims a spear at the bear which is attacking it (Figure 4.7). To the left, and badly affected by an area of damage, a bestiarius on foot is also attacking the bear with a spear. The mounted bestiarius wears a helmet, short tunic,

Holkham I, 46; Ashby 1916, 38, no. 46. 158 I 5, 130175; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 75, pl. 12,6; Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74, fig. on 132. 21  Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI. 22  Cf Ashby 1914, 40, no. 34, describing this drawing as showing a cow and a boar, the latter perhaps a misprint for ‘bear’. 23  Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,2; Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,2; Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 47. 24  Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,3; Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,3; Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 47. 25  158 I 5, 130171; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 71, pl. 12,4; Fileri 2000, 135-136, no. 70, fig. on 131. 26  Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI. 19  20 

The subject is discussed by Dunbabin, who illustrates a relief panel from Hierapolis showing two scenes of bull-wrestling by a man on horseback (2016, 180-181, fig. 7.6). 28  Cf Engelmann 1909, X, no. 73 and Ashby 1914, 40, no. 36: ? lions. 29  Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,4; Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,4; Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 46. 30  158 I 5, 130173; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 73, pl. 12,3; Fileri 2000, 135-136, no. 72, fig. on 132. 31  Cf the comments about restoration in Nogara 1910, 7, n.4. 32  Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI. 27 

55

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library leggings and boots. He sits on a saddle-cloth which is not, unlike the saddle in Bn.7:35, shown tied to the animal. The bestiarius on foot wears a short tunic and a wreath which, as with the scene in the previous drawing, was probably a helmet in the original. Blake notes a coloured square on the shoulder of the tunic. She comments that such squares seem to be have been used interchangeably with orbiculi in fourth-century costume.33

rushes.39 Blake describes the scene as showing ancient vaudeville performances. She also regards the arch as a pergola and concludes: ‘This panel affords the same kind of glimpse into the performances given by professional entertainers’ as the others show with regard to the spectacles in the amphitheatre.40 Fileri suggests that the scene perhaps represents ‘gli spettacoli musicali e di mimi che si svolgevano durante i giochi nell’anfiteatro’.41 For Versluys, this panel ‘clearly has an egyptianising character’. He interprets the arch as a velum (awning) and, despite the absence of explicit Nilotic imagery, comments that the picture recalls the festivities around the inundation of the Nile.42

Dancers and musicians Bn.7:38 shows a scene of music and dancing (Figure 4.8). On the left is a scabillarius wearing a short tunic. He plays the double pipes while operating the scabillum (metal clapper) with his right foot. Next to him, a woman wearing a transparent dress dances while playing the crotales (castanets). Then comes a man wearing a loincloth who holds sticks in his left hand as he dances.34 In the centre is an arched structure under which is a dwarf wearing a short tunic; a small table; a large amphora on a tripod; and another scabillarius. The dwarf holds crotales in his left hand and an object shaped like a figure-of-eight in his right hand probably intended to represent a jug. On the right two dancing men wearing only loincloths flank a female dancer who wears a transparent dress and plays the crotales. The men hold sticks in their right hands. The female dancers both wear wreaths while most of the men are shown wearing helmets.35 All the figures appear to be bare-footed or wear indistinctly-drawn short boots.

Dunbabin suggests that the arch could be ‘a very schematized rendering of the semicircular sigma couch ... In other words, the whole central motif acts as a shorthand symbol for a banquet scene’.43 She interprets the panel as part of mime and comments that the table, amphora and wine jug in the central part imply a convivial setting. Although the arch has usually been regarded as a pergola, Dunbabin argues that this fails to provide a connection with the dancers. She concludes that some reference to public entertainment is meant because the other panels represent venationes, although the emphasis of this panel is on good after-dinner entertainment and not primarily performance at a public spectacle.44 The semicircle framing the central figures might have evoked the shape of the sigma couch in the minds of viewers, but its resemblance to a pergola suggests that this is the most likely interpretation. It perhaps functioned as the equivalent of a refreshment tent symbolised by the table, amphora, and jug held by the dwarf. His placement within the structure along with one of the scabillarii, coupled with the crotales he holds as well as the jug, indicates that drinking wine was mingled with enjoying the entertainment. The dwarf appears to be in the role of a waiter, perhaps serving the spectators as they enjoyed the entertainment provided by the musicians and dancers during an interlude in the venationes.

The drawing is reasonably close to the mosaic36 but the second scabillarius is drawn as wholly within the arch instead of overlapping it, giving a clearer image. The head of the dancer on the right is turned towards the left in the drawing but towards the right in the mosaic. Piccini’s drawing in the Corsini codex shows the male musicians and stick-dancers all wearing tunics and most wearing helmets.37 The body of the figure on the extreme right is shown from the rear and holds the sticks in his left hand. The object held by the dwarf is clearly drawn as a jug. Like the Topham drawing, however, the female dancer on the right turns her head to her left.

Versluys envisages a possible total of nine panels in a frieze.45 However many might originally have featured in the mosaic, it is likely that the whole ensemble formed a coherent series of scenes. The seemingly anomalous panel of dancers and musicians amid the panels with beast fights might have had counterparts that did not survive. Overall, the panels are likely to have shown the variety of attractions on offer, one of which would have been refreshments.

The plate published by Montfaucon38 is similar to the Corsini drawing but the third figure from the left is not dancing and is nearer to the female. This is the most famous of the Aventine panels and has been much discussed. Nogara suggests that the arch represents the rustic roof of a pergola made of wood and

Nogara 1910, 7. Blake 1936, 174-175; see also 1940, 118. 41  Fileri 2000, 140. 42  Versluys 2002, 458. Although he refers to the male dancers on the right as black, they are not distinguished in this way in the mosaic, drawings or plate. Elsewhere, however, such dancers are sometimes dark-skinned and appear in contexts with Egyptian associations (Dunbabin 2016, esp. 131). 43  Dunbabin 2004, 170. 44  Dunbabin 2016, 130-131. 45  Versluys 2002, 458. 39 

Blake 1940, 115. She notes similar squares on the tunics of two of the other hunters in the series (visible in Bn.7:36 in the Topham drawings). 34  Blake interprets the sticks as rattles (1936, 175; 1940, 118). 35  An exception is the second man from the right, who wears a wreath. 36  Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,5; Blake 1940, 118, pl. 30,6; Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 44, printed in reverse. 37  158 I 5, 130174; Engelmann 1909, X, no. 74, pl. 12,5; Fileri 2000, 136, 140, no. 73, fig. on 132. 38  Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI. 33 

40 

56

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime Mosaic from Domine Quo Vadis

provides a setting. A rudimentary indication of the spina is shown and below this feature is a third charioteer racing towards the right, having turned around the end of the spina.

The circus race and gladiators shown in Bn.5:37, Bn.5:39 and Bn.5:40 are numbered III, V and VI respectively, as if they belonged with the drawings of the Victorious Charioteer mosaics from the Massimi collection numbered I, II and IV and discussed in Chapter 3 (Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38). In fact, they are unrelated to the Massimi items and depict parts of a large mosaic discovered in an underground burial vault near the church of Domine Quo Vadis on the Via Appia.46 According to Ficoroni, the mosaic was found in 1720 and was said to have been taken to Germany in several pieces.47

Gladiatorial scenes Bn.5:39 shows two gladiators fighting one another (Figure 4.10). The gladiator on the left is standing and holds a rectangular shield in his left hand and a sword or dagger with a curved end in his right hand.51 His opponent has fallen to the ground. He holds a round shield in his left hand and a sword in his outstretched right hand. Both wear sandals, shoulder-guards, and helmets with visors covering their faces. They are bare-chested but their arms, lower bodies and thighs are covered. The letters SEVERVS LV appear at upper right next to a small lacuna.52

All three of the drawings are annotated by Topham with the name of ‘Bartoli’ and the incorrect location of ‘Palazzo di Tito’. Bn.5:37 and Bn.5:39 are square whereas Bn.5:40 is rectangular, presumably because this was better suited to the shape of the single standing gladiator it depicts. They have similar, although not identical, decorative borders within a wide outer border of red.48 Montfaucon’s plate shows the gladiators and circus race in a single composition with interlaced lines around the whole mosaic suggesting a guilloche border.49

Only the gladiator on the left is shown in Montfaucon’s plate. His loincloth seems more realistic than the garments resembling a skirt and shorts in the drawing, his visor is raised to show his face – which is confirmed by Montfaucon’s description of his face as uncovered53 – and the feathers in his helmet are recognisable as such rather than the stylised stripes depicted by Bartoli. He does not hold a weapon in his right hand.54 The inscription runs either side of his head, with SEVE to the left and RVS I V to the right, the I replacing the L in the drawing.

Circus race

Bn.5:40 shows a single gladiator (Figure 4.11). He is standing and holds a round shield in his left hand and a lance in his right hand, indicating that he is one of the equites, the same type of gladiator seen in the combat between Maternus and Habilis depicted in Bn.5:14 discussed in the previous chapter. His clothing is similar to that worn by the gladiators in Bn.5:39 save that most of his chest is covered and the skirt has been omitted. MARTI appears at upper left with a small I inserted above the space between the M and the A, and with the T and I linked together to resemble the Greek letter pi. The most likely explanation for the unexpected insertion of the small I and the curious rendering of the T I is that the letters were dislodged and hard to discern in the original. The poor condition of the mosaic is indicated by the lacunae at upper left and on the right. The lance protrudes into the latter and is drawn as if complete.

Bn.5:37 shows two charioteers racing side by side towards the left, each in a chariot drawn by four horses (Figure 4.9). Both charioteers wear tunics encircled by the usual protective bands but are bare-headed. The charioteer in the background holds a whip in his right hand and the reins in his left hand, while the charioteer in the foreground holds a whip in his left hand and his right hand is obscured. The rear legs of the horses in the background are not visible and only seven of their forelegs are shown in whole or in part. The letters ALIS I XXI appear above the horses’ heads in the drawing. A lacuna is indicated to the left of the inscription. In the plate published by Montfaucon, only two horses are shown with the chariot in the foreground and confirmed by his text.50 Both charioteers wear helmets, a detail that is more realistic than Bartoli’s depiction, but the draftsmanship is cruder. The two teams are spaced apart instead of the more complex overlapping composition used by Bartoli. The letter I preceding XXI in the drawing is shown as L in the plate. Unlike the drawing, which features the two teams of charioteers in isolation, the plate

The depiction in Montfaucon’s plate is similar to the drawing save that the helmet is pulled down rather than having a separate visor. Montfaucon describes the helmet as so deep that it covered the face, but with holes to allow the gladiator to see out.55 The letters MARTI appear to the

Montfaucon 1724, III, 176-180, pl. LXVII; Papini 2004, 148. Aldovrandi, Vacca, Ficoroni and Bartoli 1741, I, 289-290, but see Ashby 1914, 22-23; Papini 2004, 148, n.74. 48  Delicate leaves for Bn.5:37, ? husks for Bn.5:39 similar to those around the drawing of the Pan and Eros mosaic discussed above (Bn.6:13), and leaves with ? red flowers or berries for Bn.5:40. 49  Cf Piccini’s drawing in the Corsini codex of the Pluto and Proserpina mosaic discussed above in relation to Bn.5:59. 50  Montfaucon 1724, III, 179, speculating that the there could have been another biga in the part of the mosaic that did not survive. 46  47 

Ashby 1914, 24, no. 39: a hooked weapon. Blake explains that the L stands for liberatus and the overall meaning is that Severus was set free after his fifth fight (1940, 113). 53  Montfaucon 1724, III, 178. 54  This is not a peculiarity of the plate as it is confirmed by Montfaucon’s text: ‘L’arme que Severe tenoit de la main droit, est tombée, je ne sai comment’ (1724, III, 178). 55  Montfaucon 1724, III, 177. 51  52 

57

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library left of the gladiator’s head, and ALIS L XXI to the right.56 The second part of the inscription matches the letters appearing above the horses’ heads in Bn.5:37, linking the two scenes. As Bartoli showed a lacuna in Bn.5:37 where the gladiator’s head would appear, it is possible that by the time he drew the figures they were already separated into fragments.

reasons for this.61 Ashby evidently had doubts about these as in each case he added ‘(?)’ after ‘Mosaic pavement’.62 While his caution is well founded, I have chosen to include these drawings to make them better known to scholars in the hope that more information might come to light. All four drawings have a thick red outer border. Within this, Bn.5:42 has a thick black line followed by the decorative meander border of the mosaic. Bn.5:43 has a thin black line followed by a decorative border of ? husks. Bn.6:1 has a black line of medium thickness within which is a series of red and black lines enclosing a decorative border of roundels. Bn.6:2 has a black line of medium thickness followed by a decorative border of black and white chequers. There does not seem to have been any intention to standardise the appearance of these drawings in the interests of forming pairs or sets.

Montfaucon’s plate indicates that only the left part of the overall mosaic had survived: Martialis appears at upper left, Severus at lower left, and the chariot race to the right. A jagged edge on the right indicates the extent of the fragment, with the break affecting two of the teams of charioteers. This is particularly evident with the third team, shown only in the plate and not in the Topham drawing, in which the forelegs of the horses appear in miniature, presumably as an alternative to showing them as broken. An inscription referring to T FL POSIDONI appears between the gladiators and the spina but is not thought to have been part of the mosaic.57

Bacchic figures Bn.5:42 shows a rectangular design divided into squares and rectangles (Figure 4.12). The main 13 compartments each contain figures, while rectangular compartments in each corner have flowers and three rectangles to the left and right of the design have leaves. Although the compartments are outlined in borders of black and white, the contents are polychrome.

It is notable that the plate shows Martialis and Severus as single static figures, not in the act of combat. Bartoli seems to have made up the vanquished gladiator in the scene with Severus. The possibility that he reconstructed a figure which appeared in the original but was omitted from the plate is unlikely because the spacing of Martialis’s name suggests that the gladiators were close to the chariot race (and closer than shown in the plate). Another difference is that the colours used by Bartoli for the clothing of the figures are not the same as those in Montfaucon’s account.58

The central compartment, which is viewed from one of the short sides of the mosaic, shows two men both wearing wreaths. The man on the right is seated on a rock and is naked save for drapery around his lower body and legs. He holds a thyrsus in his left hand identifying him as Bacchus. He lifts his right hand with one finger pointing upwards. The man on the left is naked apart from drapery over his right shoulder and left forearm. He holds a rhyton in his right hand and a pedum or lagobolon in his left hand.63

Mosaics said to be from Hadrian’s Villa The Topham collection includes four particularly attractive and intriguing drawings: Bn.5:42 shows Bacchus with an attendant in the centre and other figures in individual compartments; Bn.5:43 depicts a drunken Bacchus supported by a satyr; Bn.6:1 has a centrepiece with two figures approaching a seated woman; and Bn.6:2 probably shows Venus and a wingless Cupid in the centre with other figures in the corners. As explained below and in Chapter 6, Bn.5:42 depicts the same mosaic shown in Bm.9:74, which was previously thought to be the only known record of this pavement.59

On either side is a narrow rectangular compartment with two quadrupeds. In the rectangle on the left, the animals have long tails and are standing confronted over what is probably a crater, suggesting that they are intended to be felines. In the rectangle on the right, two short-tailed animals bound towards one another. Although they are similar they are not identical. The creature on the right has horns rather than long ears and appears to have hoofs rather than paws. It is perhaps a goat and its companion is probably a hound.

Topham added ‘Bartoli’ and ‘Villa Hadriani’ to the back of each. As he expanded his caption to read ‘Pavimentum e Villa Hadriani’ for the first two, Ashby accepted these drawings as depicting mosaics.60 Lanciani also identified the second two as showing mosaics although he gave no

Pairs of rectangular compartments above and below the central compartment each hold a full-length apparently male figure. Those at upper left and lower right wear kneelength tunics. The former holds a shallow basket in his upraised left hand and a pedum or lagobolon in his right

As with the L and number after Severus’s name, the meaning is that Martialis was set free after his 21st fight (Blake 1940, 113). 57  See, for instance, the comments in Blake 1940, 113; Papini 2004, 148, n.76; in describing the Topham drawings, Papini attributes them to Francesco ‘Bianchini’ (sic). Cf Ashby 1914, 22. 58  Montfaucon 1724, III, 177. 59  Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 119. 60  Ashby 1914, 24-25, nos 42-43. 56 

Lanciani 1895, 191. Ashby 1914, 30, nos 1-2. 63  Ashby refers to the first attribute as ‘cornucopiae’ (sic) (1914, 24) but the Bacchic context suggests a drinking vessel. Although the shape of the rhyton is similar to that of a cornucopia, such an interpretation is inconsistent with its small size, lack of contents and the way it is held. 61  62 

58

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime hand. The latter holds a dish in his upraised left hand, a jug in his right hand, and he appears to wear boots. The figures at upper right and lower left are naked. The former has drapery over his left shoulder and holds a thyrsus in his left hand and a shallow basket in his upraised right hand. The latter holds a pedum or lagobolon in his right hand and a basket in his left hand. These attributes are all appropriate for Bacchic figures.

bust at top left wearing a leafy headdress matches the bust at bottom right in the Europa drawing. Finally, Bartoli’s female bust at bottom right, wearing a beribboned wreath, appears to be the counterpart of the bearded satyr at top right of the Europa drawing. By comparing Bn.5:42 with Bm.9:74, it is clear that Bartoli has reproduced the mosaic found in the Baths of Caracalla, albeit with alteration and embellishment. The centrepiece has been adopted from another source which has yet to be identified. Bartoli has used the meander border of the original, adding further decorative borders in place of the plain lines separating the compartments. Bm.9:74 is a sketchy depiction by an unknown hand. It is possible that Bartoli could have worked from it – and he might ultimately have been the source from which Topham acquired the drawing – but it seems likely that he was familiar with the original mosaic. One explanation for the different positions of the four corner busts is that he could have recorded the imagery in separate preliminary drawings, without recording which compartment each bust occupied. At the very least, Bn.5:42 provides a further, if enhanced and amended, record of this lost mosaic.

At the top and bottom of the design, and viewed from the short sides, are three square panels with busts; those in the corners of the mosaic each appear in a roundel and are placed on a slight diagonal facing outwards. The central bust in the upper row appears to be male. He is naked and wears a headdress of pointed rays in the centre of which is a calathus (a distinctively-shaped basket). The central bust in the lower row is female. She has drapery over her right shoulder and wears a golden diadem. The outer busts, clockwise from upper left, are a naked young man wearing a leafy headdress; a naked elderly man with grey hair and beard; a robed woman wearing a wreath; and a woman wearing drapery over her right shoulder and a blue headdress topped by a golden diadem. The latter figure has wings on either side of her head, below which are sinuous lines resembling snakes or thick ribbons.

Drunken Bacchus Bn.5:43 is a square drawing of a predominantly black and white mosaic with some polychrome figures. The background is filled by elaborate scrolls (Figure 4.13). A central square contains a roundel depicting the semidraped figure of Bacchus who is identified by the thyrsus in his left hand and the large drinking cup in his right hand. He has his right arm around the shoulders of a young man. The latter has slight traces of a beard and an ear that protrudes from his curly hair. He holds a pedum or lagobolon in his right hand and turns his head to look at Bacchus. A long-tailed quadruped, presumably intended as a feline, bounds towards the left behind the figures while looking back at them.

Bartoli might have intended the central busts to represent the sun and moon, with somewhat embellished headdresses. It is tempting to identify the other busts as Seasons. The different leaves in the headdresses worn by two of them could fit such an interpretation, as could the elderly man who might stand for Winter, but the fourth bust is anomalous. The wings and ? snakes seem to have been inspired by depictions of Medusa. It is likely that Bn.5:42 is a composite design put together by Bartoli in the same way as Bn.5:43 discussed below, in which a known mosaic is given a different centrepiece. The scheme in Bn.5:42 can be identified with the mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla depicted in Bm.9:74, discussed in Chapter 6. In the central compartment, Bartoli has substituted Bacchus and an attendant for Europa on the bull. The animals in the flanking compartments replace the stylised leaves seen in Bm.9:74, with the leaves being used by Bartoli as decoration for additional outer compartments. Bartoli has provided the four full-length figures with clothing or drapery, varied their poses, and amended their attributes slightly to emphasise their Bacchic character in keeping with the centrepiece he has inserted.

The central square is contained within a larger square, the corners of which extend into small circles. Each circle contains a naked male bust turned slightly towards his right. Above each bust is a small object: clockwise from upper left, they appear to be a tambourine with pedum or lagobolon, a ? pair of castanets, a syrinx, and a ? pair of writing tablets. In the centre of the top and bottom sides of this square, and extending into the outer square, is a lidded vessel, while in the comparable positions on the left and right sides is a slender two-handled vessel. The outer square contains a scroll growing from a clump of foliage in each corner above which is a small bird. The bird at top right is an owl and the bird at bottom left resembles a dove. Those at top left and bottom right are similar to one another and have their heads turned to look backwards.

Although the busts drawn by Bartoli are directly comparable to those in Bm.9:74, those in the corners appear in different positions. The bearded male bust at top right of his drawing is the counterpart of the bust at bottom left in the Europa drawing, which appears to wear a headdress not depicted by Bartoli. His bust at bottom left reflects the bust at top left in the Europa drawing, with the shapes in the headdress being turned into wings. Bartoli’s

Ashby noted that, except for the centre, the design in Bn.5:43 is the same as that of a mosaic published by 59

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Breval and captioned ‘The Pavement of the Bathing Room in the Palatin (sic) Hill’.64 Breval’s account of discoveries made after 1721 refers to a richly-decorated chamber which ‘was scarce sooner discovered than lost again, being pulled to Pieces by these Vandals, merely for the intrinsick Value of the Materials, which were scandalously retail’d to common Stone-Cutters, and Dealers in Pietre Commesse’.

poses. Small rectangular compartments inserted at top and bottom each show a semi-draped reclining female figure respectively approached by a child and Cupid. I have been unable to find any other record of a mosaic such as this but, by comparison with Bn.6:2, it is possible that it depicted a ceiling rather than a floor. Whether it came from Hadrian’s Villa is uncertain.

The draftsmanship of Breval’s plate is in Bartoli’s distinctive style although his name does not appear on it. The probability is that the plate was engraved from a drawing made by him although it shows a completely different central scene of a reclining woman with a standing male companion. Ashby identified the centrepiece of the Topham drawing as a copy of a decorative silver panel from the front of a wooden chest shown in one of the drawings at Holkham.65

Venus and Cupid Bn.6:2 is a square drawing with a concave-sided compartment in the centre within a convex-sided border. An outer border has a roundel in each corner (Figure 4.15). The central compartment shows a semi-draped woman seated on a rock. She wears a diadem and holds a branch with red flowers, apparently roses, in her upraised right hand. A small boy stands on the left with his right arm raised; he is possibly holding something in his left hand. The scene appears to depict Venus and Cupid although the boy lacks wings. Around this compartment are elegant scrolls growing from stylised ? female masks drawn in black on a white background. A standing figure is depicted in each of the corner roundels, while in the centre of each compartment between the roundels is a basket of fruit. It is possible that the standing figures were intended to represent the Seasons but their attributes are not distinctively seasonal and three are male while the figure at upper left is female.

Other differences between the plate and the Topham drawing are that in the plate the bust at lower left is turned towards his left. The small objects above each of the busts have been simplified and consist of flower-like forms of two or three petals. The birds are different and appear more stylised, with hooked beaks and feathers that stick out in a small curve behind their heads. The birds in the Topham drawing are strikingly similar to those in the drawings of the Bacchic pavement said to be from Santa Costanza and discussed in the previous chapter (Bn.6:50). The owl is virtually identical. The bird at bottom right turning its head resembles the bird at upper left in the drawing of the alleged Santa Costanza mosaic in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.66 Its counterpart at top left in Bn.5:43, also turning its head, is perhaps a variation of this. The possible dove at bottom left resembles the bird on the right of one of the plates published by Bartoli and Bellori from which the Santa Costanza birds appear to have been taken.67 The owl also features in that plate, as does the bird turning its head. It seems that for Bn.5:43 Bartoli might have drawn on a number of sources.

A sketch by Francesco Bartoli of part of the design shown in Bn.6:2 is held in the RIBA collections.68 The central compartment is sketched in and closely follows the Topham drawing save that only the edge of the rock on which the female sits has been shown, giving the impression that she is holding a scythe rather than resting her hand on a rock. The sketch is catalogued as part of a series of ceiling designs from Hadrian’s villa. Although Bn.6:1 and Bn.6:2 were described as mosaics by Lanciani, they are followed in the Topham album by a series of ceiling designs69 and it seems likely that they too represented ceilings.

Seated woman with two figures Bn.6:1 is a rectangular drawing. In the central panel a fully-clothed young woman is seated on the left under a tree (Figure 4.14). Approaching her are two youthful ? male figures who have their arms around one other. They are gazing intently at each other and not at the woman, and are naked save for a cloak held by one of them which partially covers his companion. The other offers an object – perhaps an apple – to the woman who in turn stretches out her hand to offer something resembling a piece of bread or cheese. The surrounding area is filled with elegant scrolls on which peacocks are perching in a variety of Breval 1738, I, 84-85, pl. after 85; Ashby 1914, 24-25, no. 43. Ashby 1914, 24-25, no. 43. For the latter, see Holkham I, 33; Ashby 1916, 38, no. 33. 66  Stern 1958, 216-218, fig. 58; L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, pl. VIII. 67  Bartoli and Bellori 1706, pl. XXI. 64  65 

RIBA SB4/1(1); https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA84258, accessed 29 November 2020. 69  Lanciani 1895, 191; Ashby 1914, 30-31. 68 

60

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 4.1 – Bn.5:59, Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Figure 4.2 – Bn.6:13, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

61

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 4.3 – Bn.6:51, Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

Figure 4.4 – Bn.7:34, Bull and bear, Aventine

Figure 4.5 – Bn.7:35, Horseman and bulls, Aventine

62

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 4.6 – Bn.7:36, Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

Figure 4.7 – Bn.7:37, Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

Figure 4.8 – Bn.7:38, Dancers and musicians, Aventine

63

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 4.9 – Bn.5:37, Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

Figure 4.10 – Bn.5:39, Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Figure 4.11 – Bn.5:40, Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

64

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 4.12 – Bn.5:42, Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

65

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 4.13 – Bn.5:43, Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

66

Drawings by Francesco Bartoli of mosaics discovered in and around Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 4.14 – Bn.6:1, Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

67

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 4.15 – Bn.6:2, Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’

68

5 Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime Album Bn.4 includes drawings of mosaics discovered during excavations carried out in Rome during Topham’s lifetime. Captions on many of the drawings show that these mosaics were found in the Vigna Moroni and various other vineyards, and it is probable that the uncaptioned items record discoveries in similar locations. The mosaics are not thought to survive and most of these drawings appear to be the only record of them.

discussed in Chapter 8 (Bn.13:9). Topham annotated Bn.6:13 to refer to Hadrian’s Villa but the evidence of drawings in the Corsini codex and in the prints suggests that the mosaic came from the Vigna Moroni excavations. Bn.4:23 is not placed in the album immediately following the other Vigna Moroni drawings but is filed between items described as found in the Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo. This placement, and the absence of a caption, suggests that it could have been acquired by Topham separately from the other three Vigna Moroni items. It might not be a coincidence that it is the most elaborate mosaic of the four.

Some of the drawings demonstrate the beginnings of an archaeological approach, with attention being paid to context. For instance, one mosaic is not only shown in detail but is also sketched into a drawing of the tomb in which it was found (Bn.4:24, Bn.4:26).

The Vigna Moroni was a vineyard on the Via Appia near Porta S. Sebastiano. Excavations initiated by Francesco de’Ficoroni (1664-1747) between 1705 and 1710 revealed a large number of tombs.2

Although they are unsigned, these drawings are usually and plausibly attributed to Gaetano Piccini. His distinctive style, which is very different from that of Francesco Bartoli, is evident in a signed drawing in the Corsini codex.1

Silenus reclining

With the exception of Bn.4:32, Bn.4:33 and Bn.4:36, the drawings of the mosaics discussed in this chapter are all cross-hatched to indicate mosaic. Most are circular but it is unclear whether this was the shape of the original design or whether it was simply an attractive way of presenting details from mosaics too fragmentary to depict as a whole. Four of the drawings depict square or rectangular designs (Bn.4:11, Bn.4:21, Bn.4:23, Bn.4:26). Bn.4:11 shows a significant area of loss to the right, and Bn.4:21 depicts broken areas of tesserae at upper right.

In the centre of Bn.4:11 is a roundel showing Silenus reclining on the ground (Figure 5.1). He is naked save for a cloak and holds a patera in his right hand. The roundel is surrounded by a vine-scroll with prominent bunches of grapes. Diana

Each drawing has only a plain wide red border.

Bn.4:20 shows the half-length figure of Diana wearing a square-necked robe and the crescent headdress which identifies her (Figure 5.2). Her long hair cascades onto her shoulders and around her are floral scrolls.

Mosaics found in Vigna Moroni

Silenus riding leopard

Three drawings show mosaics found in excavations in the Vigna Moroni, with each having a caption in Topham’s hand. The caption for Bn.4:11 reads ‘Pavimento della sopradetta Stanza’. This drawing is one of a number of illustrations which all evidently relate to the structure shown in the first drawing in the series, Bn.4:1, which Topham annotated with the caption ‘Stanza Sepolcrale scoperta nella Vigna Moroni’. Bn.4:20 is annotated ‘nella Vigna Moroni’ and Bn.4:21 is captioned ‘Musaico nella Vigna Moroni’.

Bn.4:21 shows Silenus, naked save for a cloak, riding a disproportionately large leopard (Figure 5.3). He is accompanied by another figure, also naked save for a cloak, who walks beside the leopard. The short hair of this figure suggests that he is a young man.3 A drawing of this mosaic in the Capponi codex is similar to the Topham drawing but the young man lacks a cloak and Ashby 1914, 7; Blake 1940, 120; Fileri 1991, 97-98; Fileri 2000, 80. Ficoroni describes: ‘…mio scavo presso la Porta, e via Appia nella vigna de’Signori Moroni, ove pagatone il sito vignato, e alberato per cinque anni continui, non senza spese, vi feci discuoprire novantadue Camere Sepolcrali … Li pavimenti d’esse Camere, eran composti di diversi marmi mischj in varie guise lavorati, e con bella simetria commessi, e tal’uni arricchiti di musaici …’ (1732, 35) For its location on a 1748 map, see Rotondi 2010, 137, fig. 1. 3  Ashby 1914, 9, Eton I, no. 21. The hint of a breast, which could suggest a maenad, is probably not significant as Silenus has been drawn in the same way. 2 

Although Bn.4:23 lacks a caption it shows a mosaic that featured in the drawing by Francesco Bartoli discussed in the previous chapter (Bn.6:13) and one of a set of prints 158 I 5, 130103; Lanciani 1895, 165, f.5, 170; Ashby 1914, 3. Fileri’s illustration includes the caption with the signature (2000, 89-90, no. 2, fig. on 81). 1 

69

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library the mosaic appears as if complete.4 The Topham drawing shows a large area of disturbed tesserae at upper right.

hat with its stem visible. It closely resembles the hat worn in Bn.5:71 discussed in Chapter 3 and also by a standing boatman in the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina published by Ciampini.10 There is a palm tree on the far bank, a duck in the river near the front of the boat, and a crocodile on the bank in the foreground.

Pan and Eros The contest between Pan and Eros is depicted in the central roundel of Bn.4:23 (Figure 5.4). Pan’s beard, horns, tail and hoofs are clearly shown. His left hand touches the head of Eros and his right arm is placed behind his back. Unlike Bartoli’s version in Bn.6:13, he is not shown holding anything in this hand.

Centaur

In the centre of each side of the square is a naked female bust emerging from a calyx which resembles half a sunflower. The busts wear wreaths on their heads and their hair cascades onto their shoulders. Scrolls flow from each calyx. Those at the top and bottom are more elaborate, terminating in yellow flowers hanging beside the heads of the busts. Each stem continues unrealistically through the flowers to terminate in a tri-lobed leaf.

Bn.4:24 shows a tomb on the floor of which a mosaic with a centaur is sketched in (Figure 5.6). The mosaic is drawn in detail in Bn.4:26 (Figure 5.7). The centaur appears in the central roundel with his left arm outstretched and holding a bow in his right hand. In each corner of the surrounding square is a wreath from which foliage bearing red ? berries and three-lobed leaves runs diagonally to the border of the roundel. In the spaces between the foliage are, clockwise from top, a bird with outstretched wings (perhaps an eagle), a peacock, a stag and a duck. The creatures are all shown in profile facing right.

A drawing by Piccini in the Corsini codex is identical in all material respects. Minor differences include a slight variation in the position of the scrolls and leaves, and a greater number of petals for the calyx from which each bust emerges.5 A similar drawing appears in the Capponi codex.6

In Bn.4:24 the duck is shown below the centaur and the stag to the right. The centaur’s bow is not evident in the sketch, the duck has lost its ground-line, and the fronds of foliage are more spaced out and lack the red ? berries. The area above the centaur is not shown and the area to the left is obscured by the wall of the tomb.

Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo

It seems probable that the drawing of the tomb was based on sketches made in situ and is therefore the more accurate record. By adjusting the position of the stag to place it below the centaur in the detailed drawing, Piccini has created a more effective composition in which the only quadruped has been given a prime position, viewed from the same direction as the main subject. Comparison of the two drawings also suggests that in the detailed version Piccini made alterations and embellishments to the foliage.

Three drawings, covering two mosaics, can be attributed to the excavations in the Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo.7 They each have captions in an identical but unknown hand. For Bn.4:22 the caption reads: ‘Pavimento di Musaico ritrouato nella Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti d S. Stefano Rotondo’. Bn.4:24 is captioned ‘Cammera sepolchrale ritrouata nella Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti a S. Stefano Rotondo’. Bn.4:26 shows a detail from it and is captioned ‘Pavimento di Musaico della sopra detta stanza’. These excavations were carried out between 1704 and 1706.8

Mosaics found in Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti alla Navicella Two drawings of mosaics – Bn.4:29 and Bn.4:30 – bear annotations in Topham’s hand reading ‘Nella Vigna de RR. P.P. Gesuiti alla Navicella’. This site was close to the Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo.11 Both drawings have cross-hatching.

Nilotic scene Bn.4:22 shows a Nilotic scene with a bearded man9 rowing a boat on a river (Figure 5.5). He is naked save for a leaf-

Nilotic scene

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.97, accessed 1 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 97. 5  158 I 5, 130140; Engelmann 1909, VIII, no. 39, pl. 7,4; Fileri 2000, 111, no. 39, fig. on 107. 6  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.84, accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 84. For Bartoli’s version in the RIBA collections, see the discussion of his drawing Bn.6:13 in the previous chapter. For a print in the Topham collection (Bn.13:9), see Chapter 8. 7  For the location of this vineyard close to the Via della Navicella, see Ashby 1914, 9-10. Blake comments that the names of the vineyards of S. Stefano Rotondo and alla Navicella are used indiscriminately in the old records (1940, 119, n.274). 8  Fileri 2000, 86. 9  Lanciani 1895, 173, f.22: a pygmy. 4 

Bn.4:29 depicts a Nilotic scene in which a hippopotamus stands on a river bank beside a palm tree (Figure 5.8). Wader and snails Bn.4:30 shows a long-legged bird with a ? reed, eel or snake in its beak (Figure 5.9). Although the bird is drawn Ciampini 1690, I, 81, pl. XXX,3. See also Meyboom 1995, 34, fig. 22; Whitehouse 2001, 112-114, no. 13, incl. figs. 11  Ashby 1914, 11. 10 

70

Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime with plain white plumage, its body-shape, red beak, legs and small head suggest that it was intended to represent a purple gallinule.12

Between the busts are birds which are too sketchily drawn to identify with certainty but which differ from one another. The long tail of the bird at lower right suggests a peacock or peahen, while the bird at lower left appears to be a duck or goose. The bird at upper right has a hooked beak and the bird at upper left might be a dove. They are all drawn in profile arranged so that those on the left face each other as do those on the right.

Three large snails appear in the lower part of the roundel, one of which crawls between the bird’s legs. The shell of the snail on the right is notable because it has the coils on the left running anticlockwise from the centre, whereas in nature the coils are usually on the right and run clockwise.13 This was perhaps to provide a symmetrical composition, although it is not known whether it reflects the original mosaic or was introduced by Piccini.

The overall design and, in particular, the way each bust emerges from a calyx, resembles the Pan and Eros mosaic shown in Bn.4:23 which is discussed above, and the version by Francesco Bartoli discussed in Chapter 4 (Bn.6:13).

The scene can be compared to the snails and birds which appear in the lower part of Bn.7:98, the drawing of one of the mosaics displayed in Santa Maria in Trastevere discussed in Chapter 3.

Lanciani identified Bn.4:31 as depicting the same mosaic as is shown in two drawings in the Corsini codex, the captions to which place its find-spot near S. Stefano Rotondo. In his view, the central figure of Diana in those drawings has been transformed in the Topham drawing into a bust with the sun’s rays.17 He noted that the central bust was regarded as Bacchus by Bartoli and Bellori who published a plate of the mosaic.18 For Engelmann the central bust was Io,19 while Fileri acknowledges the controversy over the identity.20 Ghedini interprets the figure as Selene or Helios.21

Ciampini’s plate mentioned above, showing a man in a boat similar to the Nilotic scene in Bn.4:22, includes a separate scene resembling Bn.4:30. A bird with the same body-shape and pose, and with something in its beak, has a single snail between its long legs.14 Mosaics found in unspecified locations Within a set of drawings numbered 1 to 10 in the top left corner (Bn.4:31-Bn.4:40) are six that show, or might show, mosaics. Bn.4:31 and Bn.4:35 have cross-hatching to indicate mosaic. Bn.4:32 and Bn.4:33 were tentatively accepted by Ashby as showing mosaics on the basis that they appear to form a set with Bn.4:34 which is cross-hatched. Ashby did not comment on the nature of Bn.4:36.15 The drawings lack captions of any sort and it is uncertain where the originals were found. Blake includes them in her discussion of the mosaics from the vineyards of S. Stefano or alla Navicella.16

The mosaic depicted in the Corsini codex also features in a drawing in the Capponi codex.22 On the strength of the apparent horns, Engelmann again tentatively suggested that the central bust in this drawing might depict Io.23 Although Ashby considered that the Corsini and Topham drawings could not be equated with one another,24 Fileri continues to follow Lanciani.25 There are, however, significant differences between the drawings that support Ashby’s view. Piccini’s caption to the first Corsini drawing refers to the mosaic being in black and white,26 whereas the Topham drawing is coloured. The Corsini and Capponi drawings are not circular but show the bust in a central square contained within a square mosaic. There is no cloak over the shoulder of the central bust and the headdress is significantly different. The four surrounding heads are placed in the corners and they take the form of male masks with flowing beards. The birds are positioned above altars or objects which are entirely missing from the Topham drawing.

Sol In the central roundel of Bn.4:31 is a male bust wearing a radiate crown which identifies him as Sol (Figure 5.10). He is naked save for a yellow cloak over his right shoulder. Outside this roundel are four female busts, each emerging from a small stylised calyx from which scrolls are flowing. Each bust wears a red robe and a floral wreath. All except the bust on the right have long hair falling on either side of their necks. Those on the left and at the bottom look to their right, while those on the right and at the top look ahead. As the wreaths are similar, it is unlikely that they were intended to represent the Seasons.

Ashby noted a slight resemblance to the subject of Bn.6:20, a drawing in the Topham collection by Francesco Bartoli, 158 I 5, 130103, 130144 ; Lanciani 1895, 172-173. Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 22-23, pl. XX; see also Holkham II, 27. 19  Engelmann 1909, V, no. 2, pl. 1,2; see also VIII, no. 43, pl. 7,3. 20  Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2, 114, no. 43, figs on 81 and 110. 21  Ghedini 2005, 597-598, fig. 11. 22  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.80, accessed December 2020. 23  Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 80. 24  Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 31. 25  Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2. 26  Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2, fig. on 81. 17  18 

Lanciani identifies the bird as an ibis (1895, 173, Eton I, f.30), followed tentatively by Ashby (1914, 11, Eton I, no. 30) and also by Blake (1940, 120). 13  Cf the discussion in Chapter 3 in relation to Bn.7:98. 14  Ciampini 1690, I, 81, pl. XXX,3. 15  Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, nos 32-34. Blake remarks that for some of the circular images in this series it is difficult to say whether they showed floor mosaics or paintings for ceilings (1940, 119). 16  Blake 1940, 119. 12 

71

1

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library but did not consider that Bn.4:31 could be equated to it.27 This is a sound conclusion. Although the bust in the central roundel is similar to that in Bn.4:31, there is no indication that Bn.6:20 depicts a mosaic. It is a sumptuous design with echoes of other works by Bartoli discussed in Chapter 4. It is entirely possible that he drew on a variety of imagery including that in Bn.4:31 when creating this composition. The scene at the bottom of Bn.6:20 shows a seated figure below a tree being approached by a standing figure which is close to, although not exactly the same as, the central scene in Bn.6:1 discussed in the previous chapter. Some of the busts around the centre have a resemblance to those in Bn.6:13, as do the flying birds. In short, it seems that Bn.6:20 might well be a composite creation.

manuscript devoted to drawings of mosaics. These factors tend to suggest that Bn.4:32 might have depicted a wall painting rather than a mosaic. Architectural scene (towers) Bn.4:33 shows a pedimented building in the centre decorated with columns and swags, which Ashby describes as a small prostyle temple (Figure 5.12).32 It is flanked by a pair of towers and trees. A crenellated wall runs in front of the building, encompassing the left hand tower and just visible continuing, although much taller, to the rear of this tower. In the foreground is a pylon, a square structure with a splayed base. The buildings are located beside a body of water.

Nilotic scene with animals

Architectural scene (obelisk)

Bn.4:32 shows a Nilotic scene with three animals each standing on a riverbank or small grassy island in a river (Figure 5.11). The crocodile in the foreground is easily identified. Ashby plausibly suggests that the animal in the background on the left is a hippopotamus and on the right perhaps a hyena.28

Bn.4:34 depicts several structures against a backdrop of trees with a hint of mountains in the far distance to the left (Figure 5.13). The buildings are located beside water. On the left is an obelisk, indicating that this is a Nilotic scene. In the centre is a domed building and on the right the pedimented façade of a building with a square doorway flanked by columns. Ashby suggests that they represent a ? domed shrine and a small Ionic temple.33 A wall between these two structures is probably intended to represent the side wall of the temple whose roof has not been delineated.

Ashby noted the appearance of the same animals, differently disposed, in two drawings in the Capponi codex which he suggests were derived from the same original.29 Another possibility is that the Topham drawing is an amalgamation of details from the Capponi drawings. The two animals in the background of f.53 are strikingly similar to those in Bn.4:32 but the foreground contains only the head of a swimming creature. The replacement of the head by an entire crocodile in the Topham drawing would create a greater impact, and the crocodile in f.57 would have made an suitable model. It is notable that it faces in the same direction and is almost identical to that in Bn.4:32 save that its tail is upraised.30 It would not be surprising if Piccini ‘restored’ mosaics in some drawings.31

Pan holding a syrinx Bn.4:35 shows a satyr standing on a grassy area holding a syrinx in his left hand (Figure 5.14). His beard, horns and hoofs are clearly shown, and he has an animal-skin cloak over his right shoulder. Yellow flowers decorate the area around him and bear a slight similarity to the floral scrolls around Diana in Bn.4:20 discussed above. Although Ashby and Blake refer to this figure merely as a satyr,34 arguably this is the specific satyr Pan, whose most popular musical instrument was the syrinx.

The Capponi drawings are not cross-hatched to indicate mosaic, nor do they appear in the later section of the

Silenus riding ass Bn.4:36 shows the bearded figure of Silenus wearing a wreath of ivy leaves and reclining on an ass which is moving to the left (Figure 5.15). Silenus sits on red drapery which falls across his right thigh but he is otherwise naked. His arms are outstretched and in his right hand he holds a small dish the contents of which are coloured red, presumably to indicate wine. Some of the fingers of his left hand are curled as if holding a drinking cup although no cup is shown; it is possible that the original roundel was damaged at this point. Behind the drunken Silenus, and propping him up, is a bearded satyr with prominent horns on his head. There is yellow drapery over his left arm and right shoulder. He is apparently standing behind the ass but

Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 31. Joyce touches on Bn.6:20 as a ceiling design (1990, 354, pl. 109,1). 28  Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 32, followed by Blake 1940, 120, commenting on the knowledge of these animals in Rome. 29  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.53 and f.57, accessed 1 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XV, nos 53 and 57. 30  Cf the crocodile in f.89 of the Capponi codex, in the foreground of a scene with buildings to the rear, which faces in the opposite direction to the crocodile in Bn.4:32 (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.89, accessed 1 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 89). 31  See comments about his possible veracity by Connor Bulman 2001b, 234. My attention has been drawn by an anonymous peer reviewer of this book to two publications, one dating back to 1979, which address this topic but which have not been cited by the authors of works I have consulted, including Connor Bulman’s paper about Piccini. I have been unable to consult these publications but include the details here for the benefit of future researchers: P.G.P. Meyboom, ‘Some Nilotic scenes in eighteenth century drawings of Roman wall paintings’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, 41 n.s.6 (1979), 59-65 and Delphine Burlot, Fabriquer l’antique. Les contrefaçons de peinture murale antique au XVIIIe siècle (2012). 27 

Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 33. Ashby 1914, 12, Eton I, no. 34. 34  Ashby 1914, 12, Eton I, no. 35; Blake 1940, 119. 32  33 

72

Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime his legs, which should be partially visible, are not shown. This is a further indication that the roundel might have been incomplete, especially since the area where the legs would be expected is just below the position where a cup held by Silenus could be envisaged. The figures are shown in a landscape setting of grass, bare earth and stones, with hills or mountains in the background.

73

Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 5.3 – Bn.4:21, Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

Figure 5.1 – Bn.4:11, Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

Figure 5.2 – Bn.4:20, Diana, Vigna Moroni

Figure 5.4 – Bn.4:23, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

75

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 5.5 – Bn.4:22, Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo

Figure 5.6 – Bn.4:24, Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo

76

Drawings by Gaetano Piccini of mosaics discovered in Rome in Topham’s lifetime

Figure 5.7 – Bn.4:26, Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo

Figure 5.8 – Bn.4:29, Nilotic scene, Navicella

Figure 5.9 – Bn.4:30, Wader and snails, Navicella

77

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 5.10 – Bn.4:31, Sol

Figure 5.13 – Bn.4:34, Architectural scene (obelisk)

Figure 5.11 – Bn.4:32, Nilotic scene with animals

Figure 5.14 – Bn.4:35, Pan holding a syrinx

Figure 5.12 – Bn.4:33, Architectural scene (towers)

Figure 5.15 – Bn.4:36, Silenus riding ass

78

6 Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy Five drawings depict mosaics found at different locations in Italy. Two are filed in the same album as many of the other drawings of mosaics and show mosaics that were well known at the time (Bn.7:1, Bn.7:3). The other three appear in separate albums, suggesting that they were acquired at different times (Bm.9:74, Bn.3:31, Bn.9:4).

respects, does not capture the ferocity of the beasts. In particular, the leopard’s head is less expressive and the drawing fails to bring out the animal’s acute gaze looking upwards at its attacker. Similarly, the lion’s eyes look to the side and do not stare straight out at the viewer as in the original, which lessens the impact.

Lion and leopard

On minor points, the leopard’s right forepaw seems limp in the drawing, with the claws indistinct, and there are differences in the left forepaw. A more significant discrepancy is that the leopard’s hindquarters are left uncoloured in the drawing, which suggests that this area was missing or fragmentary at the time when the drawing was made. This part of the mosaic looks as if it has been restored. In particular, the leopard’s upper rear leg is unrealistically thin in the original, and the area where the tail emerges from the body is unconvincing.7

Bn.7:3 is a drawing of the emblema then in Rome showing a lion pouncing on a leopard (Figure 6.1). It is cross-hatched to indicate mosaic. The emblema is now at Holkham Hall in Norfolk, making a striking addition to the library where it is hung above the fireplace.1 The close similarity of the scene to a mosaic from the Casa della Colombe (House VIII.2, 34) at Pompeii2 has in the past raised the possibility that the emblema could be a copy, casting doubt on its authenticity.3 The drawing is, however, captioned in Topham’s hand, proving that the mosaic was known in his lifetime and had therefore been found before excavations started at Pompeii.

Only the central figured scene is shown in the drawing, which omits the decorative border. Two details of roundtongued double guilloche from the border are added in pencil, depicting the individual tesserae (Figure 9.1) and therefore indicating that the drawing was made from the original mosaic.

The wording of the caption, ‘Musaico antico nel Palazzo Mignanelli’, is helpful in identifying the provenance of the mosaic. It had been reputed to come from Hadrian’s Villa4 but the reference to Palazzo Mignanelli links it to a mosaic taken there from Gubbio.

The drawing has been attributed to Francesco Bartoli8 but this is unlikely. He did not use cross-hatching and his colours are invariably brighter. His distinctive style is not in evidence here. Instead, the drawing is closer to the style of Gaetano Piccini and he is the most probable artist.

