Piranesi on Paper

This online collection catalogue is the result of a two-year research project into all the prints by Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) in the museum’s collection. The research was made possible by a grant from the Mondriaan Fund. The story of Piranesi as a maker of books of prints and his world on paper, including watermark research, was at the heart of the project. The Italian artist made a huge number of prints, chiefly during the last thirty years of his life. He created over a thousand etchings, which represents an average output of 2.3 prints a month.1 These etchings were published mostly in the form of series or books of prints. Piranesi lived in Rome, which in the eighteenth century was a hub of book and print publishers. It was the ideal place to learn how to compile print books. His production rate was prodigious. Altogether he created twelve different books of prints. At the end of his life there were three hundred unbound copies in his workshop.2 Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen holds 751 Piranesi prints, many of which are in series or bound into books. The collection is not complete, but it is the most comprehensive museum collection in the Netherlands. The Rotterdam Piranesi Collection has long been well known for its superior quality and the number of early impressions and copies. The scope and quality of the collection were the stimulus to develop an online collection catalogue. The collection is held in Depot Boijmans Van Beuningen, where Piranesi’s work appears to have become reality. As you enter, your eyes are drawn to the maze of staircases zig-zagging all the way to the top of the building. The publication of this collection catalogue was timed to coincide with an exhibition being staged in Depot Boijmans Van Beuningen from 14 November 2022 to 5 March 2023. An interactive map of Rome has been developed for this exhibition, showing points referring to places (churches and monuments) that Piranesi recorded in his Vedute di Roma series.

A catalogue raisonné appeared fourteen years after Piranesi died. Since then, the artist has been the subject of much research.3 Many catalogues of his work have been compiled, a few of which have served as guides for further investigation. These authors include Focillon (1918), Hind (1922), Robison (1986) and Wilton-Ely (1994).4 The substantial catalogue of the Graphische Sammlung in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, the only museum collection catalogue of Piranesi prints so far (1999), is worthy of mention.5 Entire websites with scholarly essays on his life and work have been established, such as The Digital Piranesi.6 Despite the many investigations, discoveries such as new states, are still being made and dates are being changed. This is due to Piranesi's tremendous versatility, huge output and the large number of reprints made since his death, even into the twentieth century. For example, his son Francesco (1758-1810), with whom he had worked during his lifetime, republished some series with his own additions. It is often tricky to distinguish these reprints from the prints made by the artist himself, not least because there is still considerable uncertainty about the paper that Piranesi used. This is why there was a special focus on watermarks during the research for the online collection catalogue. Watermark research can be used to provide insight into Piranesi’s working practices, and it is important for dating the prints as well as for distinguishing them from reprints. The American art historian Andrew Robison is a pioneer in the field of watermark research. He compiled the first overview of frequently occurring watermarks in the paper that Piranesi used.7 The current collection catalogue builds on this investigation and provides context information about the watermarks in the prints in the museum’s collection. The catalogue provides an image, data about the object, information about the watermark (if present) and the origin of the paper (if known) for each Piranesi print in the collection. Through this digital publication, the museum is giving researchers all over the world access to this information, supporting the dating of Piranesi prints in other collections, and aiding further research (see watermarks).

The collection catalogue contains an introduction to Piranesi’s life and work and an overview of the collecting and exhibition history of the prints in the museum’s collection. This is followed by a review of the different books and series of prints in the museum’s collection, starting with the theoretical architecture treatises, in which Piranesi presents himself as an author and describes why he prefers Roman to Greek architecture. The principal focus here is on the composition of the books. The works are discussed in chronological order, based on the publication dates of the copies in the museum’s collection.8 This section ends with Piranesi’s most famous print series – the Carceri (Prisons) and the Vedute di Roma (Views of Rome). The artist achieved fame during his lifetime through these works, which even then were sought after by collectors. The catalogue ends with a description of the watermark investigation and all the Piranesi prints in the museum’s collection.