Antiquarian sources show that this emblema was found in the theatre of Iguvium (modern Gubbio) in the sixteenth century and transferred to the Palazzo Gabrielli, subsequently known as Palazzo Mignanelli, in Rome, and then later to Holkham Hall.5 It was an early tourist attraction, featuring in a guide to Rome in 1664, where it was described under the heading ‘Signori Gabrieli’ as ‘vn mosaico antico … bellissimo rappresenta vn leone, il quale preme, & isbrana vna Tigre …’6

Rape of Europa, Palestrina Bn.9:4 is an accomplished record of the mosaic from the Temple of Fortuna at Palestrina, now in the Landesmuseum, Oldenburg, which was found in the seventeenth century (Figure 6.2).9 It is captioned on the back in Topham’s hand, ‘mosaico antico Palazzo Barberini No. 138’, reflecting its location at the time. The number relates to Topham’s entry under ‘Palazzo Barberini’ in Finding Aid 2, his list of the contents of various palazzi.10

Comparison of the drawing with the original emblema shows that it is a reasonably exact depiction, reflecting minor details such as the shape of the rocks and the small clumps of vegetation. However, the draftsmanship of the animals, while following the original closely in most

Finding Aid 4, compiled at Eton after Topham’s death, gives the artist as Campiglia.11 Although the drawing is unsigned, its style is similar to drawings of other items from

Andreae 2003, 185, colour pl. on 184; Taglietti 2010, 184-185, fig. 3; Marcattili 2011, esp. 184-186, fig. 11. 2  Andreae 2003, 185, colour pl. on 187; Marcattili 2011, 187-188, fig. 13. 3  See, for instance, the comments in Pernice 1938, 156. 4  Pernice 1938, 156; Waywell 1978, 10, no. 45; Meyboom 1995, 359, n.8, speculating that it might instead have come from Naples. 5  Angelicoussis 2001, 158; Marcattili 2011, esp. 173-186. 6  Nota delli Musei 1664, 26; Zocca 1976, 58-59. The reference to the tiger is incorrect but it is common for felines to be misdescribed: see Witts 2016, 12. For Nota delli Musei, see also Faedo 2000, 113. 1 

I am grateful to Mac Graham at Holkham Hall for facilitating close access to the original mosaic to allow comparison with the drawing. 8  de Lachenal 2000, 650; Marcattili 2011, 180. 9  The mosaic is illustrated and described in Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 7383, pl. VII. See also Schönberger 1978, 223-226, pl. opp. 228. It was found slightly earlier than 1676, the date usually given (Montagu 2006, 195). 10  Finding Aid 2, 8. 11  Finding Aid 4, 31. 7 

79

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library the Palazzo Barberini in the same album which Topham annotated with Campiglia’s name.12 Lanciani remarks ‘forse di mano del Bartoli giuniore’13 but the style and delicate colouring argues against this. The other drawings annotated as by Campiglia show the use of small dots of colour to build up the shading and this technique is evident in Bn.9:4. It is also notable that there is no border around the drawing whereas Francesco Bartoli’s practice was to add at least a thick red border and sometimes additional borders. The attribution to Campiglia seems secure.

third and fourth women from the left is greatly diminished in the drawing. The branch growing horizontally from the hillside at upper left in the original mosaic is rendered as clump of small shrubs, and the size of the loop in the bull’s tail is reduced. The Topham drawing is one of several illustrations of this mosaic. Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawing in the Glasgow volume includes the foremost woman’s face, the branch at upper left and the foliage between the women. The rock at upper right is shorter than in the Topham drawing, revealing more of the man standing behind it, and the rock at lower right is fronted by the hollow tree-trunk. Pietro Santi’s drawing is closer to the original than Campiglia’s more delicate rendering.16

The distinctive scene was recognised at the outset as the Rape of Europa by Jupiter in the guise of a bull. The two main figures are seen at lower left, with Europa viewed from behind. She is seated on the bull and is naked save for some drapery. The bull is moving to the left and has just entered the sea. On the right, a man and a woman stand on the shore watching the bull take the plunge. The man has a staff in his left hand and holds his right hand to his head as if in amazement. He wears loose clothing and boots. The woman is naked above the waist and her body is partly obscured by a large rock. In the upper part of the drawing are five young women who are running from left to right in front of a row of hills or mountains. They all wear long tunics belted at the waist and have sandals on their feet. They are approaching a bearded man who holds a tall staff. His body is mostly hidden behind a rock.

The plate published by Ciampini in 1690 is cruder.17 It includes the branch at upper left but does not show the foremost woman’s face or the foliage between the women. The area at lower right appears to have a lacuna next to the standing woman whose robe extends to the ground, as if the tree/rock has been rationalised. The plate published in the Appendix to Bartoli and Bellori’s publication shows the face and branch but thins the latter.18 The foliage between the women has been turned into a group of lowgrowing shrubs and a waterfall has been added flowing down the rock at upper right. However, the area at lower right seems more realistic and is close to the depiction in the Topham drawing. In Camillo Paderni’s version published by Turnbull, the face of the foremost woman is indistinct and a leafy shrub has been added next to the hollow tree-trunk at lower right.19

The women are thought to represent Europa’s companions with whom she was playing on the seashore when she was spotted by Jupiter. The bearded man has been interpreted as Europa’s father, Agenor, or less probably her brother, Cadmus, who subsequently tried to find her.14 The age and stature of this figure, and the prominent staff which he holds, suggest that Agenor is intended.

Unlike many of the drawings of mosaics in the Topham collection, the impression obtained by comparing the various illustrations of this mosaic does not suggest transmission by copying. Instead, each artist seems to have made small alterations, perhaps to rationalise areas of the mosaic which they had seen but which were problematic following damage and restoration.

Wattel-de Croizant highlights the fact that the mosaic has been restored, and Montagu suggests that the extent of restoration might have been greater than is usually thought.15

What sets the Topham drawing apart is that some of the clothing of the man at lower right is blue, whereas it is predominantly yellow in the original and in Pietro Santi Bartoli’s drawing, and is also indicated as yellow or ‘red changing with Yellow’ in the key to the engraving published by Turnbull.20 The reasons for this discrepancy are unknown but the addition of blue in this part of the drawing creates a pleasing effect, balancing the blue tunic worn by one of the women at upper left, and might therefore have been a deliberate choice.

The drawing is more subtle in its colouring than the original. In particular, the delicate shading of the sea contrasts with the stark blue and white horizontal lines in the mosaic. While the essential features are the same in both, the drawing clearly shows the face of the foremost woman in the group as she looks back over her companion’s shoulder which is indistinct in the original. The drawing also depicts the area at lower right as a large rock with a fractured face rather than a hollow tree-trunk in front of a rock as now seen in the original. On the other hand, the small shrub visible in the original between the

Glasgow CXLVI; Pace 1979, 153, pl. XXVIIIb; Wattel-de Croizant 1986, 499, fig. 4. 17  Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXIII; Wattel-de Croizant 1986, 497-498, fig. 3. 18  Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix, 95-96, pl. XII; Wattel-de Croizant 1986, 500-501, fig. 5. 19  Turnbull 1740, pl. 8. 20  Turnbull 1740, pl. D. 16 

For instance, Bn.9:8 and Bn.9:10. Lanciani 1894, 182. 14  Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 77; LIMC I (1981), ‘Agenor I’, no. 5; LIMC IV (1988), ‘Europe I’, no. 148. 15  Wattel-de Croizant 1986; Wattel-de Croizant 1994, esp. 49, fig. 2; Montagu 2006, 198. 12  13 

80

Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy Rape of Europe, Baths of Caracalla

in some way, such as by wearing different clothing or having seasonal produce in the baskets.

Bm.9:74 is a drawing of a rectangular mosaic with figures occupying 11 of the 13 compartments (Figure 6.3). Part of the border of the mosaic is sketched in, featuring meander between double lines. This drawing is different from the other drawings of mosaics in the Topham collection, being notable for its use of black ink and grey wash. This might be the reason why it is filed in a miscellaneous album immediately before the items relating to Romano-British mosaics and not with the other drawings of mosaics from Italy.

It is also unlikely that the corner busts are Seasons. The bust at top left appears to be female. She has drapery over her right shoulder and wears a headdress from which angular shapes emerge. While these could be interpreted as reeds for Winter, the features above these shapes resemble the wings in Medusa’s hair, suggesting that the angular shapes were intended to indicate snakes. The bust at bottom right also appears to be female. She could perhaps be interpreted as Spring or Summer since she is bare-shouldered and wears a leafy headdress. However, the busts at top right and bottom left seem to have beards. The former looks like a satyr wearing a headdress of leaves or short reeds, while the headdress worn by the latter resembles those of the busts in the centre of the rows.

A caption in an unknown hand refers to ‘Musaico antico delle Terme di Caracalla’. It is not known when the mosaic was found, nor what became of it, and this was thought to be the only known record of it.21 The importance of the drawing has been emphasised by Lanciani.22

The central busts are similar to one another, both having short hair and wearing headdresses adorned with round protuberances, but the bust at the top has drapery over his or her right shoulder. This attempt at differentiation could suggest that one was intended to be male and the other female but they are drawn too indistinctly to indicate their identity.

During the course of writing this book, I have realised that the same pavement is shown in Bn.5:42. This is a drawing by Francesco Bartoli said to be of a mosaic from Hadrian’s Villa. It is discussed in Chapter 4 where Bartoli’s transformation of the details is analysed. His drawing shows Bacchus with an attendant in place of Europa and the bull in the central compartment. The full-length depictions are shown as Bacchic figures, complementing Bartoli’s version of the centrepiece. The busts are comparable to those in Bm.9:74, albeit that some are in different positions.

The Cavalieri mosaic Bn.7:1 is a drawing of a fragmentary mosaic showing 17 figures, some incomplete, in front of what looks like a city wall with a gate (Figure 6.4). A caption refers to ‘Musaico del Sigr Marchese de Cavalieri’ in handwriting which appears to be that of Gaetano Piccini.25 The use of cross-hatching and the presence of only a plain black line for the border are consistent with his work but not that of Francesco Bartoli.

In Bm.9:74 the central compartment, which was viewed from one of the short sides of the mosaic, shows Europa riding the bull into which Jupiter has transformed himself. The scene is flanked by compartments with stylised leaflike shapes perhaps intended to represent lengths of foliate scroll. Above and below are two compartments each with a full-length nude male figure viewed from the long sides of the mosaic. At the top and bottom, and viewed from the short sides, are three square panels with busts; those in the corners of the mosaic each appear in a roundel and are placed on a slight diagonal facing outwards.

The original mosaic is now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen.26 Poulsen noted that it was said to have been found in Frascati; that it was in the possession of Volpini, a Roman mosaic worker, in the early nineteenth century; and that its authenticity has been doubted.27 Reservations have continued to be expressed and it is common ground that it has been the subject of much restoration.28 A border of black and white chequers surrounds three sides of the original fragment, with a trace on the fourth side where the mosaic has sustained most losses. This border is not included in the drawing, which gives it the appearance of showing an extract from a larger mosaic.

Sampson interprets the full-length figures as Seasons. Although she does not identify the corner busts, she notes that they all wear garlands and that the busts between them are garlanded or crowned.23 Wattel-de Croizant refers to the mosaic as depicting ‘Les saisons, en buste, ou en pied ...’.24 The four full-length figures each hold a basket with ? fruit and leaves in their upraised right hands and a club or pedum in their left hands. Drapery is wound around their left arms. They are remarkably similar to one another, whereas if they were Seasons they should be differentiated

In the left foreground of the drawing, a white-haired, bearded man, with a knee bent as if seated or kneeling, For Piccini’s handwriting, see Chapter 5, n.1. Poulsen 1951, 261, no. 391; Guerrini 1972, esp. 23, pls XV-XVI; Strocka 2011, esp. 222-227, figs 2-8, 14. I am grateful to Tina Thunø, Registrar, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, for helpfully answering queries about this mosaic and providing useful references. 27  Poulsen 1951, 261, no. 391. 28  Guerrini 1972, 23, 26; Fileri 2000, 92, no. 4; and see the detailed discussion of what is original and what is not in Strocka 2011. 25  26 

Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 119. Lanciani 1894, 181, f.74. 23  Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:74. 24  Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 129, n.25. 21  22 

81

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library extends his right arm towards a child who stands in front of him. He wears a long robe and drapery, while the child wears a tunic over which is a cloak. Behind the child is a fully-draped, bearded man whose cloak covers his head. In his left hand he holds two thin objects (or perhaps one joined object), one with a rounded and a pointed end, and the other with both ends coming to a point.

not mauve; and the woman enveloping the other child has white drapery, not green. There are also differences on points of detail. In the original mosaic, the beard of the seated man in the left foreground is brown not white, and the lacuna affecting his head is larger. His right arm and shoulder are bare. The second woman from the left in the group of five holds her right hand to her chin in a thoughtful pose. The head of the woman in the centre with her arm around the pregnant-looking child is covered by her cloak. The child, who looks like a boy, has ample folds of drapery over the stomach rather than appearing to be pregnant. It seems that the woman is enveloping the child in her own garments since the child’s tunic, which is visible in the original at the neck, is yellow, whereas all the other drapery around the child is white, matching the colour of the woman’s garments. The figure between the child and the youthfullooking naked man has a bare shoulder and appears to be male. One of his legs can be seen in the right foreground, between the legs of the naked man, an area rendered in the drawing as folds of a cloak.

To the right of this group are five fully-draped and apparently female figures, most of whom are looking towards the first group. They are bare-headed save for the woman in the foreground, who has her cloak over her head, and the figure on the right who appears to be wearing a wreath. Among this group is a child with a bulging stomach as if pregnant. One of the women has her right arm across the child’s chest. In the right foreground stands the remains of a youthfullooking naked man. He is shown frontally and appears to be wearing a wreath. His right arm is held with his hand behind his back. The tail of a snake curls around the lower part of his left leg. To his left – at the right of the fragment – the lower leg of an otherwise missing figure is shown in profile facing to the right. Between this leg and the naked man’s left leg is a piece of drapery which comes to a sharp point.

The naked man has shaggy hair in the original, as does the man between him and the child, and neither is wearing a wreath. The ‘snake’ is thinner and looks more like a rope. A second similar black line is visible next to the right elbow of the naked man. Strocka interprets this as a second snake33 but it appears to be a coil of rope, perhaps binding the man’s hands behind his back. The sharply pointed piece of drapery and single leg on the right of the drawing might, as Guerrini suggests, represent a kneeling figure with the head to the right and body to the left, the leg being a misunderstood arm.34

In the background at upper left is a group of four figures wearing tunics. The figure on the left holds a staff, and the figure on the right appears to be seated. In the background at upper right are two men. The one on the left wears a helmet and is leaning forwards. He appears to be resting his arm on a feature resembling a parapet draped with cloth, although the ‘parapet’ does not have a clearly defined end. The man on the right is mostly hidden by the ‘parapet’. His left arm is raised to hold the end of a staff which is held diagonally.

The original mosaic shows that in the scene at upper left the figure on the left is bearded and bare-shouldered. The object next to his hand is substantial, being far longer and wider than a staff. A staff is, however, held by the figure on the right of this group which is not included in the drawing.

The mosaic is described in the Eton Finding Aid as ‘… imperfect but what remains Curious’.29 According to Montfaucon, ‘Ce monument des plus singuliers qu’on voie a été depuis peu découvert auprès de Rome du côté de Frescati, dans une vigne du Signor Cavalieri: c’est un pavé de quelque bâtiment vouté …’30 A note on one of the drawings of this mosaic in the Corsini codex shows that it was in Cavalieri’s house by 1710.31

In the scene at upper right, the line of the ‘parapet’ is missing from the mosaic. The man on the right appears to be holding a shield across his shoulder in his upraised left hand; the apparent staff indicated in the drawing is a misunderstanding of a line of drapery. Another figure or feature is indicated by lines next to his elbow which are not shown in the drawing.

Comparison of the Topham drawing with the original parts of the mosaic as shown by Strocka32 reveals a number of differences, notably in the colours of the clothing worn by the main figures. For instance, the child at lower left wears a predominantly yellow tunic, not red as in the drawing; the white-haired man behind is dressed in white, not blue; the woman next to this man wears yellow like the child,

There are two drawings of this mosaic in the Corsini codex which are slightly different from one another.35 The first shows the figures in a notably elongated fashion typical of Piccini’s work but is otherwise similar to the Topham drawing in many respects. In particular, it shows the child Strocka 2011, 236. Guerrini 1972, 30-31; cf Strocka 2011, 236-238, fig. 16, envisaging an animal here. 35  158 I 5, 130105, 130166; Engelmann 1909, V, no. 4, X, no. 66, pls 1,4, 11,6; Guerrini 1972, 25, pls XIX,1-2; Fileri 2000, 90, 92, nos 4 and 65, figs on 82 and 127; Strocka 2011, 228-229, figs 10-11. 33  34 

Finding Aid 4, 26, no. 1. For Montfaucon’s full description, see 1724, II, 78-81. 31  Guerrini 1972, 25, pl. XIX,1; Fileri 2000, 90, no. 4, fig. on 82. 32  Strocka 2011, fig. 14, with later additions removed. 29  30 

82

Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy near the centre of the scene as appearing to be pregnant. In the second, the figures are less elongated, albeit still more so than those in the Topham drawing, and the ‘pregnant’ figure is merely enveloped in drapery. A drawing in the Capponi codex, probably also by Piccini, more closely resembles the Topham drawing, especially in the colours of the clothing worn by the main figures, but does not show the child as if pregnant.36 The plate published by Montfaucon is less detailed,37 while Guattani’s later publication introduces a number of inaccuracies.38

For Guerrini, the figures can be understood in the context of the story of Achilles on Scyros, with the youthful-looking naked figure on the right as Achilles in the act of revealing his true identity, and the figures on the left representing Ulysses being received by King Lycomedes.43 In this interpretation, the ‘snake’ is part of the clothing being shed by Achilles. A major problem, however, is that in this episode Achilles is traditionally depicted in the act of seizing weapons which are not visible here. He is never shown with his hands behind his back as is the case in this fragment; his hands are invariably to the front.44

The leg seen at lower right in the Topham drawing appears only in Montfaucon’s plate. The drapery next to it, however, is curved in the plate, while the pointed end in the Topham drawing is closest to the Capponi drawing.

Strocka, on the other hand, concludes that the scene is ‘the only pictorial representation of a pre-Virgilian tradition of the fall of Troy: Aeneas and his consorts leave Troy because he sees the death of Laocoon and one of his sons as a bad omen…’45

Given the cross-hatching used in the Topham drawing, it is likely that this was also, along with the Corsini and Capponi versions, the work of Piccini.

This interpretation, like the others that have been offered, does not provide an adequate explanation for all the details or properly account for the overall emphasis of the scene. The focus is on the two children, one in the process of interacting with the man on the left and the other awaiting his turn. As Poulsen noted: ‘The central feature of the picture is two mothers with children, upon which attention is concentrated.’46 The objects in the hand of the man who stands behind the child on the left could be the key to the interpretation but, as Strocka points out, they are not now visible in the original parts of the mosaic.47 Although the children’s mothers are attentive, they appear to be thoughtful rather than alarmed.

The differences between the drawings, coupled with the extensive restorations, make interpretation difficult. Ashby regarded the scene as a group of philosophers39 but this appears to be a misunderstanding involving his description of another Topham drawing, Bn.5:57, which he suggests ‘may be a “pendant” to the Cavalieri Mosaic’.40 Bn.5:57 shows a painting of a group of men, some of whom hold scrolls, who could well be interpreted as philosophers.41 Poulsen reviewed the different interpretations that had been put forward at the time: ‘On the left we find a group around a kneeling boy, interpreted as the creation of man by Prometheus with Zeus (with the long beard) and the Moirai as onlookers. This is improbable. Up on the left it would seem that the Judgment of Paris has been in the artist’s mind, though more probably it is a pastoral scene. The figures in the right half of the picture, including the fleeing nude youth, are quite incomprehensible. The attempt to explain the composition as a scene in the tragedy of Euripides: Erechtheus (Engelmann), and the titulation: A group of philosophers (Ashby) are both unsatisfactory.’42

Both the naked figure on the right and the figure behind him have shaggy hair in the original fragment and therefore seem to be a pair. They appear to have been tied together with their hands behind their backs and are perhaps in the act of loosening their bonds. How they relate to the scene with the children is as yet unexplained but it is notable that their attention is focused in that direction. The interpretation of this complex scene and the extent to which it is authentic remain controversial.48 But for the apparent provenance in a rural context in Frascati, it would be tempting to suggest that it might be an extract from an early Christian mosaic in Rome, for which the considerable number of figures is more suited.49 On the present state of knowledge, a satisfactory interpretation has yet to be found.

More recently, identifications of the figures proposed in early publications have been analysed in detail by scholars who offer their own interpretations.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.90, accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 90, pl. 15,5; Guerrini 1972, 25, pls XVII, XX,2; Strocka 2011, 229, fig. 12. 37  Montfaucon 1724, II, pl. XXIII; Guerrini 1972, 23, pl. XVIII,1; Strocka 2011, 221, fig. 1. 38  Guattani 1806, 45-46, pl. opp. 47; Guerrini 1972, 23, pl. XVIII,2; Strocka 2011, 231, fig. 13. 39  Ashby 1914, 37, Eton IV, no. 1. 40  Ashby 1914, 27, Eton II, no. 57. 41  In fact, the ‘pendant’ was probably a mosaic of a garland, a drawing of which is in the Corsini codex (Engelmann 1909, X, no. 67, pl. 11,4; Fileri 2000, 134, no. 66, fig. on 127). 42  Poulsen 1951, 261, no. 391. 36 

Guerrini 1972, 26-31, followed by LIMC I (1981), ‘Achilleus’, no. 119. 44  See the examples in LIMC I (1981), ‘Achilleus’ and the reservations expressed by Ghedini 1997, 692, n.15. 45  Strocka 2011, English abstract on 251. 46  Poulsen 1951, 261, no. 391. 47  Strocka 2011, 224. 48  Fileri 2000, 92. 49  Note that one of the Capponi codices contains drawings probably also by Piccini of Christian scenes: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_ Cappon.285, f.45-f.50, accessed 30 December 2020. 43 

83

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

plinth but her left foot appears to be suspended in mid-air. It is positioned more realistically on the ground in the plate published by Kennedy. The woman holds her right hand near her mouth and has a fruiting branch in the crook of her left arm.

Bn.3:31 is drawn in red chalk and red pencil, making it different in appearance from any of the other records of mosaics in the Topham collection but similar to many of the drawings of sculptures (Figure 6.5). Indications of tesserae appear throughout but are most prominent in the background; they are lighter and just visible on the figures themselves. The Eton Finding Aid describes this item as ‘curious’,50 while Connor aptly refers to it as ‘Sir Andrew Fountaine’s rare and suspect relief mosaic’. 51

There seems good reason to share the suspicions that have been raised about the authenticity of this relief. The main interest of the drawing lies in the fact that Topham collected a record of such a curiosity and in confirming that the original item was in Sir Andrew Fountaine’s collection at the time. As Sampson notes, Topham also had a print of the same scene.58

Topham annotated the drawing on the back to indicate that this item was ‘in museo Andr. Fountaine Equitis’. The artist of the drawing is unknown. The relief was later obtained by the Earl of Pembroke and displayed in Wilton House. In Kennedy’s publication of 1769 describing antiquities at Wilton, it was listed under reliefs in the Great Hall as ‘An old Greek Mosaic tesselated Work’ with the comment: ‘This is very singular; and it is doubted whether there is any other Relievo in Mosaic Work.’52 Michaelis described the original, by then in the Cloisters at Wilton, as an imitation of an antique fragment of a marble relief in the Villa Albani and ‘an invention of the last century only’.53 More recently, Scott also accepted it as ‘an eighteenth-century forgery’.54 It was still in the Cloisters in 1908, when it featured in a guidebook to Wilton, but was described as ‘a modern imitation’.55 It left Wilton some time ago and its fate is unknown.56 The drawing shows a relief of Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides. Two figures are depicted in three-quarters view. On the left, a man naked save for drapery wound around his left arm is seated on a rock which appears to rest on a plinth. A lion-skin is draped over the rock and identifies him as Hercules. In his left hand he holds a quiver by its strap. The arrows in the quiver are drawn as if they are apples but they are depicted more realistically in the plate published by Kennedy.57 Hercules’s right hand hangs by his side and rests against his club. Behind him is a tree with fruit, identifying the location as the garden of the Hesperides. A large snake coils around the upper part of the tree, with its body partly hidden by Hercules and its tail visible towards the bottom of the drawing, terminating near the heel of Hercules’s right foot. On the right is a fully-clothed woman who is approaching Hercules. Her head-covering resembles a snood and seems anachronistic for an ancient work. Her right foot is on the Finding Aid 4, 17, no. 4. Connor 1993, 27. 52  Kennedy 1769, 20. 53  Michaelis 1882, 678, citing an article by Engelmann which I have been unable to consult. 54  Scott 2003, 291, n.33. 55  Wilkinson 1908, 9-10, The Cloisters no. 27. 56  Information kindly provided by Charlotte Spender, Estate Secretary, Wilton Estate. 57  Kennedy 1769, pl. 7. 50  51 

Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.3:31. The print (Bn.14:58) was published in Ferrari 1646, pl. on page 11. 58 

84

Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy

Figure 6.1 – Bn.7:3, Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

Figure 6.2 – Bn.9:4, Rape of Europa, Palestrina

85

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 6.3 – Bm.9:74, Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla

86

Miscellaneous drawings of mosaics from Italy

Figure 6.4 – Bn.7:1, Cavalieri mosaic

87

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 6.5 – Bn.3:31, Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

88

7 Drawings of Romano-British mosaics Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

Six drawings in the Topham collection relate to RomanoBritish mosaics (Bm.9:75-Bm.9:79 and Bm.9:81).1 They not only show the famous discoveries at Stonesfield and Woodchester, about which much can be written, but also modest fragments of geometric mosaics. Colourful watercolours of mosaics from Great Tew and Caerleon are included even though engravings had been published of both. One of the most important drawings is of the small fragment from Chichester, which is the only known record of the discovery.

Bm.9:79 shows concentric circles arranged in two rows and appears to depict an extract from a larger extent of mosaic. Two prominent tangent circles in each row are set against a background of similar circles or part circles (Figure 7.1). The individual tesserae are indicated in a markedly regular fashion. The drawing has a caption in Topham’s hand: ‘Pavimentum tessellatum, propè vicum vulgo vocatum Great-Jero [?], in agro Oxoniensi, repertum.’3

Apart from Great Tew and Stonesfield, which are close to one another in Oxfordshire, the mosaics shown in the drawings come from places that are far apart: Chichester in West Sussex, Nether Heyford in Northamptonshire, Woodchester in Gloucestershire, and Caerleon in Monmouthshire. This raises the question of how Topham might have heard of these mosaics and acquired drawings of them.

It is unclear exactly when this mosaic was discovered but it must have been found before 1677 when it was published by Plot, whose book included a plate by Burghers.4 It is notable that the colours Plot mentions – blue, white, yellow and red – are replicated in the drawing. Like the shading to the plate, the drawing shows that the order of colours in the foreground circles differs from that of the background circles.

The names of William Webb and Richard Bradley2 are given respectively as artists of the drawings of the Stonesfield and Woodchester mosaics but the other drawings are unsigned. The Woodchester drawing also contains text providing information about the mosaic, making it unnecessary for Topham to add any caption. Although he annotated most of the other drawings with the place and – with the exception of Great Tew – the date of discovery, the drawing of the Stonesfield mosaic went uncaptioned. Perhaps, as its place in the album suggests, it was the first of the Romano-British items Topham collected and was therefore particularly memorable, or it might have been acquired at a time before he had established his normal practice. It is also possible that he kept information on a separate slip of paper which has not survived.

The position of Topham’s caption gives the drawing the opposite orientation to the plate. This is particularly apparent with the coloured and white lines of tessellation separating the rows of circles: the shading in Burghers’s plate indicates the upper two lines as white, whereas the white lines appear in the lower position in the drawing when the caption is read from the correct direction. It is possible that Topham was unaware of the plate since no copy of Plot’s book has come to Eton as part of Topham’s bequest, or was unconcerned with following its orientation. He would have known about the existence of the mosaic irrespective of Plot’s book since it was briefly described by Gibson in his edition of Camden’s Britannia, following Plot’s account. Topham owned the 1695 edition of Gibson’s work and later replaced it with the 1722 edition which remains in Eton College Library.5

The drawings of the Stonesfield and Caerleon mosaics lack any borders but the other four drawings are edged with two thin black lines. In the case of the Chichester and Nether Heyford drawings a thicker red line runs between the black lines, and for the Great Tew drawing there are thin red and thin yellow-gold lines between the black lines. Unlike the borders of the Italian drawings, some of which are emphatic and point to Francesco Bartoli as the artist, those around the Romano-British mosaics are modest and conventional. Their variety, as well as the geographical spread of the mosaics, suggests that different artists were involved.

1  2 

Cosh and Neal comment that the arrangement of the two bands of circles is doubtful. They suggest: ‘Possibly two rows were originally from one continuous strip but Topham’s writing of ‘Tew’ looks like ‘Jero’, hence Lanciani’s reading (1894, 182, f.79). 4  Plot 1677, 327, pl. XV, no. 22. 5  Gibson 1695, 269; Gibson 1722, I, 294. Topham listed this work on page 67 of Finding Aid 1. The date of 1695 is crossed through and ‘1722 2 Vol’ inserted. This seems to have been his normal practice when replacing earlier editions of books with later ones. Quarrie notes: ‘Generally, as was not unusual with collectors at this period, [Topham] owned the best and most recent text available of an author, and there is evidence for his getting rid of superseded editions …’ (1993, 14). Lucy Gwynn, to whom I am grateful for discussing this point, explains that later editions were thought to be superior. 3 

There are also three prints discussed in Chapter 8. Webb and Bradley are discussed in Chapter 9.

89

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library mounted in the manner portrayed during the seventeenth century. Conceivably it is misrepresented guilloche.’6 As there is no record of any portion of the mosaic being lifted, another possibility is that this unusual arrangement could have been an early attempt to depict an original scheme of intersecting circles.

the engraving, the birds have shorter tails, and the circles in the central square and outer border are more regular. In Gough’s later edition of Britannia published in 1789 the image is reversed in the engraving and shows the birds facing right. This error has been repeated in reproductions in most modern publications.12

Birds, Caerleon

In the drawing, the individual tesserae in the areas with the circles are shown in a regular fashion similar to that in the drawing of the Great Tew mosaic discussed above. Some of the borders also have tesserae drawn in this way but other borders, including those around the figures – which were perhaps simple guilloche – have no indication of tesserae. Neat cross-hatching radiating to follow the shape of the compartment is used for the areas with the birds, handleless cups and possible rhytons.

Bm.9:77 shows a square design featuring small birds (Figure 7.2). It is captioned on the back in Topham’s hand: ‘Pavimentum tessollatum apud Kaer Leion in agro Monmouthensi 1692 repertum.’ This information accords with Gibson’s published account of the discovery. It is notable that the colours used in the drawing precisely match his description.7 Gibson records that the landowner, Henry Tomkins, ‘was pleased to communicate a draught of the whole to be published’ in Gibson’s volume. No other original drawings of this mosaic are known, making it possible that the drawing provided by Mr Tomkins is the one that came into Topham’s possession or at least a version of it.

The overall design resembles the popular scheme based on an excerpt from nine circles arranged in three rows of three, save that the central circle has been transformed into a square. Cosh and Neal, working from the engraving, note that this is unusual. They suggest that the original central compartment had been lost and that the square design was ‘either restored fancifully by the engraver or was an ancient patch’.13 It is clear from Gibson’s account that some parts of the mosaic had been damaged, which could explain the unusual decoration of this square.14

Gibson explains that the mosaic was found when workmen were ploughing a field and that it ‘lay no deeper than the plow-share’. Mr Tomkins ‘took all possible care to preserve what the servants had not spoiled of this valuable antiquity, by removing a considerable part of the floor, in the same order it was found, into his garden’. Nothing is known of what became of it thereafter. Some years ago George Boon attempted to locate Tomkins’s residence. This initially seemed a promising exercise since Tomkins had been High Sheriff of the county and was therefore a prominent local citizen, but Boon was unsuccessful.8

Cosh and Neal plausibly suggest that the birds were intended to represent doves.15 Topham would have been aware of this mosaic from the engraving published by Gibson. It is not known how or when the drawing came into his possession but it seems likely that personal acquaintance played a part. In the early part of his career Edmund Gibson (c.1669-1748) worked with Arthur Charlett who was known to Topham.16 Later, as an influential clergyman, Gibson had substantial political contacts through whom Topham might also have come to know him.

The drawing shows a central square decorated with rows of brown and white concentric circles over which are imposed rows of white semicircles. This square is located within another square outlined with a series of borders, the area between the two squares having a semicircle in the centre of each side and a quadrant in each corner. The decoration of the central square is repeated in the broad outer border. Comparison with the small engraving published by Gibson9 shows that this was an attempt to indicate the common motif of intersecting circles.10

Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford Bm.9:81 is a black and white drawing of the surviving part of a geometric mosaic (Figure 7.3). It has a caption in Topham’s hand: ‘Pavimentum tessollatum ex albis, flavis, Rubris & Caeruleis tessollis Compositum, Hayfordiae, in agro Northamptoniensi, Repertum 1699.’

In the area around the central square, each semicircle contains a bird facing left and each quadrant contains a handleless cup. Each of the eight interspaces between the central square and the surrounding semicircles and quadrants has another vessel with a tapering base, perhaps a rhyton.11 The figures are less crude than those shown in

Only one corner of the mosaic is shown. It is notable that the broken edges of the drawn area have been neatened to follow the geometric compartments. Regular crossSee Witts 2016, 103, n.115, 156. Cosh and Neal 2010, 332, Mosaic 482.1. 14  Stephen Cosh (pers. comm.) casts doubt on the reliability of the drawing which he regards as a highly fanciful illustration, but any restoration of the geometric decoration need not mean that the other motifs are inaccurate. 15  See also Witts 2016, 103. 16  See the discussion of the Stonesfield mosaic below. 12 

Cosh and Neal 2010, 242-243, Mosaic 461.1, Fragment A. 7  Gibson 1695, 607; Gibson 1722, II, 16. 8  Boon 1964, 169-171. 9  Gibson 1695, 697-698, no. 7; Gibson 1722, II, 74-75, no.7. 10  Note the comment above that the drawing of the Great Tew mosaic might have been a similar attempt. 11  Witts 2016, 108. 6 

13 

90

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics hatching is used throughout, with the size and angle varying to emphasise the features of the mosaic.

the different drawings and prints explains the extent to which some were probably copied from or influenced by others. My aim here is not to duplicate these discussions but to consider the Topham drawing in the context of the other records and, in the process, to assess its reliability and significance.

The design shows eight-pointed stars with squares, L-shaped compartments, rectangles, lozenges and triangles. The rectangles and L-shaped compartments are decorated with strips of guilloche, and guilloche knots are shown in some of the squares. The square at lower right has a heart-shaped leaf and the triangles adjacent to it each have a calyx; a similar triangle at upper right has half of a floral or foliate motif. The poised squares appearing between the lozenges contain smaller squares which are divided diagonally. A series of outer borders includes three-strand guilloche and triangles as well as plain bands.

The drawing is in pen and ink over which watercolour has been applied without the degree of care evidenced in many of the other drawings collected by Topham. The result is that the image does not look sharp. It is signed in minute handwriting ‘Will: Webb’ (Figure 7.6). The signature is followed by a word that appears to be ‘fecti’ or ‘fectis’ rather than the usual ‘fecit’. A scale is shown at lower right. The word ‘North’ appears at top right and ‘South’ at bottom right. Two box flues are shown on the western side of the room and two on the eastern. A pair of responds intrude into the outer border of the mosaic near the centre of the western and eastern sides; Webb’s signature appears in the eastern respond.

Neal and Cosh describe the scheme as based on an arrangement of large squares tangent to smaller poised squares, with eight-lozenge stars filling the interspaces, but with the design radically altered by rotation and by mirrorlike repeats.17 They note that excavations in 1992 revealed a small part of the border of stepped triangles.18 This seems to be a fortuitous survival since in 1780 the mosaic was apparently taken up and used in road-mending.19

The design consists of two squares both contained within a series of borders: four-strand guilloche, swastikameander and two plain outer borders. Rectangular panels of running peltae surrounded by simple guilloche appear above and below the southern square. This square and the two rectangular panels each have a border of triangles alternately coloured grey and red.24

The drawing is almost identical to an engraving by van der Gucht published by Morton in 1712.20 Although there is no record that Topham owned Morton’s publication, he possessed the 1722 edition of Gibson’s work which contains a brief description of the mosaic.21 Gibson recorded the colours as white, yellow, red and blue, corresponding to the information in Topham’s caption. It is possible, however, that Topham’s information could have been acquired much earlier. Nether Heyford lies only a few miles from Althorp, the country seat of the 3rd Earl of Sunderland with whom Topham was acquainted.22 News of this local discovery is likely to have reached Sunderland and it is easy to envisage Sunderland sharing it with Topham, a fellow bibliophile.

The central roundel in the southern square contains a figure whose identity initially proved controversial but has long been settled as Bacchus. He holds a drinking cup and thyrsus, and is accompanied by a quadruped, probably a leopard. Although his posture looks ambiguous, his right leg is drawn up in the way commonly seen with seated figures.25 The Bacchus roundel is surrounded by decorative borders of right-angled Z-pattern, superposed thorns and simple guilloche. These are in turn encompassed by a broad border with an acanthus scroll which flows from a bearded head placed to the north of Bacchus. This broad border is edged with simple guilloche which meets but does not link up with the guilloche of the surrounding square. In each of the spandrels is a bird.

Bacchus, Stonesfield Bm.9:75 shows the Stonesfield mosaic which rapidly became famous after its discovery in January 1711/12 (Figures 7.4-7.8). It no longer survives but was illustrated by a number of artists and has been extensively discussed, initially by Hearne and Pointer, and more recently by Taylor, Levine and Freshwater.23 The latter’s analysis of

The northern square contains a roundel of round-tongued double guilloche enclosing a square with a guilloche mat in the small square at its centre surrounded by L-shaped compartments, lozenges and poised squares. Each L-shape contains a strip of guilloche and the poised squares each have a guilloche knot. Delicate scrolls decorate the area between the roundel and the square it encloses. Those on the west and east spring from a small central calyx. The

Neal and Cosh 2002, 248-249, Mosaic 95.1. See Neal’s reconstruction drawing (Neal and Cosh 2002, fig. 216) supplemented by the comments in Cosh and Neal 2015, 22-23. 19  VCH Northamptonshire I (1902 [1970 reprint]), 197. 20  Morton 1712, 527-528, pl. 14.3. 21  Gibson 1722, I, 405. 22  For instance, he knew Sunderland well enough to write to him on 11 May 1709 asking about books for a friend who was preparing an edition of Sophocles (British Library Add. MS 61657, f.18-f.19). In the letter, he asked whether Sunderland would be spending some time at Windsor during the coming summer, which suggests that they might have been in the habit of meeting there. 23  Hearne 1712; Pointer 1713; Taylor 1941; Levine 1978; Freshwater 2000, giving full details of the various records, including (pl. I) the embroidery now in the Oxfordshire Museum. See also Cosh and Neal 2010, 261-263, Mosaic 465.1, figs 263-264. 17  18 

In Loving’s print discussed below, the triangles are shown differently as if there was a single border surrounding the rectangular panels and the square, with a further row of triangles above the square and two rows below. Other records support Webb’s approach. 25  Witts 2016, 33; cf Cosh and Neal (2010, 261): ‘The figure is leaning against (probably intended to be reclining upon) a leopard …’. 24 

91

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library roundel is enclosed within a square of tangent swastikapeltae with a lozenge in the centre of each side. The spandrels at upper left and lower right each contain a cantharus, while those at upper right and lower left each contain a large heart-shaped leaf.

by Webb have come to light. Although Hearne was prone to invective, his visits made him well placed to assess the accuracy of the drawing. He did not specify the problems he perceived with Webb’s work but he cannot have regarded them as major given that he felt that the drawing could be corrected. If there had been significant errors it is unlikely that he would have passed up the opportunity to criticise a rival by detailing them.

Cross-hatching is used with the outer borders and the roundel with Bacchus. The borders with triangles have simple hatching but the remainder of the drawing lacks any indication of tessellation.

Hearne made his sixth visit to the site on 21 April with Burghers, the University Engraver, who made sketches of details with a view to preparing an engraving. ‘By this we found that the Draught of it taken by Mr Webb, notwithstanding cry’d up by some, is all wrong.’29 Although he continued to allege that there were deficiencies with Webb’s work, Hearne did not set out what they were.

Thomas Hearne’s diaries contain a detailed contemporary account of the discovery and recording of this mosaic, in the process offering an insight into the difficulties and rivalries that ensued. Although his references to Webb are uncomplimentary, his remarks must be regarded with a degree of caution: he was not a disinterested observer since he was keen to publish the pavement for himself. Nevertheless, as comments from an eye-witness who visited the site on a number of occasions, they merit detailed consideration here.

Meanwhile, a print had been published based on a drawing by Edward Loving.30 It was available from April 1712 for 1 shilling plain or 1 guinea for a coloured copy printed on superfine Atlas paper.31 By contrast, when Hearne sold copies of Burghers’s print separately from its inclusion in his publication of Leland’s Itinerary the price was considerably less: six pence each if a dozen or more copies were bought, but otherwise nine pence each.32

Hearne’s initial reference to Webb was made on 11 March 1711/12: ‘One Webb a Paynter of Oxford hath drawn ye Stunsfield Pavement with all the Colours, but I have not yet seen it.’26

The Loving print, copies of which were also collected by Topham,33 has the appearance of an attractive souvenir rather than a strictly accurate record. Its treatment of the Bacchus roundel and its surrounding scroll is fanciful, while the inner square in the northern part of the pavement has, as Freshwater notes,34 been turned to a poised position no longer aligning with the outer square. Many of the geometric motifs and borders have been simplified.

On 25 March he drafted a letter in which he wrote that he wanted a drawing of the mosaic ‘which the Owner is not willing to grant without a greater Consideration than I am able to make’. From descriptions he had heard of other drawings, he considered they were not exact. ‘A Painter in this Place hath one. I have not seen it, but he asks more than I am either able or willing to give for a Copy (wch notwithstanding faults I could afterwds easily correct) …’27 The ‘Painter in this Place’ was presumably Webb, whose name appeared again in the entry for 21 April 1712 discussed below. The fact that Webb was asking more than Hearne could afford to pay might have influenced Hearne’s unfavourable later opinion of Webb’s work. It also, coincidentally, confirms that money was no object for Topham.

Apparently referring to the Loving print, Hearne commented in a letter to Dr Musgrave of 6 June: ‘The Draught you have of the Pavement near Woodstock I suppose is a Print from London; but that is very faulty and not to be rely’d on.’35 On 29 June Hearne showed Burghers’s drawing to the owner of the mosaic, ‘Handes the Farmer’, who ‘said ’twas excellently well done, & very exact’.36 As Hearne

Several days later, Hearne wrote: ‘The Draught of the Pavement near Woodstock wch hath been taken by one of our Oxford painters is far from being right. I saw it last Night, & if I had a Copy perhaps I could correct it; but this I am deny’d, nor will the Owner of the Pavement permitt me the Liberty of imploying an Ingraver to have one accurately taken from the Original.’28

Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 403. Hearne evidently resolved the difficulties with access to the mosaic. He wrote in his diary on 30 May that he had visited the site for the eighth time in company with Burghers to ‘settle the Draught’ (1710-1712 [1889], 369). 30  Freshwater 2000, pl. II. For the identification of Loving, see Levine 1978, 345; Freshwater 2000, 7. 31  Clayton 1997, 65, 292, n.67, fig. 75; Freshwater 2000, 7. 32  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 425. 33  Bm.9:82 and Bm.9:83 discussed in Chapter 8. See Figures 8.12 and 8.13. 34  Freshwater 2000, 7. 35  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 372. 36  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 384-385. Henig and Booth (2000, 222, n.18) suggest that an original watercolour by Burghers survives in the Bodleian Library (Gough Gen. Top. 61, opp. 288) but personal inspection shows that this is not an original but a coloured print, consistent with the description of it in the Bodleian’s Summary List of Gough Prints and Drawings (back of page 180). Other copies of this print are held in the 29 

It is unclear whether the drawing acquired by Topham is the exact one to which Hearne refers but no other drawings Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 319. Hearne recorded that the mosaic had been discovered on 25 January 1711/12 by ploughing and that he walked eight miles to see it on 2 February (1710-1712 [1889], 297, 395). He subsequently made many other visits which are recorded in his diary (1710-1712 [1889], 298, 369, 397, 400, 402, 403, 408). 27  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 324. 28  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 326. 26 

92

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics described Handes as being of little breeding, his opinion of the accuracy of the drawing seems to have been included more for reasons of Hearne’s vanity than as an expert appraisal. Nevertheless, it was clearly an advantage that Burghers himself had seen the mosaic. Expressing the opinion that the ‘London Draught is all Fiction’, Hearne emphasised that the engraver had prepared it ‘without seeing, or examining, the Pavement’.37

but despite strenuous efforts to locate them they have not come to light.42 Comparing Webb’s watercolour with Burghers’s print,43 the differences are not as striking as Hearne suggests. Freshwater, who considered the various illustrations of the Stonesfield mosaic in detail, comments: ‘The surviving signed watercolour of the pavement by Webb certainly differs from Burghers’s print, particularly in respect of the spandrel ornaments in the geometric compartment, which are represented at a larger size, and the box flue-tiles on either side of the pavement, where two rather than three are shown. Other differences include the Neptune head being crammed in to the available space, with the beard/ wave ornament seeming curtailed; fewer hourglasses being shown in the smaller elongated compartments; and the absence of the rectangles in the four corners of the Greek key border. Two of these elements – the spandrel ornaments and the flue-tile positions – are similarly misproportioned in the Loving engraving ... although it is doubtful that Webb, the earlier of the two, influenced Loving. Various significant elements of Webb’s watercolour, such as the surrounding Greek key pattern, central figure, and orientation and layout of the geometric compartments, are a close match to Burghers’ version …’44

Hearne and Burghers were evidently thorough. On 30 June Hearne wrote that he and Burghers visited the site again to revise Burghers’s plate, setting out at 3 a.m. and staying for about half an hour.38 Hearne provides vivid insights into the early recording of this mosaic but, as Levine notes,39 he does not say how he overcame the problem of the payment usually required by Handes. The fact that he showed Handes a copy of the finished product demonstrates that this was not a clandestine undertaking and suggests that they had reached some sort of arrangement, but it is unclear whether the numerous visits by Hearne and Burghers were all known to Handes. The impression gained from reading the various early accounts is that recording was often done piecemeal and perhaps circumspectly, conditions which were not conducive to accuracy.

Many of the discrepancies Freshwater mentions, such as the size of motifs and spacing of the bearded head, could simply be a reflection of Webb’s relative lack of skill at this sort of work: the unusual spelling of the word after his signature suggests his inexperience. The borders would have been easy to complete later from a sketch of the essential characteristics. Provided the overall impression was correct, Webb might not have been aiming for strict accuracy here. The exact number of peltae in the rectangular panels or the precise way in which the meander turns the corners would probably not have been regarded as essential at the time.

A flavour of the difficulties can be obtained from a letter sent by John Urry to Robert Harley on 11 February 1711/12. Urry enclosed a sketch ‘drawn by strength of memory at Woodstock by Mr Ford the Chaplain, after having viewd it carefully. The owner of the field would not let him do it upon the Spot, unless he would pay him 5lb’. Writing to Harley again on 17 February, Urry sent a sketch of his own, lamenting its quality and his own skill.40 He mentioned: ‘When I was there I saw one, who came from London to sell some pictures here, stealing a sketch of it, as well as he could’ – presumably Loving. As Levine remarks, it is probable that Urry also had to work surreptitiously.41 There is no evidence to indicate whether Webb paid for access but, if so, he would have had the advantage of being able to work openly and would not have been dependent on memory. The possibility arises – although this is speculation – that Topham could have funded any expenses incurred by Webb.