Piranesi had his workshop in Via del Corso from 1748. He published some of his earliest prints himself and some were put out by publishers like the bookseller Giovanni Bouchard (c. 1716-1795), whose shop was in the same street as his workshop. Bouchard developed into one of the most important publishers and vendors of Piranesi's work.14 According to the traditional division of roles, publishers commissioned designers and engravers and they were also the ones who invested in paper and copper plates, thus taking all the financial risks. Although Piranesi worked for a number of publishers, he frequently acted on his own initiative. He was always searching for ways to finance his work, including the making of dedication etchings. Within book and print circles, dedicating works to prosperous or influential people was a tried and tested method for ensuring the financing of the publication. Piranesi used dedication etchings to butter up potential patrons in his circle of acquaintances, which included aristocrats, intellectuals, fellow architects and artists, in the hope that they would fund his works. Within Roman intellectual circles, he emerged as an originator of text and images for architecture books, such as his Antichità Romane and Della Magnificenza.15 In 1761 his success enabled him to relocate to Palazzo Tomati in Strada Felice. From then on, he was responsible for the entire production process, including publishing his own work, and so had no further need for publishers like Bouchard.16 He also arranged for the republication of works previously issued by other publishers, such as the imaginary prisons (Carceri). He published a fund catalogue in print form – his Catalogo delle Opere – to inform fellow print vendors and collectors of everything he had for sale.17 That same year he was able to acquire the appreciation and financial support of the new pope, Clement XIII (1693-1769), who came from Venice and who knighted him in 1766 to become Cavaliere del Sperone d’Ore (a Knight of the Golden Spur).18 After that he regularly signed his work Cavalier Piranesi.

The period after his move to Palazzo Tomati was one of experimentation. Piranesi started to use different types and quantities of ink. He also reworked plates that had already been used to produce prints by using the unconventional technique of putting acid directly on the plate. The most significant transformation in his graphic work emerges when comparing the two editions of the Carceri series. He developed the exploratory and sketchy technique employed in the first edition (1749-1750) into an approach in the second edition (1761) based on deeply etched lines that created a sort of darkness around them. He also experimented with the restoration of ancient sculptures, an activity Piranesi developed when trading in Roman antiquities. He collected ancient ornaments during quests in and around Rome and then ‘restored’ them by having them assembled. He sold these contemporary assemblages incorporating ancient elements in his workshop, where he had fitted out a salesroom, his ‘museo’. The well-known Piranesi Vase in the British Museum in London is an example. He also made prints of these antiquities and published them in his series Vasi, candelabri.19

Piranesi's work was republished during his lifetime and until long after his death. After he died in 1778 the workshop continued to operate under the supervision of his son Francesco, who had worked with his father before his death. In 1799 Francesco and his brother Pietro (1773-?) moved to Paris. The copper plates they took with them were used for decades to produce reprints, and this activity continued after the plates were sold to the printer Firmin Didot (1764-1836) in 1835. In 1839 the plates were sold to the Camera Apostolica – a department in the papal administrative system responsible for finance – and returned to Rome, where they have been kept to this day in the Calcografia (L’Istituto centrale per la grafica).20

The Piranesi print collection began in 1936 with Bierens de Haan’s donation of 97 etchings in the Vedute di Roma series. He had recently acquired these capital prints – most of which measure 515 mm × 760 mm – at an auction in Amsterdam. They formerly belonged to the Six van Vromade family. The donation was one of the factors that prompted an exhibition about the work of Piranesi and Antonio Canaletto (1697-1768) in 1937.25 This was also the year in which Bierens de Haan donated large parts of his print collection to the museum, including the two-volume Vasi, candelabri by Piranesi. This gift, which comprised 124 prints, doubled the number of Piranesi prints in the print room.26 There was a further donation to the collection from Bierens de Haan the following year – a book of prints titled Della Magnificenza.27 More than a decade later, Bierens de Haan acquired the four volumes of Le Antichità Romane in nineteenth-century bindings at a sale at the booksellers Burgersdijk en Niermans in Leiden.28 This lengthy interval is understandable given that the international trade in prints largely collapsed during the war years. In the years that followed, the elderly Bierens de Haan became less active as a collector.29 The four volumes he gave the museum in 1949 was the last donation of works by Piranesi he made during his lifetime.

In 2019 the museum closed for a thorough renovation. At the same time the ‘Boijmans at the Neighbours’ project was initiated to provide a podium at other institutes in Rotterdam during the years the museum was closed. The Kunsthal, located in Museumpark, exhibited an overview of Piranesi’s work entitled De duizelingwekkende verbeelding van Piranesi (The Dizzying Imagination of Piranesi) in which the focus was on imaginary prisons, the Carceri, and cityscapes, the Vedute di Roma. This was not, incidentally, the first time that the Piranesi collection was shown elsewhere. A large part of it could be admired in 1998 in the Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht. After the works returned to Rotterdam, the same selection was exhibited in the print room as a pendant to the exhibition about Maurits Cornelis Escher in the Kunsthal.35 The following year a part of the Piranesi collection went to Sint-Niklaas in Belgium for a retrospective of Piranesi’s work.36 Over the years the museum has lent individual prints to other institutions, for example in 2008 to Teylers Museum in Haarlem.37

As has emerged from this brief overview, all the exhibitions have been devoted to Piranesi as an artist, with a focus on his artworks – in his own right or in relation to other printmakers – or the architecture and imaginary world he depicts. The exhibition in Depot Boijmans Van Beuningen accompanying the publication of this collection catalogue addresses for the first time Piranesi’s world of paper and the choices he made as a maker of books of prints.

Compiling a book of prints required a great deal of work involving a number of different distinct steps. Piranesi, possibly in collaboration with a publisher, was responsible for the text and images comprising the content of the publication, and produced some of it himself. A book printing press was needed for printing the text. Piranesi did not have one himself, and so the printing was farmed out to a printer. In his own workshop he took the printed pages of text and, using one of his two platen presses, added etched ornamented initials and vignettes in the blank spaces.41 Piranesi also worked on the design of his prints, which were on separate sheets without letterpress. He used the drypoint etching technique to create an outline layout of the composition in very thin lines using an etching needle directly on the copper plate. The etching ground, an acid resistant layer of varnish on which it was easy to draw using an etching needle, was then applied to the plate. The parts of the copper plate exposed by the etching needle were etched into the metal in the acid bath, thereby fixing the composition on the plate.42

Piranesi’s workshop was full of specialists and assistants, including his own children, each of whom had their own part to play in the printing process. The artist had proofs made of the etchings, made any changes he wanted, and then gave them to an assistant who calligraphed the titles on them. The final stage was carried out by a specialist who etched the text and numbers in the copper plate. The prints were probably produced in small batches because new impressions could be made whenever they were wanted, unlike the text, which could only be printed in one run, so a large number of copies were made. The final step was to assemble the pages of text and the prints. Piranesi or the publisher usually sold the work unbound so that the new owner could have the work bound himself. If large prints were part of the publication, they were printed in sections and the sheets were glued together seamlessly so that they could be folded correctly by the bookbinder and bound into the book.43

Large numbers of books of prints called for colossal amounts of paper. Piranesi must have been surrounded by it in his workshop. The paper was stored in bales, prepared for printing, hung up to dry after printing and kept in piles as unbound books of prints ready for sale.44 Paper was imported from different parts of Italy and elsewhere in Europe. At that time a sheet of paper cost 4 baiocchi. To place this in context, a family of four spent on average ten scudi a month on food in eighteenth-century Rome (this was the currency of the Papal States;1 scudo = 100 baiocchi). Import duty had to be paid on top of this. Piranesi applied for and received an exemption from the Pope from paying duty on imported paper. During his career he succeeded in avoiding paying import duty three times. The quantity of paper concerned was prodigious – 200, 100 and 80 bales of paper respectively. This would have saved him some 1,200 scudi.45