Plans prepared by Lewington relating to the re-excavation in 1779-1780 suggest how the discrepancy with the number of flue tiles arose. He recorded three on the western side but Freshwater 2000, 6, referring to Way 1847, 12, who mentioned drawings by ‘Stow’ made at the time of discovery and preserved in the Ashmolean Museum. Recent enquiries, following those made by Freshwater some years ago, show that the Museum has a record of four watercolours by James Snow – not Stow – but with a note that they were transferred to the Bodleian Library around March 1878. The Bodleian has no record of them and the Ashmolean’s further searches have been unsuccessful. As some of the Stonesfield tesserae are held by the Society of Antiquaries of London, I have checked just in case the Stow/Snow drawings found their way to the Society but this is not the case. I am grateful to Helen Hovey and Alison Roberts at the Ashmolean Museum, Oliver House at the Bodleian Library, and Becky Loughead at the Society of Antiquaries for answering my questions and trying to trace these items. Freshwater wondered whether the missing drawings might be in the Haverfield collection at the Sackler Library which was not accessible at the time of his research but I have not come across them when studying this collection. Given that four mosaics were discovered in the 17791780 re-excavation, my suspicion is that the Stow/Snow drawings relate to that period and not to the initial discovery. 43  Hearne 1712, pl. opp. IX. 44  Freshwater 2000, 6. 42 

Freshwater highlights the tantalising possibility that another artist made drawings at the time of discovery Bodleian (Gough Maps 26, 64; Gough Maps 43, 114, no. 214) and in the Society of Antiquaries of London (Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc. II, 20. The artist is uncertain: see n.57). 37  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 435. 38  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 408. 39  Levine 1978, 349. 40  British Library Add. MS 70029; Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports Portland MSS V, 142-145. Urry had previously shown Mr Ford’s sketch to Hearne, who also mentions seeing a sketch by Dr Gardiner, the Warden of All Souls College (1710-1712 [1889], 397). The figure demanded by the owner of the field was a substantial sum: see Appendix 2. 41  Levine 1978, 343-344; Freshwater 2000, 5.

93

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library only two on the eastern side where the entrance to another room, which was unknown in Topham’s time, took the place of the third.45 The north-eastern flue tiles shown by Burghers therefore seem to have been conjectural,46 while Webb has adopted a symmetrical approach, balancing the two eastern flues with two on the west.

drinking cup. It seems probable that parts of the arm were lost fairly soon after Ford and Urry, along with Loving and Webb, had made their records, which would explain why the artists from Burghers onwards show the arm in such a strange fashion. It is notable that Webb had finished his drawing by 11 March at the latest, when Hearne referred to it,53 and Loving’s sketch was made even earlier if, as is generally assumed, he was the person from London mentioned in Urry’s letter of 17 February. Burghers’s plate, on the other hand, was not completed until later since Hearne refers to it being almost finished at the end of June, while Cole’s sketch was not published until 1713.

It is clear that Webb paid attention to detail. He provided a scale and did not overlook small items such as the tiny calices in the northern square. Uniquely among the various artists, he included the responds. He was also the only artist to depict the inner border around Bacchus plausibly, confirming the suggestion by Cosh and Neal that the simple meander shown by other artists was ‘probably incorrectly shaded and was, originally, polychrome right-angled Z-pattern’.47

Only Webb shows Bacchus’s long hair clearly. This detail receives confirmation from Ford’s rough sketch which contains a hint of the hair. Webb also differentiates the hair from the rather stylised wreath. His is the more plausible, and therefore probably the more accurate, record of this part of the mosaic.

Cosh and Neal regret that ‘the direction Bacchus faced … is not known’.48 However, Webb – unusually – indicated north and south, and this orientation is confirmed by Hearne, who records that the bearded head looked towards the north.49 Another contemporary account gives the same information.50

The treatment of the animal differs between the various drawings. Webb shows the coat with light cross-hatching, Loving mostly with light lines, and Burghers as mottled or scaly. Cosh and Neal draw attention to similar markings on an animal from the Barton Farm mosaic which are regarded as the mosaicist’s way of depicting a leopard’s spots.54 As the Barton Farm mosaic was not found until 1824 it cannot have influenced the artists who recorded the Stonesfield mosaic, but it seems likely that the leopard in the original mosaic was of a similar appearance. If so, the patterning of the coat was not reproduced by Webb or Loving. Perhaps at the time when they were recording the mosaic it had not been cleaned sufficiently for any spots or scales to become apparent.

Webb and Loving both show Bacchus seated with drapery flowing behind him and visible to his left and right. Webb also shows the drapery crossing the chest. As this is confirmed by all other artists except Loving, it is probable that Loving omitted this detail for aesthetic reasons. In Webb’s and Loving’s records, the thyrsus rests in the crook of Bacchus’s left arm with his forearm passing over the thyrsus and, in the case of Webb’s drawing, under a wisp of drapery. Subsequent artists from Burghers onwards, however, depict Bacchus in an unrealistic pose. Drapery is missing from his left side,51 and the thyrsus is held in the left hand of a curiously foreshortened arm. This arm is positioned in an even more peculiar position, angled awkwardly with the hand behind the back, in Cole’s sketch published by Pointer.52

Webb’s drawing indicates a wedge-shaped feature below the animal’s chin which is also shown by Burghers. This can be compared to the similarly-shaped tufts of fur seen with felines in the Barton Farm and Woodchester Orpheus mosaics.55 At the time when Webb was recording the Stonesfield mosaic few, if any, comparisons would have been available to him and the fact that he noted this small feature indicates close copying from the original.

In the sketches by Ford and Urry, Bacchus’s left arm is extended in a similar way to his right arm, and the thyrsus is grasped in his left hand. As they were making their sketches from memory, it is likely that they assumed the thyrsus was held by Bacchus in the same way as the

According to Webb’s drawing, there were four red pointed shapes emerging from the bearded head above Bacchus. Burghers shows two shapes here, while Loving simply depicts large curls of hair. A similar head in the Woodchester mosaic shows the paired crustacean claws and legs appropriate to depictions of Oceanus, who seems to have been regarded as Neptune in Britain.56 The details

Society of Antiquaries of London, Red Portfolio Oxfordshire, 37, 38; VCH Oxfordshire I (1939), 316, fig. 32. 46  Urry’s letter of 17 February 1711/12 (see n.40) and Dewes’s sketch of 20 February 1711/12 (see n.63), also suggest three on each side. 47  Cosh and Neal 2010, 261. 48  Cosh and Neal 2010, 260. 49  Hearne 1712, XXVI. See also 1710-1712 [1889], 369, referring to the north-south orientation of the mosaic. 50  In addition to hearing from Urry (see n.40), Harley also received news of the mosaic from Bobart who wrote from Blenheim on 5 February 1711/12 that the human figure and animal were near the southern end of the floor, the head was north of the figure, and the northern panel contained ‘flower pots & other Ornaments’ (British Library Add. MS 4253, f. 54). 51  As it is in Urry’s sketch with his letter of 17 February 1711/12 (see n.40). 52  Pointer 1713, pl. opp. title page; Freshwater 2000, fig. 3. 45 

See n.26. Cosh and Neal 2010, 261; Witts 2016, 12, 13. For Barton Farm, see Cosh and Neal 2010, 125-129, Mosaic 421.63, esp. 129 and fig.114(c); Witts 2016, 13, fig.1. 55  See especially Cosh and Neal 2010, figs 114(b)-(d), 230(a) and (d), 231(a) and (c); Witts 2016, figs 18-19, 24, 33-36, 39-40. 56  For the Woodchester head, see Cosh and Neal 2010, fig. 232(b). For a discussion of Oceanus/Neptune in Romano-British mosaics, see Witts 2007, 24-25. 53  54 

94

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics given by Webb are therefore accurate in number although he shows the four features as identical to one another, without distinguishing between the claws and the legs. Burghers apparently overlooked the legs or conflated them with the nearby leaves of the acanthus scroll.

pheasants)’.60 Hearne referred to the birds as a cock and a hen pheasant.61 Before he had seen the mosaic, Urry reported that the birds were cocks and hens, demonstrating that the distinction was sufficiently apparent to have been mentioned to him. Ford’s sketch enclosed with Urry’s first letter to Harley did not include the branches and, from the hint of combs, suggests that the cockerels were on the right and the hens on the left .62 It shows the birds at top left and bottom right as facing left, and those at top right and bottom left as facing right. In other words, the birds were not arranged alternately and they all faced inwards, but as the sketch was drawn from memory the details are not necessarily reliable. Another early commentator was Dewes, who wrote to Halley on 20 February 1711/12. His sketch did not depict the figures or indicate their orientation but he showed their positions with a key. This suggested that the ‘cocks’ were at top right and bottom left, and the other birds were at top left and bottom right; the branches were with the two birds at the top.63

In Webb’s drawing the scroll continues in an unbroken fashion around the Bacchus roundel, as it does in the later print by Vertue.57 Loving and Burghers, however, introduce a small gap on the opposite side from the head which Lewington and Fowler also reflect in their later versions.58 If the gap was barely perceptible, it could have seemed to Webb that the scroll was continuous. Although Webb’s drawing might be inaccurate in this respect, comparison with the similar acanthus scroll at Woodchester suggests that his depiction of the small calices between some of the individual scrolls was closely observed. These are depicted only as stylised triangular shapes by the other artists.59 Webb shows the birds in the spandrels as two distinct types. Those at top left and bottom right have the combs and tail feathers of cockerels. The bird at top left is scratching its head, while the bird at bottom right is walking. Those at top right and bottom left resemble each other but lack combs and their tail feathers come to a point. They each perch on a branch and there is also the hint of a branch beneath the cockerel at top left. The birds on the left face left, while those on the right face right, so that those at the top face inwards while those at the bottom face outwards.

It seems safe to conclude that Webb was correct in recording two different pairs of birds. They were probably two distinct species although the wording of some of the commentators is ambiguous and might have been referring to the male and female of a single species. Discrepancies exist concerning the branches and orientation. Evaluating Webb’s drawing is complicated by consideration of the later records. Vertue, Lewington and Fowler all follow Burghers in the orientation of the birds and the location of the branches. As Freshwater notes, ‘Lewington’s image has been taken by many to be the most accurate version’.64 It is used by Cosh and Neal with approval65 and its clarity made it suitable for me to include in a general work.66 Just because it is the most elegant drawing, however, does not necessarily make it the most accurate in every respect. Lewington described his drawing as ‘coloured after the Original and drawn lately in a more accurate manner than any of the former Copies’ but it is unclear which copies he had seen. It is unlikely he had access to Webb’s drawing and it is uncertain how much of the mosaic survived by his time.

Loving gives the birds the same orientation as Webb but draws them in a standardised fashion. Branches appear only with the two birds on the right. Burghers maintains the distinction between the two types of bird, showing the cockerels in the same locations as Webb. He also, like Webb, shows the bird at top left scratching its head. However, he depicts all four birds as left-facing, making a clockwise sequence, and he gives the branches to the birds at the top. In a letter to Harley, Bobart identified two types of bird: ‘two Cocks and two Hens (somewhat resembling

A small detail included by Lewington but not by any of the other artists suggests that he had seen the bird at bottom left. He shows it with two neck-rings suggestive of a

Levine 1978, fig. 1 (part); Freshwater 2000, pl. III; Henig and Booth 2000, fig. 8.4. An engraving in the Society of Antiquaries of London, Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc II, no. 20, is regarded by Freshwater (10-11) as a coloured version of Vertue’s print, albeit with a different text and unusually bright colours. If it is by Vertue, it includes fewer areas with indications of tesserae than the print bearing his name and cannot simply be a coloured copy of that. The date when Vertue worked on his print is uncertain: following Clayton, Freshwater suggests 1723 but discusses later dates given by others (Clayton 1997, 292, n.67; Freshwater 2000, 10, n.62. See also Levine 1978, 355; Henig and Booth 2000, 211.) 58  Lewington: Society of Antiquaries of London, Red Portfolio Oxfordshire, f.40 (reproduced in VCH Oxfordshire I, 1939, pl. XXIV.A; Cosh and Neal 2010, fig. 263). Fowler: 1804, no. 21; his 1803 prospectus confirms that he ‘opened the ground in March, 1802, and found part of it in good preservation’ but he does not specify which part was preserved. 59  For Woodchester, see for example the detailed photograph in Cosh and Neal 2010, fig. 232(a). Also compare Bradley’s treatment in the drawing of part of the Woodchester mosaic discussed below. 57 

See n.50. Two letters to Thomas Isted respectively dated 1 February 1711/12 and 12 February 1711/12 also refer to a cock and a hen (British Library, Sloane MS 4065, f.18 and f.21). 61  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 395. 62  See n.40. 63  Photocopies of information in the files of the Oxfordshire Museum extracted by Sarah Hinds from the Royal Society, Classified Papers 16, no. 41. I am grateful to Carol Anderson for providing access to these files on a research visit to the museum some years ago. 64  Freshwater 2000, 11. See also the comments in VCH Oxfordshire I, 1939, 315, n.1 and Taylor 1941, 7. 65  Cosh and Neal 2010, 263: ‘a reliable representation, probably based on Burghers’ edition but with minor changes indicative of personal observation of the original mosaic’. 66  Witts 2005, fig. 54, colour pl. 23. 60 

95

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library 7.9). The existence of this large and impressive mosaic was known well before Topham’s time and it still survives buried in situ.72

dove. This could also indicate a pheasant67 but none of the artists shows the characteristic forked tail of this bird. A combination of cockerels and doves would echo the types of bird in a panel of the Withington Orpheus mosaic.68 The detail of the neck-ring is not inconsistent with Webb’s drawing although his colouring is less precise. It is curious that Lewington did not show similar neck-rings on the bird at top right but perhaps it had not survived or was damaged.

The drawing shows the animals as complete save only for the truncation of the lion’s tail. Plates in Samuel Lysons’s book devoted to Woodchester published in 1797 record damage to the peacock’s back.73 By the time of his subsequent publication in 1817 the front forelegs of the lioness, parts of the tree, and one of the rear legs of the lion were also shown as lost.74 Since then these figures have suffered further deterioration. Although the peacock remains recognisable and the lion is substantially complete, only the head of the lioness survives.75

Trying to reconcile the often contradictory information about the birds is a puzzle that has occupied me for some considerable time. Unlike deterioration of the mosaic, which could plausibly account for the different treatment of Bacchus’s left arm, there is no simple explanation that fits all the evidence for the birds. Two factors might account for the lack of unanimity. First, it is likely that relatively little attention was paid to them: for instance, Urry’s second letter to Harley makes no mention of them, and it would be easy for those making sketches from memory to have confused the details. Secondly, it is possible that not all the birds and branches were well preserved and this could have led to them being ‘restored’ differently in the drawings.

The drawing is provided with a detailed caption at the top, which occupies the spaces either side of the tapering point of the segment: ‘PART of A ROMAN PAVEMENT in Mosaick work found in the CHURCH:YARD at WOOD:CHESTER near MINCHING:HAMPTON in GLOUCESTER:SHIRE The length of the whole Work is 141 feet, lying for the most part Six feet underground, This Pavement is composed of Small Bricks of an Inch cube of Various colours and is said to contain great Varieties of Figures both Animal and Vegetable, but many bodies lying now Buryed upon it, it is rare to meet with any part So Entire as the following piece which was Delineated and colour’d upon the Spott by R Bradley August 2: Ann: 1722.’

It is not known for certain how Topham heard about the mosaic and came to acquire Webb’s drawing but, as Levine remarks, ‘By the end of February [1711/12] surely everyone who cared about such things must have known about the new discovery.’69 The location of Stonesfield close to Blenheim Palace, which was under construction at the time, makes it likely that Topham would have heard of the discovery from his friendship with Francis Godolphin, the son-in-law of the Duke of Marlborough. Hearne had previously mentioned that Topham knew Dr Charlett,70 and Charlett heard about the mosaic within days of its discovery,71 making him well placed to convey information to his interested friends including Topham.

On the left below the caption is a note: ‘N.B. The Circle A is 22 feet Diameter.’ The letter A is shown at lower left of the drawing, on the far edge of the outer circle. Two thin black lines form the side and upper borders and further pairs of lines run above and below the caption. The thick black line which delineates the outer edge of the drawn segment represents the lower border.

The Great Pavement, Woodchester

The depictions of the animals are less detailed than shown in the original mosaic or in Lysons’s later records. In particular, the peacock’s neck lacks its elegant curve and omits the quincunx arrangements of white tesserae separated by red which create the effect of stars. The tail feathers include the ‘eyes’ but they are shown with a greater degree of separation and in a rather more stylised way than in the original. The small branch has been moved slightly and straightened, so that it no longer echoes the shape of the peacock’s neck.

Bm.9:76 shows a segment from the Great Pavement at Woodchester. In the upper band a peacock moves to the right towards a branch. The lower band shows a lioness and lion moving to the left, separated by a tree (Figure For pheasants with neck-rings, see Witts 2016, 100. See Witts 2016, 100, 101, 104. For Withington, see Cosh and Neal 2010, 204-209, Mosaic 455.4, esp. figs 217-218; Witts 2016, figs 292, 308. As Cosh and Neal note (261), one of the birds is in the same pose as the cockerel scratching its head in the Withington and Woodchester mosaics; see also Cosh 2009, 13. 69  Levine 1978, 344. 70  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 251, entry for 22 October 1711. 71  On 9 February 1711/12 Charlett wrote about it from University College, Oxford, to the Bishop of Worcester, William Lloyd, describing his account as ‘this Relation that I have receaved from some that have seen it’. Levine (1978, 344, n.10) quotes from this letter and refers to it as being in the Lloyd Letters, Hardwick Court MSS. It is now held in Gloucestershire Archives (D3549/2/1/9) and is accompanied by an earlier letter from Charlett to the Bishop, written on 30 August 1707 on subjects unrelated to mosaics. On that occasion Charlett was writing from Windsor Castle, making it likely that Topham could have met Charlett in Windsor as well as Oxford. 67  68 

A brief history and many illustrations can be found in Cosh and Neal 2010, 214-223, Mosaic 456.1. 73  Lysons 1797, pls VII and VIII, fig. 5. 74  Lysons 1817, pl. XXVI. See also the composite illustration in Cosh and Neal 2010, fig. 227. 75  Cosh and Neal 2010, figs 227-228, 229(a), 230(a)-(b) including Neal’s painting of the whole mosaic in its current state along with photographs of the figures. The details also appear in Witts 2016, figs 33-35, 280-281. See also RCHM Gloucestershire I, 1976, pl. 17, which shows an aerial view of the mosaic, and pls 20-21 which include details of the peacock and lion. 72 

96

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics The drawing gives the lion a penis which does not appear in the original.76 It shows the same number of teats for the lioness as are depicted by Lysons. The tree separating the lion and lioness mostly accords with Lysons’s records, with only some minor discrepancies.77

It bears the date of ‘July 31. 1722’, predating the Topham drawing by just two days. None of the other drawings gives a specific date but some refer to the month of August.84 The Sloane drawing includes part of the tree in front of the lioness and shows the lion’s tail extending beyond the edge of the drawing, although the tail is still incomplete. These details have been edited out of most of the other drawings, which are similar to the Topham drawing in these respects.85

The drawing has been simplified by omitting details that featured in this area of the original mosaic such as the branch and small bird above the peacock, parts of Orpheus’s drapery in front of the peacock, the tree in front of the lioness, and the small shadows behind the felines’ paws.

The greatest differences between the Topham drawing and the other drawings are in the wording of the captions and additional text. Only the Topham drawing contains the phrases ‘great Varieties of Figures both Animal and Vegetable’ and ‘many bodies lying now Buryed upon it, it is rare to meet with any part So Entire as the following piece’. The emphasis on the figured content and on the unusual completeness of this part of the mosaic was probably included with Topham in mind, since these are factors likely to have been of importance to him. It suggests that Bradley was attuned to the interests of his buyers.

The bands of three-strand guilloche above and below the lion and lioness replicate the original, as does the acanthus scroll and round-tongued double guilloche in the lower part of the drawing. However, the laurel-wreath border below the peacock in the original has been stylised and placed above the bird.78 This alteration was probably a deliberate attempt to give a balanced effect to the drawing, especially as the inner part of the mosaic did not survive. Neat cross-hatching is used in the backgrounds of the bands with figures and the acanthus scroll but not in the remainder of the drawing.

Four of the drawings have additional information, either in the caption or in boxes of text on the left below it.86 The most significant detail – especially important since it is not recorded in any drawings – describes the contents of ‘Circle B’ which is marked on these the drawings as the central part of the mosaic. This was reported to have contained fish and a star. As Woodward notes, ‘Circle B’ was in fact the central octagon.87 I have suggested elsewhere that the ‘Star’ was probably inspired by early visitors seeing, in isolation, a point of the octagonal border around the centre of the mosaic and interpreting it as part of a star shape rather than as two sides of the octagon.88

To date, nine similar drawings have been located.79 They are listed in Appendix 3 which sets out the different text on each.80 Like the Topham drawing, none is signed as such but most bear Bradley’s name.81 As a result, he is usually regarded as the artist but one is signed ‘Priscilla Combe del.’ and two are of inferior quality, notably in showing the three-strand guilloche as angular. This suggests that Bradley and/or Combe did not produce them all.82 The earliest of the known drawings appears to be that owned by Sir Hans Sloane and now in the British Library.83

One drawing is unusual in having a sketch plan showing the location of the excavated segment in relation to the whole.89

As the lion’s mane is an easily recognisable indication of gender setting it apart from the female of the species, the penis is often omitted from depictions in Roman mosaics (Witts 2016, 26). 77  In the engraving published by Lysons in 1797 the tree lacks the small spur on the left. This is sketched into the 1817 plate where the drawing restores the lost part of the tree, presumably from Bradley’s drawings: Lysons was aware of three of them in addition to the drawing used for the plate published by Caylus (see n.79). He refers to them as being in the Society of Antiquaries, the collection of Richard Gough and the British Museum (1797, 2, esp. n.5). The first and last of these are likely to be the Harley and Sloane drawings discussed below. It is unclear which of the Gough drawings Lysons saw since three are known and are now held in the Bodleian Library. 78  Also noted by Woodward 1981, 11. 79  Plus the drawing made for Abbé Bignon and later used by Caylus as the basis of his plate (1756, 407-408, pl. CXXVI). 80  Woodward comments that ‘Bradley apparently made at least six drawings’ of this segment but does not identify them all (1981, 11). From his descriptions, they include the Sloane, Gibson and Gough Maps 43 drawings discussed below. 81  The exceptions are Gibson’s drawing (Gloucestershire Archives D1009, loose with p.23; Cosh and Neal 2010, fig. 226; Witts 2011, 955, fig. 2) and one of the drawings now in the British Library (K. Top. XIII, 101b). Bradley is discussed further in Chapter 9. 82  Combe’s drawing: British Library K. Top. XIII, 101c. Inferior drawings: Bodleian Library Gough Maps 9, 26B, c; British Library K. Top. XIII, 101b. 83  British Library Add. MS 5238.3; Cull 2000, II-III. 76 

The other drawings refer to the size of the tesserae as half an inch rather than one inch as stated on the Topham drawing. The text on two drawings clarifies that the smaller figure refers to the tesserae forming the circular part of the pavement, with the larger figure relating to the tesserae in the square outer border that encloses it.90

The Harley drawing (Society of Antiquaries of London, Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc II, no. 18); Bodleian Library Gough Maps 43, no. 215; and Combe’s drawing mentioned above. 85  Part of the tree and the extended tail are also shown in Gough Maps 9, 26B, d, while Gibson’s drawing has the extended tail. Gough Maps 43, no. 215 includes the whole of the tree in front of the lioness and part of a branch behind the peacock; the whole of the lion’s tail is also shown. 86  Drawings with text boxes: Sloane, Gibson, Maw (Shropshire Archives, Maw & Co. 6001/5231, no. 526) and Gough Maps 9, 26B, d. 87  Woodward 1981, 11. 88  Witts 2011, 954-957. 89  Gough Maps 43, no. 215. 90  Sloane and Gough Maps 9, 26B, d. 84 

97

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library The length of 141 feet stated in the Topham caption is followed by four of the drawings,91 while others give 120’ or 160’. The explanation for these discrepancies is unclear, although further exploration could have increased the known area.92 In any event, these figures must have resulted from trenching of the site as a whole: the measurements for the room given by Lysons and re-assessed when the mosaic was exposed in 1973 demonstrate that it was much smaller, being nearly 50’ square.93

The Topham drawing is the only visual record of this mosaic. No detailed account of it is known although it was mentioned by Gough in his edition of Britannia published some decades after the discovery: ‘In digging in the bishop’s garden 1727, they found ... a Mosaic pavement.’96 He gave as his source ‘Mag. Brit. V, 489’, which relates to Thomas Cox’s Magna Britannia. Cox wrote: ‘The Bishop’s Palace hath been lately new built, and in the month of October, 1727, as certain Workmen were putting the Gardens in Order, they found some very valuable ancient Coins, and a curious Piece of Roman Pavement.’97 There is no information about what became of it, raising the possibility that it still remains beneath the Bishop’s Palace Gardens.

The use of cross-hatching to emphasise the tessellated nature of the ‘Animal and Vegetable’ areas is unique to the Topham drawing. It is also, with one exception, the only drawing to show tufts of fur on all four of the lion’s legs which combines close observation with decorative effect.94 Coupled with the absence of many of the archaeological details found in captions to the other drawings, these factors suggest that Bradley was aware that for Topham the image itself was of primary importance. This could have been a special commission or at least a drawing prepared with Topham in mind as a potential purchaser.

Some care has been taken with the Topham drawing, particularly in showing the individual tesserae. It looks realistic in its colouring and in depicting the various types of guilloche. Judging from the scale, the fragment was in the order of 6’ x 5’. Topham is not known to have had any connections with Sussex but the probable source of this small but important drawing is easy to guess. The Bishop of Chichester at the time was Edward Waddington (1670/71-1731), an almost exact contemporary of Topham’s. He renovated the Bishop’s Palace at his own expense98 and, like Topham, was educated at Eton, where he became a Fellow in 1720.99 Also like Topham, he left his library to Eton and both collections are singled out for mention in a text box on Collier’s Plan of Windsor of 1742.100 Collier describes Eton College Library as ‘one of ye most elegant in England & well stocked with ye best Authors, for which the College is in part beholding to ye late Bp. of Chichester Dr. Edward Waddington for his Library.’ He goes on to refer to the donation by Sir Thomas Reeve and Dr Richard Mead of Topham’s books, drawings and paintings. Given their shared attendance at Eton, probably at the same time, their continuing links to the area, and their noted bibliographic interests, Waddington and Topham would no doubt have been well acquainted.

Whether or not Bradley approached Topham, it is probable that the existence of the Woodchester mosaic was well known in Topham’s circle. He would certainly have been familiar with it from Gibson’s editions of Britannia.95 Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester Bm.9:78 depicts a small fragment of mosaic (Figure 7.10). It is provided with a scale in feet and inches. There is a caption in Topham’s hand: ‘Pavimentum tessellatum, Cicestriae in Hortis Palatii Episcopalis, repertum 1727.’ The drawing shows two vertical bands of three-strand guilloche flanking a band of straight-tongued double guilloche. At the top is an area of plain red tessellation. An uncoloured curved band extends to the left of the guilloche with another to the right. These bands contain a series of linked ovals. Above the curve on the right are several lines of irregular curves which cross and are adjacent to a small area of plain tessellation. Part of this area is coloured red and, when turned through 90 degrees anticlockwise, bears a resemblance to the shoulder of a draped bust. Those listed in n.86. Bradley’s reference to the Woodchester mosaic in his gardening magazine discussed in Chapter 9 contains a hint that further excavation was envisaged (1723, issue for the month of July 1722, 75). It is likely that the drawing of the larger area shown in Gough Maps 43, no. 215 resulted from this. 93  Lysons 1797, 2; Clarke 1982, 198-199, esp. n.12. 94  Although the rear legs do not now survive in their entirety, Lysons’s plates indicate that they – unlike the forelegs – did not have tufts. This is consistent with the depiction of the other animals in the mosaic. Only the Topham and Maw drawings show tufts of fur on the rear legs. The Maw drawing adopts a standardised approach, with two tufts on each of the four legs. The Topham drawing, on the other hand, shows three tufts on the left foreleg and two on the right foreleg, which accurately matches the original. 95  See n.5. Woodchester is mentioned in column 247 of the 1695 edition and in Volume I, page 283, of the 1722 edition. 91  92 

Gough 1789, I, 193. The brevity of the description caused Neal and Cosh to query whether this was a plain tessellated pavement rather than a mosaic (2009, 515). 97  Cox 1738, V, ‘Sussex’, 489. I am indebted to Lucy Gwynn for interpreting Gough’s reference and providing information from Cox’s work. 98  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, entry for Edward Waddington, accessed online 19 December 2020. 99  Quarrie 1990, 43. 100  Copy in British Library, K. Top. VII. 96 

98

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics

Figure 7.1 – Bm.9:79, Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

Figure 7.2 – Bm.9:77, Birds, Caerleon

Figure 7.3 – Bm.9:81, Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

99

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 7.4 – Bm.9:75, Bacchus, Stonesfield

100

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics

Figure 7.5 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (southern part with Bacchus and birds)

101

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 7.6 – Detail of Bm.9:75 showing Webb’s signature (in the fawn rectangle)

Figure 7.7 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (northern part)

Figure 7.8 – Detail of Bm.9:75 (bearded head)

102

Drawings of Romano-British mosaics

Figure 7.9 – Bm.9:76, Great Pavement, Woodchester

103

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 7.10 – Bm.9:78, Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester

104

8 Prints of mosaics The prints of mosaics in the Topham collection are an interesting mix of popular reproductions and rare items. Together they show 10 mosaics. Some are from Rome: the cupola of Santa Costanza, two marine mosaics, and four mosaics found in the excavations at the Vigna Moroni. A set of four large prints cover the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, accompanied by a sheet of explanatory text. Three of the prints show Romano-British discoveries, with the Stonesfield mosaic featuring in coloured and uncoloured versions of the same engraving. Unlike the other items, which are filed in one of the albums devoted to prints (Bn.13), those relating to the Romano-British mosaics are included in an album of miscellaneous images which contains original drawings as well as reproductions (Bm.9).

deaths, a version of this print with an accompanying caption was included in an edition of Picturae Antiquae Cryptarum Romanarum et Sepulchri Nasonum.4 Topham also owned a drawing by Francesco Bartoli of half of the cupola (Bn.7:96) which is discussed in Chapter 3 along with a brief account of the mosaic. As expected, the order of the scenes in the print is reversed when compared with the drawing, but this is not always the case with the individual scenes: the depiction of Susanna and the Elders has the same orientation in the print as in the drawing, as does the scene with Cain and Abel. Some of the small figures above the main scenes are not the same in the print and the drawing, or appear above different scenes, and there are minor discrepancies in the aquatic scenes around the edge. The print does not include Francesco’s addition of the seated faun and small boy.

The Eton Finding Aid does not list the prints individually. Those in Bn.13 are catalogued as ‘Prints of Antiquities. Among others. The Print of the Mosaick Pavement found at Praeneste, suppos’d to have been in the Temple of Fortune built by Sylla’,1 while those in Bm.9 are grouped with the drawings of Romano-British mosaics as ‘Nine Tessellated Pavements found in England’.2

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina is shown in Bn.13:38 to Bn.13:41 (Figures 8.2-8.5). It is regarded as ‘one of the most famous ancient Roman mosaics ever discovered’5 and has been described as ‘the best, and probably the earliest, depiction in Roman art of an Egyptian landscape’.6 The accompanying sheet of explanatory text (Bn.13:37) begins ‘Interpretatio Lithostroti Praenestini …’, while further text appears on the sheets that cover the upper left and upper right areas of the mosaic (Bn.13:38, Bn.13:39).

Some of the prints show older discoveries which Topham would have known about from plates in books he owned, while others are of mosaics found in his lifetime. The majority of the prints have not been studied in detail although Lanciani lists most of those of Romano-British mosaics.3 Prints of mosaics from Rome and Palestrina

No detailed description will be attempted here since this mosaic has been thoroughly considered by others, in particular in relatively recent work by Meyboom and Whitehouse.7

The mosaics discovered in Rome and the surrounding area in the seventeenth century were well known from reproductions in publications owned by Topham such as Ciampini’s Vetera Monimenta (1690 and 1699), Bartoli and Bellori’s Le Pitture Antiche delle Grotte di Roma (1706) and Montfaucon’s L’Antiquité Expliquée et Représentée en Figures (1719 and later supplements). Topham did not have prints of all the items published in these works, suggesting that those he acquired were not part of a comprehensive collecting plan.

Whitehouse explains that the mosaic was known in antiquarian circles from the second half of the sixteenth century, if not earlier, and that it had not been excavated as such but remained open in what became the basement of the episcopal palace.8 Meyboom’s detailed discussion usefully summarises the early history of the mosaic. Its existence ‘is on record

Mosaic from the cupola of Santa Costanza

Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix 85-86, pl. II; Amadio 1986, 81-83, no. 57. 5  Dorigo 1971, 59. 6  Whitehouse 2001, 71. 7  Meyboom 1995; Whitehouse 2001, esp. 70-87 incl. figs 20-22. Their works contain references to earlier studies and offer illustrated discussions of where the sections removed in the 1620s might originally have been placed. See also Tammisto 2005, esp. fig. 10. 8  Whitehouse 2001, 72-74. In the following pages she goes on to discuss the original records of this mosaic in the dal Pozzo and other collections. 4 

Bn.13:2 shows a reconstruction by Pietro Santi Bartoli of the lost mosaic from the cupola of Santa Costanza in Rome (Figure 8.1). Some years after Bartoli’s and Topham’s Finding Aid 4, 34. Finding Aid 4, 8. 3  Lanciani 1894, 182, f.75-f.82. 1  2 

105

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library from the later part of the 16th century. Between 1624 and 1626 most of the mosaic was cut into sections and removed piecemeal, without a plan of the original being made, and was transported to Rome where it came into the possession of Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Around 1630 watercolour copies were made of the various pieces for Cassiano dal Pozzo … Somewhat later the pieces were repaired by Giovanni Battista Calandra, the head of the mosaic works of St Peter’s, and in 1640 they were returned to Palestrina. Upon arrival, however, the packing boxes were crushed and the pieces badly damaged. Calandra again restored them with the help of the Dal Pozzo copies, and reassembled them in an apse at the back of the hall in the Barberini Palace, possibly with the inclusion of fragments which had remained on the site. The mosaic remained in this condition until 1853 when it was once again brought to Rome to be restored and was returned to Palestrina in 1855.’9

… They are engaged in a variety of pursuits: ceremonies, feasting, hunting and fishing.’ Meyboom emphasises the importance of the mosaic not only in the wealth of detail it shows, but also the manner of composition. Its ‘large and complex landscape setting, convincingly rendered in a bird’s eye view’ is the earliest extant example.15 As the Nile Mosaic is a famous work of antiquity containing a wealth of imagery, it is easy to understand why these prints, made during Topham’s lifetime, would have been of interest to him. Marine mosaics found in Rome Bn.13:26 and Bn.13:27 bear the name of Pietro Santi Bartoli and show figures in marine scenes. The first is undated but the accompanying text refers to ‘questo nobil pauimento ritrouato nouamente fra la rouine di Roma nella regione della Piscina publica’. The second is dated 20 November 1698, and has text describing ‘questo nobil Pauimento di mosaico bianco e nero di Piscina ò Natatorio, scoperto nel Maggio del presente Anno nella regione della Piscina publica presso alla Porta Capena’. Below the main text is a line reading: ‘Fu scoperto della Vignia del Sigr. Michel Angelo de Marchis, longo palmi 43, largo 32½.’ Both are cross-hatched.

Topham’s prints come from the record commissioned by Cardinal Francesco Barberini junior in 1721. They therefore show the mosaic after its two restorations by Calandra but before the much later work. The date and the information about the artist and engraver – respectively Joseph Sincerus and Io. Hieronymus Frezza – was displayed in a section that appeared above the sheet of explanatory text but this is not included in the Topham collection. 10 Montfaucon’s plates were based on these engravings.11

The prints are identical to those published by Bartoli and Bellori save only that Bn.13:26 has been turned through 90 degrees so that the scene on the left in the Topham print appears at the bottom.16

The Nile Mosaic had previously been published in several books. The first was by Joseph Suarès who included details in his publication of 1655.12 An engraving of the whole mosaic by Agapito Bernardini in 1668 featured in Athanasius Kircher’s Latium a few years later.13 Ciampini included a cruder version of the latter in Vetera Monimenta.14 Topham owned copies of all these works.

Despite the reference to the ‘Piscina publica’ in both captions, it appears that the mosaic shown in Bn.13:26 came from a different location. It was discovered in 1670 in a bath building in the Orto del Carciofolo on the Caelian Hill,17 the same site at which the two panels of gladiatorial combats depicted in Bn.5:14 and Bn.5:17 were found.18

Meyboom summarises the imagery in the mosaic as follows: ‘The upper part depicts a hunting scene in faraway Aethiopia. The lower part shows scenes which take place in Egypt at the time of the yearly inundation … It contains more than 40 kinds of animals, often with their names inscribed, as well as some 14 kinds of trees and plants. There are all kinds of buildings … The population is depicted in all the variety which Hellenistic Egypt offered

The mosaics shown in these two prints are believed to be lost.19 Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo Bn.13:26 shows a square mosaic divided diagonally into four sections by large tridents flanked by pairs of dolphins (Figure 8.6). Each section contains a Nereid mounted on a sea beast with other creatures swimming around. As Blake noted, each Nereid is in a different attitude.20

Meyboom 1995, 3. He continues by describing the later history of the mosaic and its various restorations. See also Whitehouse 2001, 72-73. 10  It can be seen in the album put together by Walter Bowman and now held in the Maps Collection of the British Library (f.20 for the text and f.21 for the mosaic; to locate this in the British Library’s catalogues, search for ‘Frezza’ and ‘Sincerus’ in the main catalogue.) In this copy the mosaic is contained within one large sheet. Another set in which the mosaic is depicted in four separate sheets, as in the Topham collection, is in the Royal Collection (https://rct.uk/collection/705195, https://rct.uk/ collection/705197, accessed 27 December 2020; Whitehouse 2001, 85); there is also a set in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (https://gallica. bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200180r, accessed 27 December 2020.) 11  Montfaucon 1724, IV, 150, pls LVI-LX. 12  Suarès 1655, pls between 288 and 289; Whitehouse 2001, 78. 13  Kircher 1671, pl. between 100 and 101; Whitehouse 2001, 79. 14  Ciampini 1690, 81, pl. XXX,1. 9 

Meyboom 1995, 41-42. Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 21-22, pls XVIII-XIX. For the first mosaic, see also Montfaucon 1724, I, 71-72, pl. XXVII with the same orientation as the Topham engraving; Caylus and Mariette 1757, pl. XXXII. 17  See Bartoli’s caption to one of the drawings in the Royal Collection (https://rct.uk/collection/909667, accessed 30 January 2021; Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix, caption to pl. I; Caylus and Mariette 1757, caption to pl. XXXII; de Lachenal 2000, 630-632; Whitehouse 2001, 176, 178; Modolo 2016, 198-201, 205-206. 18  These emblemata are discussed in Chapter 3. 19  Blake 1936, 148, n.3; Whitehouse 2001, 176. 20  Blake 1936, 149. 15  16 

106

Prints of mosaics The Nereid in the upper section holding a veil over her head is identified as Amphitrite by Bartoli and Bellori.21 She rides what appears to be a sea goat with the characteristic short beard of this animal. The legs terminate in paws with large claws, perhaps a misunderstood rendering of cloven hooves.22 The Nereid on the right rides a sea horse which is turning its head to look at her. Its front legs terminate in hooves with small streamers below. The Nereid in the lower section rides a sea beast whose head resembles a feline but the front legs appear to terminate in cloven hooves rather than paws. The Nereid on the left rides a sea beast whose identity is unclear. It has long horns and two strands of a long beard.23

dolphin in the mostly-lost section points instead towards the centre of the mosaic. Because of this, Whitehouse plausibly suggests that the tesserae in this area of the mosaic might have been disturbed or relaid.25 It seems likely that the anomaly reflects an ancient repair and that the print is closer to how the mosaic might originally have looked. Two of Bartoli’s drawings are found in the Glasgow volume, both omitting any detail of the central panel. One shows the area in the lower half of the print.26 It suggests that the section on the left of the print (on the right of the Glasgow drawing) was not as damaged as it appears in the dal Pozzo version. As well as the Cupid, dolphin and fish, the head of the sea beast is shown with its horn grasped by its rider. Unlike the depiction in the print, the sea beast lacks a beard and resembles the head of a bull. Minor discrepancies include the omission from the drawing of the tridents held by the Cupids. The hand of the Nereid seen in the lower section of the print does not rest on the sea creature’s head but holds a short rein in the drawing. Instead of the feline-like appearance of her mount in the print, the creature has a snout, long horns and a beard.

Each Nereid is flanked by a pair of winged Cupids, all but one of whom is holding a small trident. A variety of sea creatures including fish, eels, squid and an octopus swim below the sea beasts but the water itself is not indicated. In the lower compartment two further squid are depicted at a higher level, swimming between the Nereid’s left arm and one of the Cupids. Although the mosaic is shown as complete, comparison with Bartoli’s original drawings indicates that it had sustained significant damage to the area shown on the left of the print. The square central panel with an eightpointed star, usually regarded as a marble drain cover, is also rendered differently in the various records. In the dal Pozzo drawing, for instance, this panel is rectangular and the decoration has been omitted, giving ‘a view of the brick-walled chamber underneath, full of sherds and rubble’.24

The second drawing in the Glasgow volume appears to be unfinished but its most detailed part covers the upper section shown in the print including the scene with the Nereid who holds a veil over her head.27 The tail of the dolphin in the damaged section points towards the centre of the mosaic as in the dal Pozzo drawing. Other details are mostly similar to those in the print and in the dal Pozzo drawing, including the tridents held by all but one of the Cupids. A minor difference is that the two intertwined eels seen in the upper section of the print are shown as separate from one another in the drawing. A drawing at Holkham which appears to be a preparatory sketch covering the same area does, however, show the two eels intertwining.28 The fish below the sea horse’s forelegs in the dal Pozzo drawing is omitted from the Glasgow and Holkham drawings.29 In the dal Pozzo and both Glasgow drawings the sea is indicated with lightly-drawn horizontal lines.

When compared with the dal Pozzo drawing the print has been reversed and contains minor differences. In the lower section of the print the Nereid’s hand has been adjusted to rest on the head of her mount rather than placed slightly above. The two rather stylised creatures near her arm in the print are shown as a single squid or ray in the drawing. The Cupid near her mount’s tail is missing in the drawing but has been restored in the print, perhaps based on a partially reversed image of the Cupid on the other side of this Nereid. In the section on the right of the print, a fish has been omitted below the sea horse’s forelegs and the reins held by the Nereid are shown less distinctly. The fish in the upper section of the print has been moved down slightly so that there is a clear gap between it and the Nereid’s foot.

Another version by Pietro Santi Bartoli was later published by Caylus and Mariette.30 It is similar to the print in a number of respects, notably the inclusion of the central geometric panel and in showing all the dolphins’ tails pointing towards the tridents.

In the print, the tails of all the dolphins are arranged symmetrically, directed towards the tridents. The dal Pozzo drawing shows, however, that the tail of the surviving

Whitehouse 2001, 176. Glasgow CXXIX; Pace 1979, 151, no. 108, pl. XXVIIa. 27  Glasgow CXXVIII; Pace 1979, 151, no. 107. 28  Holkham II, 51; Ashby 1916, 45-46, no. 51, attributing it to Francesco Bartoli. Whitehouse also tentatively suggests that this might be by Francesco rather than Pietro Santi (2001, 178; see also Modolo 2016, 205). Aymonino and Modolo list it as by Pietro Santi (2020, 41). It seems likely that this was an initial sketch by Pietro Santi rather than his son. 29  The fish does, however, appear in the other Glasgow drawing, CXXIX, which shows part of the section with the sea horse. 30  Caylus and Mariette 1757, fig. XXXII; Modolo 2016, 205-206, no. 22. 25  26 

Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 22. Blake refers to this animal as a sea-mule (1936, 149) but the beard – as well as the paws – would be anomalous. 23  Referring to the Caylus drawing discussed below, Modolo describes the sea beasts as alternately representing a hippocamp and a pistrix (2016, 205), but they appear to be four distinctly different types rather than two pairs. 24  RCIN 911397; Whitehouse 2001, 176, fig. on 177. 21  22 

107

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Two drawings in the Vittoria album are described by Whitehouse as Bartoli’s working sketches.31 One includes the central geometric panel and is similar to the lower part of the mosaic as seen in the print. The other covers the remainder of the mosaic and shows the dolphin’s tail in the damaged section pointing towards the centre.

one of two sea horses, as if clasping its mane. In front of the sea horses, occupying the top right corner of the scene, is a boy riding a dolphin which is attacking an octopus. The upper part of the mosaic includes a semi-draped female possibly wearing a necklace. She is holding a leaf fan in her left hand and riding a pistrix. Another semidraped female is shown in the centre, seated on a dolphin. In her left hand she holds a conch shell which is placed diagonally behind her shoulders. Her right arm is extended towards the open mouth of the pistrix with a ? shellfish in her right hand, as if feeding the animal. Next to her are two fishermen rowing a boat. They are approached by a small figure riding a dolphin who holds a fish on the end of a rod.

This comparison of the print with other records suggests that Bartoli sought to produce a pleasingly symmetrical and complete design. Minor divergences in small details were perhaps not thought important, especially if the changes created a clearer image. Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard Bn.13:27 shows a rectangular mosaic featuring many figures in a marine setting, most of whom move anticlockwise (Figure 8.7).

There is a large lobster at upper right of the print, and fish, eels and shellfish are scattered throughout the scene. The sea is indicated by broken horizontal lines below most of the main figures.

Neptune appears at centre left in a quadriga which, as Blake notes, is drawn by realistic horses rather than sea horses.32 He is moving to the right and holds the reins in his left hand and a trident in his right hand. Drapery floats in an arc around him. Swimming across the sea in the same direction in front of Neptune’s horses are two winged Cupids, each riding a dolphin; one is wielding a trident. Above the horses is a sea ram swimming towards the left.

Pietro Santi Bartoli was in his 60s when this mosaic was discovered and died shortly afterwards, in 1700. This perhaps explains why the wealth of other illustrations of the Nereids mosaic is not repeated for this discovery. His drawing in the Vittoria album is close to the print and was perhaps the sketch from which he worked, with the print being a reverse image.35 Prints of mosaics from Vigna Moroni, Rome

Below Neptune and at a different angle is a dolphin. Next is a man holding a spear. He rides a dolphin which is attacking a squid. Above the squid is a sea horse swimming towards a semi-draped female figure described by Bartoli and Bellori as Amphitrite33 who stands in front of a dolphin with her legs crossed. The dolphin is intent upon a net held by a fisherman who leans over the side of a small boat, as if the dolphin is attempting to eat the catch. A second fisherman in the boat has a ? stick in the crook of his right arm and holds up a fish in his left hand.34 To the right of the boat, a man holding a trident in his left hand is shown with a dolphin behind him. Like its counterpart to the left, the dolphin is attacking a squid and is accompanied by a smaller dolphin to the right. The man’s diagonal posture suggests that he is swimming.

The Topham collection contains a set of 12 prints, all of similar size but lacking captions, which are filed consecutively in the same album (Bn.13:6-Bn.13:17). They relate to discoveries made during Topham’s lifetime and depict burial chambers in course of excavation along with details of some of the decorative schemes found in them. Three of the prints include depictions of people excavating, recording or visiting the discoveries.36 As de Polignac notes, the figures are disproportionately small.37 Mosaics are shown in four of the prints, all with crosshatching: Bn.13:6, Bn.13:9, Bn.13:15, and Bn.13:16. Of these, two contain a pair of images, with a burial chamber shown in the upper part and a mosaic in the lower part (Bn.13:9, Bn.13:15). It is generally thought that the mosaic is related to the burial chamber in each case38 but it is curious that the mosaics are not shown in the overall views.39

A winged Victory clutching a palm branch in the crook of her right arm moves up the right hand side of the scene. Her left arm is extended with her hand beside the head of Respectively https://rct.uk/collection/909667 and https://rct.uk/ collection/909666, accessed 30 January 2021; Whitehouse 2001, 176178; Modolo 2016, 205, figs 63-64. There is another record of this mosaic in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in a different and less accomplished hand from that of Bartoli. It confirms the anomaly of a dolphin with a tail pointing towards the centre and indicates the sea, but includes minor differences such as the absence of a trident from more than one Cupid (Barb. Lat. 4426, reproduced in Colini 1944, fig. 178. Different authors cite different folio numbers for this drawing: Colini 1944, 218, n. 61: f.32; Whitehouse 2001, 178: f. 44; Modolo 2016, 205: f.28 in Barb. Lat. 4423 (sic).) 32  Blake 1936, 148. 33  Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 22; Blake 1936, 148. 34  Blake implausibly describes the fish as ‘a lily-bud (?) which he [the fisherman] has just taken out of the sea’ (1936, 148). 31 

Most of the prints can be matched to original drawings in collections in Rome, notably two of the Corsini and https://rct.uk/collection/909661, accessed 30 January 2021. Bn.13:9, Bn.13:12, Bn.13:17. 37  de Polignac 2007, 5. 38  See, for instance, Connor 1998, 59, no. 35; Fileri 2000, 110, no. 34; de Polignac 2007, 8. 39  Contrast the centaur mosaic in Bn.4:26 discussed in Chapter 5, which is clearly sketched into the view of the burial chamber in which it was found (Bn.4:24). 35  36 

108

Prints of mosaics two of the Capponi codices. 40 The Corsini drawings demonstrate that at least three of the prints of mosaics relate to discoveries made by Francesco de’ Ficoroni in the Vigna Moroni between 1705 and 1710. In his book La Bolla d’Oro published some years later, Ficoroni referred to ‘mio scavo presso la Porta, e via Appia nella vigna de’ Signori Moroni’, where he had excavated for five years, discovering ‘novantadue Camere Sepolcrali’.41

left each have a griffin standing on a branch or elaborate ground-line. The peacock and griffin on the left face each other, as do those on the right. A chequered border surrounds the whole mosaic. The rectangular compartments on the right and lower sides are shown covered with large plain slabs. A rectangular area intruding into the left of the central compartment might represent similar slabs removed from the area to the left which is shown as entirely open, revealing a complete skeleton. The upper rectangular compartment has part of a broken slab on the right, with a skull and bones visible below the floor surface. The practice of inserting later burials into the floors of tombs, which had the effect of damaging the mosaics, can be seen elsewhere, for instance in a depiction in the Corsini codex.44

Ficoroni’s discoveries attracted attention from eminent persons who were keen that the ‘pitture antichissime’ should be preserved but this was difficult to achieve. He therefore had drawings made which were intended for publication but he was deterred by the great expense of such an undertaking. He was, however, able to include versions of Bn.13:10 and Bn.13:11 – not showing mosaics – in La Bolla d’Oro. The set of Topham prints has been identified by de Polignac as preliminary plates for the thwarted publication and appears to be a unique survival.42

A drawing in the Capponi codex is strikingly similar to this print.45 The same slabs have been removed and the skeleton on the left is almost identical. However, the bones in the upper compartment are different and the slabs have been removed from the lower compartment. The mosaic lacks the dolphin, peacocks and griffins, and the flowers are more prominent. It is possible that the Capponi drawing is a simplified record of the same discovery made at a later date when the lower compartment had been explored. Perhaps the depictions of the animals had been lifted. It is known that Ficoroni attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to cut out some of the paintings to preserve them,46 and it seems likely that he might have adopted a similar approach to figured parts of mosaics.

The prints are attributed to Gaetano Piccini,43 who produced a drawing for Topham of the mosaic in Bn.13:9 showing Pan and Eros (Bn.4:23). Francesco Bartoli also made original drawings of this mosaic and of the scene of Pluto and Proserpina shown in Bn.13:15 (Bn.6:13, Bn.5:59). Dolphin, peacocks and griffins Bn.13:6 shows a dolphin in profile with its head to the right, set within a roundel in the central rectangle of the mosaic (Figure 8.8). The roundel is surrounded by a scroll which terminates in a flower in each corner of the rectangle. Small square compartments at top left and bottom right each have a depiction of a peacock perched on a flowering branch, while those at top right and bottom

Pan and Eros Bn.13:9 is in two parts (Figure 8.9). The upper part shows the interior of a burial chamber with niches containing urns. In the foreground, a man sits with a drawing board in his hands, presumably in the act of recording the tomb, while a child and dog run nearby. The central roundel of the mosaic in the lower illustration shows the contest between Pan and Eros. In the centre of each side of the mosaic is a naked female bust wearing a headdress of ? leaves. A large scroll flows from each bust to fill the remaining spaces.

The prints of mosaics are referenced in the discussions of each. The main comparative references for the other prints are: Bn.13:7 – Corsini 158 I 5, 130120: Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 19, pl. 4,1; Fileri 2000, 100, no. 19, fig. on 94. Bn.13:8 – Corsini 158 I 5, 130119: Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 18, pl. 3,6; Fileri 2000, 100, no. 18, fig on 93. Capponi 284: https://digi.vatlib.it/ view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.6; Engelmann 1909, XII, no. 6. Bn.13:10 – Corsini 158 I 5, 130183: Engelmann 1909, XI, no. 83, pl. 14,4; Fileri 2000, 143, no. 82, fig. on 139. Capponi 284: https://digi. vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.71, f.72; Engelmann 1909, XVI, nos 71-72. Capponi 285: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.285, f.29, f.42; Engelmann 1909, XXI, nos 29 and 42, pls XX,5 and XXII,3. Ficoroni 1732, 38. Holkham Drawings I, 62; Ashby 1916, 39, no. 62. Bn.13:11 – Capponi 284: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.66; Engelmann 1909, XVI, no. 66, pl. 15,4. Ficoroni 1732, 45. Bn.13:12 – Corsini 158 I 5, 130102, 130109: Engelmann 1909, V and VI, nos 1 and 8, pls 1,1 and 2,3; Fileri 2000, 89, nos 1 and 8, figs on 80 and 85. Bn.13:13 – https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.69; Engelmann 1909, XVI, no. 69. Bn.13:14 – None known. Bn.13:17 – Corsini 158 I 5, 130122-130124: Engelmann 1909, VII, nos 21-23, pls 4,3-4,5; Fileri 2000, 101, 105, nos 21-23, figs on 95-97. Capponi 184: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.12, f.70; Engelmann 1909, XIII and XIV, nos 12a and 70. Website for Capponi entries accessed 30 December 2020. 41  Ficoroni 1732, 35. 42  de Polignac 2007, 4. 43  See for instance Fileri 1991, 93, 97-99; Fileri 2000, 79-80; de Polignac 2007, 4. 40 

Piccini’s drawings in the Topham collection of this mosaic and tomb show that the images in the mosaic have not been reversed in the print (Bn.4:23, Bn.4:25). Francesco Bartoli’s drawing of the mosaic has the same orientation but offers an elegant and elaborate treatment (Bn.6:13).47 Drawings of this tomb and mosaic are also included in the Corsini codex. The caption to the former reads ‘Camera sepolcrale discouerta l’anno 1706 nella uigna de SSri. Moroni auanti di uscire della Porta Appia,’ while the Engelmann 1909, VIII, no. 45, pl. 8,2; Fileri 2000, 114, no. 45, fig. on 112. 45  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.96, accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 96. 46  Ficoroni 1732, 36-37. 47  See Chapters 4 and 5. 44 

109

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library caption to the latter describes it as ‘Pauimento di musaico della da. camera sepolcrale’. As with the drawings in the Topham collection, the depictions of the tomb and mosaic are not numbered consecutively. 48 Similar drawings of the mosaic and tomb appear in the Capponi codex, where again the numbering is not consecutive.49

A drawing of the mosaic in another Corsini codex bears the caption ‘Musaico antico in un pauimto di Stanza Sepolcrale’. Fileri suggests that it could be a preparatory sketch for the Corsini drawing.53 As it is even closer to the print, especially in the lack of a ground-line and the way that cross-hatching has been used in the background, it is perhaps more likely that it is a preparatory drawing for that.

No trace of the mosaic is seen in the print of the tomb, with the ground appearing to be shown before excavation. The floor is left blank in the Topham and Capponi drawings. Although it is cross-hatched in the Corsini drawing to indicate mosaic, it is plain and lacks any indication of figures. It is therefore not certain that the Pan and Eros mosaic decorated the tomb shown in the upper part of the Topham print, although this link is widely accepted.50

Mosaic with decorative strip in floor Bn.13:16 shows a tomb with what appears to be a plain tessellated pavement. The floor is divided by a thin strip featuring small circles which are barely visible (Figure 8.11). Drawings of the same tomb in other collections suggest that the whole floor was decorated.

Pluto and Proserpina

A much more elaborate drawing of this tomb in the Corsini codex has the caption: ‘Camera sepolcrale discouerta l’anno 1706 nella uigna di SSri. Moroni ...’.54 There are only four ovals in the strip but the pavement on either side is more elaborate: in the centre of each side is a wreath around a circular centrepiece, and there are amphorae in the spandrels. Unlike the other records which show a plain rear wall, this drawing has painted decoration including a winged female figure flanked by scrolls. A drawing in another Corsini codex is simpler but includes the strip down the centre with a series of small circles or ovals.55

Bn.13:15 is also in two parts (Figure 8.10). The upper part depicts a niche containing rows of urns. On the rear wall is a painting of a reclining stag shown in profile with its head to the left. The lower image shows a mosaic of a bearded man, naked save for drapery falling across his thigh, moving to the right as he pursues a semi-naked woman. Both have their arms outstretched and the man appears to be touching the woman’s shoulder as she turns her head to look at him. There is no ground-line or setting of any kind. An elegant version by Francesco Bartoli of the mosaic is discussed in Chapter 4 (Bn.5:59). The figures are moving to the left, showing that – unlike the depiction of Pan and Eros – the scene has been reversed in the print.

The drawings show that towards the rear of the tomb were two identical inscriptions beginning ‘DIS MANIBVS PACILI’. These feature in the areas left blank in the print. For de Polignac, the print ‘reduces the monument to its bare architecture’.56 While it is true that the paintings and inscriptions are omitted, the print includes a realistic depiction of a damaged urn in the foreground and even a bone on the mosaic floor. This is an evocative if sparse scene.

The images in the print also appear in the Corsini codex. Two drawings show the niche with the depiction of the stag, one of which is captioned ‘Camera sepolcrale discouerta l’anno 1708 [?] nella uigna de SSri. Moroni ...’.51 The drawing of the mosaic is captioned ‘Pauimento di musaico di camera sepolcrale’. It is identical to the Topham print in all material respects save that the ground is shown, there are two rudimentary wavy lines for the border (perhaps intended to represent guilloche), and the figures are moving to the left.52 It provides further confirmation that the scene has been reversed in the print.

Prints of Romano-British mosaics The three prints of Romano-British mosaics relate to two discoveries made during Topham’s lifetime. As the figured mosaic from Stonesfield in Oxfordshire generated considerable attention, it inspired reproductions by a number of artists and featured in works published abroad as well as in Britain. In addition to two copies of the engraving, Topham possessed an original drawing of this mosaic by William Webb (Bm.9:75) which is discussed in Chapter 7. The geometric floor from Denton in Lincolnshire is much more modest but still merited publication by William Stukeley in Philosophical Transactions soon after its discovery.

158 I 5, 130135, 130140; Engelmann 1909, VII and VIII, nos 34 and 39, pls 6,4 and pl. 7,4; Fileri 2000, 110 and 111, nos 34 and 39, figs on 105 and 107. The tondi in the intervening Corsini drawings numbered 35-38 are thought to come from a different location. 49  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.68 (tomb) and f.84 (mosaic), accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XVI-XVII, nos 68 and 84. Details of the Cupids in the wall paintings are shown in f.7 and f.8. 50  Connor 1998, 59, no. 35; Fileri 2000, 110, no. 34; de Polignac 2007, 8. 51  158 I 5, 130148-130149; Engelmann 1909, VIII-IX, nos 47-48, pl. 8,56; Fileri 2000, 114-115, nos 47-48, incl. figs, both reading the discovery date as 1710. The second drawing is a cut-away version of the first. 52  158 I 5, 130129; Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 28, pl. 5,4; Fileri 2000, 107, 109, no. 28, fig. on 101. The niche with the stag also appears in https:// digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.10, accessed 30 December 2020; Engelmann 1909, XII, no. 10. 48 

158 HI 5, f.30; Fileri 1991, 119, no. 30, incl. fig. Engelmann mentions it only in a footnote (1909, V, n.1). 54  158 I 5, 130141; Engelmann 1909, VIII, no. 40, pl. 7,6; Fileri 2000, 111, no. 40, fig. on 107. 55  158 HI 5, f.19; Fileri 1991, 116, no. 19, fig. on 115. 56  de Polignac 2007, 8. 53 

110

Prints of mosaics Bacchus, Stonesfield

discovery.60 The print employs neat cross-hatching which is closer together in the decorated part of the pavement, reflecting the smaller tesserae used there.

Bm.9:82 and Bm.9:83 are identical prints of the Stonesfield mosaic, one coloured and one uncoloured (Figures 8.128.13). ‘E.L. Delint’ appears at bottom right, referring to Edward Loving.57 At the top, the text reads: ‘AN EXACT DELINEATION OF THE PAVEMENT IN MOSAICKWORK, Lately Discovered at Stunsfeild nere Woodstock by an Husbandman whose Plough hitt first against an Urn whereupon he had a Curiosity to digg and found the said Pavement three foot under ground in the manner as is here Expressed, and where a mark of the Crevice is, A. his Ax Struck into a Cavity, which Leaves room to Conjecture it is vaulted the Length of the same is 36 foot and the Breadth 25. This work is composed of several small stones about the bignes of a Dye of different Colours which Artificially placed apeareth very Beautifull. The outletts B. at the sides are form’d with large tiles the meaning of which is to be decided by the Learned and the Simbolical Ornaments of Concord and mirth giveth occasion to think that it was a place used for Banquets. This peice of Antiquity is to be Esteem’d the most Considerable that Ever was found in Brittain of the Antient Romans.’

The mosaic was found during the ploughing of a field. Stukeley described the colours as white, red and blue, with a blue outer border of larger tesserae. He recorded that much of the mosaic had been affected by plough damage but one complete piece remained which was 30’ long and 6’ wide. After Topham’s time the mosaic was re-excavated and drawn by William Fowler.61 It is thought that it no longer survives.62

The design – which is discussed fully in Chapter 7 – consists of an outer border surrounding two squares, one with Bacchus accompanied by a quadruped and the other with geometric motifs. Hatching and cross-hatching are used in part. It is notable that in the Loving print the details differ significantly from other records, which themselves differ from one another to a lesser degree. Most other copies of the Loving print are uncoloured but the colouring on Bm.9:82 can be compared with a version in Worcester College, Oxford.58 The colouring of the Topham copy is more subtle and Webb’s original drawing suggests that this is closer to the original. Loving’s engraving seems to have been influential at the time although it is a fanciful rendition. It was even used as the basis for the design of the embroidered furnishing textile now in the Oxfordshire Museum.59 Geometric mosaic, Denton Bm.9:80 is a print of a geometric mosaic from Denton near Grantham, showing a design of intersecting octagons (Figure 8.14). A scale in Roman feet is included together with ‘N’ at the top, ‘W’ to the left and ‘E’ to the right. The caption records that it shows ‘Part of a Roman Mosaick Pavement found in Denton fields Febr. 1727/8’. Information is also added that it is from ‘Philo. Trans. No. 402’ and ‘Plate 1’. This was based on a drawing by William Stukeley which accompanied his account of the

For the identification of Loving, see Levine 1978, 345; Freshwater 2000, 7. 58  Clayton 1997, fig. 75; Freshwater 2000, pl. II. 59  Freshwater 2000, 13, pl. I.

Stukeley 1727-1728, 428-429; see also Stukeley [1887], 504, Appendix, no. 216. 61  Fowler 1804, no. 10; Turnor 1806, 126. 62  Neal and Cosh 2002, 140, Mosaic 48.1.

57 

60 

111

Prints of mosaics

Figure 8.1 – Bn.13:2, Cupola, Sta Costanza

113

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 8.3 – Bn.13:39, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)

Figure 8.2 – Bn.13:38, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)

Figure 8.4 – Bn.13:40, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)

Figure 8.5 – Bn.13:41, Nile Mosaic, Palestrina (part)

114

Prints of mosaics

Figure 8.6 – Bn.13:26, Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo

Figure 8.7 – Bn.13:27, Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard

115

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 8.8 – Bn.13:6, Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni

Figure 8.9 – Bn.13:9, Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

116

Prints of mosaics

Figure 8.10 – Bn.13:15, Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Figure 8.11 – Bn.13:16, Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni

117

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 8.12 – Bm.9:82, Bacchus, Stonesfield (coloured print)

Figure 8.13 – Bm.9:83, Bacchus, Stonesfield (uncoloured copy of the print)

Figure 8.14 – Bm.9:80, Geometric mosaic, Denton

118

9 Discussion This chapter brings together and summarises aspects considered in the previous chapters. It starts by focusing on the drawings themselves before turning to look at the subjects and the artists. An evaluation of the significance of the drawings places them in the context of other collections, before ending with an assessment of what they can tell us about Topham’s approach to collecting.

attention had been paid to mosaics in the past, perhaps drawings of them would not necessarily have been recognised as such without this additional aid. For the drawings of the mosaic panels found on the Aventine, only Bn.7:37 has a caption stating that it showed a mosaic. This is probably significant given that it is the only panel that does not survive. Such information might not have been considered necessary for the other panels which were lifted and therefore relatively well known.

Depicting the mosaics This section reviews how the mosaics were depicted and the ways in which the drawings were presented.

In most cases tessellation was represented by lines of crosshatching which appear to have been added, sometimes quite crudely, over the finished work. For instance, the crosshatching continues over the damaged area in Bn.4:21, the drawing of the mosaic of Silenus riding a leopard. The engraver of the Pluto and Proserpina mosaic in Bn.13:15 not only added cross-hatching but varied the direction of the lines in the background, perhaps in an attempt to reflect lines of andamento in the original. Although rudimentary, it evokes the surface of a mosaic and creates a different impression from Bartoli’s more accomplished but static representation (Bn.5:59).

Format of the drawings Many of the figured scenes were drawn within a simple rectangle or circle. Roundels were used in particular for a number of the depictions in album Bn.4, in some cases set within a containing square (Bn.4:11, Bn.4:23, Bn.4:26). The shape of the Santa Costanza cupola is reflected in the circular print of the whole and the semicircular drawing of half (Bn.13:2, Bn.7:96). The segment depicting part of the Woodchester mosaic attractively emphasises the design of concentric circles, especially since the containing square is not indicated (Bm.9:76).

Piccini showed the cross-hatching spaced more closely in the roundel depicting the reclining Silenus than in the surrounding area, as if to indicate that the tesserae were smaller in the centre (Bn.4:11). In the mosaic of Sol, the central roundel has been left without hatching (Bn.4:31). This could have been another way of suggesting finer workmanship or to make the image stand out.

Two registers were used for two of the gladiator mosaics, representing successive stages of the combat (Bn.5:14, Bn.5:17). A similar layout was employed for the waterfowl in the panel in Santa Maria in Trastevere, but here the intention was to show a single scene (Bn.7:98). Some of the layouts used in the drawings and prints are unusual within the context of the collection: a central rectangle with flanking rectangles and corner squares for the dolphin mosaic (Bn.13:6); the use of tridents to divide the space into triangular compartments containing Nereids (Bn.13:26); the elaborate layouts shown by Francesco Bartoli in several drawings, notably Bn.5:43, Bn.6:1 and Bn.6:2; and the multiple compartments seen in the mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla and Bartoli’s version of it (Bm.9:74, Bn.5:42).

The drawing of the mosaic showing the lion and leopard, then in the Palazzo Mignanelli and now displayed at Holkham Hall, is of particular interest (Bn.7:3). Not only is it cross-hatched but two accurate details from the border are added in pencil, one at a large scale (Figure 9.1). These details, which are omitted from most reproductions of this drawing, indicate that the artist was working from the original mosaic. It does not seem that this was a preliminary drawing since no other versions have come to light.

Evoking tessellated surface or not

Tessellation is not indicated in any of the drawings identified as the work of Francesco Bartoli but crosshatching was used widely by Gaetano Piccini for his drawings in Bn.4. As the addition of the lines can distract from the attractiveness of the image, it is easy to appreciate why this technique might not have appealed to Bartoli.2

An attempt to evoke the tessellated surface was made in over 20 of the drawings and most of the prints. A caption recording the medium features in some of the prints and drawings, mostly those with an indication of tessellation. This suggests that some artists felt the need to supplement the cross-hatching with a written description.1 As little

The conclusion that Bartoli did not use hatching to indicate mosaic, whereas Piccini did, was also reached by Connor Bulman (2001b, 233). 2 

1 

For details, see Appendix 1.

119

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library It is notable that the cross-hatching used in the RomanoBritish items is neater than in the drawings produced by Topham’s Italian artists. The drawings of the Chichester and Great Tew mosaics, in particular, show the tesserae individually and with remarkable precision (Bm.9:78, Bm.9:79). Both Webb’s drawing and Loving’s print use simple hatching as well as cross-hatching for the Stonesfield mosaic (Bm.9:75, Bm.9:82, Bm.9:83).

of the prints relating to the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina are an extreme example in which a wealth of commentary is provided (Bn.13:37-Bn.13:39). The Romano-British section of the collection, although small, demonstrates a particular interest in mosaics as archaeological finds. Webb’s drawing of the Stonesfield mosaic included the flues and responds as well as providing a scale and indications of north and south (Bm.9:75). Bradley gave measurements and the depth at which the Woodchester mosaic was found along with a summary of the subject matter (Bm.9:76). The modest fragment from Chichester was drawn with care and included a scale (Bm.9:78). The print of the Denton mosaic included a scale, compass points and date of discovery (Bm.9:80), while Loving’s print of the Stonesfield mosaic provided details of the discovery as well as showing the flues and giving the measurements (Bm.9:82, Bm.9:83).

Complete or fragmentary Most of the drawings and prints show the mosaics as if complete. Only four depict relatively minor fragments and they are all of Romano-British mosaics. Eight of the drawings of mosaics in Rome and one of the prints indicate areas of damage.3 This practice was not confined to a given artist since both Bartoli and Piccini produced drawings with lacunae, but it is possibly significant that all of these drawings are of contemporary discoveries.4 They suggest an increasing interest in accuracy.

Borders: presenting the drawings to best effect

Some of the drawings depict the panels in isolation although they were almost certainly parts of a larger mosaic. In the case of the Victorious Charioteers and the Nilotic scenes in the Massimi collection, this reflected the way the separate pieces were displayed in the Palazzo Massimi.5 The same approach was taken to the Aventine scenes found during Bartoli’s lifetime and which he appears to have drawn in situ, before they were lifted.6 No attempt seems to have been made, either by Bartoli or other artists, to record the overall disposition of the panels in relation to one another. Perhaps they were lifted piecemeal as each panel was revealed, making any comprehensive record difficult to produce.

The borders are a notable feature of most Roman mosaics but they are rarely included in the Topham drawings and prints. The sketch of the Rape of Europa mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla (Bm.9:74) is notable for showing part of a meander border which was also used by Bartoli for his more elaborate and amended version (Bn.5:42). The accurately sketched details from the border of the Holkham lion and leopard mosaic, noted above, are exceptional (Bn.7:3). The Romano-British drawings contain more details of the borders than the Italian material. The most realistic are the Woodchester and Stonesfield records,7 but the stylised borders around the geometric design from Nether Heyford are recognisably based on Roman motifs (Bm.9:81). Even the imposed lines of white semicircles in the drawing of the Caerleon mosaic are an attempt to show the intersecting circles often used in Roman mosaics (Bm.9:77).

Indications of context Most of the drawings do not show the context in which the mosaic was found. An exception is the centaur mosaic in Bn.4:26 which is featured in Bn.4:24, sketched into a view of the tomb in which it was found. The latter drawing is annotated with the location of the discovery, the description of it as a ‘Cammera sepolchrale’, and the size of the room. Similarly, the caption to Bn.4:11 showing the reclining Silenus links it to a previous drawing in which the context is made clear. Bn.6:51, the drawing of the Aventine scene with exotic animals, was annotated by Topham to refer to the Temple of Diana, indicating that this information had been passed to him. Bn.13:27, the print of Neptune and the marine thiasos, refers to ‘Piscina ò Natatorio’ and gives the size of the mosaic and the date when it was discovered. The detailed descriptions on three

The disparity between the approach taken by the British and Italian artists can be explained in part by the original material: in some cases the mosaics were displayed in Rome without borders, either because they were not decorated with elaborate borders originally or because any borders had been ignored when the fragments were lifted. Irrespective of original borders, some of the Italian artists added borders to their drawings. The presence or absence of such borders and the way in which they are shown enables the drawings to be placed in significant groupings. Piccini’s drawings of mosaics in album Bn.4 all have a simple but substantial red line around them without any additional borders. The drawing of the waterfowl in Santa Maria in Trastevere is also treated in the same way but is in the style of Francesco Bartoli and usually attributed to

Fragments: Bm.9:78-Bm.9:81. With areas of damage shown: Bn.4:11, Bn.4:21, Bn.5:37, Bn.5:39, Bn.5:40, Bn.7:1, Bn.7:35, Bn.7:37, Bn.13:6. 4  I include the Cavalieri mosaic (Bn.7:1) here as it would probably have been regarded as ‘new’ to its audience at the time, having been taken to Rome by 1710. 5  Bn.5:2, Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38, Bn.5:71. For the way the originals were displayed, see Beaven 2010, 295-299, figs 6.48-6.51. 6  Bn.6:51, Bn.7:34-Bn.7:38. 3 

7 

120

Bm.9:75, Bm.9:76, Bm.9:82, Bm.9:83.

Discussion him (Bn.7:98). I suggest in Chapter 3 that Bartoli based his work on one of Piccini’s drawings, and the influence on Bartoli seems to have extended to the treatment of the border. The only other drawing of a mosaic by Bartoli in which he used a single a red line for the border is the scene from the Massimi mosaic of the crocodile attacking a man (Bn.5:2). It is perhaps relevant that Piccini also produced a version of this scene which might have influenced Bartoli.

no separate border around the drawing of Sir Andrew Fountaine’s ‘suspect’ relief although it is edged with a thin red line (Bn.3:31). The thin black line edging the drawing of the lion and leopard from Holkham is followed by a second line, giving a white border (Bn.7:3). A similar effect is created, this time with a thicker black line, in the drawing of the Cavalieri mosaic (Bn.7:1). Subjects of the drawings and prints

Bartoli used a red outer border in all the other drawings of mosaics attributed to him, but in each case with additional detail. In some, he added a thin black line within the red border.8 For the Aventine drawing Bn.6:51 he used a grey line within the red. The other Aventine drawings are different, having an inner black line of similar thickness to the red, with a further but thinner black line within this. This suggests that Bn.6:51 was produced as a single drawing and that the others – which are filed together in a different album – could have been produced as a set.9

Almost all of the drawings and prints of mosaics from Italy include human or animal figures.13 It is probable that Topham was selective when commissioning the drawings and also likely that his agents would have influenced what was offered to him in the light of his interests. In any event, comparison with other collections shows that they too rarely included geometric designs. Such pavements were normally more numerous than figured mosaics but were rarely recorded at this time, being overshadowed by the figured floors.14

Three of Bartoli’s drawings of the vault mosaics from Santa Costanza are similar to one another, having a thinner, darker red line within the outer red border.10 The other three drawings of the vault mosaics resemble one another in that, within the outer red border, there is a ribbon border enclosed by thinner lines.11

For the small section relating to Roman Britain, however, three of the drawings and one of the prints show geometric designs,15 demonstrating that even modest discoveries in Britain were of interest. The relative proximity of these mosaics made it much more likely that they would have come to Topham’s attention. Personal connections would have been invaluable. Topham’s acquisition of the drawing of the Chichester mosaic (Bm.9:78), a design otherwise unknown apart from a brief and ambiguous written reference, is likely to be a particular case in point.

The three Victorious Charioteers from the Massimi collection seem to have been drawn as a set. Bartoli gave them all inner borders enclosing black and white chequers resembling the dentils in the originals.12 For the chariot race and gladiators from the Via Appia, Bartoli used an inner decorative border enclosed by black lines. These decorative borders vary slightly, with delicate leaves for Bn.5:37, ? husks for Bn.5:39 and leaves with ? red flowers or berries for Bn.5:40. The border given by Bartoli to his version of the Pan and Eros mosaic (Bn.6:13) resembles the ? husks in Bn.5:39, raising the possibility that one influenced the other. A somewhat similar motif, albeit stylised and black and white, appears around Bn.5:43 but is enclosed within an additional pair of black lines.

The strong preference for records of figured mosaics was mostly focused on scenes in which two or more figures were interacting with one another. For instance, all of the drawings of mosaics in albums Bn.5 and Bn.6,16 which consist of work by Francesco Bartoli, contain animated scenes. With the exception of most of the Santa Costanza drawings,17 Bartoli’s drawings in Bn.7 are similar and the same preference is seen with the work of the other artists. The prints follow this trend, with only one depicting a mosaic without figures (Bn.13:16) and only one featuring static images (Bn.13:6). Inactive figures are mostly confined to some of the drawings by Piccini in album Bn.4, where he created a comprehensive record of the tombs in question rather than following Bartoli’s seemingly selective approach to his choice of subject.

The remaining drawings in this study that are attributed to Bartoli are notable for the variety of elaborate borders around compartments as well as around the outside. Bn.5:42 is known to depict a mosaic from the caption to the other drawing of this item (Bm.9:74) whose meander border it incorporates and elaborates, but Bn.6:1 and Bn.6:2 might depict ceiling designs rather than mosaics.

The exceptions are one of the Santa Costanza mosaics (Bn.7:92) and the modest non-figured mosaic shown in one of the prints (Bn.13:16). 14  The Corsini codex, for instance, includes only two examples of purely geometric floors. No. 49 is a detailed drawing, while no. 52 features a floor in an overall view of the chamber in which it was found (Engelmann 1909, IX, pls 8,3 and 9,5; Fileri 2000, 115 and 117, incl. figs). 15  Chichester, Great Tew and Nether Heyford (Bm.9:78, Bm.9:79 and Bm.9:81), plus the print of the Denton mosaic (Bm.9:80) which is filed with the drawings. 16  The sole gladiator in Bn.5:40 appears to be an exception but he is shown in an active pose. 17  Bn.7:90, Bn.7:91, Bn.7:94 and the geometric mosaic in Bn.7:92. Bn.7:93 has discrete figures but they are in lively poses. 13 

Campiglia did not use any border for his depiction of the Rape of Europa from Palestrina (Bn.9:4). There is Bn.5:4, Bn.5:14, Bn.5:17, Bn.5:59, Bn.5:71, Bn.6:50, Bn.7:96. For Pietro Santi Bartoli’s use of red borders, see Whitehouse 2014, 286. 9  Bn.7:34-Bn.7.38. 10  Bn.7:89, Bn.7:90 and Bn.7:93, the latter with the inclusion of a thin blue inner line. 11  Bn.7:91, Bn.7:92, Bn.7:94. 12  Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38. 8 

121

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Francesco Bartoli (1670-1733)

Appendix 4 lists the images in the drawings and prints, grouping them by their primary subjects and mentioning other notable features. It is immediately apparent from this list that, for the main subjects, male deities or mythological figures are more numerous than their female counterparts, with Bacchus and Bacchic figures being especially popular.

Relatively little has been written about Francesco Bartoli compared with his more illustrious father, Pietro Santi Bartoli. Almagno’s recent account includes details of his life, as does Ridley’s, and both reproduce a unique portrait of him by Imperiali.20

Animals are prominent in many of the images, either as the main subject or in an important supporting role such as accompanying Bacchus or Silenus. They also appear in subsidiary positions, commonly in groups of four. There are some unusual depictions. The presence of the snake in Bn.3:31 guarding the tree in the scene of Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides is explained by its important role in the myth. On the other hand, the small butterfly in Bn.6:50 is exceptional in its context and is further evidence to suggest that this drawing might not show an ancient mosaic.

In the early stages of his career Francesco assisted his father, particularly in the production of engravings from Pietro Santi’s watercolours of ancient paintings.21 The names of both father and son appear prominently, for instance, on the title page of Le Pitture Antiche. After his father’s death in 1700, Francesco succeeded him in the role of Papal Antiquarian.22 He was thus particularly well placed to hear of new discoveries. Connor Bulman notes that Bartoli added his title ‘Antiquario di Sua Santita Papa Clemente XI’ to one of the drawings of stuccoes from Pozzuoli and suggests that this might have been among the first drawings that Bartoli made for Topham.23

Most of the objects appearing in the images are readily explained by their context, such as the thyrsus or cup held by Bacchus, but unusual objects include the basket used for fattening snails in Bn.7:98 and the probable waterlifting device in Bn.5:71. One of the figures in the Cavalieri mosaic holds an object which has eluded firm identification but is potentially important to the interpretation of the whole scene (Bn.7:1).

For older discoveries, Francesco had the advantage of access to Pietro Santi’s notes and sketches.24 His drawings of mosaics in the Massimi collection bear notable similarities to those of his father. For instance, Pietro Santi and Francesco used similar colouring for the horses in all three drawings of the Victorious Charioteers (Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38) and for the charioteer’s clothing in one of them (Bn.5:38) even though the colours are different from those in the original mosaics. For the drawings of the gladiators, Bn.5:14 is closest to Pietro Santi’s version now in the RIBA collections but for Bn.5:17 Francesco seems to have used a variety of notes and sketches by Pietro Santi. The influences are less clear, however, with the two drawings of the Nilotic mosaics.

Latin inscriptions are included in two of the drawings of gladiators and one of a circus race, 18 while the prints of the Nile Mosaic show its wealth of inscriptions in Greek. Artists, their sources and techniques The majority of the drawings of mosaics were by Francesco Bartoli, with a smaller but still substantial number by Gaetano Piccini. Of the remainder, Giovanni Domenico Campiglia, William Webb and Richard Bradley were each responsible for one drawing, with unknown artists creating the remainder.

Despite the family connection and close working relationship, Francesco’s style was noticeably different from his father’s.25 He chose colours that were less subtle and he had a tendency to show faces as chubby and rosy-cheeked whatever the context. The overall effect is somewhat twee.

Appendix 5 brings together the information about the artists of the drawings in this study based on signatures and on Topham’s annotations.19 For those drawings that lack such details, the probable artist is suggested wherever feasible.

Francesco’s drawings of the Santa Costanza vault mosaics suggest that he did not always work solely from his father’s known drawings. The ox-drawn carts in Bn.7:89 are different from the original in both Pietro Santi’s and

In what follows, my aim is to provide brief biographical information for the Italian artists. This is primarily drawn from the work of others but I add observations that have occurred as a result of studying the drawings. For the two British artists, little is known of Webb. Bradley, however, turns out to be a colourful character with eclectic interests and he can be discussed in more detail.

Almagno 2007 including pl. LXXII,2; Ridley 1992, 134-137, including pl. 5. See also Connor 1993, 27; Connor 1998, 53-54; Connor Bulman 2001b, 222; Connor Bulman 2006, 328-329; Coen 2020, 56-57. 21  Connor Bulman 2001a, 343-344; Almagno 2007, 455. 22  Ridley 1992, 134, whose paper explains the role of the Papal Antiquarian and discusses the various holders of it; Pomponi 1994, 260; Almagno 2007, 459. 23  Connor Bulman 2008, 293, 304, n.51, fig. 103. At the very least, the reference to Pope Clement dates the drawing to within his pontificate, namely 1700-1721 (Ling 1979 [1999], 52). 24  See for example Whitehouse 2014, 268. 25  See, for instance, Pace 1979, 130; Amadio 1986, 54-55, 71-72; Pomponi 1994, 266; Almagno 2007, esp. 458, n.26; Whitehouse 2014, 270. 20 

Bn.5:37, Bn.5:39, Bn.5:40, but the inscriptions in the original mosaics are omitted from Bn.5:14 and Bn.5:17. 19  This information follows details in the Eton online catalogue. For completeness, Appendix 5 also includes the information for the prints. 18 

122

Discussion Francesco’s versions, indicating that Francesco could have used his father’s records, but he added a vintaging figure not recorded by Pietro Santi. Bn.7:90 is a simplified version of the original with the central part edited out and includes the ? tambourine and lagobolon motif not included in Pietro Santi’s versions. Bn.7:91 also appears to be based on the original rather than Pietro Santi’s drawings. Although Bn.7:92 does not correspond to the original, it is not a copy of Pietro Santi’s records which are reasonably accurate. For this drawing, Francesco appears to have introduced ‘improvements’, which is perhaps unsurprising given that this mosaic has a purely geometric design and might, in his eyes, have been a good candidate for elaboration. In Bn.7:93 there are almost no figures identical to Pietro Santi’s work, while Bn.7:94 shows the shape of the bowls as closer to the original than to the way in which Pietro Santi depicted them. It therefore appears that, at least to some extent, Francesco worked from the original mosaics in this instance.

notable that Bartoli added drapery to the busts around Pan and Eros. He also gave more clothing to Pluto in the scene with Proserpina. It is a moot point whether this was with the aim of presenting a respectable image or whether he simply felt that it added a degree of elegance which would make the drawing more attractive and marketable. Giovanni Domenico Campiglia (1692-1775) Campiglia was a professional artist whose contribution to other aspects of the Topham collection was substantial.29 The only drawing of a mosaic for Topham was part of the record of antiquities in the Palazzo Barberini and is listed in Finding Aid 2.30 One of his bills to Topham still survives.31 William Webb (active early eighteenth century) Hearne’s reference to ‘one of our Oxford painters’32 is presumed to relate to William Webb, the artist who signed the Stonesfield drawing, since no other likely candidate is known. He can probably be identified as the William Webb, son of William Webb of Lillington in Warwickshire, who was apprenticed in 1706 to Sir Daniel Webb (c.16601723) to whom he was possibly related; Sir Daniel was a painter and stainer in Oxford who served as Lord Mayor of the city four times.33 Nothing more has been ascertained about Webb and it is possible that Stonesfield was the only mosaic he recorded.34

A much quoted letter from Imperiali to Topham, discussed in more detail below, shows that the latter had expressed concerns about the accuracy of the colouring in Bartoli’s drawings. The letter contains interesting remarks about Bartoli’s seemingly chaotic working practices and about how some differences from the original were intentional. Gaetano Piccini (1681-1736) Piccini was a professional copyist whose first important commission was to record the discoveries of tombs in the Vigna Moroni for Ficoroni.26 Many of these drawings and prints came into Topham’s possession and are filed in albums Bn.4 and Bn.13.

Richard Bradley (1688-1732) Although often mentioned in connection with the Woodchester drawings, Bradley was not an antiquarian and was regarded as a somewhat dubious figure at the time. His entry in the Fellows Directory of the Royal Society sums up his career: he was ‘Professor of Botany at Cambridge (1724-1732) ...; his ignorance of Latin and Greek and his failure to perform his duties caused great scandal’.35

Not only was Piccini a contemporary of Francesco Bartoli but they evidently worked closely together. For example, Connor Bulman explains that they had access to each other’s material when they were recording the wall paintings from the Palazzo Rospigliosi.27 The drawings of mosaics from Vigna Moroni are further evidence of this collaboration. Bartoli’s version of Pan and Eros (Bn.6:13) seems to have been inspired by Piccini’s records of the same mosaic (Bn.4:23, Bn.13:9). Bartoli also recorded the Pluto and Proserpina mosaic (Bn.5:59) for which Piccini produced the engraving owned by Topham (Bn.13:15) as well as drawings in other collections.28 As argued in Chapter 3, it seems likely that Bartoli worked from Piccini’s records when making his drawings for Topham of the mosaics in Santa Maria in Trastevere (Bn.5:4, Bn.7:98).

For Campiglia, see Connor 1990, 106; Connor 1993, 27, 34-35, 3637; Connor 1998, 53, including a self-portrait (fig. 7); Connor Bulman 2002a, esp. 59-60, 65, 67; Connor Bulman 2002b, esp. 353-357; Connor Bulman 2006, 329-330; Connor Bulman 2008, 296; Coen 2020, 51-52. 30  It appears as entry no. 138 on page 8 under Palazzo Barberini and the drawing bears this number. 31  Filed with Bm.9:83. For the bill, see Connor Bulman 2002b, 354; Connor Bulman 2006, 327, fig. 3; Connor Bulman 2008, 298. 32  Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 326. 33  In 1712, the year in which the Stonesfield mosaic was discovered, Hearne mentioned that ‘Mr. Webbe the Painter’ became Mayor of Oxford for the third time (1710-1712 [1889], 457, entry for 16 September 1712). I am grateful to Mark Lawrence, Senior Librarian at the Centre for Oxfordshire Studies, for helpful information in 2004 when I was carrying out previous research into the Stonesfield mosaic and for referring me to the relevant website, which is now http://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk/ mayors/1603_1714/webb_daniel_1700_1714.html, accessed 23 January 2021. The same source shows that Sir Daniel Webb also had a son named William, born in 1696, who is another possible but less likely contender for the Stonesfield artist. 34  Hearne’s comments on Webb’s drawing are set out in Chapter 7. 35  Available online at https://royalsociety.org/fellows/fellows-directory/, accessed 23 January 2021 under ‘Search past Fellows’. 29 

The different approaches of the two artists are evident where they recorded the same item. For instance, it is Connor Bulman 2001b, including a caricature of Piccini by Pier Leone Ghezzi (fig. 14). See also Fileri 1991, 93; Fileri 2000, 79-80. 27  Connor Bulman 1999, 205; Connor Bulman 2001b, esp. 220, 222. See also Fileri 2000, 88. 28  Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 28, pl. 5,4; Fileri 1991, 119, no. 30, incl. fig.; Fileri 2000, 107, 109, no. 28, fig. on 101. 26 

123

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Hearne’s diary entries provide some background about Bradley and his involvement at Woodchester. Bradley first called on Hearne on 5 August 1722, several days after the date on the Topham drawing, although they were not previously acquainted. Hearne wrote that Bradley ‘shew’d me some Notes he had taken abt the tessellated Pavement at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, about wch he design’d to write & print a Discourse, with a Draught of it. He is commonly called Gardener Bradley, from his writing about Gardening.’36

demonstrates that he was in need of funds at the time in question. For instance, in a letter dated 23 June 1722, only weeks before he was at Woodchester, Bradley wrote: ‘Since the unfortunate affair at Kensington, whereby I lost all my substance, my expectations, and my friends, I have endeavoured to support myself at the public expence.’39

Bradley was involved in publishing A General Treatise of Husbandry and Gardening, the first gardening periodical to be published in Britain, which continued as The Monthly Register of Experiments and Observations in Husbandry and Gardening. He wrote about the Woodchester mosaic in this publication: ‘... the Fine Piece of Mosaick Work, or Roman Pavement, found at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, by my worthy Friend Edmond Browne, Esq.; is not yet quite perfected: But as he informs me, that I may soon expect that favour from him, I chuse to decline the publishing of that Part of it, which I delineated some time ago, and design’d for these Papers; supposing the Whole together will be much more acceptable to my Readers.’37

Sources

Despite the beauty of Bradley’s records of the Woodchester mosaic, it is probable that they were regarded by him very much as a commercial undertaking.

As much of the discussion in the previous chapters suggests, not all drawings were made from the original mosaics even where these survived. For those that represented older discoveries displayed in one of the palazzi in Rome, it would have been necessary to obtain access. This might have been problematic or have been available only for a fee. It is easy to appreciate the practical reasons why it would have been more convenient for an artist to use existing material in lieu of studying an original piece. Francesco Bartoli, in particular, would not have needed access to the originals if they had previously been recorded by his father. It is particularly interesting therefore that, as discussed above, Francesco seems to have had a close familiarity with the original vault mosaics in Santa Costanza and evidently worked partly from them.

It seems that Bradley’s project to publish the mosaic did not come to fruition. Perhaps he decided that a series of original drawings was an easier or more lucrative way of proceeding. Hearne mentioned Woodchester and Bradley again in an entry on 24 September 1722: ‘They write from Minchinghampton in Gloucestershire that there has lately been discovered at Woodchester, near that Place, a most curious Roman Pavement in Mosaick Work, of a considerable Extent, wherein are represented Birds and Beasts in their proper Colours, and a great Variety of ingenious Devices, all extreamly beautiful in the Workmanship. The whole spreads it self through the greatest part of the ChurchYard, and some part of it is found in the Church it self. The Ground was open’d in several Places, at the Expence of Edmund Browne, of Redborrow, Esq., who sent to Mr. Bradley on purpose to take a Draught of this excellent Piece of Curiosity. So in Mist’s Journal for Sat., Sept. 22, 1722, & I am told ’tis in other News Papers. Perhaps ’twas inserted by Mr. Bradley himself. But ’tis not a new Discovery, the Pavemt having been found many Years agoe, and ’tis in Gibson’s Camden.’38

Campiglia was able to visit the Palazzo Barberini to draw the Europa mosaic on display there (Bn.9:4). Similarly, the pencil details on the drawing of the lion and leopard mosaic now at Holkham Hall indicate that the artist had access to the Palazzo Mignanelli where it was located at the time (Bn.7:3). For new discoveries, artists had no alternative but to work from the actual mosaics, either while they were in situ or shortly after lifting. Familiarity with the sites meant that contextual information was available and started to be recorded. Hearne’s detailed comments about the Stonesfield mosaic referred to in Chapter 7 provide valuable insights into the process of commissioning an engraving, the difficulties encountered, and the time and care taken in accomplishing the work.

Hearne’s speculation that it might have been Bradley himself who was publicising this discovery seems well founded. The opportunity to sell attractive drawings of a ‘new’ mosaic would no doubt have been useful since Bradley’s correspondence with Sir Hans Sloane

Techniques A detailed discussion of the technical aspects of the drawings and prints in the Topham collection falls outside

Hearne 1719-1722 [1906], 389-390. Issue for the months of June and July 1722, 75, published in 1723. For Bradley’s career as a gardening journalist, see Roberts 1939, 166-171. I am grateful to the RHS Lindley Library for supplying me with a copy of this article. 38  Hearne 1722-1725 [1907], 1-2.

Quoted in Egerton 1970, 63. The nature of ‘the unfortunate affair at Kensington’ is unclear. Bradley’s finances remained perilous: after his death, his widow explained in an undated petition to Sloane that she had been ‘unfortunately married’ to Bradley ‘and brought him a considerable fortune’ but had been forced to sell everything to pay his debts (British Library Add. MS Sloane 4058, f.50; Egerton 1970, 72).

36 

39 

37 

124

Discussion the scope of this work, but there are a few observations that can be drawn together.

compare Bartoli’s elegant drawing of the Pan and Eros mosaic (Bn.6:13) with Piccini’s simpler but probably more accurate version (Bn.4:23) (Figure 9.2(a)-(b)). It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the two mosaics from Vigna Moroni that Bartoli chose to draw were the most interesting, since each involved a pair of mythological figures interacting with one another (Bn.5:59, Bn.6:13).

Most of the original records are watercolours. The underlying pencil guidelines are still visible in many of them but these seem to have been used sparingly. The monochrome nature of the drawing of the Rape of Europa from the Baths of Caracalla is unusual, employing only black ink and grey wash (Bm.9:74). The drawing of the ‘suspect’ relief owned by Sir Andrew Fountaine is notable among the mosaic items for its use of red chalk and red pencil (Bn.3:31), although these media were often favoured for drawings of sculptures.

Later in the eighteenth century the Topham collection proved to be valuable as a source for British NeoClassicism. The records of ancient wall paintings and ceilings were particularly influential, while Bartoli’s drawings of the Santa Costanza mosaics inspired the designs of carpets.40

Piccini’s engraving of Pluto and Proserpina from Vigna Moroni (Bn.13:15) is reversed when compared with his drawings in other collections and with Bartoli’s record (Bn.5:59). This is unsurprising given that it is a common consequence of the usual print-making process, but it is curious that the engraving of the Pan and Eros mosaic from the same site is not reversed (Bn.13:9). It maintains the orientation seen in Piccini’s and Bartoli’s drawings (Bn.4:23, Bn.6:13).

In more recent times, the archaeological merit of the Topham drawings of Picturae Antiquae has come under consideration. Their value was regarded by Ashby as ‘somewhat various’. He agreed with Michaelis that Piccini’s work was more accurate than that of Pietro Santi Bartoli (and by implication that of Francesco), albeit less accomplished, although he felt that it had little value when compared with the originals. While Ashby had no reason to think that Francesco Bartoli invented designs that did not exist, he concluded that Bartoli ‘restored’ some incomplete works in his drawings by using figures from elsewhere.41

The print of the Santa Costanza cupola contains another curiosity. Although the order of the scenes is reversed when compared with the drawing, some of the individual scenes have the same orientation in both the drawing and the print (Bn.7:96, Bn.13:2).

It seems that in some drawings of mosaics Bartoli might have gone further than merely completing a damaged work. In Bn.5:42 and Bn.5:43, for instance, he used subjects of his own choosing to replace the central scene of mosaics known from other records. For Bn.5:43, at least, he included a genuine image even if it was not one from a mosaic. In Bn.5:42 he also elaborated upon the decorative elements and added compartments with animals and flowers. In both cases he chose to depict Bacchus in the centre with an attendant, with the god apparently sober in Bn.5:42 but inebriated in Bn.5:43.42

Another reversal worthy of note occurs with Bartoli’s drawing of the mosaic in the Massimi collection showing a Nilotic scene with two men (Bn.5:71). This is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The original fragment and all other known drawings show the opposite orientation but no engraving has come to light that might otherwise explain the reversal. The possibility arises that Bartoli might have worked from a drawing by another artist, possibly Gaetano Piccini, which had been reversed with a view to being engraved. It would, however, have been a curious choice for publication and the orientation of Bn.5:71 remains something of a mystery.

It is possible that Bartoli’s drawing of the Bacchic pavement said to be from Santa Costanza is a complete fabrication (Bn.6:50) but this would be exceptional and is not typical of his work.43

Appreciating and evaluating the drawings Mosaics do not seem to have been regarded as favourably as works in other media. As practical surfaces intended to be underfoot they lacked the cachet of wall paintings and sculptures. It is notable that they appear in only a relatively small percentage of the drawings in the Topham collection. They seem to have been regarded more as curiosities than as works of art.