The first book of prints Piranesi made with a text, in which he presented himself as an author, was his 1756 Le Antichità Romane (Roman Antiquities).46 The work comprises four volumes that feature Roman architecture and ruins in more than 200 prints and on 72 pages of text.47 The latter were printed by Angelo Rotili (c. 1704-before 1780) in his print shop in Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne in Rome. The work could be purchased from Bouchard. In the first volume Piranesi focuses primarily on the general urban structures of ancient Rome, of which he includes a map. He does not limit himself to the monuments. He also depicts the ancient city walls and aqueducts, such as the Aurelian Walls dating from the third century CE and the Aqua Virgo built in the first century BCE. Tombs are featured in volumes two and three. After the title page, both volumes open with a frontispiece showing ancient Roman roads along which tombs are placed, reflecting the tradition of burying the dead outside the city. Many of these graves contain members of well-known Roman families, for example that of Emperor Augustus (63 BCE-14 CE). There is also the last resting place of Gaius Cestius (?-12 BCE), who is buried in a mausoleum in the shape of a pyramid. In the fourth volume Piranesi concentrates on bridges and monuments, with emphasis on the feats of engineering, including cross-sections of the foundations. Bridges, Tiber Island and the Theatre of Marcellus are dealt with comprehensively. It emerges from the text that as well as immortalizing the monuments, Piranesi also sought to explain the structures of the buildings and therefore devoted considerable attention to construction techniques. He firmly believed in the genius of Roman architecture and urban planning. The four-volume publication was the result of many years of study of the monuments and writings about ancient Rome. He presented himself as an authority on antiquity through this book.48

The project had begun on a small scale with the Camere sepolcrali (Burial Chambers), a series of fifteen prints of ancient graves and tombs (later incorporated in the second and third volumes). Piranesi decided to expand the work by adding other ’Roman antiquities’, such as monuments, bridges and aqueducts. A project on such a scale was a costly venture, and he thought he had found a benefactor in the young Irishman James Caulfeild (1728-1799), Earl of Charlemont, but it turned out to be a disappointment.49 As a wealthy devotee of antiquities and a ‘Grand Tourist’ in Rome, Charlemont appeared to be a perfect candidate as a patron, which is why Piranesi designed a dedication etching for him. Although Charlemont gave him an advance after some pressure had been applied, he lived up to his reputation as a rather unreliable sponsor by suddenly leaving Rome in 1754 for no clear reason. Meanwhile Piranesi worked on the publication and he published a small edition, all the while continuing to make unsuccessful attempts to reach Charlemont.50

The Antichità Romane sold well and was soon available in other European cities. Piranesi’s services as a researcher and printmaker led to his election as an honorary member of the Society of Antiquities in London and his admission to the Accademia di San Luca in Rome.53 After Piranesi’s death, his son Francesco republished the Antichità Romane in 1784, with three etchings by his father that had not been in the first edition, and again in 1787 with three etchings by Francesco, a new portrait of his father by Francesco, and an altered dedication etching to Gustav III of Sweden (1746-1792).

The work that really demonstrated Piranesi’s competence as an all-round maker of books of prints was the 1761 Della Magnificenza ed Architettura de’Romani (On the Magnificence and the Architecture of the Romans). While it is true to say that he had already compiled the Antichità Romane, containing both prints and text in letterpress, the approach had still been primarily visual. Della Magnificenza, which is about the grandeur of Roman architecture, displays cohesion between texts and images such that the prints and the arguments in his treatise amplify one another.