A rare survival from Topham’s papers is a letter dated 24 July 1730 from his agent Imperiali which shows that Topham himself had queried the accuracy of Bartoli’s

Aymonino with Gwynn and Modolo 2013, 29-32, nos 22-27. Ashby 1914, 3, 6; cf Joyce 1990, 353-358, 369. Also note Ling’s assessment of Bartoli’s drawings of stucco reliefs in the Stanze di Venere at Baia: ‘On the whole, the essentials have been reproduced with a fair degree of accuracy ... But the artist is not incapable of adding and varying details, even to the extent of incorporating, in one case at least, a figure which did not exist in the original’ (1979 [1999], 53). 42  Despite the thematic connection, the different shape and borders of these two drawings suggests that they were not produced as a pair. 43  See Chapter 3 for a full discussion of the issues. 40 

Francesco Bartoli’s tendency to elaborate upon the original images when making some of his drawings suggests that he was aiming to achieve a more aesthetic design in keeping with contemporary taste. This would probably have held a greater appeal for patrons than an accurate copy of what might have been perceived as a fairly crude image. In this respect, it is instructive to

41 

125

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library work (Figure 9.3(a)-(d)).44 It is unclear from the letter exactly which drawings Topham had in mind and whether they included any drawings of mosaics.

Appendix 6 lists the drawings of mosaics that appear in both the Topham and Holkham collections, with comments on the main differences between them including any differences in the colours. It is clear that, in some instances at least, the Holkham drawings were closer to the originals. Topham’s concerns were well founded.

Responding to Topham’s concerns, Imperiali referred to differences that Topham had noted between his own drawings and those of ‘Milord Coke’ – in other words, the Holkham drawings – especially in the colours. Imperiali explained that normally ‘Bartoli would not give out all (the knowledge) that he had, for fear that the drawings might be copied or engraved’, but Topham had given him assurances in this respect. Imperiali and a Signor Meis had checked the drawings against Bartoli’s notes at the time when the drawings were being made.45 They were satisfied that Topham had received ‘the most correct of any of the drawings that have come from Bartoli’s hands’.

It was not only Bartoli who seems to have taken a free approach to colour. In Campiglia’s drawing of the Rape of Europa from Palestrina (Bn.9:4), the colour of the clothing of the man at lower right does not match the original. It does, however, balance the colour of the robe of one of the women at upper left, suggesting that the reason for the alteration was aesthetic. Given that this drawing is known to have been commissioned by Topham, it raises the possibility that the change was made with the intention of appealing to his tastes.

Imperiali does not seem to have made a comparison with the original artefacts. The most his letter confirms is that, in his opinion, the Topham drawings accorded with Bartoli’s notes. He went on to indicate that the notes ‘are in great confusion’, explaining that he would himself have been confused if he had not conducted business with Bartoli for some time.

As well as commenting on the colours, Ashby also noted that locations for the original works given on the Topham drawings are not always correct. The incorrect locations featuring on Bartoli’s drawings of mosaics were added by Topham, since it does not seem to have been Bartoli’s normal practice to add these details. This is borne out by the Holkham drawings which, as Ashby observed, do not contain such information.48 It seems that Topham had a particular interest in relating the images to the locations at which the originals were found. The information that he used presumably came from Bartoli, albeit indirectly, and Bartoli perhaps relied on memory or on confused records.

Despite Imperiali’s assurances, the suspicion remains that there was scope for the drawings to diverge from reality, particularly since it would not have been in Imperiali’s interests to undermine Bartoli’s work. Ashby was able to compare the Topham and Holkham drawings. He found ‘considerable variations in details and colours’. He also noted ‘grave divergences’ between the finished works and some original notes at Holkham and Windsor.46

The drawings of the Aventine mosaics are a notable contrast to Bartoli’s usual practice of paying little attention to the location. These were scrupulously annotated and signed by him with the exception of Bn.6:51 where the information was added by Topham. It is probably no coincidence that these mosaics were discovered during Bartoli’s lifetime. His approach is significantly different from that taken with many of his other works, where he created attractive and far more elaborate images loosely based on the originals. Perhaps with the Aventine discoveries he was conscious that he was one of the first artists to produce a record of a new discovery, encouraging him to focus on a drawing that was accurate by the standards of the time. In particular, he faithfully showed areas of damage without attempting a ‘restoration’.

When the Holkham drawings were sold to Coke in 1714 they included items from the Bartoli workshop.47 It seems likely from the style and quality that the notes on the drawings were by Pietro Santi Bartoli and were not Francesco’s own records. This may go some way towards explaining the discrepancies noted by Ashby: Francesco might have regarded any notes – always assuming he could put his hands on them at the time he needed them – as inspirational rather than the foundation for his own work.

While in general Bartoli seems to have been primarily interested in the visual appeal of the drawings, Piccini took a more archaeological approach. For instance, he not only drew the mosaic of the reclining Silenus (Bn.4:11) but he systematically recorded the tomb in which it was found and the paintings on the four walls, spandrels and vault (Bn.4:1-Bn.4:10). Similarly, in addition to drawing the centaur mosaic he produced a cut-away view of the tomb including the mosaic and other details such as a well abutting the front wall (Bn.4:24, Bn.4:26).

ECL MS 364. The Italian text is set out in Pomponi 1994, 268-269. The English translations are taken from Ashby 1914, 3-4. For discussions of the letter, see in particular Connor 1993, 29-30; Pomponi 1994; Connor Bulman 2001a, 343; Connor Bulman 2001b, 236, n.50. It is signed ‘Fran Ferando d’Imperiali’. While the first word is widely agreed to have been an abbreviation for ‘Francesco’, the second name is usually corrected to ‘Fernando’ or ‘Fernandi’, although this is not what Imperiali wrote. I have wondered whether ‘Ferando’ was an abbreviation for ‘Ferdinando’ and have subsequently noted that ‘Ferdinandi’ is used in the entry for Imperiali on the artnet.com website: http://www.artnet.com/artists/ francesco-imperiali-ferdinandi/, accessed 23 January 2021. 45  Nothing is known of Signor Meis. 46  Ashby 1914, 4-5. Amadio touches upon the colours used in the drawing of half of the cupola from Santa Costanza (1986, 72). 47  Connor Bulman 1999, 208. 44 

48 

126

Ashby 1914, 4, n.1.

Discussion Despite the apparent desire for accuracy, the two drawings with the centaur mosaic are instructive. It seems that for the detailed view Piccini moved the position of the stag so that it was below the centaur and viewed from the same direction, creating a more balanced composition.

and it appears from its caption that this was made after the panel had been taken to the Vatican.50 Although the circus race and gladiators in Bn.5:37, Bn.5:39 and Bn.5:40 were included in a plate published by Montfaucon,51 the Topham drawings are the only known original records of a mosaic that is not believed to survive. The plate includes an indication of the spina and a third charioteer and might be more realistic, but it is a cruder representation which probably does not do justice to the quality of the original.

There is a notable contrast between the paucity of information provided on many of the drawings of mosaics from Italy and the details given for the Romano-British mosaics. It would also seem that the date of discovery was increasingly of interest: Topham annotated the Caerleon, Chichester and Nether Heyford drawings with this information (Bm.9:77, Bm.9:78, Bm.9:81). The inclusion in the text of the Woodchester drawing that it was ‘Delineated and colour’d upon the Spott’ was no doubt intended to underline its reliability.

Francesco Bartoli’s drawings of the mosaics then in the Massimi collection are of interest given that the originals seem to have been restored, possibly more than once. In this instance, however, there are other records which might be more useful including those by Pietro Santi Bartoli. This is especially the case if Francesco worked from his father’s records. For the Santa Costanza vault mosaics, however, the indications that Francesco was aware of and partly worked from the originals make his drawings of particular interest.

Significance of the drawings: comparing other collections The drawings and prints in the Topham collection are a particularly valuable resource not only for the mosaics that do not survive but also for those that have since been restored. In some cases they are unique records and therefore of considerable importance despite any shortcomings when compared with modern recording techniques.

Topham seems to have owned the only known drawing of the lion and leopard mosaic now at Holkham Hall (Bn.7:3). This factor, coupled with the pencil details mentioned above which show close study of the original, raises the possibility that it was a special commission on Topham’s part for which access had been obtained to the Palazzo Mignanelli, perhaps at a cost that deterred others.

The only known records of the Baths of Caracalla mosaic are those in the Topham collection, one by an unknown artist and one by Francesco Bartoli with a different central scene (Bm.9:74, Bn.5:42). The apparent ‘improvements’ introduced by Bartoli make his drawing less reliable as an accurate record but Chapter 4 explains the reasons for thinking that he might have been familiar with the original mosaic.

Most of the drawings of mosaics in album Bn.4 appear to be unique records. Only two of the images appear in other collections: the scenes of Silenus riding a leopard (Bn.4:21) and the combat between Pan and Eros (Bn.4:23) are both illustrated in the Capponi codex, with the latter also appearing in the Corsini codex.

Although many of the Aventine panels are well known, with four of the drawings in the Topham collection being of panels published by Montfaucon,49 the two other Topham drawings are significant. Bn.7:37 appears to be the only record of the damaged scene showing mounted and unmounted bestiarii fighting a bear. It was apparently not lifted and the scene does not feature in other collections of drawings. Montfaucon similarly omitted the scene of the bull and bear shown in Bn.7:34, perhaps because it is the only panel that lacks human figures. It still survives but no other antiquarian drawings of it have been found. Only Topham is known to have had a full set.

Similarly, the small section devoted to Romano-British mosaics contains rare items. The Chichester drawing is unique (Bm.9:78), while the drawings of the Caerleon and Stonesfield mosaics are, on current knowledge, the sole original records made at the time of discovery to have survived (Bm.9:77, Bm.9:75); they both provide information that usefully supplements the prints. Appendix 7 compares the Topham drawings with drawings in other major collections that have a significant number of drawings of mosaics. It is immediately apparent that the Glasgow volume has the largest amount of comparative material, followed by the Corsini, Holkham and RIBA/ BnF drawings. 52 There are still some correspondences with the dal Pozzo, Capponi and Vittoria drawings but they are fewer.

Montfaucon did not illustrate the whole of the scene of combats with bears shown in Bn.7:36. The Topham drawing is important not only because it shows the entire panel but also because the mosaic appears to have sustained damage during the lifting process and been restored incorrectly. It seems that this was the only record made before lifting. A drawing in the Corsini codex shows a large area of damage

The caption reads ‘IN AEDIBVS VATICANIS’ (Fileri 2000, 135-136, no. 72, fig. on 132). 51  Montfaucon 1724, III, pl. LXVII. 52  Details of the Glasgow and Holkham volumes are included in a summary of collections of drawings after the antique in England in the first half of the eighteenth century by Aymonino and Modolo 2020, 34-47 at 39 and 41. 50 

Montfaucon 1722, II, 1, pl. XVI, illustrates the scenes shown in Bn.6:51, Bn.7:35, Bn.7:38 and part of Bn.7:36. 49 

127

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library On a point of detail, only the Glasgow volume contains drawings of all the Massimi mosaics that feature in the Topham drawings. Conversely, there was one fragment for which Topham did not have a record, namely the scene of five figures in a cart which is thought to have come from the same mosaic as the depictions in Bn.5:2 and Bn.5:71. Drawings of this scene appeared, in particular, in the dal Pozzo, Glasgow, Holkham and Corsini collections.53 Its absence from the Topham collection is an anomaly perhaps explained by what might have been disorganised working practices within the Bartoli studio: it is notable that, for instance, the Holkham volumes contain drawings by Pietro Santi of only two of the three Victorious Charioteers.

from tombs which he subsequently published: one found near Porta S. Pancrazio showing Silenus reclining on an ass under a vine-laden pergola,60 and the other found near the Villa Corsini showing stick dancers in a scroll.61 The Corsini codex also includes drawings of three figured mosaics that do not appear in the other collections: a scene with one seated figure and five standing figures; Pan and Eros surrounded by a female figure, a stag, Cupid and a dolphin; and a male bust usually identified as the philosopher Chilon.62 The Capponi codex has even more drawings that do not appear in the other collections: a figure making a garland; two fishermen, one hauling in a net from a ship and the other attending to the sail; a woman holding an open book; two men hauling in a net from a boat while another rows; two monstrous-looking dolphins beside a shore on which a building is situated; a Nilotic scene with a crocodile in the foreground and, in the background on the other side of the river, three obelisks next to buildings; a man making a ? garland accompanied by another man; a centaur with a young boy (Chiron with Achilles?); a ? man and woman in conversation; another woman holding an open book, similar to the depiction mentioned above; and Noah in the ark with the returning dove.63

Most of the mosaics recorded in other collections but not featuring in drawings or prints in the Topham collection are of items that had been published. For that reason, Topham might not have sought records of them. For instance, six mosaics shown in the dal Pozzo collection appeared in publications by Ciampini and/or Bartoli and Bellori: the harbour landscape from S. Alessio, the Europa emblema from Sainte-Marguerite, Apollo in a tempietto, Neptune from Via di S. Francesco a Ripa, Somnus, and the marine mosaic from Bevagna.54 The Glasgow drawings also include all but the Somnus mosaic.55 Three other mosaics published by Bartoli and Bellori appear in the Holkham drawings, respectively showing Medusa, a bust at the centre of an elaborate mosaic which they identify as Bacchus, and Hercules and a centaur.56 The Corsini codex has drawings of the Apollo and ‘Bacchus’ mosaics.57 The Capponi codex has a drawing of the ‘Bacchus’ mosaic as the first item in the section headed ‘Disegni di Musaici Antichi ...’.58 The Vittoria album has sketches by Pietro Santi Bartoli of the Apollo, Neptune and Bevagna mosaics.59 It also has Pietro Santi’s sketches of two mosaics

The additional mosaics recorded in the Corsini and Capponi codices appear to represent contemporary discoveries.64 As such, they might not have come to Topham’s attention. It seems likely, for instance, that the drawings in Bn.4 were not specific commissions but were offered to him as a set. There is another point to note when comparing the Topham material with that in other collections. It lacks drawings of works in opus sectile although these appear in most of the other collections including the Holkham drawings with which Topham was personally familiar. Perhaps they were excluded because they were all of well known works or because this medium was of less interest to him.

dal Pozzo: Whitehouse 2001, 179-180, 184-185, no. 42, incl. fig. Glasgow CXIX: Pace 1979, 150, no. 98. Holkham II, 75: Ashby 1916, 48, no. 75. Corsini: Engelmann 1909, XI, no. 85, pl. 14,5; Fileri 2000, 143, no. 84, fig. on 141. 54  S. Alessio: Ciampini 1690, I, pl. XXXII, fig. IV; Whitehouse 2001, 166-169, no. 36, incl. fig. Sainte-Marguerite: Ciampini 1690, I, pl. XXXIV, fig. II; Whitehouse 2001, 170-173, no. 37, incl. fig. Apollo: Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 2, pl. II; Whitehouse 2001, 174-175, no. 38, incl. fig. Neptune: Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 21, pl. XVI; Whitehouse 2001, 192-194, no. 45, incl. fig. Somnus: Ciampini 1690, I, pl. XXXII, fig. III; cf Whitehouse 2001, 195-197, no. 46, incl. fig. Bevagna: Ciampini 1690, I, pl. XXXIV, fig. III; Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 24, pl. XXIII; Whitehouse 2001, 379-381, no. 132, incl. fig. For an account of archaeological knowledge and publications during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which included mosaics, see Darmon 2010, esp. 145-154. 55  S. Alessio: CXXXIV; Pace 1979, 152, no. 113. Europa: CXVI; Pace 1979, 149, no. 95. Apollo: XLIII; Pace 1979, 138, no. 35. Neptune: CXXVII; Pace 1979, 151, no. 106. Bevagna: CXXVI; Pace 1979, 151, no. 105. 56  Holkham II, 26-28; respectively in Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 22-24, pls XXII, XX, XXI; Ashby 1916, 42, nos 26-28. 57  Apollo: Engelmann 1909, X, no. 76, pl. 13,2; Fileri 2000, 140, no. 75, fig. on 133. Bust: Engelmann 1909, V, no. 2, pl. 1,2; Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2, fig. on 81. For the disputed identity of the bust and suggestions that it depicts the mosaic in Bn.4:31, see the discussion in Chapter 5. 58  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.80, accessed 23 January 2021. 59  https://rct.uk/collection/909673, https://rct.uk/collection/909670, https://rct.uk/collection/909663, accessed 23 January 2021. 53 

https://rct.uk/collection/909659, accessed 23 January 2021. The scene is flanked by four compartments each with a quadruped: a feline and ? antelope on the left, and a feline and bull on the right; Bartoli 1697, fig. 14. 61  https://rct.uk/collection/909660, accessed 23 January 2021; Bartoli 1697, fig. 18. 62  Seated and standing figures: Engelmann 1909, V, no. 3, pl. 1,3; Fileri 2000, 90, no. 3, fig. on 82. Pan and Eros: Engelmann 1909, V-VI, no. 5, pl. 1,5; Fileri 2000, 92, no. 5, fig. on 83. Philosopher: Engelmann 1909, VI, no. 6, pl. 1,6; Fileri 2000, 92-93, no. 6, fig. on 83. 63  https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.81, f.82, f.83 (similar to Susanna in the Santa Costanza cupola but the position of her hands is different), f.87, f.88, f.89, f.93, f.94, f.95, f.98, f.99, accessed 23 January 2021. 64  The Corsini codex includes many discoveries made by Ficoroni in the early years of the eighteenth century and it is likely that all records are of a similar date. The sheet introducing the mosaic section of the Capponi codex refers to discoveries made ‘nelle Stanze sotterranee delle Terme di Constantino nel Monte Quirinale l’Anno 1710. ed’ altri, in altri Luoghi’ (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.78, accessed 23 January 2021). 60 

128

Discussion Topham’s approach to collecting

Imperiali’s letter also demonstrates that Topham was concerned about accuracy, at least to the extent that he had noticed and queried differences between his drawings and those owned by Coke. There is no information as to whether he was also concerned about accuracy in relation to the original material, nor whether he was in a position to assess this. The presumption, given that he apparently did not visit Italy for himself, was that any such judgements would have been beyond his knowledge.

In her various papers, Connor Bulman suggests that Topham built up the collection as a whole over a period of approximately 15 years before his death in 1730. As she points out, few of the drawings are dated and those bearing dates might in any event have been later acquisitions, but she draws attention in particular to items with dates of 1710, 1717 and 1721.65 The discovery dates of some of the antiquities recorded in the drawings support Connor Bulman’s analysis. The dates for those relating to mosaics are drawn together in Appendix 8, from which it is apparent that many of the discoveries were made in the early years of the eighteenth century. By the time Topham retired from public life and was able to concentrate on his collection, news of these items was likely to have spread and to have inspired a wish to have records of them.

An intriguing question is Topham’s purpose in building the collection. Given the absence of his private papers there is no clear answer. Finding Aid 2 is a key document for the collection as a whole. The majority of the entries in this detailed list concern antiquities in most of the main collections in Rome. For the drawings of mosaics, however, only the Palestrina Europa appears in this Finding Aid, listed as ‘No. 138’ under Palazzo Barberini (Bn. 9:4).69 Curiously, the entries for the Palazzo Massimi are brief, covering only the works in the courtyards and staircase, and omitting the rooms in which the mosaics were displayed.70 This is further evidence that the drawings of the Massimi mosaics might have been offered to Topham rather than commissioned by him.

Drawings of some older discoveries might also have been made during this later period or at least offered for sale at that time. For instance, the three drawings of the Victorious Charioteers in the Massimi collection (Bn.5:35, Bn.5:36, Bn.5:38) appear in a numbered set with the Domine Quo Vadis gladiators and circus race mosaic found in 1720 (Bn.5:37, Bn.5:39, Bn.5:40). It is possible that discoveries such as those in the Vigna Moroni gradually prompted a revival of interest in mosaics found many years earlier. Among the later discoveries, Bartoli’s drawing in Bn.5:43 can be dated after 1721 since most of the mosaic he depicted is included in Breval’s account of discoveries made since that year.66

Topham must have compiled Finding Aid 2 from information he received but it is unlikely that this was his only source. Most of the descriptions of the objects are too brief to permit an informed choice and it is probable that he undertook a great deal of correspondence with his contacts in Italy. They would have been able to inform him of new discoveries as well as those in the palazzi. Unfortunately, with the exception of Imperiali’s letter, none of this presumed correspondence survives.

The number of drawings of mosaics actively sought by Topham is not known. Based on his own records in the form of Finding Aid 2, Connor Bulman considers that, for the collection as a whole, around two-thirds of the drawings were commissioned.67

Finding Aid 2 demonstrates Topham’s methodical approach which he evidently followed throughout his lifetime, annotating the lists to indicate items for which he had commissioned drawings and marking them off as they were received.

It is evident from Imperiali’s letter discussed above that Topham remained involved with and interested in the collection until the end of his life. Two of the latest discoveries to be recorded in drawings in the collection related to Romano-British discoveries both found in 1727: the mosaic from Chichester (Bm.9:78) and the bronze head of Minerva from Bath (Bm.2:98, Bm.9:72).68

Given Topham’s consistent and well organised recordkeeping it is probable that similar lists covered the items not included in this Finding Aid. Many of these items are of mosaics and wall paintings found in excavations carried out during his lifetime. He might have become aware of the excavations and actively sought out a record, but it is perhaps more likely that he was approached by sellers keen to find a buyer for existing works. Given his serious interest and ample finances, he would have been an obvious potential purchaser. Francesco Bartoli might have realised that he had a ready market for drawings of older discoveries, encouraging him to produce drawings based on his father’s records.

See especially Connor 1993, 32, 35; Connor Bulman 2002a, 60; Connor Bulman 2002b, 347, 349-350; Connor Bulman 2006, 326, 329; Connor Bulman 2008, 292, 295. See also Carinci 1982, 84, suggesting that most of the drawings were acquired between 1720 and 1730. 66  Breval 1738, I, 84-85, pl. after 85. 67  Connor Bulman 2006, 325. 68  I am in the course of researching the drawings of Minerva for separate publication when circumstances permit. Bm.9:72 is by Bernard Lens and there are similar drawings by him in other collections. The signature on Bm.2:98 is harder to read and extensive enquiries in Bath have so far failed to produce any further information. This drawing resembles, but is not the same as, the engraving by George Vertue from a drawing by A. Gordon, a copy of which is also included in the Topham collection (Bm.2:98.2). Both this drawing and the print are filed incongruously at the rear of one of the albums devoted to the Villa Borghese. 65 

On page 8. Finding Aid 2 is discussed in more detail in Witts with Gwynn 2020, esp. 79-80, fig. 22, and in Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 104-106, figs 33-35. 70  Finding Aid 2, 99-100. 69 

129

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library As well as recording the drawings ordered and received, Topham also used Finding Aid 2 to indicate those items for which prints already existed. As he explained in a note prefacing the list for Villa Borghese, his main focus was on collecting drawings of unpublished items.71 It is notable that in the collection as a whole there is little overlap between his copies of prints and original illustrations. His approach to the mosaics is consistent with this, with only two of the prints of mosaics from Italy showing scenes in drawings he owned.72 These are readily explained as belonging to the set of prints showing discoveries made in Ficoroni’s excavations of tombs.

show damage and the lacunae mostly do not affect the main image. A question that interests those who have studied the collection is whether the arrangement of drawings in the albums is Topham’s. While we know that the numbering was added after the collection arrived at Eton, it is uncertain whether the material was rearranged. A full consideration would require analysis of the entire collection but a detailed study has been made of the three albums devoted to antiquities from the Villa Borghese (Bm.1-Bm.3). These were among the albums restored in the 1990s when an order was introduced that probably did not correspond exactly to that of Topham.76

Taken as a group, the prints of mosaics provide further evidence to suggest that Topham preferred to concentrate on lesser known items. The illustrations he owned of the famous Nile Mosaic, for instance, were limited to one set of engravings, with no other prints or original drawings (Bn.13:37-Bn.13:41).

For the drawings of mosaics, the arrangement offers a few points of possible significance. The drawing of the Rape of Europa from the Baths of Caracalla (Bm.9:74) is an outlier. Despite the caption showing the origin of the mosaic in Rome, it is filed in an album of miscellaneous items before the drawings of Romano-British mosaics. Perhaps in this instance its stylistic difference set it apart. The two Nilotic scenes from the Massimi collection appear near the beginning and end of the same album (Bn.5:2, Bn.5:71), while the drawings of the two emblemata in Santa Maria in Trastevere are filed in different albums (Bn.5:4, Bn.7:98), one towards the end of its album. Similarly, one of the drawings from the Aventine – the scene with the elephant, bull, lion and camel – is filed near the end of a different album from the drawings of the other Aventine panels (Bn.6:51, Bn.7:34-Bn.7:38). The separate locations of drawings from the same site could reflect acquisition at different times. Alternatively, the possibility arises that drawings found towards the end of an album might have been taken from an earlier position for consultation and perhaps replaced at the rear for convenience. It is unlikely that Topham’s filing would have been so casual given the meticulous approach he took to the collection, but if it was in use between his death and its arrival at Eton it is easy to appreciate how some misplacement could occur.

For the Stonesfield mosaic, Topham owned coloured and uncoloured versions of Loving’s print (Bm.9:82, Bm.9:83) as well as Webb’s original drawing (Bm.9:75). This duplication is unusual but the general interest in and controversy about this mosaic could have made it useful to retain different versions. As well as loose prints, Topham’s library contained a wealth of books on antiquities, some of which included illustrations of mosaics.73 For the mosaics shown in Ciampini’s volumes of 1690 and 1699, the only drawings in the collection are those depicting the Rape of Europa from Palestrina (Bn.9:4) and the two panels displayed in Santa Maria in Trastevere (Bn.5:4, Bn.7:98).74 Mosaics published in Bartoli and Bellori’s 1706 volume do not feature in Topham’s drawings, the only duplication being with two of Topham’s prints (Bn.13:26, Bn.13:27). Topham’s note in Finding Aid 2 preceding the list for Villa Borghese also indicates that, at least for drawings of objects in that collection, he was keen to avoid repetition of subjects and mediocre or badly damaged works.75 Broadly speaking, the drawings of mosaics bear this out. Where the same figures appear in drawings of different mosaics they are not in the same contexts or poses. Although some of the cruder mosaics might have been regarded as mediocre at the time, their relative novelty could have made them of interest. Few of the drawings

It seems likely that the opportunity would have been taken to rationalise the location of these items if Eton had been wholly responsible for the arrangement of all the drawings as well as the numbering. The present order – at least for the original drawings relating to mosaics – is instead broadly consistent with a collector filing each item as it was received, in albums that he had designated from the start as intended to be used for various groupings: miscellaneous items including the Romano-British mosaics in Bm.9; Piccini’s drawings of discoveries in tombs in Bn.4; Bartoli’s drawings in Bn.5 and Bn.6; and further drawings of mosaics in Bn.7. While it requires a much wider study to see whether or not this hypothesis is borne out in the rest of the collection, it seems possible that the current arrangement of the drawings in this study generally

Finding Aid 2, 111, cf the comments in relation to prints of the Borghese sculptures in Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 108-110. 72  Bn.13:9 (Pan and Eros), drawn in Bn.4:23 and Bn.6:13, and Bn.13:15 (Pluto and Proserpina), drawn in Bn.5:59. In addition, the print of the Santa Costanza cupola (Bn.13:2) included the area in the drawing showing half (Bn.7:96). 73  Witts with Gwynn 2020, esp. 72-74. 74  Ciampini 1690, I, pls XXXIII (Europa) and XXX, figs I-II (Santa Maria in Trastevere). Ciampini also published the Nile Mosaic (1690, I, pl. XXX, fig. I) but Topham’s set of engravings is much larger and more detailed. 75  Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 104-106, fig. 33. Compare the collecting criteria of the Earl of Pembroke for artefacts (Kennedy 1769, iv-viii; Michaelis 1882, 666; Scott 2003, 41-42). 71 

Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 94-95. It is uncertain whether any of the albums that have not been restored are Topham’s or were provided by Eton. 76 

130

Discussion follows the order adopted by Topham, perhaps with an occasional anomaly if drawings had been consulted and re-filed between his death and the arrival of the collection at Eton.77 The considerable number of drawings and prints in the collection is in sharp contrast to the few original antiquities that Topham owned. It would be easy to regard the impetus to collect paper records as a substitute for going on the Grand Tour, enabling Topham to see the works at second hand. However, his willingness to acquire drawings of widely different quality, coupled with the sheer number of them, suggests that he did not regard them as second best: he appears to have had an active preference for paper records over objects. His aim seems to have been, as Fabréga-Dubert puts it, ‘une encyclopédie de l’iconographie antique’.78 Topham was primarily a bibliophile. Drawings and prints could offer a more accessible resource than original works, providing a collection that facilitated study and comparison not just in Topham’s time but for posterity. It is appropriate to end by echoing the words of William Stukeley, who visited Eton to see the collection in 1748 and wrote in his diary: ‘We had vast pleasure in looking over that curious and magnificent collection of Roman paintings and drawings in the library, which was Mr. Topham’s.’79 Topham would surely be gratified that his ‘curious and magnificent collection’ continues to be valued and consulted some 300 years after it was made.

For a discussion of this issue in the context of the overall collection, highlighting some extraneous items unrelated to Topham that suggest a greater involvement by Eton, see Witts with Gwynn 2020, 87-88. It is possible that, as a distinct and relatively small category of drawings, those related to the picturae antiquae were left in their original order. 78  Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 16. See also Dubard and Fabréga-Dubert 2020, 108 and 113 in relation to the drawings of the Borghese items: ‘Cette très grande variété confirme selon nous la nature du projet de Topham: réunir un répertoire iconographique de nature encyclopédique, enrichi par la diversité des types d’objects représentés, eux-mêmes participant, à titre documentaire, à notre connaissance de l’Antiquité ... Ses albums sont une encyclopédie d’abord iconographique très érudite ...’ See also Scott 2003, 59-60. 79  Stukeley [1887], 462, entry for 26 December 1748. 77 

131

Discussion

Figure 9.1 – Bn.7:3, Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

133

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 9.2(a) – Bn.13:9 (engraving, left) and Bn.4:23 (watercolour, right), Pan and Eros mosaic, Vigna Moroni (Gaetano Piccini)

Figure 9.2(b) – Bn.6:13, Pan and Eros mosaic, Vigna Moroni (Francesco Bartoli)

134

Discussion

Figure 9.3(a) and (b) – Letter from Imperiali to Topham dated 24 July 1730 (pages 1 and 2)

135

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library

Figure 9.3 (c) and (d) – Letter from Imperiali to Topham dated 24 July 1730 (page 3 and address)

136

Catalogue Select bibliography: Hearne 1710-1712 [1889], 297-298, 307-308, 313, 319, 324, 326, 340, 349, 369, 372, 384-385, 395-397, 400, 402, 403, 408, 410, 424-426, 435, 471 Hearne 1712 Pitiscus 1713, frontispiece Pointer 1713 Moll 1724, 94, pl. opp. 93 [‘Woodstock’] Stukeley 1724, 45 Montfaucon 1724, II, 39, pl. VI Montfaucon 1725, II, 153, pl. 34.1 VCH Oxfordshire I (1939), 315-316, pl. XXIV.A Taylor 1941, incl. pl. 1 Levine 1978, incl. fig. 1 Freshwater 2000, 1-13, pls I-III, figs 1-3 Henig and Booth 2000, 147, 209-211, fig. 8.4 Witts 2005, 113, 129, fig. 54, colour pl. 23 Cosh and Neal 2010, 258-263, Mosaic 465.1, figs 263-264 Witts 2016, esp. 13, 28, 33, 104, 107, 109-110, 124-125, 192, no. 121 Witts forthcoming

Bm.9:74 Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla Artist: Unknown ‘Musaico antico delle Terme di Caracalla’ The central compartment shows Europa riding Jupiter in the guise of a bull. Other compartments each contain a full-length figure (four compartments) or a bust (six compartments). Page 81; Figure 6.3 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 181, f.74, pl. IX Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:74 Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 119, 129, n.25 Other drawings: See Bn.5:42

Bm.9:76 Great Pavement, Woodchester

Select bibliography: -

Name on drawing: ‘R Bradley’ ‘PART of A ROMAN PAVEMENT in Mosaick work found in the CHURCH:YARD at WOOD:CHESTER near MINCHING:HAMPTON in GLOUCESTER:SHIRE The length of the whole Work is 141 feet, lying for the most part Six feet underground, This Pavement is composed of Small Bricks of an Inch cube of Various colours and is said to contain great Varieties of Figures both Animal and Vegetable, but many bodies lying now Buryed upon it, it is rare to meet with any part So Entire as the following piece which was Delineated and colour’d upon the Spott by R Bradley August 2: Ann: 1722’ ‘NB The Circle A is 22 feet Diameter’ Cross-hatched in part Mosaic survives buried in situ

Bm.9:75 Bacchus, Stonesfield Signed: ‘Will: Webb fecti’ [or fectis?] Cross-hatched in part Bacchus is shown seated on a feline in the central roundel, with a bearded head in the scroll surrounding him and a bird in each of the spandrels. Pages 89, 91-96; Figures 7.4-7.8 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.75 Taylor 1941, esp. 2, n.3, 3, n.2 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:75 Freshwater 2000, esp. 6 Witts 2016, 104, 107, 125, 192, figs 13, 333

A segment from the mosaic shows a lion, lioness and peacock. Pages 89, 96-98; Figure 7.9 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.76 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:76

Other drawings: No other original drawings of the whole mosaic made at the time of discovery are thought to survive. For engravings, and for sketches of part, see Chapter 7 and the account in Freshwater 2000. See also Bm.9:82 and Bm.9:83. 137

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Other drawings: Bodleian Library, Gough Maps 9, 26B, c Bodleian Library, Gough Maps 9, 26B, d Bodleian Library, Gough Maps 43, no. 215 British Library, Add. MS 5238.3 British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101b British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101c Gloucestershire Archives, D1009, loose with page 23 Shropshire Archives, Maw & Co. 6001/5231, no. 526 Society of Antiquaries of London, Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc II, 18

Bm.9:78 Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester Artist: Unknown ‘Pavimentum tessellatum, Cicestriae in Hortis Palatii Episcopalis, repertum 1727’ Tessellation indicated A fragment of a mainly geometric design contains traces of a possible bust. Pages 89, 98; Figure 7.10

Select bibliography: Gibson 1695, 247 Caylus 1756, 407-408, pl. CXXVI Lysons 1797, 2-3, pls VII-VIII Lysons 1817, pls XXII, XXVI RCHM Gloucestershire I (1976), 132-134, pls 17, 20-21 Woodward and Cull 1980, esp. 3-4 Woodward 1981 Clarke 1982, esp. 197-200, pl. XIV Cull 2000 Witts 2005, 67-69, 71, fig. 25 Cosh and Neal 2010, esp. 212-223, Mosaic 456.1, figs 225-230 Witts 2011, 953-957, figs 1-4 Witts 2016, esp. 14, 97, 198, no. 136, figs 33-35, 280-281

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.78 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:78 Other drawings: Select bibliography: Cox 1738, V, ‘Sussex’, 489 Gough 1789, I, 193 Neal and Cosh 2009, 515 Witts forthcoming Bm.9:79 Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

Bm.9:77 Birds, Caerleon

Artist: Unknown ‘Pavimentum tessellatum, propè vicum vulgo vocatum Great-Jero [?], in agro Oxoniensi, repertum’ Tessellation shown

Artist: Unknown ‘Pavimentum tessollatum apud Kaer Leion in agro Monmouthensi 1692 repertum’ Tessellation indicated

This small fragment shows a purely geometric design of concentric circles.

A small bird occupies a semicircle on each side of the mosaic.

Pages 89-90; Figure 7.1

Pages 89, 90; Figure 7.2

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.79 [‘great-Jero’] Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:79

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.77 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:77 Witts 2016, 103, 110, pl. (A)

Other drawings: -

Other drawings: -

Select bibliography: Plot 1677, 327, pl. XV, no. 22 Gibson 1695, 269 Gibson 1722, I, 294 Moll 1724, 94, pl. opp. 57 Beesley 1841, 41, pl. X,2 VCH Oxfordshire I (1939), 310 Henig and Booth 2000, 204-205, fig. 8.1 Cosh and Neal 2010, 242-243, Mosaic 461.1, fig. 250

Select bibliography: Gibson 1695, 607, 695-696, 697-698, no. 7 Gibson 1722, II, 16, 74-75, no. 7 Moll 1724, 250, pl. opp. 249 Cosh and Neal 2010, 332, Mosaic 482.1, fig. 336 Witts 2016, 103, 110, 155-156, no. 19 Witts forthcoming 138

Catalogue Bm.9:80 Geometric mosaic, Denton

VCH Northamptonshire I (1902 [1970 reprint]), 196-197, fig. 24 RCHM County of Northampton IV (1982), 89 Neal and Cosh 2002, 248-249, Mosaic 95.1, figs 215-216 Cosh and Neal 2015, 22-23, fig. 13

Artist: Based on a drawing by William Stukeley ‘Part of a Roman Mosaick Pavement found in Denton fields Febr. 1727/8’, ‘Philo. Trans. No. 402’, ‘Plate 1’ Tessellation indicated

Bm.9:82 Bacchus, Stonesfield

This fragment shows a purely geometric design of intersecting octagons.

Artist: Edward Loving ‘AN EXACT DELINEATION OF THE PAVEMENT IN MOSAICK-WORK, Lately Discovered at Stunsfeild nere Woodstock by an Husbandman whose Plough hitt first against an Urn whereupon he had a Curiosity to digg and found the said Pavement three foot under ground in the manner as is here Expressed, and where a mark of the Crevice is, A. his Ax Struck into a Cavity, which Leaves room to Conjecture it is vaulted the Length of the same is 36 foot and the Breadth 25. This work is composed of several small stones about the bignes of a Dye of different Colours which Artificially placed apeareth very Beautifull, The outletts B. at the sides are form’d with large tiles the meaning of which is to be decided by the Learned and the Simbolical Ornaments of Concord and mirth giveth occasion to think that it was a place used for Banquets. This peice of Antiquity is to be Esteem’d the most Considerable that Ever was found in Brittain of the Antient Romans’ ‘E.L. Delint’ Cross-hatched in part, hatched in part, some parts unhatched

Pages 105, 110, 111; Figure 8.14 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.80 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:80 Original drawings: Select bibliography: Stukeley 1727-1728, 428-429, pl. 1 Fowler 1804, no. 10 Turnor 1806, 126 Allen 1834, 315 Trollope 1872, 45 Neal and Cosh 2002, 140, Mosaic 48.1, fig. 101 Bm.9:81 Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

For description see Bm.9:75.

Artist: Unknown ‘Pavimentum tessollatum ex albis, flavis, Rubris & Caeruleis tessollis Compositum, Hayfordiae, in agro Northamptoniensi, Repertum 1699’ Tessellation indicated

Pages 105, 110-111; Figure 8.12 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.82 Taylor 1941, 5, n.2 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:82

This mosaic shows a purely geometric design based on eight-pointed stars. Pages 89, 90-91; Figure 7.3

Original drawings: Bm.9:75

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Lanciani 1894, 182, f.81 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:81

Select bibliography: See Bm.9:75 Bm.9:83 Bacchus, Stonesfield

Other drawings: -

Exactly as Bm.9:82 but without colouring.

Select bibliography: Hearne 1712, XXX Morton 1712, 527-528, pl. 14,3 Pointer 1713, 38 Gibson 1722, I, 405 Moll 1724, 173, pl. opp. 170 Stukeley 1724, 107

Pages 105, 110-111; Figure 8.13 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 3, 98 Eton Finding Aid 4, 8 Sampson 1974, entry for Bm.9:83 139

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Original drawings: Bm.9:75

Bn.4:20 Diana, Vigna Moroni

Select bibliography: See Bm.9:75

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘nella Vigna Moroni’ Cross-hatched

Bn.3:31 Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

The bust of Diana is shown in a roundel decorated with flowers.

Artist: Unknown ‘in museo Andr. Fountaine Equitis’ Tessellation shown

Page 69; Figure 5.2 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, grouping Bn.4:1-Bn.4:21 under ‘A Building us’d for a Burying Place discovered nella Vigna Moroni ... Nine other Pictures belonging to ye same’ Ashby 1914, 9, Eton I, no. 20 Blake 1940, 120

Hercules, approached by a female figure, is seated under a fruiting tree in which a snake is coiled, in a scene showing him in the garden of the Hesperides. Page 84; Figure 6.5 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 17, no. 4 Lanciani 1894, 175, f.31 Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.3:31 Connor 1993, 27

Other drawings: Select bibliography: -

Other drawings: -

Bn.4:21 Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

Select bibliography: Ferrari 1646, 10, pl. on 11 Kennedy 1769, 20, pl. 7 Winckelmann 1809, xxxiii Michaelis 1882, 669, 678, no. 27 Scott 2003, 291, n.33

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Musaico nella Vigna Moroni’ Cross-hatched Silenus rides a leopard and is accompanied by an attendant. Pages 69-70; Figure 5.3

Bn.4:11 Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, grouping Bn.4:1-Bn.4:21 under ‘A Building us’d for a Burying Place discovered nella Vigna Moroni ... Nine other Pictures belonging to ye same’ Ashby 1914, 9, Eton I, no. 21 Blake 1940, 120

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Pavimento della sopradetta Stanza’ Cross-hatched Silenus is shown reclining in the central roundel, surrounded by a vine.

Other drawings: Capponi 284, f.97 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284 [01.12.20] Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 97

Page 69; Figure 5.1 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, grouping Bn.4:1-Bn.4:21 under ‘A Building us’d for a Burying Place discovered nella Vigna Moroni ... A Mosaick Pavemt there in proper Colours’ Ashby 1914, 8, Eton I, no. 11 Blake 1940, 120

Select bibliography: Bn.4:22 Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Pavimento di Musaico ritrouato nella Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti d S. Stefano Rotondo’ Cross-hatched

Other drawings: Select bibliography: -

A roundel shows a river scene with a man in a boat. A 140

Catalogue Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, no. 24 Ashby 1914, 9-10, Eton I, no. 24, pl. I Colini 1944, 237-238, fig. 195 de Polignac 2007, 5

crocodile and a palm tree occupy the near and far banks respectively. Page 70; Figure 5.5 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, no. 22 Lanciani 1895, 173, Eton I, f.22 Ashby 1914, 9, Eton I, no. 22 Blake 1940, 119-120 de Lachenal 2000, 635, n.12, fig. 30

Other drawings: See Bn.4:26 Select bibliography: Witts forthcoming

Other drawings: -

Bn.4:26 Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo

Select bibliography: -

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Pavimento di Musaico della sopra detta stanza’ Cross-hatched

Bn.4:23 Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

For description see Bn.4:24. Page 70; Figure 5.7

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed as ‘Another View of it’ under no. 24 Ashby 1914, 10, Eton I, no. 26 Blake 1940, 119

The contest between Pan and Eros is shown in the central roundel, surrounded by four female busts. Pages 69, 70; Figures 5.4 and 9.2(a) Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed as ‘a 2nd’ under no. 22 Ashby 1914, 9, Eton I, no. 23 Connor Bulman 2001b, 221-222, fig. 4 de Polignac 2007, 8 [‘Bn.4:26’]

Other drawings: See Bn.4:24

Other drawings: See Bn.6:13 and Bn.13:9 Corsini 158 I 5, 130140 Engelmann 1909, VIII, no. 39, pl. 7,4 Fileri 2000, 111, no. 39, fig. on 107 Capponi 284, f.84 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284 [01.12.20] Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 84

Bn.4:29 Nilotic scene, Navicella

Select bibliography: Witts forthcoming

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Nella Vigna de RR. P.P. Gesuiti alla Navicella’ Cross-hatched A roundel shows a riverbank scene with a hippopotamus beneath a palm tree.

Select bibliography: Joyce 1990, 353, n.25 Connor Bulman 1998, 59 Ghedini 2005, 598

Page 70; Figure 5.8 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Lanciani 1895, 173, Eton I, f.29 Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 29, pl. II Blake 1940, 119-120 Colini 1944, 238

Bn.4:24 Tomb with centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Cammera sepolchrale ritrouata nella Vigna de RR. PP. Gesuiti a S. Stefano Rotondo’

Other drawings: -

A centaur is shown in the central roundel, surrounded by a stag, a duck, an eagle and a peacock.

Select bibliography: Witts forthcoming

Page 70; Figure 5.6 141

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Bn.4:30 Wader and snails, Navicella

A roundel shows a riverbank scene with a crocodile and two other animals.

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini ‘Nella Vigna de R.R. P.P. Gesuiti alla Navicella’ Cross-hatched

Pages 71, 72; Figure 5.11 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Lanciani 1895, 173, Eton I, f.33 (sic) Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 32 Blake 1940, 119-120 Colini 1944, 238

A roundel shows a long-legged bird and snails. Pages 70-71; Figure 5.9 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Lanciani 1895, 173, Eton I, f.30 Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 30, pl. II Blake 1940, 119-120 Colini 1944, 238

Other drawings: None known but see the comments in Chapter 5 Select bibliography: Bn.4:33 Architectural scene (towers)

Other drawings: -

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini

Select bibliography: -

A roundel shows an architectural scene including a temple and towers on a riverbank.

Bn.4:31 Sol

Pages 71, 72; Figure 5.12

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 33 Blake 1940, 119-120

A roundel shows Sol in the centre surrounded by four female busts and birds.

Other drawings: -

Pages 71-72; Figure 5.10 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Lanciani 1895, 173, Eton I, f.31 Ashby 1914, 11, Eton I, no. 31 Blake 1940, 119-120 Fileri 2000, 89, no. 2

Select bibliography: -

Other drawings: None known but for comparisons with the Corsini and Capponi drawings see: Lanciani 1895, 172-173 Engelmann 1909, V, no. 2, pl. 1,2; see also VIII, no. 43, pl. 7,3. Colini 1944, 238, fig. 196 Fileri 2000, 89-90, no. 2, 114, no. 43, figs on 81 and 110

A roundel shows an architectural scene including an obelisk and a temple on a riverbank.

Bn.4:34 Architectural scene (obelisk) Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Pages 71, 72; Figure 5.13 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Ashby 1914, 12, Eton I, no. 34 Blake 1940, 119-120

Select bibliography: -

Other drawings: -

Bn.4:32 Nilotic scene with animals

Select bibliography: -

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini 142

Catalogue Bn.4:35 Pan holding a syrinx

Pomponi 1996b, 149, n.274 Fileri 2000, 135, no. 71 Versluys 2000, 238, n.11 Whitehouse 2001, 181

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 911404 Whitehouse 2001, 179-181, no. 40, incl. figs Glasgow CXVIII Pace 1979, 149, no. 97 Holkham I, 30 Ashby 1916, 38, no. 30 Corsini 158 I 5, 130172 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 72, pl. 13,1 Fileri 2000, 88, 135, no. 71, fig. on 131 Vittoria RCIN 909681 https://rct.uk/collection/909681 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 230, fig. 97

A roundel decorated with flowers shows Pan holding a syrinx. Pages 71, 72; Figure 5.14 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Ashby 1914, 12, Eton I, no. 35 Blake 1940, 119 Other drawings: Select bibliography: -

Select bibliography: Hübner 1862, 198, no. 405 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 239 de Lachenal 2000, 630, 658, no. 28, fig. on 659 Lavagne 2001, 50, pl. on 51 Versluys 2000, 240, 247-248, pls 14, 16b, 19b Versluys 2002, 84-85, no. 25, fig. 35

Bn.4:36 Silenus riding ass Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini A roundel shows Silenus seated on an ass and accompanied by a satyr.

Bn.5:4 Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Pages 71, 72-73; Figure 5.15

Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘in ecclesia Stae Mariae Trans Tiberim’ Mosaic now in the sacristy of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, listed under ‘other Pictures of little or no Value nor mentioned where found’ Ashby 1914, 12, Eton I, no. 36 Blake 1940, 119

A harbour scene includes buildings, boats, a sailing ship and a dolphin.

Other drawings: -

Pages 29-30; Figure 3.1

Select bibliography: -

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, no. 4 Lanciani 1895, 189-190, Eton II, f.4 Ashby 1914, 15, Eton II, no. 4 Pace 1979, 152, no. 114 Gasparri 1984, 673 de Lachenal 2000, 640 Fileri 2000, 134, no. 67 Whitehouse 2001, 134

Bn.5:2 Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘e Palatio Titi’ Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 919220 Whitehouse 2001, 132-135, no. 25, incl. figs Glasgow CXXXV Pace 1979, 152, no. 114, pl. XXVIIIa Corsini 158 I 5, 130168 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 68, pl. 12,1 Gasparri 1984, 672-674, pl. CII,3 Fileri 2000, 88, 134-135, no. 67, fig. on 128 Capponi 284, f.85-f.86

A riverbank scene with palm trees shows a crocodile attacking a man. Pages 32, 37; Figure 3.8 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 20, no. 2 Lanciani 1895, 175-176, Eton II, f.2 Ashby 1914, 14-15, Eton II, no. 2 Pace 1979, 149, no. 97 143

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284 [23.11.20] Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 86 Gasparri 1984, 672-674, pls CIII,1-2 Select bibliography: Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXII,II Guattani 1784, 31-34, pl. III Reinach 1922, 274-275, no. 4 Gasparri 1984, 672-676 incl. pls Whitehouse 1992, 110 de Lachenal 2000, 626, 639-640, no. 4, incl. pl.