The publication appeared in the year Piranesi moved to Palazzo Tomati in Rome, the address from which he published his own works from then on. He had two presses in his own workshop for making prints, but he did not have a book printing press for the text. This called for a different sort of specialist skill and he therefore contracted it out to printers who worked on his instructions.59 The texts in Della Magnificenza are in two languages – Latin and Italian. The authorship was questioned during his lifetime and more frequently after it because Piranesi had had little schooling in Latin. Piranesi can be seen in any event as the intellectual author because the prints and the text together present his theoretical and visual defence of his reasoning. It is highly likely that he commissioned a writer to clearly express his ideas in Italian and then translate them into Latin. He probably used this approach for all his texts, for example in Antichità Romane, because as a Venetian, Piranesi would not have used the Tuscan linguistic style.60

Producing large series was expensive, particularly when both writing and printing the text was contracted out. Della Magnificenza was moreover a deluxe edition with ornamented initials and vignettes. The publication of an ambitious work like this meant Piranesi had to seek finance again. This quest heralded an era of patronage from Pope Clement XIII that lasted until his death in 1769. The book was dedicated to him, which meant that Piranesi received both financial security and political protection.61 Paper was the biggest cost item and generally speaking accounted for half of the funding. The exemption from import duty granted by the Pope saved Piranesi substantial expense.62

A book that went against the prevailing opinion about Greek superiority could reckon on a response. In 1764 the French art dealer and collector Pierre-Jean Mariette (1694-1774) reacted to Della Magnificenza with an article in the scholarly magazine Gazette Litéraire de l’Europe. In it he asserted that Piranesi’s vision about the origin of Roman culture was not correct.63 Piranesi reacted to this criticism almost at once with his Osservazioni sopra la lettre de M. Mariette (Observations on the Letter of M. Mariette) in which he defended his position with Mariette’s text alongside in order to demonstrate that Mariette had only read his text superficially.64 The texts in this book of prints can be divided into three parts: Osservazioni, Parere and Prefazione (Observations, Opinion and Preface) At the end, Piranesi stated that he intended to produce a further book about the development of all the different styles in the classical world in order to demonstrate that it was not just the Greeks who had good taste (in the Prefazione ad un nuovo Trattato Della Introduzione e del Progresso delle belle arti in Europa (Preface to a New Treatise on the Introduction and Progress of Fine Arts in Europe)).65 This declaration of intent led some twentieth-century researchers, Wilton-Ely for instance, to conclude that Piranesi began to change his stance and recommended a varied use of styles.66 Piranesi’s starting point was that nature never repeated itself and nothing had the same appearance twice. He was therefore always searching for variation in his work.67 According to Kantor-Kazovsky, Piranesi expressed his wish for this publication in order to expose the reasons underlying Mariette’s criticism, namely his efforts to reduce the importance of Italy in the training of young artists. Mariette had published several critical articles in the same journal in which he raised this issue. The Greek versus Roman debate exposed the eighteenth-century struggle between France and Italy for the leading position in the field of European culture. The feud between Mariette and Piranesi did not end with the Osservazioni. Mariette fiercely attacked Piranesi in letters to contemporaries in which he maintained that Piranesi had not understood his criticism because of his limited knowledge of the French language and accused him of not coming up with these ideas himself – one of the reasons why Piranesi’s authorship was doubted at the time and for a long time thereafter.68

Unlike the books of prints he had published previously, in which there was a written line of reasoning, the objective of this work called primarily for the presentation of images rather than text in letterpress. The relevant information was etched on the plate for each individual composition, for example where the ornaments were found. This created the freedom to also sell the prints as separate sheets without depriving the purchaser of any information.73 When put together, the prints formed a catalogue of Piranesi’s antiquities, which consisted primarily of vases. The contents could easily be changed in the event that he had a new antiquity for sale or had made a new print. Piranesi listed the names of the buyers, who included English and Scottish nobles, on the prints of sold objects with the aim of encouraging the sale of his other antiquities. This is how he developed into one of the most important Roman antiquities dealers with an international circle of clients.74