Donderer 1983, 126, n.21.i, pl. LXXIV.2 Sabbatini Tumolesi 1988, 103-108, no. 114, pl. XXIX,1 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 238 de Lachenal 2000, 630, 656-657, no. 26 Gregori 2000, 443-444, no. 30 Lavagne 2001, 92, pl. on 93 Vismara 2001, fig. 13 Whitehouse 2001, 176 Papini 2004, 148-149, n. 79, 165-166, fig. 75 Dunbabin 2016, 217-222, 250, 273, fig. 7.34 Witts forthcoming

Bn.5:14 Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

Bn.5:17 Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid

Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid

A contest between two gladiators accompanied by umpires is shown in two registers. The gladiators have round shields.

A contest between two gladiators accompanied by umpires is shown in two registers. One gladiator has a trident and the other is covered by a net thrown by the first.

Pages 32, 34-36; Figure 3.6

Pages 32, 34, 36-37; Figure 3.7

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 21, no. 14 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.14 Ashby 1914, 17, Eton II, no. 14, 18, pl. VII Blake 1940, 112, n.213 Pace 1979, 150, no. 102 de Lachenal 2000, 656 Modolo 2016, 203

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 21, no. 17 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.17 Ashby 1914, 18, Eton II, no. 17 Pace 1979, 150, no. 103 Modolo 2016, 202 Other drawings: Glasgow CXXIV Pace 1979, 150, no. 103 Holkham I, 50 Ashby 1916, 39, no. 50 BnF Gd-9b, f.63 Caylus and Mariette 1757, 28-29, fig. XXXI Engelmann 1909, XXV, no. XXI, pl. 29,1 Whitehouse 2014, 299, no. 22, 311, n.(d) Ortona 2016, pl. XXXI Modolo 2016, 202, no. 20 Vittoria RCIN 909668 https://rct.uk/collection/909668 [23.11.20] Modolo 2016, 199, fig. 59 BAV Barb. Lat. 4423, f.38 [no. 34] https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.lat.4423 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 229-230, 231-232, fig. 96

Other drawings: Glasgow CXXIII Pace 1979, 150, no. 102, pl. XXVIb Modolo 2016, 203-204, fig. 60 Holkham I, 61 Ashby 1916, 39, no. 61 RIBA VOS/84, f.29(1) https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82228 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.29 Whitehouse 2014, 298, no. 21, 311, n.(d) Modolo 2016, 203-204, no. 21, pl. LXIV BAV Barb. Lat. 4423, f.27 [no. 32] https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.lat.4423 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 229-230, 231-232, fig. 95 Berlin Staatliche Museen Kupferstichkabinett 27789 de Lachenal 2000, 656 Modolo 2016, 203-204, fig. 61

Select bibliography: Winckelmann 1767, I, fig 197; II, 258-259 Hübner 1862, 196-197, no. 400 Reinach 1922, 285, no. 3 Blake 1940, 112-113 Colini 1944, 218 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 134, no. 1, fig. 8 Donderer 1983, 126, n.21.i, pl. LXXIV.1 Sabbatini Tumolesi 1988, 103-108, no. 114, pl. XXIX,2 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 238

Select bibliography: Winckelmann 1767, I, fig. 198, II, 258-259 Hübner 1862, 196, no. 399 Reinach 1922, 285, no. 4 Blake 1940, 112-113 Colini 1944, 218 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 135-136, no. 2, fig. 9 144

Catalogue Bn.5:36 Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

de Lachenal 2000, 630, 656-657, no. 25, incl. pl. Gregori 2000, 443, no. 29 Lavagne 2001, 94, pl. on 95 Vismara 2001, 214 Whitehouse 2001, 176 Papini 2004, 148-149, n.79, 165-169, fig. 76 Dunbabin 2016, 217-222, fig. 7.35 Witts forthcoming

Artist: Francesco Bartoli Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid A Victorious Charioteer is shown frontally in a quadriga, flanked by two figures.

Bn.5:35 Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Pages 32-34; Figure 3.4 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 36 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.35 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22, Eton II, no. 36 Blake 1940, 113 Pace 1979, 150, no. 101

Artist: Francesco Bartoli Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid A Victorious Charioteer is shown in a quadriga moving towards the left, with two accompanying figures including a sparsor.

Other drawings: Glasgow CXXII Pace 1979, 150, no. 101 Vittoria RCIN 909664 https://rct.uk/collection/909664 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 229

Pages 32-34; Figure 3.3 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 35 Lanciani 1895, 171-172, Eton II, f.34 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22, Eton II, no. 35 Blake 1940, 113 Pace 1979, 150, no. 99 Pomponi 1996b, 148, n.251 de Lachenal 2000, 658 Whitehouse 2001, 188

Select bibliography: Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix 92-93, pl. IX Hübner 1862, 198, no. 403 Reinach 1922, 296, no. 5 Blake 1940, 113 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138-139, no. 5, fig. 14 Dunbabin 1982, 73, 88 no. 17a, fig. 11 Donderer 1983, 125, n.21.h, pl. LXXIII.3 Cacciotti 1996, 229 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 214 Lavagne 2001, 84, pl. on 85 Whitehouse 2001, 179 Thuillier 2003, esp. 299-302, fig. 2 Papini 2004, 148-149 Dunbabin 2016, 143, 157-159, fig. 6.14 Witts forthcoming

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 911402 Herklotz 1999, 134, pl. 108 Whitehouse 2001, 179, 186-187, 188-189, no. 43, incl. figs Glasgow CXX Pace 1979, 150, no.99 Holkham I, 37 Ashby 1916, 38, no. 37 Vittoria RCIN 909665 https://rct.uk/collection/909665 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 229, fig. 94

Bn.5:37 Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

Select bibliography: Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix 92-93, pl. IX Hübner 1862, 197-198, no. 402 Reinach 1922, 295, no. 5 Blake 1940, 113 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138, no. 3, fig. 12 Dunbabin 1982, 73, 88 no. 17b Donderer 1983, 125, n. 21.h, pl. LXXIII.1 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 230 de Lachenal 2000, 630, 657-658, no. 27, incl. pl. Lavagne 2001, 82, pl. on 83 Thuillier 2003, esp. 296-299, fig. 1 Papini 2004, 148-149 Ghedini 2005, 595, fig. 8 Dunbabin 2016, 157-159 Witts forthcoming

Artist: Francesco Bartoli Two charioteers, each in a quadriga, are shown in a race, with part of an inscription above. Pages 57; Figure 4.9 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 37 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.36 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22-23, Eton II, no. 37, pl. X Reinach 1922, 295, no. 2 Blake 1940, 113 Papini 2004, 148, n.77 145

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Other drawings: -

The scene shows a combat between two gladiators with part of an inscription above.

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1724, III, 176-180, pl. LXVII Aldovrandini, Vacca, Ficoroni and Bartoli 1741, I, 289-290 Blake 1940, 113 Dunbabin 1982, 73 Witts forthcoming

Pages 57; Figure 4.10

Bn.5:38 Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 39 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.38 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22-24, Eton II, no. 39, pl. X Reinach 1922, 295, no. 3 Blake 1940, 113 Papini 2004, 148

Artist: Francesco Bartoli Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid

Other drawings: -

A Victorious Charioteer is shown in a quadriga moving towards the right, accompanied by one figure.

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1724, III, 176-180, pl. LXVII Aldovrandini, Vacca, Ficoroni and Bartoli 1741, I, 289-290 Blake 1940, 113 Papini 2004, 148 Witts forthcoming

Pages 32-34; Figure 3.5 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22. no. 38 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f.37 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22-23, Eton II, no. 38, pl. X Reinach 1922, 295, no. 1 Blake 1940, 113 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138 Pace 1979, 150, no. 100 Whitehouse 2001, 190

Bn.5:40 Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis Artist: Francesco Bartoli A single gladiator is shown with part of an inscription above.

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 911401 Herklotz 1999, 134, pl. 108 Whitehouse 2001, 179, 186-187, 190-191, no. 44, incl. figs Glasgow CXXI Pace 1979, 150, no. 100 Holkham I, 36 Ashby 1916, 38, no. 36 Vittoria RCIN 909669 https://rct.uk/collection/909669 [23.11.20] Cacciotti 1996, 229, fig. 93

Pages 57-58; Figure 4.11 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 40 Lanciani 1895, 172, Eton II, f. 39 (sic) Ashby 1914, 22-24, Eton II, no. 40, pl. X Reinach 1922, 295, no. 4 Blake 1940, 113 Papini 2004, 148 Other drawings: -

Select bibliography: Hübner 1862, 198, no. 404 Blake 1940, 113 Blanco Freijeiro 1950, 138, no. 4, fig. 13 Dunbabin 1982, 73, 88 no. 17c; fig. 12 Donderer 1983, 125, n.21.h, pl. LXXIII.2 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 230 Lavagne 2001, 86, pl. on 87 Thuillier 2003, esp. 302-305, fig. 3 Papini 2004, 148-149 Dunbabin 2016, 143, 157-159, fig. 6.15 Witts forthcoming

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1724, III, 176-180, pl. LXVII Aldovrandini, Vacca, Ficoroni and Bartoli 1741, I, 289290 Blake 1940, 113 Papini 2004, 148 Witts forthcoming Bn.5:42 Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Pavimentum e Villa Hadriani’

Bn.5:39 Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bacchus is seated in the central compartment, accompanied by an attendant. Other compartments each contain a full-

Artist: Francesco Bartoli 146

Catalogue Corsini 158 I 5, 130129 Engelmann 1909, VII, no. 28, pl. 5,4 Fileri 2000, 107, 109, no. 28, fig. on 101 Corsini 158 HI 5, f.30 Engelmann 1909, V, n.1 Fileri 1991, 119, no. 30 incl. fig.

length figure (four compartments), a pair of quadrupeds (two compartments) or a bust (six compartments). Pages 53, 58-59; Figure 4.12 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 42 Lanciani 1895, 191, Eton II, f.42 Ashby 1914, 24, Eton II, no. 42, pl. XI

Select bibliography: Lanciani 1895, 186 Witts forthcoming

Other drawings: See Bm.9:74

Bn.5:71 Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Select bibliography: Witts forthcoming

Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Mosaico nel Palazzo Massimi’ Mosaic now in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid

Bn.5:43 Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

A riverbank scene shows two men with a water-lifting device.

Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Pavimentum e Villa Hadriani’

Pages 32, 37, 38; Figure 3.9 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 23, no. 71 Lanciani 1895, 176, Eton II, f.71 Ashby 1914, 29, Eton II, no. 71, pl. XIV Reinach 1922, 218, no. 3 Pace 1979, 149, no. 96 Pomponi 1996b, 149, n.276 Versluys 2000, 238, n.11, pl. 18b (reversed) Whitehouse 2001, 182

The drunken figure of Bacchus is shown in the centre accompanied by an attendant and a feline. Towards each corner is a bust with a bird below. Pages 53, 58, 59-60; Figure 4.13 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 22, no. 43 Lanciani 1895, 191, Eton II, f.43 Ashby 1914, 24-25, Eton II, no. 43; 48, Eton IV, no. 100

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 911403 Whitehouse 2001, 179, 182-183, no. 41, incl. figs Glasgow CXVII Pace 1979, 149, no. 96 Holkham I, 63 Ashby 1916, 39, no. 63

Other drawings: Holkham I, 33 [for the silver panel on which the centre of the drawing is based] Ashby 1916, 38, no. 33 Select bibliography: Breval 1738, I, 84-85, pl. after 85

Select bibliography: Hübner 1862, 198, no. 406 Cacciotti 1996, 230 Pomponi 1996b, 109, no. 241 de Lachenal 2000, 630, 658, no. 29, incl. fig. Versluys 2000, 240, 248-249, pls 13b, 15b, 17a, 20a Versluys 2002, 84-85, no. 25, fig. 36

Bn.5:59 Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Villa Hadriani’ A simple composition shows Pluto pursuing Proserpina.

Bn.6:1 Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Page 53; Figure 4.1 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 23, no. 59 Ashby 1914, 27, Eton II, no. 59 Blake 1940, 120 Fileri 1991, 119, fig. 3 Fileri 2000, 88, 107, no. 28

Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Villa Hadriani’ In the centre, a seated woman is approached by two figures. Pairs of peacocks decorate the surrounding scroll which includes two small compartments, each with a reclining female figure accompanied by Cupid or a child.

Other drawings: See Bn.13:15

Pages 53, 58, 60; Figure 4.14 147

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 24 [not listed specifically but covered by the wording ‘The subjects of most of them are too insignificant to be described’] Lanciani 1895, 191, Eton III, f.1 Ashby 1914, 30, Eton III, no. 1, pl. XV Connor 1990, 107, no. 187

RIBA SB 4/1(12) https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA84269 [29.11.20] Select bibliography: See Bn.4:23 Bn.6:50 Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

Other drawings: -

Signed: ‘Franco Bartoli’ ‘Pavimento di Bacco del Palazzo d’Augusto’

Select bibliography: -

A circular design shows a youthful Bacchic figure in the centre seated on an ass and accompanied by a young boy. There are altars at top and bottom and four birds in the surrounding scroll.

Bn.6:2 Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’ Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Villa Hadriani’

Pages 38-39, 43-44; Figure 3.17

Venus is seated in the centre accompanied by Cupid. Four stylised masks occupy the surrounding decoration and in each corner is a full-length figure.

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 25, no. 50 Lanciani 1895, 183, Eton III, f.49 (sic) Ashby 1914, 37, Eton III, no. 50 Blake 1940, 121, n.293

Pages 53, 58, 60; Figure 4.15 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 24 [not listed specifically but covered by the wording ‘The subjects of most of them are too insignificant to be described’] Lanciani 1895, 191, Eton III, f.2 Ashby 1914, 30, Eton III, no. 2, pl. XV Connor 1990, 107, no. 188

Other drawings: Holkham II, 25 Ashby 1916, 42, no. 25 BnF Gd-9b, f.70 Caylus 1767, 185-186, pl. XLII Müntz 1876, 405-406 Jubaru 1904, 459-461 incl. fig. on 460 Ortona 2016, 54-55, no. 5, fig. 25, pl. LXX

Other drawings: RIBA SB 4/1(1) https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA84258 [29.11.20] Harris 1972, 58, f.2 [Bartoli, Francesco]

Select bibliography: Wilpert 1916, I, 299-300 Blake 1940, 122 Stern 1958, 216-218, fig. 58 L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 46, pl. VIII

Select bibliography: -

Bn.6:51 Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

Bn.6:13 Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘e Templo Dianae in Monte Aventino, hodi[e]’ Mosaic now in the Vatican

Artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘Villa Hadriani’ Depiction as Bn.4:23 with the addition of a bird in each corner.

A ridden elephant is fighting a bull, and a lion is led by a man seated on a camel.

Pages 53-54; Figures 4.2 and 9.2(b)

Pages 54-55; Figure 4.3

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 24 Ashby 1914, 5, 32, Eton III, no. 13

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 25, no. 51 Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton III, f.50 (sic) Ashby 1914, 37, Eton III, no. 51 Werner 1998, 53, n.25

Other drawings: See Bn.4:23 and Bn.13:9 148

Catalogue Other drawings: Holkham I, 46 Ashby 1916, 38, no. 46 Corsini 158 I 5, 130175 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 75, pl. 12,6 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74, fig. on 132

LIMC I (1981), ‘Achilleus’, no. 119 Ghedini 1997, 692, n.15 Strocka 2011 incl. figs

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,1 Reinach 1922, 297, no. 2 Blake 1936, 174, pl. 42,2 Blake 1940, 115-116, pl. 31,1 Lavin 1963, 257 Kondoleon 1995, 284-285 Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 46 Kondoleon 1999, 323 Witts forthcoming

Probable artist: ? Gaetano Piccini ‘Musaico antico nel Palazzo Mignanelli’ Cross-hatched Mosaic now at Holkham Hall, Norfolk

Bn.7:3 Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

A lion is shown attacking a leopard. Page 79; Figures 6.1 and 9.1

Probable artist: ? Gaetano Piccini ‘Musaico del Sigr Marchese de Cavalieri’ Cross-hatched Mosaic now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26, no. 3 Lanciani 1895, 192, Eton IV, 3 Ashby 1914, 38, Eton IV, no. 3, pl. XVI Reinach 1922, 356, no. 1 Pernice 1938, 156 de Lachenal 2000, 650-651, no. 18, incl. fig. Angelicoussis 2001, 158, fig. 41 Marcattili 2011, 179-180, fig. 5

A complex scene shows 17 figures in front of a city wall with a gate.

Other drawings: -

Pages 81-83; Figure 6.4

Select bibliography: Nota delli Musei 1664, 26 Michaelis 1882, 316, no. 45 Pernice 1938, 156-157, pl. 57,1 Zocca 1976, 58-59 Waywell 1978, 10, no. 45 Angelicoussis 2001, 158-159, no. 58, colour pl. 5,1 Andreae 2003, 185, colour pl. on 184 Taglietti 2010, 184-185, fig. 3 Marcattili 2011, esp. 173-176, 184-186, fig. 11

Bn.7:1 Cavalieri mosaic

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26, no. 1 Lanciani 1895, 192, Eton IV, f.1 Engelmann 1909, XXVII, fig. 10 Ashby 1914, 37, Eton IV, no. 1 Guerrini 1972, 25, n.6, 26, pl. XX,1 Fileri 2000, 90, no. 4 Strocka 2011, 227-228, fig. 9 Other drawings: Corsini 158 I 5, 130105, 130166 Engelmann 1909, V, no. 4, X, no. 66, pls 1,4, 11,6 Guerrini 1972, 25, pls XIX,1-2 Fileri 2000, 86, 88, 90, 92, nos 4 and 65, figs on 82 and 127 Strocka 2011, 228-229, figs 10-11 Capponi 284, f.90 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284 [30.12.20] Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 90, pl. 15,5 Guerrini 1972, 25, pls XVII, XX,2 Strocka 2011, 229, fig. 12

Bn.7:34 Bull and bear, Aventine Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ ‘nell Aventino’ Mosaic now in the Vatican A bull is fighting a bear. Pages 54, 55; Figure 4.4 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26 (under nos 34-37) Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton IV, f.34 Ashby 1914, 40, Eton IV, no. 34 Werner 1998, 53, n.25 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1724, II, 78-81, pl. XXIII Furietti 1752, 58 Guattani 1806, III, 45-46, pl. opp. 47 Engelmann 1909, XXVI-XXX, fig. 9 Reinach 1922, 215, no. 1 Poulsen 1951, 261, no. 391 Guerrini 1972 incl. pls

Other drawings: 149

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Select bibliography: Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,2 Reinach 1922, 297, no. 3 Blake 1936, 174, pl. 42,3 Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,2 Lavin 1963, 257 Kondoleon 1995, 284-285 Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 47 Kondoleon 1999, 323 Witts forthcoming

Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton IV, f.36 Ashby 1914, 40, Eton IV, no. 36 Werner 1998, 53, n.25 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74 Other drawings: Corsini 158 I 5, 130173 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 73, pl. 12,3 Fileri 2000, 135-136, no. 72, fig. on 132 Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,4 Reinach 1922, 297, no. 4 Blake 1936, 174, pl. 42,5 Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,4 Lavin 1963, 257, fig. 121 Kondoleon 1995, 284-285 Warner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 46 Kondoleon 1999, 323 Witts forthcoming

Bn.7:35 Horseman and bulls, Aventine Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ ‘Aventino’ Mosaic now in the Vatican A horseman pursues two bulls, the second of which is fragmentary. Pages 54, 55; Figure 4.5

Bn.7:37 Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26 (under nos 34-37) Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton IV, f.35 Ashby 1914, 40, Eton IV, no. 35 Werner 1998, 53, n.25 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ ‘Musaico Antico trovato nell Monte Aventino il disegnio e Appresso, a Nostro Sigre’ A bestiarius on a fallen horse, and another on foot, are fighting a bear.

Other drawings: Corsini 158 I 5, 130171 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 71, pl. 12,4 Fileri 2000, 135-136, no. 70, fig. on 131

Pages 54, 55-56; Figure 4.7 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26 (under nos 34-37) Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton IV, f.37 Ashby 1914, 40, Eton IV, no. 37, pl. XVII Blake 1940, 115 Lavin 1963, 257, n.337 Werner 1998, 53, n.25 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74

Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,3 Reinach 1922, 297, no. 3 Blake 1936, 174, pl. 42,4 Blake 1940, 115, pl. 31,3 Lavin 1963, 257 Kondoleon 1995, 284-285 Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 47 Kondoleon 1999, 323 Witts forthcoming

Other drawings: Select bibliography: Witts forthcoming

Bn.7:36 Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

Bn.7:38 Dancers and musicians, Aventine

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ ‘Aventino’ Mosaic now in the Vatican

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli’ ‘Aventino’ Mosaic now in the Vatican

Two bestiarii are each fighting a bear. Pages 54, 55; Figure 4.6

A lively scene shows seven dancers and musicians around a pergola under which is a dwarf, a table and an amphora.

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26 (under nos 34-37)

Pages 54, 56; Figure 4.8 150

Catalogue Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 26, no. 38 Lanciani 1895, 189, Eton IV, f.38 Ashby 1914, 40, Eton IV, no. 38 Werner 1998, 53, n.25 Fileri 2000, 136, no. 74

Select bibliography: Ciampini 1693, 130, pl. XXX Ficoroni 1744, I, 178 Jubaru 1904, 461, 466-467 incl. figs Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Blake 1940, 121-122 Stern 1958, 198-200, Voûte X, fig. 33 L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 46, pl. 42b Oakeshott 1967, 61-62, pls 38-39 Dorigo 1971, 212, 214, fig. 166 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50, fig. 23, pl. 3 Amadio 1986, 68-70, no. 42 incl. fig. Dunbabin 1999, 248-249

Other drawings: Corsini 158 I 5, 130174 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 74, pl. 12,5 Fileri 2000, 136, 140, no. 73, fig. on 132 Select bibliography: Montfaucon 1722, II.1, 88, pl. XVI Nogara 1910, 6-7, pl. IX,5 Reinach 1922, 117, no. 4 and 297, no. 1 Blake 1936, 174-175, pl. 42,6 Blake 1940, 118, pl. 30,6 Lavin 1963, 257 Kondoleon 1995, 284-285 Werner 1998, 43-48, fig. on 44 Kondoleon 1999, 323, fig. 5 Versluys 2002, 458, Appendix no. 8 Dunbabin 2004, 170, fig. 9 Dunbabin 2016, 130-131, fig. 5.16 Witts forthcoming

Bn.7:90 Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome Foliage, birds and vessels are scattered throughout the design. Pages 38-39, 41-42; Figure 3.15 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 90 Stern 1958, 193-194, n.197, fig. 27 Pace 1979, 145, no. 71 Amadio 1986,74, no. 50, fig. on 76 Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256

Bn.7:89 Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome

Other drawings: Glasgow XCI Pace 1979, 145, no. 71 Amadio 1986, 64, no.36, fig. on 65 RIBA VOS/84, f.15, I https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII

A central bust is surrounded by a vine with Cupids and birds, flanked by scenes of men with ox-drawn carts and men treading grapes. Pages 38-39, 40; Figure 3.13 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 89 Stern 1958, 199-200, n.234, 200, n.238 Pace 1979, 144, no. 63 Amadio 1986, 74, no. 48, incl. fig. Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256

Select bibliography: Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Stern 1958, 202-205, Voûte VI, Voûte VIII, figs 28, 38 L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 46, pls 42a, 43 Oakeshott 1967, 61-62, pls 36-37, colour pl. I Dorigo 1971, 212, 214, pl. 24 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50, figs 21, 23, pl. 4 Dunbabin 1999, 249, fig. 264

Other drawings: Glasgow LXXX Pace 1979, 144, no. 63 Amadio 1986, 63, no. 34, fig. on 62 RIBA VOS/84, f.15, III https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII

Bn.7:91 Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome 151

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library A mainly geometric design features dolphins arranged in patterns.

Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII

Pages 38-40; Figure 3.11

Select bibliography: Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Stern 1958, 194-195, Voûte I, fig. 30 Oakeshott 1967, 61-62 Dorigo 1971, 211-212 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50, fig. 24 Dunbabin 1999, 248 Ghedini 2005, 590, fig. 1

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 91 Stern 1958, 195, n.207 Pace 1979, 143, no. 59 Amadio 1986, 73, no. 46, incl. fig. Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256

Bn.7:93 Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

Other drawings: Glasgow LXXVI Pace 1979, 143, no. 59 Amadio 1986, 60, no. 32, incl. fig. RIBA VOS/84, f.15, VI https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome A lamb and a griffin occupy the central compartments surrounded by four female figures, two Cupids and ten birds. Pages 38-39, 40; Figure 3.12

Select bibliography: Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Stern 1958, 195-196, Voûte II, fig. 31 Oakeshott 1967, 61-62, pl. 35 Dorigo 1971, 212 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50 Dunbabin 1999, 248

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 93 Pace 1979, 144, no. 61 Amadio 1986, 74, no. 47, incl. fig. Aymonino, Gwynn and Modolo 2013, 32, no. 25, fig. on 30, pl. on front cover Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256

Bn.7:92 Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

Other drawings: Glasgow LXXVIII Pace 1979, 144, no. 61 Amadio 1986, 60, 63, fig. on 61 RIBA VOS/84, f.15, IV https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome This drawing shows a purely geometric design based on octagons and crosses. Pages 38-39; Figure 3.10 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 92 Pace 1979, 143, no. 60 Amadio 1986, 73, no. 45, incl. fig. Aymonino, Gwynn and Modolo 2013, 31, no. 24, fig. on 30 Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256

Select bibliography: Ciampini 1693, 130, pl. XXX Jubaru 1904, 461, 465, incl. fig. Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Stern 1958, 196-198, Voûte XI, fig. 32 Oakeshott 1967, 61-62, pls VII, 35 Dorigo 1971, 212 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50 Amadio 1986, 68-70, no. 42, incl. fig. Dunbabin 1999, 248, fig. 263 Ghedini 2005, 590, fig. 1

Other drawings: Glasgow LXXVII Pace 1979, 143, no. 60 Amadio 1986, 60, no. 31, incl. fig. RIBA VOS/84, f.15, V https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15

Bn.7:94 Circles with busts, Sta Costanza Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’. 152

Catalogue ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’ Mosaic in situ in Santa Costanza, Rome

Pace 1979, 144, nos 64-65 Amadio 1986, 56, no. 27, fig. on 55; 58, no. 30, fig. on 59 Holkham I, 52 Ashby 1916, 39, no. 52 Stern 1958, 216, fig. 61 Amadio 1986, 76, no. 51, fig. on 77 RIBA VOS/84, f.11 https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82208 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.11, fig. 38 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 62, 313, n.(l) Modolo 2016, 255-256, no. 60, pl. XLIV Vittoria RCIN 909576 https://rct.uk/collection/909576 [23.11.20] Stern 1958, 215, fig. 59 Amadio 1986, 58, no. 29, fig. on 57 Modolo 2016, 255, fig. 112 Baddeley CV Ashby 1916, 49, no. 49 Stern 1958, 215, fig. 57 Amadio 1986, 57, no. 28, fig. on 56

This design shows ten busts alternating with bowls of fruit. Pages 38-39, 41; Figure 3.14 Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 94 Pace 1979, 144, no. 62 Amadio 1986, 74, no. 49, incl. fig. Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 256 Other drawings: Glasgow LXXIX Pace 1979, 144, no. 62 Amadio 1986, 63, no. 35, fig. on 64 RIBA VOS/84, f.15, II https://architecture.com/image-library/ribapix. html?keywords=RIBA82212 [23.11.20] Harris 1972, 59, f.15 Whitehouse 2014, 309, no. 63 Modolo 2016, 256, no. 61, pl. XLVIII Select bibliography: Jubaru 1904, 461 Wilpert 1916, 1, 286-291 Stern 1958, 200-202, Voûte IX, fig. 36 Oakeshott 1967, 61-62, pls 34, 36 Dorigo 1971, 212 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 48-50, fig. 23 Dunbabin 1999, 248

Select bibliography: Ciampini 1699, II, 1-3, pl. I Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix 85-86, pl. II Jubaru 1904, 461-464, incl. figs Wilpert 1916, I, 298-310, figs 91-92; III, pl. 88,2 Stern 1958, 166-191, 215-216, figs 1-3, 55-56 L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 46, pl. IXa Oakeshott 1967, 61 Wilpert and Schumacher 1976, 47, 52-55, figs 24, 27-28 Faedo 2000, 115, fig. 2 Ghedini 2005, 590, fig. 1

Bn.7:96 Half cupola, Sta Costanza

Bn.7:98 Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Signed: ‘Fran.co Bartoli fece’ ‘del Palazzo di Augusto’

Probable artist: Francesco Bartoli ‘in Stae Mariae trans Tiberim’ Mosaic in the sacristy of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome

This semicircular design shows biblical scenes between caryatids, with small Bacchic figures in rectangular compartments above and fishing scenes with Cupids below.

A riverbank scene shows waterfowl with a basket of snails. Pages 29, 30-32; Figure 3.2

Pages 38-39, 42-43; Figure 3.16

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27 Lanciani 1895, 190, Eton IV, f.94 (sic) Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 98 Gasparri 1984, 673 de Lachenal 2000, 639 Fileri 2000, 134, no. 68 Whitehouse 2001, 136

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 4, 27, no. 96 Lanciani 1895, 190, Eton IV, f.96 Ashby 1914, 47, Eton IV, no. 96 Stern 1958, 216, fig. 60 Pace 1979, 144, nos 64-65 Amadio 1986, 73, no. 44, fig. on 72 de Lachenal 2000, 629, 662-663, no. 36, incl. fig. Modolo 2016, 254, n.15, 255, 256

Other drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 919221 Whitehouse 2001, 132, 136-137, no. 26, incl. figs Holkham I, 17 Ashby 1916, 37, no. 17

Other drawings: See Bn.13:2 Glasgow LXXXI- LXXXIII 153

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Corsini 158 I 5, 130169 Engelmann 1909, X, no. 69, pl. 12,2 Gasparri 1984, 672-674, pl. CII,4 Fileri 2000, 88, 134-135, no. 68, fig. on 129 Capponi 284, f.100 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284 [23.11.20] Engelmann 1909, XVIII, no. 100 Gasparri 1984, 672-674, pl. CIII,3

Bn.13:2 Cupola, Sta Costanza

Select bibliography: Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXII, 1 Ficoroni 1744, II, 27 Guattani 1784, 31-34, pl. III Reinach 1922, 367, no. 5 Donderer 1983, 125, n.21.e, pl. LXXII.2 Gasparri 1984, 672-676, incl. pls Whitehouse 1992, 110, fig. 1 de Lachenal 2000, 626, 639-640, no. 3, incl. pl. Andreae 2003, 182 incl. pl.

Page 105; Figure 8.1

Probable artist: Pietro Santi Bartoli. Hatching/shading but no clear indication of mosaic This is a circular reconstruction of the whole mosaic, incorporating the scenes in Bn.7:96.

Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:2 [‘Painting’] Amadio 1986, 81-83, no. 57, incl. fig. Original drawings: Bn.7:96 and drawings listed under that entry Select bibliography: See Bn.7:96

Bn.9:4 Rape of Europa, Palestrina

Bn.13:6 Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni

Probable artist: Giovanni Domenico Campiglia. ‘mosaico antico Palazzo Barberini’ Mosaic now in the Landesmuseum, Oldenburg

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini. Cross-hatched

Europa is riding Jupiter in the guise of a bull which is entering the sea, watched by a man and woman. Above, five women run towards a bearded man with a staff.

A dolphin is shown in the centre, with a peacock in two corner compartments and a griffin in the other two.

Pages 79-80; Figure 6.2

Pages 105, 108-109; Figure 8.8

Bibliography for the drawing: Eton Finding Aid 2, 8, no. 138 Eton Finding Aid 4, 31, no. 4 Lanciani 1894, 182, Miscellanea f.4 Ashby 1914, 61, Eton VII, no. 4 Pace 1979, 153, no. 125 Wattel-de Croizant 1986, 500, n.25, 504, n.51 Aymonino and Modolo 2020, fig. 3

Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:6 Original drawings: None known but cf similar drawing in the Capponi codex: Capponi 284, f.96 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Cappon.284, f.96 [30.01.21] Engelmann 1909, XVII, no. 96

Other drawings: Glasgow CXLVI Pace 1979, 153, no. 125, pl. XXVIIIb

Select bibliography: -

Select bibliography: Ciampini 1690, I, 82, pl. XXXIII Turnbull 1740, pls 8, D Bartoli and Bellori 1750, Appendix 95-96, pl. XII Reinach 1922, 12, no. 1 Schönberger 1978, 223-228, incl. pl. opp. 228 LIMC I (1981), ‘Agenor I’, no. 5 Wattel-de Croizant 1986, incl. figs LIMC IV (1988), ‘Europe I’, no. 148 Whitehouse 1992, 108 Wattel-de Croizant 1994, 45-54, figs 1-2 Wattel-de Croizant 1995, 73-83, pl. VII Whitehouse 2001, 172-173, fig. 37ii Montagu 2006, incl. fig. 1

Bn.13:9 Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched Depiction as Bn.4:23. Pages 105, 108-109, 110; Figures 8.9 and 9.2(a) Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:9 154

Catalogue Bn.13:26 Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo

Fileri 2000, 110 Connor Bulman 2001b, 221-222, fig. 3 de Polignac 2007, 8 Original drawings: Bn.4:23, Bn.6:13 and drawings listed under those entries

Signed: ‘Pietro Santi Bartoli’ ‘... pauimento ritrouato nouamente fra le rovine di Roma nella regione della Piscina publica’ Cross-hatched

Select bibliography: See Bn.4:23

Four Nereids, each riding a sea beast, are accompanied by Cupids. Below are dolphins and fish.

Bn.13:15 Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Pages 105, 106-108; Figure 8.6 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:26

Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Original drawings: dal Pozzo RC 911397 Herklotz 1999, 134, pl. 107 Whitehouse 2001, 176-178, no. 39, incl. fig. Glasgow CXXVIII-CXXIX Pace 1979, 151, nos 107-108, pl. XXVIIa Holkham II, 51 Ashby 1916, 45-46, no. 51 Vittoria RCIN 909666, RCIN 909667 https://www.rct.uk/collection/909666 [30.01.21] https://www.rct.uk/collection/909667 [30.01.21] BnF Gd-9b, f.64 Caylus and Mariette 1757, 29-30, fig. XXXII Engelmann 1909, XXV, no. XXXII, pl. 29,2 Whitehouse 2014, 298, no. 20 Modolo 2016, 198-201, 205-206, no. 22, figs 63-65, pl. XXXII BAV Barb. Lat. 4426, f.44 Colini 1944, 218, fig. 178

Depiction as Bn.5:59. Pages 105, 108-109, 110; Figure 8.10 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:15 [‘painting (?)’] Fileri 2000, 107 Original drawings: Bn.5:59 and drawings listed under that entry Select bibliography: See Bn.5:59 Bn.13:16 Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni Probable artist: Gaetano Piccini Cross-hatched

Select bibliography: Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 22, pl. XIX Montfaucon 1724, I, 71-72, pl. XXVII Bartoli and Bellori 1750, 29, pl. XIX; Appendix 85, pl. I Reinach 1922, 41, no. 3 Blake 1936, 148-149 Sabbatini Tumolesi 1988, 108 de Lachenal 2000, 630-632, fig. 16 Papini 2004, 166 Ghedini 2005, 593, fig. 6

This tomb has a floor shown with plain tessellation divided by a decorative strip of mosaic. Pages 105, 108-109, 110; Figure 8.11 Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:16 [not mentioning mosaic] de Polignac 2007, 8

Bn.13:27 Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard

Original drawings: None known but cf similar drawings in the Corsini codices: Corsini 158 I 5, 130141 Engelmann 1909, VIII, no. 40, pl. 7,6 Fileri 2000, 111, no. 40, fig. on 107 Corsini 158 HI 5, f.19 Fileri 1991, 116, no. 19, fig. on 115

Signed: ‘Pietro Santi Bartoli’ ‘... pauimento di mosaico bianco e nero di Piscina ò Natatorio, scoperto nel Maggio del presente Anno nella regione della Piscina publica presso alla Porta Capena’ ‘20 Novembre 1698’ Cross-hatched Neptune is driving a quadriga in a scene of a marine thiasos including Amphitrite, Victory, Cupids, fishermen and many other figures and sea creatures.

Select bibliography: 155

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Pages 105, 106, 108; Figure 8.7

Reinach 1922, 374, nos 1-2 L’Orange and Nordhagen 1966, 36, pl. 5 Dorigo 1971, 59-60, fig. 34 Whitehouse 1992, 106, 108, 118-121, figs 9-10 Meyboom 1995, passim, incl. colour pl., figs 6-27 Dunbabin 1999, 49-51, figs 47-49 de Lachenal 2000, 625-626, fig. 5 Versluys 2002, 52-54, no. 6, fig. 8 Ghedini 2005, 593 Tammisto 2005, 3-24, incl. figs LIMC Supplementum (2009), ‘Monstra’, no. 5

Bibliography for this copy of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 [not specifically listed] Sampson 1974, entry for Bn.13:27 Original drawings: Vittoria RCIN 909661 https://www.rct.uk/collection/909661 [30.01.21] Select bibliography: Bartoli and Bellori 1706, 21-22, pl. XVIII Montfaucon 1724, I, 71-72, pl. XXVII Bartoli and Bellori 1750, 28-29, pl. XVIII Reinach 1922, 36, no. 3 Blake 1936, 148 de Lachenal 2000, 632, fig. 17 Whitehouse 2014, 270 n.10, 277 n.32 Modolo 2016, 206 Bn.13:37-Bn.13:41 Nile Mosaic, Palestrina Artist: Joseph Sincerus Hatching/shading but no clear indication of mosaic Extensive text especially in Bn.13:37 Restored mosaic in the Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Palestrina Each of the four sheets with illustrations shows part of the Nile Mosaic with many figures, exotic animals, buildings and inscriptions. Pages 105-106; Figures 8.2-8.5 Bibliography for these copies of the print: Eton Finding Aid 4, 34 Sampson 1974, entries for Bn.13:37-13:41 Original drawings: dal Pozzo RCIN 919201-919219 Whitehouse 2001, 70-87, figs 20-22, 88-131, nos 1-24, incl. figs Glasgow CXXXVI-CXLV Pace 1979, 152-153, nos 115-124 Baddeley XCVII-CIV Ashby 1916, 49 BnF https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200180r [27.12.20] Barthelemy 1760, 1-36 incl. fig. Engelmann 1909, XXV, pl. 29,4 Whitehouse 2014, 270 Ortona 2016, 56-62, pl. LXXII Select bibliography: Suarès 1655, 289-291, incl. pls Kircher 1671, 100-111, incl. pl. Ciampini 1690, I, 81, pl. XXX,1 Montfaucon 1724, IV, 148-166, pls LVI-LX 156

Bibliography Aldovrandi, Ulisse, Vacca, Flaminio, de’Ficoroni, Francesco and Bartoli, Pietro Santi 1741. Roma Antica Distinta per Regioni I. Rome.

Bartoli, Pietro Santi, Bartoli, Francesco, Bellori, Giovanni Pietro and de la Chausse, Michel Ange 1750. Picturae Antiquae Cryptarum Romanarum et Sepulchri Nasonum. Rome.

Allen, Thomas 1834. The History of the County of Lincoln II. London and Lincoln.

Bayley, John 1830. The History and Antiquities of the Tower of London. London, 2nd edition.

Almagno, Ilaria 2007. ‘Francesco Bartoli, Commissario della Antichità: Nuovi Contributi’. Studi Romani LV, 3-4 (Luglio-Dicembre 2007): 453-472.

Beauclerk, Charles 2005. Nell Gwyn. A Biography. London. Beaven, Lisa 2010. An Ardent Patron. Cardinal Camillo Massimo and his antiquarian and artistic circle. London.

Amadio, Adele Anna 1986. I Mosaici di S. Costanza. Xenia Quaderni 7. Rome.

Beesley, Alfred 1841. The History of Banbury. London.

Andreae, Bernard 2003. Antike Bildmosaiken. Mainz am Rhein.

Berry, B. Midi and Schofield, R.S. 1971. ‘Age at Baptism in Pre-industrial England’. Population Studies 25,3 (November 1971): 453-463.

Angelicoussis, Elizabeth 2001. The Holkham Collection of Classical Sculptures. Mainz am Rhein.

Birley, Robert 1970. The History of College Library. Eton.

Ashby, Thomas 1914. ‘Drawings of Ancient Paintings in English Collections’. Papers of the British School at Rome VII: 1-62.

Blake, Marion Elizabeth 1936. ‘Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy’. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome XIII: 67-214.

Ashby, Thomas 1916. ‘Drawings of Ancient Paintings in English Collections II-IV’. Papers of the British School at Rome VIII: 35-54.

Blake, Marion Elizabeth 1940. ‘Mosaics of the Late Empire in Rome and Vicinity’. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome XVII: 81-130.

Austen-Leigh, R.A. 1936. ‘Richard Topham’. Etoniana 63 (June 1936): 202-203.

Blanco Freijeiro, Antonio 1950. ‘Mosaicos Romanos con Escenas de Circo y Anfiteatro en el Museo Arqueologico Nacional’. Archivo Español de Arqueologia XXIII: 127-142.

Aymonino, Adriano, with Gwynn, Lucy and Modolo, Mirco 2013. Paper Palaces: the Topham Collection as a source for British Neo-Classicism. Eton. https:// www.academia.edu/4112004/Paper_Palaces_the_ Topham_Collection_as_a_source_for_British_ Neo_Classicism_exhibition_catalogue_Eton_Eton_ College_Press_2013, accessed 26 January 2021.

Bond, Maurice 1984. The Story of Windsor. Newbury. Bond, Shelagh (ed.) 1958. The Monuments of St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. Windsor. Bond, Shelagh (ed.) 1968. The First Hall Book of the Borough of New Windsor 1653-1725. Windsor.

Aymonino, Adriano and Modolo, Mirco 2020. ‘“An advantage for the Learned & Virtuoso Republick”. Dessins d’après l’antique dans l’Angleterre des débuts du XVIIIe siècle’. In Fabréga-Dubert 2020: 20-47.

Boon, George C. 1964. ‘Another Mosaic Pavement from Caerleon’. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XX: 169-171.

Badham, Rev. Leslie 1967. Windsor Parish Church. Gloucester. Barber, Peter and Harper, Tom 2010. Magnificent Maps. Power, Propaganda and Art. London.

Borea, Evelina and Gasparri, Carlo with Arcangeli, Luciano and de Lachenal, Lucilla (eds) 2000. L’Idea del Bello: Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori. Rome.

Barthelemy, Abbé 1760. ‘Explication de la Mosaïque de Palestrine’. Supplement to Caylus and Mariette 1757.

Bowett, Adam 2002. English Furniture 1660-1714, from Charles II to Queen Anne. Woodbridge.

Bartoli, Pietro Santi 1697. Gli Antichi Sepolchri … Rome.

Bowett, Adam 2012. Woods in British Furniture-Making 1400-1900. Wetherby.

Bartoli, Pietro Santi, Bartoli, Francesco, Bellori, Giovanni Pietro and de la Chausse, Michel Ange 1706. Le Pitture Antiche delle Grotte di Roma el del Sepolchro de Nasonj. Rome.

Bowron, Edgar Peters and Kerber, Peter Björn 2008. Pompeo Batoni, Prince of Painters in EighteenthCentury Rome. New Haven and London. 157

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Bradley, Richard 1723. The Monthly Register of Experiments and Observations in Husbandry and Gardening. London.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2001a. ‘“All the Profusion of Eaton & Santo Bartoli”’: The First Collections of Ancient Painting in Britain’. In Coming about … A Festschrift for John Shearman, edited by Lars R. Jones and Louisa C. Matthew. Cambridge, Mass.: 343-348.

Breval, John 1738. Remarks on several parts of Europe …collected ... in several Tours since the Year 1723, Volume I. London.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2001b. ‘Gaetano Piccini: the neatest handed, idlest fellow I ever met with’. Xenia Antiqua X: 219-238.

Cacciotti, Beatrice 1996. ‘La dispersione di alcune antichità della collezione Massimo in Spagna e in Inghilterra’. In Pomponi 1996a, 213-237.

Connor Bulman, Louisa 2002a. ‘The Market for Commissioned Drawings after the Antique’. The Georgian Group Journal XII: 59-73.

Carinci, Filippo 1982. ‘I Disegni della Raccolta Topham e il Manoscritto Finding Aid, 3 nella Biblioteca del College de Eton’. In Palazzo Matteo di Giove. Le Antichità, edited by Lucia Guerrini. Rome: 79-92.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2002b. ‘The Florentine Draughtsmen in Richard Topham’s Paper Museum’. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa Serie 4, VII.2: 343-357.

Caylus, Anne Claude Philippe de 1756. Recueil d’Antiquités Égyptiennes, Étrusques, Grecques et Romaines, Volume II. Paris. Caylus, Anne Claude Philippe de 1767. Recueil d’Antiquités Égyptiennes, Étrusques, Grecques, Romaines et Gauloises, Supplement, Volume VII. Paris.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2003. ‘Moral Education on the Grand Tour: Thomas Coke and his contemporaries in Rome and Florence’. Apollo CLVII, no. 493 (March 2003): 27-34.

Caylus, Anne Claude Philippe de and Mariette, PierreJean 1757. Recueil de Peintures Antiques … d’après des Desseins Coloriés faits par Pietre-Sante Bartoli. Paris.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2006. ‘The Topham Collection of Drawings in Eton College Library and the Industry of Copy Drawings in Early Eighteenth Century Italy’. In Wrede and Kunze 2006: 325-338.

Ciampini, Joannis 1690. Vetera Monimenta, Volume 1. Rome.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 2008. ‘Richard Topham’s Collection of Drawings’. In John Talman. An EarlyEighteenth Century Connoisseur, edited by Cinzia Maria Sicca. New Haven and London: 287-307.

Ciampini, Joannis 1693. De Sacris Aedificiis. Rome. Ciampini, Joannis 1699. Vetera Monimenta, Volume 2. Rome.

Cosh, S.R. 2009. ‘Bird spotting on Romano-British Mosaics’. Mosaic 36: 10-17.

Clark, Anthony M. 1985. Pompeo Batoni. A Complete Catalogue of his Works. New York.

Cosh, Stephen R. and Neal, David S. 2005. Roman Mosaics of Britain. Volume II South-West Britain. London.

Clarke, Giles 1982. ‘The Roman Villa at Woodchester’. Britannia XIII: 197-228.

Cosh, Stephen R. and Neal, David S. 2010. Roman Mosaics of Britain. Volume IV Western Britain. London.

Clayton, Timothy 1997. The English Print 1688-1802. New Haven and London.

Cosh, Stephen and Neal, David 2015. ‘The Dating of Building 2, Insula XXVII, at Verulamium: a reassessment’. The Antiquaries Journal 95: 1-26.

Coen, Paolo 2020. ‘Le marché des dessins d’après l’antique à Rome au XVIIIe siècle’. In Fabréga-Dubert 2020: 48-67.

Cox, Thomas 1738. Magna Britannia Antiqua and Nova. London.

Colini, Antonio M. 1944. Storia e Topografia del Celio nell’Antichità. Vatican.

Cull, Rev. John 2000. Roman Woodchester. Its villa and mosaic. Andover.

Connor, Louisa M. 1990. ‘The Topham Collection of Prints, Drawings, and Watercolors’. In Quarrie 1990: 106-109.

Darmon, Jean-Pierre 2010. ‘La mosaïque avant la Blake: une esquisse’. Musiva & Sectilia 7: 143-167. [Reprinted in Mythes et Images en Mosaïque Antique. Scripta (Musi)varia. Paris, 2018: 603-616.]

Connor, Louisa M. 1993. ‘The Topham Collection of Drawings in Eton College Library’. Eutopia II,1: 25-39. Connor, Louisa 1998. ‘Richard Topham and les artistes du cercle d’Imperiali’. In La Fascination de l’Antique 1700-1770, edited by F. de Polignac and J. Raspi Serra. Lyon: 52-64.

Defoe, Daniel 1661?-1731 [2008]: A tour thro’ the whole island of Great Britain: Divided into circuits or journeys. Giving a particular and entertaining account of whatever is curious, and worth observation; ... By a gentleman. ... [pt.2], Oxford Text Archive, http://hdl. handle.net/20.500.12024/K060142.002, accessed 26 January 2021.

Connor Bulman, Louisa M. 1999. ‘The Eighteenthcentury Collection of Antique Paintings in Palazzo Rospigliosi’. Xenia Antiqua VIII: 205-217. 158

Bibliography de Grummond, Nancy Thomson (ed.) 1996. An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology. London and Chicago.

Evans, Joan 1956. A History of the Society of Antiquaries. London. Fabréga-Dubert, Marie-Lou (ed.) 2020. Une histoire en images de la collection Borghèse. Les antiques de Scipion dans les albums Topham. Paris.

de Lachenal, Lucilla 2000. ‘La riscoperta della pittura antica nel XVII secolo: scavi, disegni, collezioni’. In Borea and Gasparri with Arcangeli and de Lachenal 2000, II: 625-636.

Fabréga-Dubert, Marie-Lou with Loisel, Catherine 2020. ‘Bernardino Ciferri et Carlo Calderi, artistes méconnus’. In Fabréga-Dubert 2020: 496-513.

Delbourgo, James 2018. Collecting the World. The Life and Curiosity of Hans Sloane. London.

Faedo, Lucia 2000. ‘Percorsi secenteschi verso una storia della pittura antica: Bellori e il suo contesto’. In Borea and Gasparri with Arcangeli and de Lachenal 2000, I: 113-120.

de Polignac, François 2007. ‘Field, sites and finds: Images of archaeological investigations and self-representations of antiquarians in Early 18th cent. Rome. Communication présentée au 8eme congrès de la European Association of Archaeologists, Thessalonique, 2002’. https://halshs. archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00177814, submitted 2007, accessed 26 January 2021.

Farrar, Henry 1990. Windsor Town and Castle. Chichester. Ferrari, Giovanni 1646. Hesperides sive de Malorum Aureorum Cultura et Usu Libri Quatuor. Rome.

Donderer, Michael 1983. ‘Ein Verschollenes Römisches Mosaik und die Gattung der Wandemblemata’. In Mosaïque. Recueil d’hommages à Henri Stern, edited by René Ginouvès. Paris: 123-128.

Ficoroni, Francesco de’ 1732. La Bolla D’Oro. Rome.

Dorigo, Wladimiro 1971. Late Roman Painting. A study of pictorial records 30 BC-AD 500. London.

Field, Ophelia 2008. The Kit-Cat Club. Friends who Imagined a Nation. London.

Douglas, David C. 1951. English Scholars 1660-1730. London, 2nd edition.

Fileri, Eliana 1991. ‘Disegni settecenteschi dall’antico del Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe e la collezione di antichità di Francesco de’Ficoroni’. Xenia 21: 93-120.

Ficoroni, Francesco de’ 1744. La Vestigia e Rarità di Roma Antica. Rome.

Dubard, Valentine and Fabréga-Dubert, Marie-Lou 2020. ‘Matières et manières: les albums Borghèse sous toutes les coutures’. In Fabréga-Dubert 2020: 92-115.

Fileri, Eliana 2000. ‘Contributo allo studio dei disegni di pitture e mosaici antichi: il codice Corsini 158 I 5’. Xenia Antiqua IX: 79-146.

Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 1982. ‘The Victorious Charioteer on Mosaics and Related Monuments’. American Journal of Archaeology 86: 65-89.

Foster, Joseph (ed.) 1889. The Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn, 1521-1889. London.

Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge.

Foster, Joseph (ed.) 1891. Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Oxford. British History Online  http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp1478-1501, accessed 26 January 2021.

Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 2004. ‘Problems in the Iconography of Roman Mime’. In Le statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine, edited by Christophe Hugoniot, Frédéric Hurlet and Silvia Milanezi. Tours: 161-181.

Fowler, W. 1803. A Copper-Plate Engraving of the ... Beautiful Tesselated Work ... discovered at Stonesfield ... Winterton.

Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 2016. Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire. Ithaca and London.

Fowler, William 1804. Engravings of the Principal Mosaic Pavements. Winterton.

Egerton, Frank N. 1970. ‘Richard Bradley’s Relationship with Sir Hans Sloane’. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 25: 59-77.

Freshwater, Tom 2000. ‘The discovery and diaspora of the Bacchus mosaic, and the origins of the Stonesfield embroidery’. In ‘From Stone to Textile: The Bacchus Mosaic at Stonesfield, Oxon., and the Stonesfield Embroidery’ by Tom Freshwater, Jill Draper, Martin Henig and Sarah Hinds, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 153 (2000): 1-29, at 1-17.

Enegren, Hedvig Landenius 2005. ‘The Lancellotti Collection, Background and History, Preliminary Considerations’. In Art, Conservation, Science. The Lancellotti Collection Project, edited by M. Barbanera and A. Freccero. Rome, The Swedish Institute in Rome, Projects and Seminars, 3:1: 1-11.

Furietti, Giuseppe Alessandro 1752. De Musivis. Rome. Gasparri, Carlo 1984. ‘Due mosaici in S. Maria in Trastevere’. In Alessandria e il Mondo EllenisticoRomano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani III, edited by Nicola Bonacasa, Antonino di Vita and Giuseppina Barone. Rome: 672-676.

Engelmann, Richard 1909. Antike Bilder aus Römischen Handschriften. Leiden. Erndtel, C. 1711. The Relation of a Journey into England and Holland in the years 1706 and 1707. London. 159

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Ghedini, Francesca 1997. ‘Achille a Sciro nella tradizione musiva tardo antica. Iconografia e iconologia’. In Atti del IV Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico, edited by Rosa Maria Carra Bonacasa and Federico Guidobaldi. Ravenna: 687-702.

Hearne, Thomas 1712. ‘A Discourse concerning the Stunsfield Tessellated Pavement’. In The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary Volume 8. Oxford: ix-xxxv. Hearne, Thomas 1712-1714 [1898]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne IV, 1712-1714, edited by D.W. Rannie. Oxford.

Ghedini, Francesca 2005. ‘Per una storia degli studi sul mosaico romano: dal XV al XVIII secolo’. In Morlier, Bailly, Janneteau and Tahri 2005, I: 589-601.

Hearne, Thomas 1719-1722 [1906]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne VII, 1719-1722, edited by D.W. Rannie. Oxford.

Gibson, Edmund 1695. Camden’s Britannia. London.

Hearne, Thomas 1722-1725 [1907]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne VIII, 1722-1725, edited by D.W. Rannie. Oxford.

Gibson, Edmund 1722. Camden’s Britannia. London, 4th edition.

Hearne, Thomas 1728-1731 [1915]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne X, 1728-1731, edited by D.W. Rannie. Oxford.

Gibson-Wood, Carol 1989. ‘Jonathan Richardson, Lord Somers’s collection of drawings, and early arthistorical writing in England’. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 52: 167-187.

Hedges, Beryl 1988. Windsor in Old Photographs. Gloucester.

Gough, Richard 1789. Britannia … by William Camden, enlarged by the latest discoveries by Richard Gough. London.

Hedley, Olwen 1950. Round and about Windsor and District. Windsor.

Gregori, Gian Luca 2000. In Aurea Roma. Dalla Città Pagana alla Città Cristiana, edited by Serena Ensoli and Eugenio La Rocca. Rome: 443-444, catalogue entries for nos 29-30.

Henig, Martin and Booth, Paul 2000. Roman Oxfordshire. Stroud. Herklotz, Ingo 1999. Cassiano Dal Pozzo und die Archäologie des 17. Jahrhunderts. Munich.

Griffiths, Antony (based on the work of the late Hugh Macandrew) 1997. ‘The Talman Collection, Marks and Sales’. In Parry 1997: 181-252.

Hübner, Emil 1862. Die Antiken Bildwerke in Madrid. Berlin. Impey, Edward and Parnell, Geoffrey 2011. The Tower of London. The Official Illustrated History. London, 2nd edition.

Grout, Leslie 1997. ‘Two Monuments in Windsor Parish Church’. Windlesora 15: 20-21. Guattani, Giuseppe Antonio 1784. Monumenti Antichi Inediti ovvero Notizie sulle Antichità e Belle Arti di Roma per l’Anno 1784. Rome.

Ingamells, John 1997. A Dictionary of British and Irish Travellers in Italy 1701-1800. New Haven and London. Jenkins, Ian 2003. ‘Dr Richard Mead (1673-1754) and his Circle’. In Enlightening the British. Knowledge, discovery and the museum in the eighteenth century, edited by R.G.W. Anderson, M.L.Caygill, A.G. MacGregor and L. Syson. London: 127-135.

Guattani, Giuseppe Antonio 1806. Memorie Enciclopediche Romane sulle Belle Arti, Antichità etc. Rome. Guerrini, Lucia 1972. ‘Una proposta per l’interpretazione del mosaico della Gliptoteca Ny Carlsberg, N. Inv. 891’. Archeologia Classica XXIV: 23-31.

Jenkins, Ian 2006. ‘Dr Mead (1673-1754) and Richard Topham’s Drawings of Roman Sculpture’. In Wrede and Kunze 2006: 339-354.

Gwynn, Lucy 2013. ‘Richard Topham & Eton’. In Aymonino with Gwynn and Modolo 2013: 6-7. Hakewill, James 1813. The History of Windsor and its Neighbourhood. London.

Joyce, Hetty 1990. ‘Hadrian’s Villa and the “Dome of Heaven”’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 97: 347-381.

Harris, John 1972. Catalogue of the Drawings Collection of the Royal Institute of British Architects – B. Farnborough.

Jubaru, Florian 1904. ‘Le Decorazione Bacchica del Mausoleo Cristiano di Santa Costanza’. L’Arte. Rivista di Storia dell’Arte Medioevale e Moderna 7, Fasc. 5: 457-468.

Harwood, T. Eustace 1929. Windsor Old and New. London. Hearne, Thomas 1707-1710 [1886]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne II, 1707-1710, edited by C.E. Doble. Oxford.

Kennedy, James 1769. A Description of the Antiquities and Curiosities in Wilton-House. Salisbury. Kircher, Athanasius 1671. Latium. Amsterdam.

Hearne, Thomas 1710-1712 [1889]. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne III, 1710-1712, edited by C.E. Doble. Oxford.

Knight, C. 1793. The Windsor Guide. A new edition. Windsor. 160

Bibliography Kondoleon, Christine 1995. Domestic and Divine. Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos. Ithaca and London.

Macnaghten, Angus 1976. Windsor and Eton in Georgian Times. Ascot.

Kondoleon, Christine 1999. ‘Timing Spectacles: Roman Domestic Art and Performance’. In The Art of Ancient Spectacle, edited by Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon. Washington: 321-341.

Marcattili, Francesco 2011. ‘Odore pardi coitum sentit in adultera leo (Plin., Nat., 8, 42). Etologia ellenistica e cultura urbana in un mosaico Iguvino ad Holkham Hall’. Archeologia Classica LXII: 173-202.

Lancha, Janine 1981. Recueil Général des Mosaïques de la Gaule. III Narbonnaise 2. Paris.

Maty, Matthew 1755. Authentic Memoirs of the Life of R. Mead. London.

Lanciani, Rodolfo 1894. ‘Disegni di Antichità nella Biblioteca di S. Maria di Eton’. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma XXII: 164-187.

Meyboom, P. G. P. 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy. Leiden, New York, Cologne. Michaelis, Adolf 1882. Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Cambridge.

Lanciani, Rodolfo 1895. ‘Le Picturae Antiquae Cryptarum Romanarum’. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma XXIII: 165-192.

Modolo, Mirco 2016. Part II in Ortona and Modolo 2016: 153-266.

Langton, Jane (ed.) 1973. The Second Hall Book of the Borough of New Windsor 1726-1783. Windsor.

Moll, Herman 1724. A New Description of England and Wales, with the Adjacent Islands. London.

Lavagne, Henri (ed.) 2001. Mosaico Romano del Mediterráneo. Paris and Madrid.

Montagu, Jennifer 2006. ‘A Frame for the Barberini/ Oldenburg “Rape of Europa” Mosaic’. Pegasus. Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike 8: 195-205.

Lavin, Irving 1963. ‘The Hunting Mosaics of Antioch and their Sources. A study of compositional principles in the development of early mediaeval style’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17: 179-286.

Montfaucon, Bernard de 1722. L’Antiquité Expliquée et Représentée en Figures Volume II.1. Paris. Montfaucon, Bernard de 1724. Supplement au Livre de l’Antiquité Expliquée et Représentée en Figures Supplements I-IV. Paris.

Levine, Joseph M. 1978. ‘The Stonesfield Pavement: Archeology in Augustan England’. Eighteenth-Century Studies XI, no. 3: 340-361.

Montfaucon, Bernard de 1725. The Supplement to Antiquity Explained and Represented in Sculptures. Translated into English by David Humphreys. London.

Lewis, David 2015. The British Historic Towns Atlas. IV. Windsor and Eton. Oxford. Ling, Roger 1979. ‘The Stanze di Venere at Baia’. Archaeologia 106: 36-60. [Reprinted in Stuccowork and Painting in Roman Italy. Aldershot, 1999, article V.]

Morlier, Hélène, Bailly, Christophe, Janneteau, Dominique and Tahri, Michèle (eds) 2005. La Mosaïque GrécoRomaine IX. Rome. Morton, John 1712. The Natural History of Northamptonshire; with some Account of the Antiquities. London.

Luttrell, Narcissus 1857. A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714. Oxford.

Mowl, Timothy 2007. William Kent. Architect, Designer, Opportunist. London.

Lysons, Samuel 1797. An Account of Roman Antiquities discovered at Woodchester in the County of Gloucester. London.

Müntz, E. 1876. ‘Notes sur les mosaïques Chrétiennes de l’Italie’. Revue archéologique XXXII: 400-413. Neal, David S. and Cosh, Stephen R. 2002. Roman Mosaics of Britain. Volume I Northern Britain incorporating The Midlands and East Anglia. London.

Lysons, Samuel 1817. Reliquiae Britannico-Romanae II. London. Macandrew, Hugh 1978. ‘A Group of Batoni Drawings at Eton College, and Some Eighteenth-Century Italian Copyists of Classical Sculpture’. Master Drawings 16, no. 2 (Summer 1978): 131-150, 191-215.

Neal, David S. and Cosh, Stephen R. 2009. Roman Mosaics of Britain. Volume III South-East Britain. London. Nogara, Bartolomeo1910. Mosaici Antichi Conservati nei Palazzi Pontifici del Vaticano e del Laterano. Milan.

MacDonald, William L. and Pinto, John A. 1995. Hadrian’s Villa and its Legacy. New Haven and London.

Nota delli Musei, Librerie, Galerie, & Ornamenti di Statue e Pitture né Palazzi, nelle Case, e né Giardini di Roma. Rome, 1664.

Mack, Maynard (ed.) 1984. The Last and Greatest Art. Some unpublished poetical manuscripts of Alexander Pope. London and Toronto.

Noy, David 2013. ‘The antiquities collection of Richard Topham and Topham Beauclerk’. Journal of the History of Collections 25.2: 185-193.

Macnaghten, Angus 1975. Windsor in Victorian Times. Slough. 161

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Noy, David 2016. Dr Johnson’s Friend and Robert Adam’s Client. Topham Beauclerk. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Reinach, Salomon 1922. Répertoire de Peintures Grecques et Romaines. Paris.

Oakeshott, Walter 1967. The Mosaics of Rome from the Third to the Fourteenth Centuries. London.

Ridley, Ronald T. 1992. ‘To protect the Monuments: the Papal Antiquarian (1534-1870)’. Xenia Antiqua I: 117154.

L’Orange, H.P. and Nordhagen, P.J. 1966. Mosaics from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. London.

Roberts, W. 1939. ‘R. Bradley, Pioneer Garden Journalist’. Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 64: 164-174.

Ortona, Erminia Gentile 2016. Part I in Ortona and Modolo 2016: 11-63.

Rotondi, Antonella 2010. ‘L’Ara degli Scribi e i Colombari di via di Porta S. Sebastiano’. In Il Primo Miglio della Via Appia a Roma, edited by Daniele Manacorda and Riccardo Santangeli Valenzani. Rome: 137-152.

Ortona, Erminia Gentile and Modolo, Mirco 2016. Caylus e la Riscoperta della Pittura Antica. Rome. Pace, Claire 1979. ‘Pietro Santi Bartoli: drawings in Glasgow University Library after Roman paintings and mosaics’. Papers of the British School at Rome XLVII: 117-155.

Sabbatini Tumolesi, Patrizia 1988. Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano I Roma. Rome. Sampson, Jean 1974. Drawings and Engravings in the Topham Collection at Eton College. Typewritten catalogue, copy held in Eton College Library.

Papini, Massimiliano 2004. Munera Gladiatoria e Venationes nel Monde delle Immagini. Rome.

Schönberger, Otto 1978. ‘Das Europa-Mosaik Barberini in Oldenburg’. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 4: 223-228.

Parry, Graham (based on the work of the late Hugh Macandrew) 1997. The John Talman Letter-Book. London: The Walpole Society Volume 59.

Scott, Jonathan 2003. The Pleasures of Antiquity. British Collectors of Greece and Rome. New Haven.

Pernice, Erich 1938. Pavimente und figürliche Mosaiken. Berlin.

Sear, Frank 1977. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics. Heidelberg.

Pitiscus, Samuel 1713. Lexicon Antiquitatum Romanarum. Leovardiae.

Snyder, Henry L. (ed.) 1975. The Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence. Oxford.

Plot, Robert 1677. The Natural History of Oxford-shire. Oxford.

Somers, John 1702. Several Orations of Demosthenes to encourage the Athenians to oppose the exorbitant power of Philip of Macedon. London.

Pointer, John 1713. An Account of a Roman Pavement lately found at Stunsfield in Oxford-shire. Oxford. Pomponi, Massimo 1994. ‘Fonti per la Storia dei Monumenti Antichi di Roma. I. Collezionisti inglesi e artisti romani nel primo Settecento. Una lettera di Francesco Fernando d’Imperiali a Richard Topham’. Rendiconti Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche Series 9, Volume 5: 259-269.

Stern, Henri 1958. ‘Les mosaïques de l’église de SainteConstance à Rome’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12: 157218. Sterry, Wasey 1943. The Eton College Register 1441-1698 alphabetically arranged and edited with biographical notes. Eton.

Pomponi, Massimo (ed.) 1996a. Camillo Massimo. Collezionista di Antichità. Fonti e materiali. Rome.

Strocka, Volker Michael 2011. ‘Aeneas und Laokoon auf einem Mosaikemblem aus Frascati’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 126: 221-251.

Pomponi, Massimo 1996b. ‘La collezione del cardinale Massimo e l’inventario del 1677’. In Pomponi 1996a: 91-158.

Stukeley, William 1724. Itinerarium Curiosum. London. Stukeley, William 1727-1728. ‘A Description of a Roman Pavement found near Grantham in Lincolnshire’. Philosophical Transactions 35: 428-432.

Pote, Joseph 1749. The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle … Eton.

Stukeley, William [1882]. The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley, M.D. and the Antiquarian and Other Correspondence of William Stukeley, Roger & Samuel Gale, etc. I, edited by W.C. Lukis, Surtees Society Volume LXXIII.

Pote, Joseph and Pote, Thomas 1755. Les delices de Windsore; or, a description of Windsor Castle, and the country adjacent. Eton. Poulsen, Frederik 1951. Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen.

Stukeley, William [1887]. The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley, M.D. and the Antiquarian and Other Correspondence of William Stukeley, Roger & Samuel Gale, etc. III, edited by W.C. Lukis, Surtees Society Volume LXXX.

Quarrie, Paul 1990. Treasures of Eton College Library. 550 Years of Collecting. New York. Quarrie, Paul 1993. ‘Richard Topham of Windsor and his Library’. Eutopia II,1: 9-24. 162

Bibliography Suarès, Joseph Marie 1655. Praenestes antiquae libri duo. Rome.

Évolution et Interprétation des Modèles Grecs en Milieu Romain. Paris.

Taglietti, Franca 2010. ‘Marion Elizabeth Blake e lo Studio degli Emblemata Musivi’. Musiva & Sectilia 7: 179-195.

Way, Albert 1847. Catalogue of Antiquities, Coins and Pictures in the Possession of the Society of Antiquaries of London. London.

Tammisto, Antero 2005. ‘The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina reconsidered. The problematic reconstruction, identification and dating of the so-called Lower Complex with the Nile Mosaic and Fish Mosaic of ancient Praeneste’. In Morlier, Bailly, Janneteau and Tahri 2005: 3-24.

Waywell, G. B. 1978. Classical Sculpture in English Country Houses. A Hand-Guide. London: IX International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Typescript, copy held in British Library. Weber, Susan (ed.) 2014. William Kent. Designing Georgian Britain. New Haven and London.

Taylor, M.V. 1941. ‘The Roman Tessellated Pavement at Stonesfield, Oxon’. Oxoniensia VI: 1-8.

Werner, Klaus E. 1998. Die Sammlung antiker Mosaiken in den Vatikanischen Museen. Vatican City.

Thuillier, Jean-Paul 2003. ‘Les factions du cirque sur trois mosaïques de Madrid’. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité 115.1: 295-309.

Whitehouse, Helen 1992. ‘Copies of Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the Paper Museum. Their Value as Archaeological Evidence’. In Cassiano dal Pozzo’s Paper Museum Volume 1, Quaderni Puteani 2, edited by Ian Jenkins. Milan: 105-121.

Tighe, Robert Richard and Davis, James Edward 1858. Annals of Windsor. London. Tomalin, Claire 2002. Samuel Pepys. The Unequalled Self. London.

Whitehouse, Helen 2001. Ancient Mosaics and Wallpaintings. The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo. London.

Trollope, Edward 1872. Sleaford and the Wapentakes of Flaxwell and Aswardhurn in the County of Lincoln. London and Sleaford.

Whitehouse, Helen 2014. ‘Pietro Santi Bartoli’s “Pitture antiche miniate”: Drawings of Roman Paintings and Mosaics in Paris, London and Windsor’. Papers of the British School at Rome 82: 265-313.

Turnbull, George 1840. A Treatise on Ancient Painting. London. Turnor, Edmund 1806. Collections for the History of the Town and Soke of Grantham. London.

Wilkinson, Nevile R. 1908. Wilton House Guide. A Handbook for Visitors. London.

Versluys, Miguel John 2000. ‘“... auf ein paar Stücken von Musaico in Hause Massimi …”, Bemerkungen zu drei Römischen Mosaikfragmenten in Madrid’. Madrider Mitteilungen 41: 236-252.

Wilpert, Joseph 1916. Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der Kirchlichen bauten vom IV.-XIII. Jahrhundert. Freiburg. Wilpert, Joseph and Schumacher, Walter N. 1976. Die römischen Mosaiken der Kirchlichen bauten vom IV.XIII. Jahrhundert. Freiburg.

Versluys, M.J., 2002. Aegyptiaca Romana. Nilotic Scenes and the Roman Views of Egypt. Leiden. Vertue, George 1736-1741 [1936]. Vertue Note Books Volume IV for 1736-1741. London: The Walpole Society Volume 24.

Wilton, Andrew and Bignamini, Ilaria (eds) 1996. Grand Tour. The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century. London.

Vismara, Cinzia 2001. ‘Le Giornata di Spettacoli’. In Sangue e Arena, edited by Adriano La Regina. Rome: 198-221.

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim 1767. Monumenti Antichi Inediti. Rome.

Wattel-de Croizant, Odile 1986. ‘L’emblema de l’enlèvement d’Europe à Préneste (BarberiniOldenburg) ou l’histoire d’une mosaïque “oubliée” du Temple de la Fortune’. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité 98.2: 491-564.

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim 1809. Winckelmann’s Werke Volume III. Dresden.

Wattel-de Croizant, Odile 1994. ‘L’enlèvement d’Europe: une scène marine pour lithostroton et emblemata (Préneste, Cannes, Athènes)’. In Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics Volume 1, edited by Peter Johnson, Roger Ling and David J. Smith. Ann Arbor, MI: 45-66.

Witts, Patricia 2007. ‘Neptune at Cirencester’. Mosaic 34: 22-26.

Witts, Patricia 2005. Mosaics in Roman Britain. Stories in Stone. Stroud.

Witts, Patricia 2011. ‘Mosaic Studies and Souvenirs’. In 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics. October 16th–20th, 2009, Bursa, Turkey. Mosaics of Turkey and Parallel Developments in the Rest of the Ancient and Medieval World, edited by Mustafa Şahin. Istanbul: 953-961.

Wattel-de Croizant, Odile, 1995. Les Mosaïques Représentant le Mythe d’Europe (Ier-VIe siècles). 163

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Witts, Patricia 2016. A Mosaic Menagerie. Creatures of Land, Sea and Sky in Romano-British Mosaics. Oxford: BAR Publishing British Series 625. Witts, Patricia forthcoming. ‘An Introduction to the Illustrations of Roman Mosaics in the Collection of Richard Topham (1671-1730), now in Eton College Library’. In the Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Association Internationale pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque Antique (AIEMA), Nicosia, 15-19 October 2018. Witts, Patricia with Gwynn, Lucy 2020. ‘Richard Topham et ses collections’. In Fabréga-Dubert 2020: 68-91. Woodward, Bob 1981. ‘The Wotton Mosaic: a Re-creation of the Great Pavement at Woodchester’. Mosaic 4: 1015. Woodward, Robert N. and Cull, Rev. John 1980. The Wotton Mosaic. An Illustrated Guide. Wotton-underEdge. Wrede, Henning and Kunze, Max (eds) 2006. 300 Jahre ‘Thesaurus Brandenburgicus’. Munich. Wright, C.E. and Wright, Ruth C. 1966. The Diary of Humfrey Wanley 1715-1726. London. Zocca, Emma 1976. Nota delli Musei, Librerie, Galerie, & Ornamenti di Statue e Pitture né Palazzi, nelle Case, e né Giardini di Roma con prefazione e commento. Rome.

164

Appendix 1 Evidence for mosaic Eton number

Brief description

Caption referring to mosaic

Indication of tesserae

Mosaic known to survice

Bm.9:74

Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla

Bm.9:75

Bacchus, Stonesfield

Bm.9:76

Great Pavement, Woodchester

x

x

Bm.9:77

Birds, Caerleon

x

x

Bm.9:78

Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester

x

x

Bm.9:79

Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

x

x

Bm.9:80

Geometric mosaic, Denton

x

x

Bm.9:81

Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

x

x

Bm.9:82

Bacchus, Stonesfield

x

x

Bm.9:83

Bacchus, Stonesfield

x

x

Bn.3:31

Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

Bn.4:11

Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:20

Diana, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:21

Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

x

x

Bn.4:22

Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo

x

x

Bn.4:23

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:24

Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo

Bn.4:26

Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo

Bn.4:29

Nilotic scene, Navicella

x

Bn.4:30

Wader and snails, Navicella

x

Bn.4:31

Sol

x

Bn.4:32

Nilotic scene with animals

Bn.4:33

Architectural scene (towers)

Bn.4:34

Architectural scene (obelisk)

x

Bn.4:35

Pan holding a syrinx

x

Bn.4:36

Silenus riding ass

Bn.5:2

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

x

Bn.5:4

Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

x

Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

x

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

x

x x x

x

x

x x

x

x

165

x

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Brief description

Caption referring to mosaic

Indication of tesserae

Mosaic known to survice

Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

x

Bn.5:36

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

x

Bn.5:37

Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bn.5:39

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:40

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:42

Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

x

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

x

Bn.5:59

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Bn.5:71

Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Bn.6:1

Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:2

Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:13

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Bn.6:50

Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

Bn.6:51

Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

Bn.7:1

Cavalieri mosaic

x

x

x

Bn.7:3

Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

x

x

x

Bn.7:34

Bull and bear, Aventine

x

Bn.7:35

Horseman and bulls, Aventine

x

Bn.7:36

Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

x

Bn.7:37

Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

Bn.7:38

Dancers and musicians, Aventine

x

Bn.7:89

Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:90

Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:91

Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:92

Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:93

Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:94

Circles with busts, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:96

Half cupola, Sta Costanza

Bn.7:98

Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa, Palestrina

Bn.13:2

Cupola, Sta Costanza

?

Bn.13:6

Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

166

x

Appendix 1: Evidence for mosaic Eton number

Brief description

Caption referring to mosaic

Bn.13:9

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

x

Bn.13:15

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

x

Bn.13:16

Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni

x

Bn.13:26

Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo

x

x

Bn.13:27

Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard

x

x

Bn.13:37Bn.13:41

Nile Mosaic, Palestrina

x

?

167

Indication of tesserae

Mosaic known to survice

x

Appendix 2 Monetary values The original sums appearing in Chapter 2 are set out here in date order, then in increasing order of value, to facilitate comparisons between them. For instance, the amount Topham withdrew from his bank in 1694, the reason for which is unknown, was more than the annual salary he received when he was appointed Keeper of the Records in 1706/07, while the amount his mother contributed to the purchase of the house in which they both lived equated to his annual salary.

As explained in the note that follows this table, the figures must be treated with caution and are given as a general guide only. Interested readers are invited to explore the websites below for themselves. Although the equivalents are set out as they appear on those websites, their exact nature including pence should not give a misleading impression of accuracy.

Year

Description

Original sum

Approximate modern equivalent*

1689

Payment by Richard Topham to Trinity College Caution account

£10

£1,198.34

1689

Donation by Richard Topham recorded in Trinity College Benefactors’ Book

£15

£1,797.51

1690

Figure in John Topham’s will for his daughter Arabella and her husband to buy mourning

£50

£5,991.70

1690

Bequest in John Topham’s will to his daughter Arabella

£100

£11,983.39

1690

Annuity in John Topham’s will to his wife Joan, in addition to bequest

£100 p.a.

£11,983.39 p.a.

1690

Bequest in John Topham’s will to his grandson Topham Foote when he attained the age of seven years

£200

£23,966.78

1690

Bequest in John Topham’s will to his wife Joan

£1,000

£119,833.90

1694

Substantial withdrawal by Richard Topham from Hoare’s Bank

£600

£71,900.34

1706/07

Richard Topham’s salary as Keeper of the Records

£500 p.a.

£52,464.15 p.a.

1707

Amount specified in Joan Topham’s will as contribution to purchase price of house where she lived with Richard Topham

£500

£52,464.15

1723

Bequest in Henry Boyle’s will to Richard Topham

£1,000

£116,107.50

1729

Bequest in Richard Topham’s will to George Holmes, his deputy as Keeper of the Records

£100

£11,779.26

1729

Maximum sum specified in Richard Topham’s will for memorial to be erected to his nephew Topham Foote

£100

£11,779.26

1729

Bequest in Richard Topham’s will to Sidney Beauclerk, in addition to reversionary interest (after Topham’s sister and her husband)

£200

£23,558.52

1729

Sum specified in Richard Topham’s will for bequests to be disposed of among his mother’s relations

£300

£35,337.78

1730

Annuity in Richard Topham’s will to Sidney Beauclerk, in addition to bequest

£100 p.a.

£11,779.26 p.a.

* The approximate modern equivalent is taken from The National Archives Currency Converter (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter, accessed 22 April 2021). The figures relate to 2017, the most recent year for which they are available. As explained on the National Archives website, its currency converter looks at purchasing power: ‘Our calculations are intended as a general guide to historical values, not a statement of fact.’ The Measuring Worth website sets out other approaches to calculating values as at 2019, the most recent year for which they are available (www. measuringworth.com, accessed 22 April 2021). These can vary considerably from those set out above and also fluctuate according to the approach taken. The Bank of England Inflation Calculator offers a further way of assessing values for goods and services in 2020 (www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/inflation/inflation-calculator, accessed 22 April 2021). To take one example, Topham’s salary of £500 p.a. is approximately equivalent to £52,464.15 using the National Archives Currency Converter. However, the Measuring Worth website gives figures that range widely depending on the measure used: for instance, in terms of simple purchasing power the equivalent is £84,750, but using income relative to per capita GDP, which shows economic status, it is as high as £1,441,000. The Bank of England Inflation Calculator gives £122,787.78.

169

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Setting Topham’s wealth into context (National Archives Currency Converter figures in brackets)

A note relating to the cost of the Stonesfield prints and their modern equivalents (using the National Archives Currency Converter)

Thomas Hearne noted the figure of ‘about £7,000’ for the value of Topham’s library (£824,548.20), quoting The Northampton Mercury for 28 September 1730 (1728-1731 [1915], 338). It is uncertain whether this figure is accurate as the report referred erroneously to the bequest being made to the Cotton Library in Cambridge. By comparison, the value of £4,000 (£427,933.20) was attributed to the library of Samuel Pepys who died in 1703; like Topham, Pepys left detailed instructions about his library in codicils to his will (Tomalin 2002, 374-375, 380).

Chapter 7 includes various figures relating to the Stonesfield prints. The sum of £5, which the owner of the field in which the mosaic was found was attempting to charge for permission to draw the mosaic on the spot, was a substantial sum equating to £524.64. For the finished prints, the prices (with modern equivalents in brackets) were 1 shilling on plain paper for Loving’s print (£5.25) or 1 guinea for a coloured copy on superfine Atlas paper (£110.17). Hearne’s charges were much lower: 6d each for a purchase of 12 or more copies (£2.62 per copy), otherwise 9d (£3.93 per copy).

Although the overall value of Richard Topham’s estate is unknown, some indication of the family’s wealth is given by the value of his sister’s personal estate, which was declared to be £5,800 in Thomas Reeve’s will of 1734 (£683,197.08).

170

Appendix 3 Other versions of the Bradley drawing of the Great Pavement at Woodchester Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 9, 26B, c

feet under ground. This was first Delineated and Colourd in Aug. 1722. by Richard Bradley.’

Inferior drawing. Caption at top above truncated segment:

On left below caption is a small rectangle with lower side not drawn. This contains a circle in which the segment has been roughly sketched into the lowest part. It is marked ‘A’, below which is written ‘all that is discover’d yet. 1722.’ At top left inside the rectangle: ‘120 foot’.

‘A Draught of the Roman Pavement in the Church Yard at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, which is 160 feet long, & about 60 feet Wide, being Esteem’d the most Extraordinary pieces of Mosaic:work in England; composed of Cubes of ½ an inch, now cover’d 3 feet with Earth; Delineated & colour’d on the Spott by R Bradley F.R.S.’

British Library, Add. MS 5238.3 [Sloane]

Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 9, 26B, d

Caption at top in layout similar to that of the Topham drawing:

Caption at top mostly in capitals, some of which are in a decorative script, and emphasised by three red lines:

‘Part of A Roman Pavement found in the Church Yard at Wood:Chester near Minchinghampton in Glocestershire Delineated and Colour’d upon the Spot by R: Bradley. July 31. 1722.’

‘PART OF A ROMAN PAVEMENT FOUND IN THE CHURCH-YARD AT WOOD:CHESTER NEAR MINCHING:HAMPTON IN GLOCESTER:SHIRE Delineated and Colourd upon the spot by R. Bradley.’

In box on left below caption:

In box on left below caption:

‘This is part of the Upper Apartment whose Largest Circle A is 22 feet Diameter, and the whole Pavement is 141 feet in length; all this work is composed of bricks of ½ Inch cube but the Square work wch Encloses it is composed of Bricks which are an Inch cube, In the Circle B is said to be fish and a Star about the Center. This part is near Six foot underground and is Vaulted as is reported.’

‘This is part of the upper Apartment whose circles are composed of Bricks of half an Inch cube. The Circle A is 22 feet Diameter, and the length of the whole Pavement is 141 feet. The Circular work is bounded with Square work and the bricks wch compose that are about an Inch Cube. ’Tis reported that the whole Pavement is Vaulted and that there are figures of Fish in the Circle B. and about the Center is a Starr-like figure. A Quarter of a Mile from this place a farmer has found Some Wagonloads of the bricks which are used in Such Pavements. N.B. This work is cover’d 6 foot with Earth.’

The letter A is in the same position as in the Topham drawing, while B is in the area left blank at the top of the segment. ‘No. 4’ appears at the bottom left of the drawing within the lines of its outer border, and is possibly in the same handwriting as the rest of the text. This might suggest that the drawings were numbered but none of the others has any numbering of this nature, nor have numbers 1 to 3 been found.

Bodleian Library, Oxford, Gough Maps 43, no. 215 Depicts an irregular shape showing more than the other drawings. A small triangular feature at the right edge of the band with the peacock must represent a wisp of Orpheus’s drapery although this would not have been appreciated at the time.

A small number ‘3’ appears at top right of the page, outside the limits of the drawing. This relates to the number of the drawing in the album and is unconnected. British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101b

Caption at top written in freer handwriting than seen in the other drawings:

Inferior drawing. Caption at top above segment:

‘PART OF A ROMAN PAVEMENT Found in the Church Yard at WOOD:CHESTER near Minching-Hampton in GLOUCESTER-SHIRE. The lenght of the whole is about 120 feet, compos’d of small Bricks of about ½ Inch Diameter of Several Colours so Artfully Sett together that they yeild an agreable variety of Figures of Beasts Birds &c. The Circle A is 22 feet Diameter, and is now about six

‘The Remains of the Roman Pavement lying in the Church Yard at Woodchester in Gloucestershire; four feet underground, Whose Lenth is about 160 feet; This is Esteem’d the most Curious piece of Mosaic-work in England, & is composed of Cubes of ½ an Inch of the Same colours herein Express’d.’ 171

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library British Library, K. Top. XIII, 101c [Combe]

The wording in this note is similar to the wording on the drawing in the Bodleian Library, Gough Maps 43, no. 215.

Caption at top in layout similar to that of the Topham drawing:

The reference to ‘122 Feet’ appears to be a misprint for ‘22 feet’.

‘Part of a Roman Pave-ment found in the Church-Yard at Wood-chester near MinchingHampton in Gloucestershire. The length is about 120 feet compos’d of small bricks of about ½ Inch square, of several colours so artfully set together that they yeild an agreable variety of figures of Beasts Birds &c The circle A is feet & is now about 6 feet under ground. This was first delineated & colour’d in August 1722 by Richd Bradley.’

Shropshire Archives, Maw & Co. 6001/5231, no. 526 [Maw] Caption at top mostly in capitals or decorative script, and emphasised by five red lines and one yellow line:

Signed ‘Priscilla Combe del.’ at lower right inside the outer border of the drawing.

‘PART OF A ROMAN PAVEMENT FOUND in the Church Yard at Wood:Chester near MINCHING=HAMPTON GLOUCESTER=SHIRE Delineated and Colour’d upon the spott by R Bradley.’

Below the drawing, and in a different (? later) hand, is an extract translated from Caylus (1756, 408).

On left below caption, headed ‘OBSERVATION’ but not in a box:

Gloucestershire Archives, D1009, loose with page 23 [Gibson]

‘The whole Pavement is 141 feet in Length, but the Diameter of the Circle A is only 22 foot. comoposed of Bricks of half an inch cube of Various colours, this is now Buryed near Six feet under:ground. ’Tis reported that there are figures of fish found in the Circle B and there is a figure like a Starr about the Center.’

Caption at top in layout similar to that of the Topham drawing: ‘Part of A Roman Pavement found in the Church Yard at Woodchester near Minchinghampton in Gloucestershire.’

Society of Antiquaries of London, Harley Collection, Monuments, English Antiquities etc II, 18 [Harley]

In box on left below the caption:

Caption at top in layout similar to that of the Topham drawing:

‘This pavement is composed of Bricks of half Inch cube, great numbers of which that have not been Used are found at a little distance from the Churchyard. The Diameter of the Circle A is 22 feet and the length of the whole pavement is 141 feet and is now near 6 feet under ground. N.B. the Whole is Vaulted. Tis reported that the figures of fish have been discover’d in the Circle B.’

‘PART OF A ROMAN PAVEMENT FOUND In the CHURCH:YARD at WOOD:CHESTER near MINCHING:HAMPTON in GLOUCESTER:SHIRE. The length of the Whole is abt. 120 foot composed of Small Bricks of about ½ Inch Diameter of Several Colours So Artfully Sett together that they Yeild an Agreable Variety of Figures of Beasts Birds &c. The Circle A is 22 foot Diameter and is now about Six foot under Ground. This was first Delineated and colour’d in Augt 1722 by Richard Bradley.’

‘Roman Pavemt’ is added on the back, with a note in a different and apparently later hand explaining that these words are ‘The Hand writing of Edmund (Gibson) Ld: Bp. of London in whose Collection of Antiquities this was.’

Drawing used as basis for Caylus 1756, 407-408, pl. CXXVI

Another annotation below reads: ‘Mr. James Vertue, Painter, in Bath, had exactly the same Drawing of this Pavement with this, and it was thus described:

An engraving based on a drawing that had been made for Abbé Bignon. It is not known whether the drawing survives. From the evidence of the engraving, the drawing was similar to the inferior versions in the Bodleian Library (Gough Maps 9, 26B, c) and the British Library (K. Top. XIII, 101b) as all have angular three-strand guilloche.

“Part of a Roman Payment found in the Church_Yard at Wood-Chester near Minchin-Hampton in Gloucestershire. The Length of the whole is about 120 Feet, composed of several Bricks of about ½ an Inch Diameter of several Colours, so artfully set together that they yield Variety of Figures of Beasts, &c. The Circle A is 122 Feet Diameter, and is now about Six Feet under Ground. This was first delineated and coloured in Augt: 1722 by Richard Bradley, & is all that is yet discovered.”’

172

Appendix 4 Drawings and prints of figured mosaics arranged by subject ) indicates the same mosaic * indicates mosaic not thought to be authentic

Eton number

Main subject

Other main imagery

Bacchus/Bacchic figures Bm.9:75

Bacchus on feline)

(Head in scroll, four birds, two large canthari

Bm.9:82

Bacchus on feline)

(

Bm.9:83

Bacchus on feline)

(

Bn.6:50*

Bacchic figure on ass, with young boy

Four birds, butterfly, altars

Bn.5:42

Bacchus with attendant

Four figures, six busts, two pairs of quadrupeds

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus with feline and attendant

Four male busts, four birds

Bn.4:11

Silenus reclining

Vine

Bn.4:21

Silenus riding leopard, with attendant

Bn.4:36

Silenus on ass, with satyr Other male deities or mythological figures

Bn.13:27

Neptune in quadriga with marine thiasos

Amphitrite, Victory, two women, two Cupids, four fishermen in boats and four other men/boys, sea beasts, dolphins, fish, shellfish

Bn.4:31

Sol

Four female busts, four birds

Bn.3:31*

Hercules with female figure in the garden of the Hesperides

Snake, fruiting tree

Bn.4:23

Contest between Pan and Eros)

(Four female busts

Bn.6:13

Contest between Pan and Eros)

(Four female busts, four birds

Bn.13:9

Contest between Pan and Eros)

(Four female busts

Bn.4:35

Pan holding a syrinx

Flowers

Bn.4:24

Centaur)

(Stag, eagle, peacock, duck

Bn.4:26

Centaur)

(

Female deities or mythological figures Bm.9:74

Rape of Europa

Four figures, six busts

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa

Two men, six women

Bn.5:59

Rape of Proserpina)

Bn.13:15

Rape of Proserpina)

Bn.6:2

Venus with Cupid

Bn.4:20

Diana

Bn.13:26

Four Nereids riding sea beasts

Eight Cupids, eight dolphins, fish

Bn.6:1

Unidentified seated woman with two figures

Two reclining female figures, Cupid, child, eight pairs of birds

Four figures, four stylised busts

173

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Main subject

Other main imagery

Scenes from the amphitheatre/circus Charioteers Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer in quadriga with two figures

Bn.5:36

Victorious Charioteer in quadriga with two figures

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer in quadriga with one figure

Bn.5:37

Chariot race showing two charioteers, each in quadriga

Inscription

Gladiators Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial contest

Umpires

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial contest

Umpires

Bn.5:39

Gladiatorial contest

Inscription

Bn.5:40

Gladiator

Inscription

Combats with animals and entertainment Bn.6:51

Ridden elephant, bull, lion, ridden camel

Bn.7:34

Bull and bear

Bn.7:35

Horseman and two bulls

Bn.7:36

Two bestiarii on foot fighting two bears

Bn.7:37

Two bestiarii on horse and foot fighting bear

Bn.7:38

Seven dancers and musicians

Dwarf, pergola, table, amphora on stand

Nilotic subjects Bn.13:38

Part of the Nile Mosaic)

(Many figures, exotic animals, buildings, statues, ships, boats, inscriptions

Bn.13:39

Part of the Nile Mosaic)

(

Bn.13:40

Part of the Nile Mosaic)

(

Bn.13:41

Part of the Nile Mosaic)

(

Bn.4:22

River scene with man in boat

Crocodile, duck, palm tree

Bn.4:29

Riverbank scene with hippopotamus

Palm tree

Bn.4:32

Riverbank scene with three animals including a crocodile

Bn.5:2

Riverbank scene with crocodile attacking man

Palm trees

Bn.5:71

Riverbank scene with two men

Water-lifting device

Bn.4:33

Architectural scene on riverbank

Temple, towers, structure with splayed base

Bn.4:34

Architectural scene on riverbank

Obelisk, domed building, temple

Animals Bn.7:98

Waterfowl with snails

Bn.4:30

Wader with snails

Basket

174

Appendix 4: Drawings and prints of figured mosaics arranged by subject Eton number

Main subject

Other main imagery

Bm.9:76

Lion, lioness and peacock

Bn.7:3

Lion attacking leopard

Bn.13:6

Dolphin

Griffins, peacocks

Bm.9:77

Birds

Drinking vessels

Miscellaneous Bm.9:78

? Bust

Bn.5:4

Harbour scene

Sailors/boatmen, ship, boats, dolphin, buildings, portico, statues

Bn.7:1

17 figures

City wall with gate

Bn.7:89

Bust surrounded by vintaging scenes

Men with ox-drawn carts, men treading grapes, Cupids in vines, birds

Bn.7:90

Foliage, birds and vessels

Bn.7:91

Dolphins

Bn.7:93

Lamb and griffin

Bn.7:94

Ten busts and bowls of fruit, Sta Costanza

Bn.7:96

Biblical scenes)

(Bacchic figures, Cupids in fishing scenes

Bn.13:2

Biblical scenes)

(

Four female figures, two Cupids holding objects, ten birds

175

Appendix 5 Artists Eton number

Brief description

Information on drawing or print

Artist’s name added to drawing by Topham

Probable artist

Bm.9:74

Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla

Bm.9:75

Bacchus, Stonesfield

Will: Webb fecti [or fectis?]

Bm.9:76

Great Pavement, Woodchester

R Bradley

Bm.9:77

Birds, Caerleon

Bm.9:78

Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester

Bm.9:79

Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

Bm.9:80

Geometric mosaic, Denton

Bm.9:81

Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

Bm.9:82

Bacchus, Stonesfield

E.L.

Edward Loving

Bm.9:83

Bacchus, Stonesfield

E.L.

Edward Loving

Bn.3:31

Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

Bn.4:11

Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:20

Diana, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:21

Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:22

Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:23

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:24

Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:26

Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:29

Nilotic scene, Navicella

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:30

Wader and snails, Navicella

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:31

Sol

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:32

Nilotic scene with animals

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:33

Architectural scene (towers)

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:34

Architectural scene (obelisk)

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:35

Pan holding a syrinx

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.4:36

Silenus riding ass

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.5:2

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

Francesco Bartoli

Bn.5:4

Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Francesco Bartoli

William Stukeley

177

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Brief description

Information on drawing or print

Artist’s name added to drawing by Topham

Probable artist

Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

Francesco Bartoli

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

Francesco Bartoli

Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bartoli

Bn.5:36

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bartoli

Bn.5:37

Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

Bartoli

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bartoli

Bn.5:39

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bartoli

Bn.5:40

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bartoli

Bn.5:42

Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bartoli

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bartoli

Bn.5:59

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Bartoli

Bn.5:71

Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Bartoli

Bn.6:1

Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bartoli

Bn.6:2

Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bartoli

Bn.6:13

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Bartoli

Bn.6:50

Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

Bn.6:51

Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

Francesco Bartoli

Bn.7:1

Cavalieri mosaic

? Gaetano Piccini

Bn.7:3

Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

Bn.7:34

Bull and bear, Aventine

Fran. Bartoli

Bn.7:35

Horseman and bulls, Aventine

Fran.co Bartoli

Bn.7:36

Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

Fran.co Bartoli

Bn.7:37

Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

Fran.co Bartoli

Bn.7:38

Dancers and musicians, Aventine

Fran.co Bartoli

Bn.7:89

Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:90

Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:91

Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:92

Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:93

Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:94

Circles with busts, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:96

Half cupola, Sta Costanza

Fran.co Bartoli fece

Bn.7:98

Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Fran.co Bartoli

? Gaetano Piccini co

Francesco Bartoli

178

Appendix 5: Artists Eton number

Brief description

Information on drawing or print

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa, Palestrina

Giovanni Domenico Campiglia

Bn.13:2

Cupola, Sta Costanza

Pietro Santi Bartoli

Bn.13:6

Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.13:9

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.13:15

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.13:16

Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni

Gaetano Piccini

Bn.13:26

Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo

Pietro Santi Bartoli

Bn.13:27

Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard

Pietro Santi Bartoli

Bn.13:37Bn.13:41

Nile Mosaic, Palestrina

Joseph Sincerus

179

Artist’s name added to drawing by Topham

Probable artist

Appendix 6 Comparison with Holkham drawings Eton number

Brief description

Holkham number

Main differences between the drawings

Comments on colour differences

Bn.5:2

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

I, 30

In the Topham drawing the central tree trunk is taller, the palm tree is not truncated, and the green path is coloured brown.