Some of Piranesi’s antiquities are currently well known, for example the Warwick Vase in the Burrell Collection in Glasgow, named after the owner George Grenville (1712-1770), the Earl of Warwick. The use of modern research techniques has revealed that the vase is a pastiche with mainly eighteenth-century parts. Piranesi noted under the print that it was an example that reflected the perfection of that time and that the work had been restored. The vase gives insight into the difference between the eighteenth-century and the contemporary interpretations of the concept of restoration.75 In the eighteenth century it was common practice to replace missing parts of a sculpture or antiquity because collectors preferred to buy an intact work. It was a working practice that was completely at odds with current restoration ethics, under which the original is determining and there is great restraint when it comes to additions. Seen in this context, it is not correct to designate the text under the print as misleading and no more than a means to promote the work, as has sometimes happened in the past.

Prints could be sold in Rome as separate works, but it was not permitted to publish and sell a book or series of prints without official permission from the authorities. It was the publisher Bouchard who assembled different prints by Piranesi, for example the Grotteschi and the Carceri, and requested permission to publish them in combined form in 1750 under the name Opere varie di architettura, prospettive, grotteschi, antichità (Various Works of Architecture, Perspectives, Grotesques and Antiquities). By using this combined title, it was possible to obtain the necessary permission to get several series of prints by Piranesi printed and to sell them.86 The composition of Opere varie varies from one copy to another, but generally speaking there are a number of standard parts. The work usually begins with the portrait of Piranesi by Francesco Polanzani as frontispiece, followed by the Prima Parte di Architetture e Prospettive (First Part of Architecture and Perspectives). The other series in which Piranesi plays with reality and fantasy, Grotteschi and Carceri, come after that.87 The work was frequently republished. The composition changed and new series of prints were added, such as the 1753 Trofei di Ottaviano Augusto (Trophies of Octavian Augustus). Opere varie brings together Piranesi’s early work during a period when he was experimenting with the etching technique, for example polishing the copper plate, applying acid directly to the plate to etch it, using different kinds of ink and varying the quantity of ink on the plate. The way he used tools was also unconventional on occasion, for example he would scrape the plate using a stone.88

The 1743 Prima parte is the earliest book of prints by Piranesi and the first expression of his love of architecture and ancient Rome. The architecture depicted by Piranesi is a combination of reality and fantasy presented in complex compositions.89 The book of prints was published by the brothers Niccolò and Marco Pagliarini (active between 1742 and 1786?). Piranesi dedicated the work to Nicola Giobbe, a prosperous Roman with a large collection of books and prints about architecture that the artist was permitted to use.90 Prima parte obtained official approval to be published as a book of prints even though it had only four pages of text in letterpress, a title print and twelve etchings.91 Although the name suggests that more volumes were to follow, none did. Prima parte was added to the publication Opere varie, with a modified title print and without the letterpress texts, which remained the property of the Pagliarini brothers.92 The four pages of the Grotteschi are Piranesi’s sketchiest prints. He made them shortly after he settled permanently in Rome in 1747. They are often linked to the style of Tiepolo’s Capricci (Various Caprices) in which swift lines predominate. In these four prints, Piranesi plays with architectural and human decline.93 The Carceri, discussed in detail below, is another set of imaginative prints. These spatial inventions of prisons appear to explore the visual possibilities and limits of architecture. Because there are no exits in the design, the viewer could experience the feeling of imprisonment within the play of lines.94 The Trofei di Ottaviano Augusto was published in 1753 by Bouchard as a book of prints with a title page in letterpress. For the rest, the book contains an etched text with each print, for which separate copper plates were used. Piranesi describes, among other things, where the fragments were found. Bouchard added the prints and texts to the Opere varie.95

To this day the Carceri remains a mysterious and striking series in Piranesi’s oeuvre. Many authors have pondered the question of what the author wanted to say with these images of imaginary prisons. They have been discussed in terms that range from an experiment to a quest for the sublime. Piranesi started in 1749-1750 with fourteen plates of these spatial inventions entitled Invenzioni capric di Carceri (Fanciful Images of Prisons). The prisons are reminiscent of Etruscan and Roman theatre decors, but also of prison systems and fortifications. The idea of being locked up in these spaces springs from the way Piranesi positions the viewpoint of viewers such that they have no sight of a possible exit. In 1761 he returned to the copper plates, altered the compositions and made them much darker by deepening the etched lines or using the etching needle to scratch the plate directly. He also added two new prints and changed the title of the series on the title page to Carceri d’invenzione (Imaginary Prisons). The architectural fantasies in the second edition with unending systems of corridors that are populated here and there have something sinister about them. They have often been interpreted as torture chambers and it has been suggested that they reflected depression being suffered by the maker. They have also been explained as a depiction of the limits of invention within which the viewer appears to be confined – referring to the title.105

There are major differences between the first and second editions (figs. 15, 16). As studies into Piranesi’s work continued, researchers discovered that Piranesi had repeatedly made changes to his copper plates and that there were several states with slight changes within the two editions. The second edition was republished posthumously four times, so altogether there were six different editions.106 There were furthermore three print runs of the first edition (1749-1760) in 1749-1750, 1750-c. 1758 and c. 1758-1760. The first print run comprises primarily first states, while the second and third print runs contain later states, and numerous prints in the third edition also had extra ink on the plates. There is a clear difference between the first and second states of the title print. In the first state the name Bouchard is spelt Buzard, and this was corrected in the second state. There were four different print runs in the second edition (1761-1778). They were in 1761, the early to mid-seventeen-sixties, the mid- to late seventeen-sixties to the early seventeen-seventies, and the mid- to late seventeen-seventies. Unlike the prints in the first edition, which as a rule are of only one state, several state differences can be made out in the second edition. The deep tonal state differences arise from Piranesi’s experiments with ink and acid.

The time the etching plate spends in the acid bath is a variable in the etching technique. It determines how deeply the lines are etched and how much ink they can hold. Piranesi experimented with the time he left the plates in the acid, as other printmakers had done before him, but he extended the process to such an extent that the structure of the lines became blurred, as only Rembrandt had done previously.107 Piranesi’s experiments also involved shielding parts of the plate by using an etching ground or special lacquer in order to prevent the acid reaching the copper. The quantity and colour of the ink also contributed to the tonal effect of the prints. Piranesi began with a light black ink, which could vary to silver grey, then, from the mid-seventeen-fifties, he tended towards sepia, and at the end of his career he returned to a deep black ink.108 The prints in the early set of the Carceri are sketchy in style with light, thin lines and were printed using black ink. The late set is the result of deeply etched lines that were filled with deep black ink. Details are lost in the impression but deep shadows are created. The addition of extra ink to the copper plate was another of his techniques. He spread it out by rubbing the palm of his hand over the plate, which created an extra tonal effect (plate tone).109 He was able to achieve this effect in ways other than adding extra ink. He emphasized areas by scraping copper away from the plate or making the surface smoother by polishing it.110 One of his most experimental ideas was to let the acid directly etch the plate by applying it with a brush.111 This could produce superb effects, although it was easy to go too far, interfere with the lovely tonal effect and make those areas look very rough.

The set of fourteen prints has a title print with the incorrect spelling Buzard and is therefore easy to identify as the first state (of nine). Most of the prints in the series have only one state in the first edition, and in the ones that have several states it is fairly straightforward to identify which one it is. The print known as The Giant Wheel, for example, has three states in the first edition.112 The difference between the three is very clear: without signature (I), with signature (II) and without the large diagonal line in the middle of the composition (III). The impression in the museum’s collection is signed and the diagonal line is still present, so it is the second state. It is not so easy to determine the states of all the prints. Two states of The Sawhorse exist in the first edition. The first of these is very rare. Only three impressions are known. On the face of it, the example in the museum’s collection could, on the basis of Robison’s description, ‘Before scratching on walls around large doorway in lc. Before spikes on round-topped pillar in br corner’, be a first state.113 The difference from the second state is in tonal scratching in the central corner, where the passage and the arch meet.114 This light difference in shadow is very subtle, but further examination has revealed that it is visible on the museum’s print, and consequently it can be identified as a second state. Besides the title print with the incorrect spelling Buzard, the first print run contains only first states that were printed without extra ink on the plates (except for The Giant Wheel and The Sawhorse, of which there can also be second states). This means that the series in the museum’s collection is from the first print run of the first edition, which is dated 1749 to 1750.