The Holkham drawing is closer to the original but the difference is subtle.

Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

I, 61

The Holkham drawing includes the shields and ‘rock’ in the upper register. It shows the clothing of all figures as white with blue stripes, depicts the umpires as bare-footed, and includes the visors worn by the gladiators in the lower scene. In the Topham drawing the umpires at upper left and lower right each have a staff. Both drawings omit the inscriptions seen in the original.

The colours used in the Holkham drawing are closer to the original save for the shields which are perhaps unfinished. In the Topham drawing Bartoli has used red for the stripes on the umpires’ tunics and bright colours for the gladiators’ clothing, but left the shields in the lower scene uncoloured.

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

I, 50

The Holkham drawing shows the clothing of the gladiators as white or blue, and that of the umpires as white with blue stripes. There are some differences in the footwear; notably, the retiarius is shown bare-footed in the lower scene. The horizontallyplaced trident between the registers is clearer in the Topham drawing. Both drawings omit the inscriptions seen in the original.

The colour used for the umpires’ clothing is more accurate in the Holkham drawing, whereas Bartoli has used red for the stripes in the Topham drawing. The Holkham drawing better captures the muted colours of the gladiators’ clothing.

Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

I, 37

In the Holkham drawing the upper edge of the chariot comes to a point, the sparsor wears a blue tunic, the plumes on the horses’ heads are blue, and the trappings are mostly blue or red. The charioteer’s companion wears a yellow ‘breast-plate’ over a blue tunic.

Many of the colours in the Topham drawing are closer to the original, especially the green of the sparsor’s tunic and the horses’ plumes. It also better captures the type – but not colour – of the clothing worn by the man accompanying the charioteer.

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

I, 36

Overall, the drawings are similar save that the Holkham drawing has more muted colours than the Topham drawing, the whip is not shown as extending outwards, and the horse trappings are mostly blue.

The colours used for both drawings are different from the original. In the Topham drawing the horse trappings are red and yellow.

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

I, 33

The scene in the Holkham drawing used for the centre of the Topham drawing is square and monochrome, with a grey ground surface and a green background.

In the Topham drawing Bartoli has turned the depiction of a silver plate into part of the design of a mosaic.

Bn.5:71

Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

I, 63

The Holkham drawing is almost monochrome, with a restrained colour palette. The Topham image is reversed, the leg of the moving figure overlaps the plinth to a greater degree, and part of his head is shown.

In the Topham drawing the background is a vivid shade of blue.

181

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Brief description

Holkham number

Main differences between the drawings

Bn.6:50

Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

II, 25

The Holkham drawing is rectangular and has decorative borders. It lacks the birds in the Topham drawing but is otherwise similar.

Bn.6:51

Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

I, 46

The drawings are almost identical. There are minor differences in the colour of the bull’s harness and in details of the lion’s harness and teeth.

Bn.7:96

Half cupola, Sta Costanza

I, 52

The Holkham drawing has text at the top and shows the lacuna on the left. There are many differences in the colours of clothing worn by some of the figures. The inner part of the dome has a different design and colours.

Bn.7:98

Waterfowl Sta Maria in Trastevere

I, 17

The drawings are almost identical.

182

Comments on colour differences

The Topham drawing has stronger colours throughout.

Appendix 7 Mosaics shown in drawings in Topham collection and in drawings in some other major collections Eton number

Brief description

dal Glasgow Holkham RIBA Corsini Capponi Vittoria Pozzo /BnF 158 I 5 284

Bm.9:74 Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla Bm.9:75 Bacchus, Stonesfield Bm.9:76 Great Pavement, Woodchester Bm.9:77 Birds, Caerleon Bm.9:78 Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester Bm.9:79 Geometric mosaic, Great Tew Bm.9:81 Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

Bn.3:31

Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

Bn.4:11

Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:20

Diana, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:21

Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:22

Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo

Bn.4:23

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Bn.4:24

Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo

Bn.4:26

Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo

Bn.4:29

Nilotic scene, Navicella

Bn.4:30

Wader and snails, Navicella

Bn.4:31

Sol

Bn.4:32

Nilotic scene with animals

Bn.4:33

Architectural scene (towers)

Bn.4:34

Architectural scene (obelisk)

Bn.4:35

Pan holding a syrinx

Bn.4:36

Silenus riding ass

Bn.5:2

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

x

x

Bn.5:4

Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

x

x

Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

x

x

x

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

x

x

x

Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

x

x

Bn.5:36

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

x

x

x

x

183

x

x

x x

x x

x x x

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Brief description

dal Glasgow Holkham RIBA Corsini Capponi Vittoria Pozzo /BnF 158 I 5 284

Bn.5:37

Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

Bn.5:39

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:40

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

Bn.5:42

Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.5:59

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni

Bn.5:71

Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Bn.6:1

Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:2

Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:13

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni

Bn.6:50

Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

x

Bn.6:51

Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

x

Bn.7:1

Cavalieri mosaic

Bn.7:3

Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

Bn.7:34

Bull and bear, Aventine

Bn.7:35

Horseman and bulls, Aventine

x

Bn.7:36

Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

x

Bn.7:37

Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

Bn.7:38

Dancers and musicians, Aventine

Bn.7:89

Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:90

Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:91

Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:92

Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:93

Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:94

Circles with busts, Sta Costanza

x

x

Bn.7:96

Half cupola, Sta Costanza

x

Bn.7:98

Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa, Palestrina

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

184

x

x x

x

Appendix 8 Discovery dates ) indicates the same mosaic Eton number

Brief description

Date of discovery

Bn.5:4

Harbour scene, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Before 1585-1605?

Bn.7:98

Waterfowl, Sta Maria in Trastevere

Before 1585-1605?

Bn.7:3

Lion and leopard, Palazzo Mignanelli

16th century

Bn.7:89

Vintaging scene, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:90

Foliage, birds and vessels, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:91

Geometric mosaic with dolphins, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:92

Geometric mosaic, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:93

Figures and animals, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:94

Circles with busts, Sta Costanza

By 16th century

Bn.7:96

Half cupola, Sta Costanza)

By 16th century

Bn.13:2

Cupola, Sta Costanza

Bn.13:37-Bn.13:41

Nile Mosaic, Palestrina

By late 16th century

Bn.5:14

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

1670

Bn.5:17

Gladiatorial scene, Massimi collection

1670

Bn.13:26

Nereids, Orto del Carciofolo

1670

Bn.5:35

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

1670?

Bn.5:36

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

1670?

Bn.5:38

Victorious Charioteer, Massimi collection

1670?

Bn.5:2

Crocodile attacking man, Massimi collection

Before 1674

Bn.5:71

Nilotic scene, Massimi collection

Before 1674

Bn.9:4

Rape of Europa, Palestrina

1675

Bm.9:79

Geometric mosaic, Great Tew

By 1677

Bm.9:77

Birds, Caerleon

1692

Bm.9:76

Great Pavement, Woodchester

By 1693

Bn.13:27

Neptune and marine thiasos, de Marchis Vineyard

1698

Geometric mosaic, Nether Heyford

1699

Bn.4:22

Nilotic scene, S. Stefano Rotondo

1704-1706

Bn.4:24

Tomb with Centaur mosaic, S. Stefano Rotondo)

1704-1706

Bn.4:26

Centaur, S. Stefano Rotondo        )

Bn.4:11

Silenus reclining, Vigna Moroni

1705-1710

Bn.4:20

Diana, Vigna Moroni

1705-1710

Bn.4:21

Silenus riding leopard, Vigna Moroni

1705-1710

Found before 18th century

Bm.9:81

)

Found in early 18 century th

185

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Eton number

Brief description

Date of discovery

Bn.13:6

Dolphin, peacocks and griffins, Vigna Moroni

Probably 1705-1710

Bn.4:29

Nilotic scene, Navicella

Uncertain but c.1705-1710?

Bn.4:30

Wader and snails, Navicella

Uncertain but c.1705-1710?

Bn.4:23

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni)

1706

Bn.6:13

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni)

Bn.13:9

Pan and Eros, Vigna Moroni)

Bn.13:16

Tomb with decorative strip in floor, Vigna Moroni

1706

Bn.5:59

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni)

1708 [?]

Bn.13:15

Pluto and Proserpina, Vigna Moroni)

Bn.4:31

Sol

Early 1700s?

Bn.4:32

Nilotic scene with animals

Early 1700s?

Bn.4:33

Architectural scene (towers)

Early 1700s?

Bn.4:34

Architectural scene (obelisk)

Early 1700s?

Bn.4:35

Pan holding a syrinx

Early 1700s?

Bn.4:36

Silenus riding ass

Early 1700s?

Bn.7:1

Cavalieri mosaic

By 1710

Bn.6:51

Elephant, bull, lion and camel, Aventine

1711

Bn.7:34

Bull and bear, Aventine

1711

Bn.7:35

Horseman and bulls, Aventine

1711

Bn.7:36

Bestiarii on foot and bears, Aventine

1711

Bn.7:37

Bestiarius on horse and bear, Aventine

1711

Bn.7:38

Dancers and musicians, Aventine

1711

Bm.9:75

Bacchus, Stonesfield)

1711/12

Bm.9:82

Bacchus, Stonesfield)

Bm.9:83

Bacchus, Stonesfield)

Bn.5:37

Circus race, Domine Quo Vadis

1720

Bn.5:39

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

1720

Bn.5:40

Gladiatorial scene, Domine Quo Vadis

1720

Bn.5:43

Drunken Bacchus, ‘Villa Hadriani’

After 1721

Bm.9:78

Geometric (?) mosaic, Chichester

1727

Bm.9:80

Geometric mosaic, Denton

1727/28

Date of discovery unknown Bm.9:74

Rape of Europa, Baths of Caracalla

Bn.5:42

Bacchic figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:1

Seated woman with two figures, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Bn.6:2

Venus and Cupid, ‘Villa Hadriani’

Mosaic not thought to be authentic Bn.3:31

Sir Andrew Fountaine’s relief

Bn.6:50

Bacchic scene, ‘Palazzo d’Augusto’

186

Index Accuracy of drawings, xv, n.2, 1, 4, 16, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 54, 55, 70, 90, n.14, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, n.94, 119, 120, 123, 125-127, 129, 181-182 (Appendix 6) Achilles, 83, 128 Adam, Robert, 1 Aelian, 31 Aeneas, 83 Agenor, 80, Figure 6.2 AIEMA (l’Association internationale pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque antique), xvi, 3 Albani, Villa – see Rome, Villa Albani Aldobrandini Wedding, 23 Almagno, Ilaria, 1, n.3, 122 Altars, 43, 71, Figure 3.17 Amadio, Adele Anna, 38, n. 96, 39, 126, n.46 Amphitrite, 107, 108, Figures 8.6-8.7 Amphorae, 33, 34, 56, 110, Figures 3.3, 4.8 Antelope, 128, n.60 Antonozzi, A.M., 42, n.140 Appia, Via – see Rome, Via Appia Apollo, 128 Architectural scenes – see Buildings/Structures Arrows – see Quiver and arrows Artists of drawings of mosaics in Topham collection, 1-2, 4, 5, 20, 122, 177-179 (Appendix 5) – see also Bartoli, Francesco; Bradley, Richard; Campiglia, Giovanni Domenico; Piccini, Gaetano; Webb, William Ashby, Thomas, xvi, 3, 4, 5, 7, 32, 34, n.49, 44, n.168, 53, 58, 59, 60, 71, 72, 83, 125, 126 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, xv, n.3, 93, n.42 Asses, 43, 72, 128, Figures 3.17, 5.15, 8.5 Augustus, Palace of – see Rome, Palazzo d’Augusto Aventine – see Rome, Aventine Aymonino, Adriano and Modolo, Mirco, 2, 7, 15, n.57, 32, n.30, 38, n.94, 107, n.28

Bartoli, Pietro Santi and Bellori, Giovanni Pietro, 44, 60, 71, 80, 105, 106, 107, 108, 128, 130 Barton Farm, Cirencester (Gloucestershire), 94 Baskets, 29, 31-32, 40, 58, 59, 60, 81, 122, Figures 3.2, 3.12-3.13, 4.12, 4.15, 6.3 Bassano, (artist, unspecified member of family), 22, 23 Bath (Somerset), bronze head of Minerva from, xv, 129 Baths of Caracalla – see Rome, Baths of Caracalla Batoni, Pompeo, 1 Bears, 55, 127, Figures 4.4, 4.6-4.7, 8.3 Beauclerk, Sidney, 11, 21, 25 Beauclerk, Topham, 21, 22-23 Bellori, Giovanni Pietro – see Bartoli, Pietro Santi and Bellori, Giovanni Pietro Berlin Kunstbibliotek, 41 Berlin Staatliche Museen, 35 Bernardini, Agapito, 106 Bestiarii, 54-55, 56, 127, Figures 4.3, 4.5-4.7 Bevagna, 128 Biblical scenes, 42, 83, n.49, 105, 128, Figures 3.16, 8.1 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 7, 35, 36, 108, n.31 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, 7, 43, 44, 60, 106, n.10, 127, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Birds, 31, n.25, 40, 41, 42, 43-44, 54, 59-60, 71, 91, 95-96, 97, Figures 3.12-3.13, 3.15-3.16, 4.2, 4.13, 5.10, 7.4-7.5, 8.1-8.5, 8.12-8.13, 9.2(b) – see also Cockerels, Doves, Ducks, Eagle, Owls, Peacocks, Purple gallinules Birley, Robert, 11, n.2, 16 Blake, Marion Elizabeth, 4, 35, n.56, 36, n.68, 43, 56, 57, n.52, 70, n.7, 71, 72, 106, 107, n.22, 108 Blanco Freijeiro, Antonio, 33 Boats/Ships, 29-30, 42, 70, 71, 108, 128, Figures 3.1, 3.16, 5.5, 8.1, 8.4-8.5, 8.7 Bobart, Tilleman, 94, n.50, 95 Bodleian Library, Oxford, xvi, 92, n.36, 93, n.42, 97, n.77, 171 Boon, George, 90 Borders (outer), Of drawings, 4, 29, 32, 39, 44, n.169, 54, 57, 58, 59, 80, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 120-121, 125, n.42, 182 Of mosaics, 32, 39, 58, 59, 79, 81, 120, 121, Figures 4.12, 6.3, 9.1 Bow, 70, Figures 5.7, 8.2-8.3 Bowman, Walter, 106, n.10 Bowls, 41, 123, Figures 3.14-3.15 – see also Vessels Boyle, Henry, Baron Carleton, 11, 20-21 Boyle, Richard, 3rd Earl of Burlington, 19, n.107, 20-21 Bradley, Richard, xv, 89, 95, n.59, 96, 97, 98, 120, 122, 123-124, 171-172 (Appendix 3), 177 (Appendix 5) Branches, 41-42, 60, 84, 95-96, 97, 109, Figures 3.15, 4.15, 6.5, 7.4-7.6, 8.8, 8.12-8.13 – see also Palm branches, Trees

Bacchus/Bacchic figures, 3, 38, 39, 42, 43-44, 58, 59, 71, 81, 91, 94, 96, 111, 122, 125, 128, Figures 3.16-3.17, 4.12-4.13, 7.4-7.5, 8.1, 8.12-8.13 Baddeley codex, 42, 43 Baker, John James, 11 Banks, Joseph, 23 Barberini, Cardinal Francesco, 106 Barberini, Cardinal Francesco, Junior, 106 Barberini Palace – see Rome, Palazzo Barberini Bartoli, Francesco, 1, 2, 5, 6, 29-44, 53-60, 69, 71, 79, 80, 81, 89, 105, 107, n.28, 109, 110, 119, 120-121, 122-123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 177-178 (Appendix 5) Bartoli, Pietro Santi, xvi, 1, 2, n.22, 5, 6, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 53, 80, 105, 106, 107, 108, 121, n.8, 122-123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 179 (Appendix 5) 187

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Breval, John, 60, 129 Brinsley Ford Archive, 16, n.62 British Library, London, xv, xvi, 19-20, 97, n.81, 106, n.10, 171-172 British Museum, 19, 23 Browne, Edmond/Edmund, 124 Buildings/Structures, 29-30, 40-41, 42, 56, 72, 81, 105-106, 128, Figures 3.1, 3.13, 3.16, 4.8, 5.12-5.13, 6.4, 8.1, 8.4-8.5 – see also Tombs Bulls, 54, 55, 127, 128, n.60, 130, Figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Jupiter in guise of, 80, 81, Figures 6.2, 6.3 Burghers, Michael, 89, 92-93, 94, 95 Burial chambers – see Tombs Busts/Head/Masks, 40-42, 54, 59-60, 70, 71-72, 81, 91, 93, 94-95, Figures 3.13-3.14, 4.2, 4.12-4.13, 4.15, 5.4, 5.10, 6.3, 7.4-7.5, 7.8, 7.10, 8.9, 8.12-8.13, 9.2(a)-(b) Butterfly, 43, 122, Figure 3.17

Ciferri, Bernardino, 1 Circus factions, 32, 33 Circus race – see Charioteers Clark, Christopher, 18 Cockerels, 43, 95, 96, Figures 3.12, 3.17 Coke, Thomas, 6, 19, 126, 129 Coke, Vice-Chamberlain, of Melbourne, 19, 20 Cole, Benjamin, 94 Collections, other, 6-7, 127-128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) – see also especially Capponi codex 284, Corsini codex 158 I 5, dal Pozzo drawings, Glasgow volume, Holkham drawings, RIBA collections, Vittoria album Collier, Mr, 25 Collier’s plan of Windsor – see Windsor, Plan of, by W. Collier Combe, Priscilla, 97, 172 Congreve, William, 20 Connor/Connor Bulman, Louisa, xv, 1, 2, n.15, 11, 13, 14, 15-16, 17-18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 72, n.31, 84, 119, n.2, 122, 123, 129 Constantia, 40 Cornucopia, 40, 58, n.63, Figure 3.12 Corsini codex, 158 HI 5, 7, n.54, 53, 108-109, 110 Corsini codex 158 I 5, 7, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, n.49, 69, 70, 71, 82-83, 108-109, 110, 121, 127, 128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Corsini, Villa – see Rome, Villa Corsini Cosh, Stephen, 90, n.14 – see also Cosh, Stephen R. and Neal, David S. Cosh, Stephen R. and Neal, David S., 89-90, 94, 95, 96, n.68 – see also Neal, David S. and Cosh, Stephen R. Cox, Thomas, 98 Craters – 58, 92, Figures 4.12, 7.4, 7.7, 8.12-8.13 Crocodiles, 37, 70, 72, 121, 128, Figures 3.8, 5.5, 5.11, 8.4 Cupids, 40, 41, 42, 58, 60, 107, 108, 128, Figures 3.12-3.13, 3.16, 4.14-4.15, 8.1, 8.6-8.7 – see also Pan and Eros

Cacciotti, Beatrice, 38, n.89 Cadmus, 80, Figure 6.2 Caerleon (Monmouthshire), xv, 89, 90, 120, 127, Figure 7.2 Calandra, Giovanni Battista, 106 Calderi, Carlo, 1 Camden’s Britannia – see Gibson, Edmund; Gough, Richard Camel, 54-55, Figure 4.3 Cameron, Charles, 1 Campiglia, Giovanni Domenico, 1, 79-80, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 178 (Appendix 5) Canthari – see Drinking cups/Dishes Capponi codex 284, 7, 30, 31, 54, 69-70, 71, 72, 83, 109, 110, 127, 128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Capponi codex 285, 83, n.49, 109 Captions to drawings, 2, 5, 6, 16, 120, 126, 127 – for specific captions, see Chapters 3-7 and Catalogue entries Caracalla, Baths of – see Rome, Baths of Caracalla Carts, 37, 38, 40, 41, 122, 128, Figure 3.13 Caryatids, 42, 43, Figures 3.16, 8.1 Cavalieri, Marchese de, 81, 82 Cavalieri mosaic, 6, 81-83, 121, 122, Figure 6.4 Caylus, A.C.P. de, 43, 97, n.77 and n.79, 172 Caylus, A.C.P. de and Mariette, P.-J., 36, 37, 107 Centaur, 70, 120, 126-127, 128, Figures 5.6-5.7 Charles II, 14, 18, 21 Charlett, Arthur, 90, 96 Charioteers, 32-34, 57-58, 122, 127, Figures 3.3-3.5, 4.9 Chariot race – see Charioteers Chariots – see Charioteers; Quadriga Chichester (Sussex), xv, 89, 98, 120, 121, 127, 129, Figure 7.10 Chigi, Cardinal Flavio, 31, n.25 Chilon, 128 Chiron, 128 Christ Church, Oxford – see University of Oxford, Christ Church Christian scenes – see Biblical scenes Ciampini, Joannis, 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 70, 71, 80, 105, 106, 128, 130

dal Pozzo, Cassiano, 106 – see also dal Pozzo, Cassiano, Paper Museum of dal Pozzo, Cassiano, Paper Museum of, 1, 6, 35 dal Pozzo drawings, 6, 30, 31, 34, 36, n.67, 37, 38, 105, n.8, 107, 127, 128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Damage to mosaic/Repairs and restorations, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 57-58, 60, 69, 70, 72-73, 79, 81, 83, 90, 97, n.77, 80, 82, 90, 94, 96, 106, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 126, 127, 130, Figures 4.5, 4.7, 4.9-4.11, 5.1, 5.3, 6.4 Dancers and musicians, 56, 128, Figure 4.8 Defoe, Daniel, 25 de Hollanda, Francesco, 42 de Lachenal, Lucilla, 43 Delbourgo, James, 17, n.75 de Marchis Vineyard – see Rome, de Marchis Vineyard Demosthenes, Orations of, 16, 20 Dempster, Thomas, 19 Denton, Lincolnshire, 110, 111, 120, Figure 8.14 de Polignac, François, 108, 109, 110 188

Index Devonshire, William Cavendish, 2nd Duke of, 19 Dewes, George, 94, n.46, 95 Diana, 69, 71, 72, Figure 5.2 Diana, Temple of – see Rome, Aventine Disc, 41, 43, Figures 3.15, 3.17 Discovery, date of, 127, 129, 185-186 (Appendix 8) Dolphins, 29-30, 39-40, 42, 106, 107, 108, 109, 119, 128, Figures 3.1, 3.11, 3.16, 8.1, 8.6-8.8 Domine Quo Vadis – see Rome, Domine Quo Vadis Doves, 31, n.25, 41, 43, 59, 60, 71, 90, 95-96, 128, Figures 3.17, 4.13, 5.10, 7.2, 7.4-7.5 Drinking cups/Dishes, 23, 40, 43, 59, 69, 72, 90, 91, 122, Figures 3.12, 3.17, 4.12-4.13, 4.15, 5.1, 5.15, 7.2, 7.4-7.5, 8.12-8.13 – see also Craters, Rhytons Ducks, 30-31, 43, 70, 71, Figures 3.2, 3.17, 5.5-5.7, 5.10, 8.4-8.5 Dunbabin, Katherine M.D., 33, 34, 55, n.27, 56 Dwarf, 56, Figure 4.8

Fruit, 40, 41, 54, 60, 81, 84, Figures 3.12, 3.14-3.15, 4.2, 4.15, 6.3, 6.5 – see also Grapes/Vines/Vintaging scenes Gabrieli, Palazzo – see Palazzo Mignanelli/Palazzo Gabrieli Gale, Samuel, 17-18 Gasparri, Carlo, 29, n.6, 30, 31 Geometric mosaics, xv, 39-40, 89-91, 98, 110, 111, 120, 121, 123, Figures 3.10, 3.11, 7.1, 7.3, 7.10, 8.14 Gesuiti alla Navicella – see Rome, Gesuiti alla Navicella Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo – see Rome, Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo Ghedini, Francesca, 71, 83, n.44 Gibson, Edmund, xv, 89, 90, 91, 97, 98, 124, 172 Gladiators, 32, 34-37, 57-58, 119, 121, n.16, Figures 3.6-3.7, 4.10-4.11 Glasgow volume, xvi, 6, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39-40, 41, 42, 43, 80, 107, 127, 128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Gloucestershire Archives, 96, n.71, 172 Goat, 58, Figure 4.12 Godolphin, Francis, 15, 20, 96 Godolphin, Henrietta, 20 Gordon, A., 129, n.68 Gough, Richard, 90, 97, 98, 171 Grand Tour – see Topham, Richard, whether went on Grapes/Vines/Vintaging scenes, 40, 41, 43, 69, 128, Figures 3.12-3.13, 3.15, 3.17, 5.1 Great Pavement – see Woodchester Great Tew (Oxfordshire), 89-90, 120, Figure 7.1 Griffins, 40, 109, Figures 3.12, 8.8 Guattani, Giuseppe Antonio, 83 Gubbio (Iguvium), 6, 79 Guerrini, Lucia, 82, 83 Gwyn, Nell, 21 Gwynn, Lucy, 11, 25, n.195, 89, n.5

Eagle – 70, Figures 5.7, 8.5 Elephant, 54-55, Figure 4.3 Emblema/Emblemata, 5, 29-32, 34-37, 79, 128 Engelmann, Richard, 7, 42, n.147, 53, 71, 83, 84, n.53, 110, n.53 Erndtel, C., 16 Eros – see Cupids; Pan and Eros Eton College/Eton College Library, xv, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 21, 22, 24-25, 42, 89, 98, 130, 131, Figures 1.1-1.2, 2.5 – see also Finding Aids, Eton College Library Europa, Rape of, xv, 6, 79-80, 81, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, Figures 6.2-6.3 Fabréga-Dubert, Marie-Lou, 131 Factions – see Circus factions Fan – see Flabellum, Leaf fan Faun – see Satyrs Felines, 42, 58, 59, 128, n.60, Figures 3.16, 4.12-4.13, 8.1, 8.3 – see also Leopards, Lions/Lioness Ficoroni, Francesco de’, xv, 57, 69, 109, 123, 128, n.64, 130 Fileri, Eliana, 7, 53, 56, 71, 110 Finding Aids, Eton College Library, 2, 5, 11, 17, 25, n.195, 38, 79, 82, 84, 89, n.5, 105, 123, 129-130, Figure 1.3 Fish/Fishing, 29-30, 42, 97, 106, 107, 108, 128, Figures 3.1, 3.16, 8.1, 8.6-8.7 Flabellum, 40, Figure 3.12 – see also Leaf fan Foote, Arabella – see Reeve, Arabella Foote, Samuel, 12, 15 Foote, Topham, 11, 12, 15, Figure 2.2 Ford, Mr, 93, 94, 95 Foster, Joseph, 12, 13 Fountaine, Sir Andrew, relief owned by, 3, 6, 84, 121, 125, Figure 6.5 Fowler, William, 95, 111 Frascati, 81, 82, 83 Fraser, The Hon. A.C., 23 Freshwater, Tom, xv, 91, 92, 93, 95 Frezza, Io. Hieronymous, 106

Hadrian’s Villa – see Villa Hadriani Halifax, Lord, 17, 20 Hall Books for the Borough of New Windsor – see Windsor, Hall Books Halley, Edmond, 95 ‘Handes the Farmer’, (owner of land at Stonesfield), 92-93 Harbour/Quay, 29-30, 128, Figure 3.1 Harley, Robert, 1st Earl of Oxford, 16-17, 19, 93, 94, n.50, 95, 96, 97, 172 Harwood, T. Eustace, 14 Haverfield, Francis, xv Head – see Busts/Head/Masks Hearne, Thomas, xv, 11, 16, 17, 19, 91, 92-93, 94, 95, 96, 123, 124, 170 Hercules, 128 – see also Fountaine, Sir Andrew, relief owned by Hesperides, Garden of the – see Fountaine, Sir Andrew, relief owned by Hippopotami, 70, 72, Figures 5.8, 5.11, 8.4 Hoare’s Bank, London, 15-16, 20-21, 25, n.183 Holkham drawings, xvi, 3, 6-7, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 55, 60, 107, 126, 127, 128, 181-182 (Appendix 6), 183-184 (Appendix 7) 189

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Holkham Hall, Lion and leopard mosaic at, 6, 79, 119, 124, 127, Figures 6.1, 9.1 Hollar, Wenceslaus – see Windsor, Drawing of, by Wenceslaus Hollar Holmes, George, 17, 19-20 Hopkins, Edward/Hopkins, Thomas, 19 Horses, 23, 29, 33, 34, 55, 57, 58, 108, 122, Figures 3.1, 3.3-3.5, 4.5, 4.7, 4.9, 8.7 Hound, 58, Figure 4.12 Hyena, 72, Figure 5.11

Luttrell, Narcissus, 20 Lycomedes, 83 Lysons, Samuel, 96, 97, 98 Macandrew, Hugh, 1, 2, 16 Marlborough, John, 1st Duke of, 15, 20, 96 Marlborough, Sarah, 1st Duchess of, 15, 21 Marston Moretain (Bedfordshire), 13 Masks – see Busts/Head/Masks Massimi, Cardinal Camillo, 6, 32, 42 Massimi collection, 5, 32-38, 120, Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 Massimi, Palazzo – see Rome, Palazzo Massimi Mead, Richard, 17, 19, 23, 24-25, 98, 128 Medusa, 44, n.169, 59, 81, 128 Meyboom, P.G.P., 79, n.4, 105-106 Michaelis, Adolf, 84, 125 Mignanelli, Palazzo – see Rome, Palazzo Mignanelli Minerva, bronze head of – see Bath, bronze head of Minerva from Modolo, Mirco, 35, n.63, 36, n.65, n.66, n.67 and n.74, 37, n.75, 42, n.140 and n.147, 107, n.23 – see also Aymonino, Adriano and Modolo, Mirco; Ortona, Erminia Gentile and Modolo, Mirco Money, 169-170 (Appendix 2) Montagu, Jennifer, 80 Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, 21 Montfaucon, Bernard de, 55, 56, 57-58, 82, 83, 105, 106, 127 Morgan, William, 12 Moroni, Vigna – see Rome, Vigna Moroni Morton, John, 91 Müntz, E., 43 Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid, 32 Musgrave, Dr, 92 Musical instruments, 41, 42, 43, 56, 59, 72, Figures 3.15-3.17, 4.8, 4.13, 5.14, 8.1, 8.4 Musicians – see Dancers and musicians

Imperiali, Francesco, 11, 19, n.115, 23, 122, 123, 125-126, 129, Figures 9.3(a)-(d) Inscriptions (ancient), 16, 22, n.160, 23, 34, 35, 36, 57-58, 110, 122, Figures 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 8.2-8.5 Isted, Thomas, 95, n.60 Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica, Rome, 7 Johnson, Dr Samuel, 21 Jubaru, Florian, 40, n.116, 43 Jugs, 23, 56, 59, Figures 4.8, 4.12 Jupiter – See Bulls, Jupiter in guise of Kennedy, James, 84 Kent, William, 1, 20 Keppel, Mrs, 22 Kircher, Athanasius, 106 Kit-Cat Club, 11, 20 Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 11, n.5 Lacunae – see Damage to mosaic Lafreri, Antonio/Lafrery, Antoine, 3, n.34(a) Lagobolon – see Pedum/Lagobolon Lamb, 40, Figure 3.12 – see also Sheep Lanciani, Rodolfo, xvi, 1, 4, 5, 31, n.16, 32, n.33, 58, 60, 71, 80, 81, 89, n.3, 105 Landesmuseum, Oldenburg, 79 Laocoon, 83 Leaf fan, 108, Figure 8.7 – see also Flabellum Leaf hat, 38, 70, Figures 3.9, 5.5, 8.5 Lens, Bernard, xv, 129, n.68 Leopards, 6, 69, 79, 91, 94, 111, 119, Figures 5.3, 6.1, 7.4-7.5, 8.12-8.13, 9.1 Levine, Joseph M., 91, 93, 96 Lewington, William, 93-94, 95, 96 Ling, Roger, 125, n.41 Lions/Lioness, 6, 54-55, 79, 96-97, 98, 119, 120, 121, 124, 127, Figures 4.3, 6.1, 7.9, 8.3, 9.1 Lion-skin, 84 London, Gray’s Inn, 12-13 Lincoln’s Inn, 15 St Alban, Wood Street, 12 ‘St Martins August’, 12 St Paul’s Cathedral, 12 Tower of London, 17 Lotus leaf hat – see Leaf hat Louis XIV, 23 Loving, Edward, 91, n.24, 92, 93, 94, 95, 111, 120, 130, 177 (Appendix 5)

Navicella, Gesuiti alla – see Rome, Gesuiti alla Navicella Neal, David S. and Cosh, Stephen R., 91, 98, n.96 – see also Cosh, Stephen R. and Neal, David S. Neptune, 93, 94, 108, 120, 128, Figures 7.4-7.5, 7.8, 8.7, 8.12-8.13 Nereids, 34, 106-108, 119, Figure 8.6 Nether Heyford (Northamptonshire), 89, 90-91, 120, 127, Figure 7.3 New Windsor – see Windsor Nile Mosaic of Palestrina – see Palestrina, Nile Mosaic Nilotic scenes, 32, 37-38, 70, 71, 72, 128, Figures 3.8, 3.9, 5.5, 5.8, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13 – see also Palestrina, Nile Mosaic Nogara, Bartolomeo, 56 Norden, John – see Windsor, Map of, by John Norden Noy, David, 21, 22-23, 24, 25 Numbers on drawings, 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 39, 57, 71, 79, 110, 123, n.30, 129, 130 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, 81 Obelisks – see Buildings/Structures Oceanus – see Neptune 190

Index Opus sectile, 128 Orpheus, 94, 96, 97 Orto del Carciofolo – see Rome, Orto del Carciofolo Ortona, Erminia Gentile and Modolo, Mirco, 7 Owls, 43, 59, 60, Figures 3.17, 4.13 Oxen, 40, 41, 122-123, Figure 3.13 Oxfordshire Museum, 91, n.23, 111 Oxford University – see University of Oxford

Quay – see Harbour/Quay Quiver and arrows, 84, Figure 6.5 Randue, Theodore,18, 25, n.192 Reeve, Arabella (née Topham, formerly Foote), 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 170, Figure 2.1 Reeve, Richard, 22 Reeve, Sir Thomas, 11, 12, 18, 21, 23-25, 98, 170, Figure 2.1 Reinach, Salomon, 4, 32, n.34, 38 Relief, use of mosaic on – see Fountaine, Sir Andrew, relief owned by Repairs and restorations – see Damage to mosaic/Repairs and restorations Reversal of image, 30, 31, 38, 43, 53, 90, 105, 107, 108, 110, 125 Reynolds, John, 2, 25 Rhytons/Drinking horns, 41, 58, 90, Figures 3.15, 4.12, 7.2, 8.4 RIBA collections, xvi, 6, 7, 35, 36, 39-40, 41, 42, 43, 54, 60, 70, n.6, 122, 127, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Ridley, Ronald T., 122 Romano-British mosaics, xvi, 4, 6, 7, 19, 81, 89-98, 105, 110-111, 120, 121, 127, 129, Figures 7.1-7.10, 8.12-8.14 Rome, Aventine, 5, 53, 54-56, 119, 120, 126, 127, Figures 4.3-4.8 Baths of Caracalla, xv, 4, 6, 59, 81, 119, 120, 125, 127, 130, Figure 6.3 de Marchis Vineyard, 106, 108, Figure 8.7 Domine Quo Vadis, 5, 32, 57-58, Figures 4.9-4.11 Gesuiti alla Navicella, 70-71, Figures 5.8-5.9 Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo, 44, 69, 70, 71, Figures 5.5-5.7 Orto del Carciofolo, Caelian Hill, 32, 34, 106-108, Figure 8.6 Palazzo Barberini, 5, 79-80, 106, 123, 124, 129 Palazzo d’Augusto, 16, 39, 43, Figure 3.17 Palazzo di Tito, 32, 57 Palazzo Massimi, 32, 120, 129 Palazzo Mignanelli/Palazzo Gabrieli, 6, 79, 119, 124, 127 Porta S. Pancrazio, 128 S. Alessio, 128 Sta Sabina – see Rome, Aventine Sta Costanza, 5, 16, 38-44, 60, 105, 119, 124, 127, Figures 3.10-3.16, 8.1 Sta Maria in Trastevere, 5, 29-32, 71, 130, Figures 3.1-3.2 Via Appia, 69, 109 – see also Domine Quo Vadis Via di S. Francesco a Ripa, 128 Vigna Moroni, 5, 6, 53-54, 69-70, 105, 108-110, 123, 129, Figures 4.1-4.2, 5.1-5.4, 8.8-8.11, 9.2(a)-(b) Villa Albani, 84 Villa Corsini, 128 Rowland, Thomas, 18, 24 Royal Library, Windsor, xvi, 6, 106, n.10 Royal Society, 95, n.63, 123

Pace, Claire, 6, 34, n.51, 38 Paderni, Camillo, 80 Palazzo Barberini – see Rome, Palazzo Barberini Palazzo d’Augusto – see Rome, Palazzo d’Augusto Palazzo di Tito – see Rome, Palazzo di Tito Palazzo Massimi – see Rome, Palazzo Massimi Palazzo Mignanelli – see Rome, Palazzo Mignanelli Palestrina, Nile Mosaic, 3, 70, 105-106, 120, 130, Figures 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 Rape of Europa, 6, 79-80, Figure 6.2 Palladio, Andrea, 21 Palm branches, 32-33, 34, 108, Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 8.5, 8.7 Palm trees, 37, 70, Figures 3.8, 5.5, 5.8, 8.3, 8.5 Pan, 72, Figure 5.14 Pan and Eros, 3, n.31, 53-54, 57, n.48, 70, 71, 108-109, 128, Figures 4.2, 5.4, 8.9, 9.2(a)-(b) Peacocks, 43, 60, 70, 71, 96-97, 109, Figures 3.12, 3.15, 3.17, 4.14, 4.26, 5.10, 7.9, 8.8 Pedum/Lagobolon, 40, 41, 43, 44, 54, 58, 59, 81, 123, Figures 3.12, 3.15, 3.17, 4.2, 4.12-4.13, 4.15, 6.3, 9.2(b) Pembroke, Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of, 16, 19, 84, 130, n.75 Pepys, Samuel, 170 Pergolas – see Buildings/Structures Piccini, Gaetano, 2, 6, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, n.49, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 83, 109, 119, 120-121, 122, 123, 125, 126-127, 130, 177-179 (Appendix 5) Plot, Robert, 89 Pluto – see Proserpina, Rape of Pointer, John, 91, 94 Pompeii, 79 Pope, Alexander, 19, 20 Porphyrions – see Purple gallinules Porta S. Pancrazio – see Rome, Porta S. Pancrazio Portico – see Buildings/Structures Pote, Joseph, 25 Potter, Jeremy, xv Poulsen, Frederik, 81, 83 Preparatory drawings/Sketches, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 54, 60, 70, 92, 94, 95, 107, 108, 110, 128 Proserpina, Rape of, 53, 57, n.49, 109, 110, 119, 123, 125, Figures 4.1, 8.10 Purple gallinules (porphyrions), 30-31, 70-71, Figures 3.2, 5.9 Pylon – see Buildings/Structures Quadriga, 108, Figure 8.7 – see also Charioteers Quarrie, Paul, xv, 11, 12, n.14, 16, 17, 20, n.118, 25, 89, n.5 191

Drawings of Roman Mosaics in the Topham Collection, Eton College Library Sabbatini Tumolesi, Patrizia, 35, n.60, 36, n.69 S. Alessio – see Rome, S. Alessio S. Pancrazio – see Rome, Porta S. Pancrazio S. Stefano Rotondo, Gesuiti de – see Rome, Gesuiti de S. Stefano Rotondo St Albans, Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of, 21 Sta Sabina – see Rome, Aventine Sta Costanza – see Rome, Sta Costanza Sta Maria in Trastevere – see Rome, Sta Maria in Trastevere Sainte-Marguerite, 128 Sampson, Jean, 3, 4, 81, 84 Satyrs, 42, 58, 59, 72-73, 81, Figures 3.16, 4.13, 5.15, 6.3 – see also Pan Scheemakers, Peter, 11 Scott, Jonathan, 22, n.160, 84 Sea creatures, 42, 106-107, 108, 128, Figures 3.16, 8.1-8.2, 8.6-8.7 – see also Dolphins, Fish/Fishing Seasons, 54, 59, 60, 71, 81 Sheep, 42, Figures 3.16, 8.1 – see also Lamb Ships – see Boats/Ships Shropshire Archives, 172 Sigma couch, 56 Signatures on drawings, 5, 6, 29, 69, n.1, 91, 129, n.68, Figures 2.4, 4.4-4.8, 7.4, 7.6, 7.9 – see also Catalogue entries and 177-179 (Appendix 5) Silenus, 43, 69, 72-73, 119, 120, 126, 127, 128, Figures 3.17, 5.1, 5.3, 5.15 Sincerus, Joseph, 106, 178 (Appendix 5) Sleech, Stephen, 2, 5, 6, 25, 38 Sloane, Sir Hans, 17, n.75, 19, 97, 124, 171 Snails, 29, 31-32, 71, 122, Figures 3.2, 5.9 Snakes, 23, 59, 70, 81, 82, 83, 84, 122, Figures 6.4-6.5, 8.2-8.3 Snow, James, 93, n.42 Society of Antiquaries of London, xvi, 19, 93, n.42, 172 Sol, 71, 119, Figure 5.10 Somers, John, 1st Baron, 19 Somnus, 128 Sparsores, 33, 34, Figure 3.3 Spina, 57, 127 Stags, 53, 70, 110, 127, 128, Figures 5.6-5.7, 8.10 Statues, 14, 17, 19, 22-23, 29-30, Figure 3.1 Stern, Henri, 39, 40, n.112, 41, 42, 43 Stonesfield (Oxfordshire), xv, xvi, 7, 89, 91-96, 105, 110-111, 120, 123, 124, 127, 130, Figures 7.4-7.8, 8.12-8.13 Stoughton, George, 13 Stoughton, Gilbert, 13 Stoughton, Joan – see Topham, Joan Strocka, Volker Michael, 81, n.28, 82, 83 Stukeley, William, 17-18, 110, 111, 131, 177 (Appendix 5) Suarès, Joseph, 106 Sunderland, Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of, 16, 20, 91

Temples – see Buildings/Structures Thuillier, Jean-Paul, 32, 33, 34, n.51 Thyrsus, 40, 58, 59, 91, 94, 122, Figures 3.12, 4.12-4.13, 7.4-7.5, 8.12-8.13 Tito, Palazzo di Tito – see Rome, Palazzo di Tito Tombs, 5, 54, 69, 70, 108-110, 120, Figures 5.6, 8.9-8.11, 9.2(a) Tomkins, Henry, 90 Topham, Arabella – see Reeve, Arabella Topham, Edward, 14 Topham, Joan (née Stoughton), 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 Topham, John (Richard’s father), 12, 13, 14, 15 Topham, John (Richard’s possible elder brother), 12-14 Topham, Rebecca, 12, 13 Topham, Richard (Richard’s uncle), 13 Topham, Richard, 1, 2, 11 – see also Pope, Alexander Books, home and other possessions, 2, 14, 16, 17, 21-24, Figure 2.4 Collector/Collection, xv-xvi, 1-3, 4, 19, 20, 129-131 Education and political career, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, Figure 2.3 Family, 12-15 Grand Tour, whether went on, 15-16 Greek, Ancient, interest in, 16, 19-20, 23 Kit-Cat Club, connection with, 20 Will, 11-12, 18, 22-24 Windsor, local citizen of, 18-19 Torch, 40, Figure 3.12 Towers – see Buildings/Structures Townley, Charles, 23 Travers, Samuel, 18 Trees, 29-30, 42, 60, 72, 84, 96, 97, 106, Figures 3.1, 3.16, 4.12, 4.14, 5.12-5,13, 6.5, 7.9, 8.1, 8.2-8.5 – see also Palm trees Tridents, 36, 106, 107, 108, 119, Figures 3.7, 8.6-8.7 Trinity College, Oxford – see University of Oxford, Trinity College Tripod, 56, Figure 4.8 Troy, 83 Turnbull, George, 80 Ulysses, 83 Umpires, 35, 36, Figures 3.6-3.7 University of Oxford, 13, 21 Christ Church, 12, 13 Trinity College, 13, 15, Figure 2.3 Worcester College, 111 Urns, 54, 109, 110, 111, Figures 8.9-8.11 Urry, John, 93, 94, 95, 96 van der Gucht, Michael, 91 Varro, 31 Vatican, 54, 127 – see also Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Velum, 56 Venationes, 54-56, Figures 4.3-4.7 Venus, 58, 60, Figure 4.15 Versluys, Miguel John, 37, n.81, 38, 56 Vertue, George, 2, 20, n.130, 95, 129, n.68 Vertue, James, 172

Table, 56, Figure 4.8 Talman, John, 16, 17, 19 Taurokathapsia, 55 Taylor, M.V., xv, 91 192

Index Vessels, 40, 41, 43, 59, Figures 3.12, 3.15, 3.17, 4.13-4.14 – see also Bowls, Craters, Drinking cups/ Dishes, Jugs, Rhytons/Drinking horns, Urns, Waterlifting device Via Appia – see Rome, Via Appia Victorious Charioteers – see Charioteers Victory, 108, Figure 8.7 Vigna Moroni – see Rome, Vigna Moroni Villa Albani – see Rome, Villa Albani Villa Corsini – see Rome, Villa Corsini Villa Hadriani, 3, n.34(b), 5, 53, 54, 58-60, 69, 79, 81, Figures 4.12-4.15 Vines/Vintaging scenes – see Grapes/Vines/Vintaging scenes Vittoria album, 34, 36, 37, 42, 43, 108, 127, 128, 183-184 (Appendix 7) Volpini, (Roman mosaic worker), 81 Vowles, Mr, ‘library keeper’, 25 Waddington, Edward, 98 Walpole, Edward, 22, n.155, 23 Wanley, Humfrey, 19 Warburg Institute, 7 Warburton, Rebecca, 13 Water-lifting device, 38, Figure 3.9 Wattel-de Croizant, Odile, xv, n.8, 80, 81 Webb, Sir Daniel, 123 Webb, William, xv, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94-95, 96, 110, 111, 120, 122, 123, 130, 177 (Appendix 5) Whitehouse, Helen, 6, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, n.49, 36, n.66 and n.74, 37, n.77, 38, 43, n.152, 105, 107, 108 Wilpert, Joseph, 43 Wilton House, 84 Windsor, Alms-houses, Richard Reeve’s, Pitt Fields, 22 Church of St John the Baptist, 11, 12, 14, Figures 2.1-2.2 Drawing of, by Wenceslaus Hollar, 14, n.39 Hall Books, 14, 18 Keppel Row, Sun Passage, 22 Map of, by John Norden, 22 Map of, in 1869-1875, 22 Peascod Street/Pescod Street/Prescod Street/PrescottStreet, 21-22 Plan of, by W. Collier, 22, 25, 98 St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, 18 Topham’s house, location of – see Topham, Richard, Books, home and other possessions William Street, 22 Withington (Gloucestershire), 96 Woodchester (Gloucestershire), xv, xvi, 6, 89, 94, 95, 96-98, 119, 120, 123-124, 127, 171-172 (Appendix 3), Figure 7.9 Woodward, Bob, 97 Worcester College, Oxford – see University of Oxford, Worcester College Writing tablets, 59

193

BAR IN TERNATIONA L SE RIE S 3064

‘The research behind this book represents an important study of the art-historical analysis of historic collections of mosaic images. It shows what a careful examination of the evidence can yield in terms of further understanding of the collection, its artists and the mosaics themselves.’ Professor Emeritus Tony King, University of Winchester ‘The book will be of interest to researchers in areas of ancient mosaics, the history of antiquarian attitudes and collections history as well as art patronage and cultural exchange. In particular the book would be of interest to scholars in the UK, Italy and the USA.’ Dr Michael Dawson, RPS Heritage ‘This is an extremely thorough, detailed, and well-researched investigation of this material. It will be of great use to anyone researching either Topham and his drawings or similar antiquarian collectors and collections.’ Dr Eleri Cousins, Lancaster University

This fully illustrated study brings together over 70 prints and drawings of mosaics from the collection of nearly 3,000 items formed by Richard Topham (1671–1730). Some are the only known records of mosaics that no longer survive, and many are published here for the first time. The book includes a detailed biographical chapter on Topham himself. The drawings, mostly by Francesco Bartoli (1670–1733) and Gaetano Piccini (1681–1736) showing mosaics displayed in Rome, are described and discussed in detail, comparing them with drawings in other collections and with the original mosaics where they survive. The small but important section relating to Roman Britain, including the Stonesfield and Woodchester mosaics, is thoroughly considered, as are the prints which contain some rare items. The concluding chapter includes an appraisal of how the drawings were presented, the artists and their sources, and an evaluation of the drawings as works of art and as archaeological records. Dr Patricia Witts is an independent specialist in Roman mosaics with a particular interest in antiquarian illustrations. Her publications include Mosaics in Roman Britain, Stories in Stone as well as a previous publication for BAR: A Mosaic Menagerie: Creatures of Land, Sea and Sky in Romano-British Mosaics, and many papers.

Printed in England