Until now it has always been assumed that the other set in the museum’s collection with sixteen prints was an early edition printed by Piranesi himself. After Piranesi’s death the copper plates were used to print a further four editions. The third (1778-1799) and fourth edition (1800-1809) are the same states as the previous print runs and can only be distinguished on the basis of the watermarks. The fifth edition (1835-1839) was printed by Firmin Didot in Paris, who at a certain moment printed the next new states and added the numbering. All the prints in the museum’s series are from the last print run of the second edition, still without numbers. The watermarks reveal that they have to have come from the fourth or fifth edition, in other words the first Paris edition (1800-1809) or the Firmin Didot edition before the numbering (1835). According to Robison, the watermarks in these two editions are largely the same, but the fourth edition mostly has the watermark with the name Dupuy together with the text Auvergne 1742, as does the set in Rotterdam (fig. 17).115 This French laid paper came from the La Grand Rive paper mill of Thomas Dupuy (1746-1823) in the Auvergne, a region that was known for paper manufacturing and a family whose dynasty was prominent in it.116 One of the works by Francesco Piranesi in the museum’s collection was also printed on Dupuy paper and might therefore have been made during his Paris period (1799-1810) (fig. 18). It therefore seems plausible that the second Carceri set in the collection is the fourth edition, in other words the first Paris edition, published after Piranesi’s death by his sons. Although these are therefore posthumous impressions, there are no state differences since the previous time that Piranesi worked on the copper plates and the deep tonal effects that the artist had hoped to achieve are still visible. It is therefore not surprising that the impressions in the museum’s collection have been exhibited often because they appeal very strongly to the imagination and clearly demonstrate Piranesi’s skill. The popularity of the series has manifested itself, particularly over the last century, in studies by researchers who interpret the work very differently, for example in the context of the expression of Piranesi’s psyche, as a statement of the sublime, as a predecessor of the Romanticism that arrived in Europe at the end of the eighteenth century, and as a description of his architectural theories. The series has furthermore recently been translated as a very popular fantasy novel.117

Piranesi came to Rome in 1740 in the retinue of the Venetian ambassador to the Vatican on the occasion of the coronation of Pope Benedict XIV. This was the beginning of his love for the city, which he went on to record often during his lifetime.118 He settled permanently in Rome in 1747 and this signalled the start of the series Vedute di Roma (Views of Rome), on which he was to continue working for the rest of his life. The series of prints includes all the city’s well-known classical monuments, such as the Colosseum, the Pantheon, Trajan’s Column and the Forum Romanum, as well as depictions of the modern metropolis as it was in Piranesi’s time, with the hustle and bustle in Piazza Navona, in St Peter's Square, around the Spanish Steps and elsewhere. Besides cityscapes there are also the interiors of buildings and locations in the environs of Rome. The series reveals which monuments fascinated Piranesi and where he spent a lot of time, such as Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, which he recorded no fewer than five times. It was a popular place where artists and architects liked to go to sketch on the spot.119 He returned to some monuments, for instance the Basilica of Maxentius, which he also included in the Antichità Romane (1756) (fig. 19, 20). He believed that in this way he was contributing to the knowledge about these buildings and providing a snapshot for the future should these buildings become weathered or crumble.120

Piranesi recorded the city as he saw it, he did not give any indications of scale or references, and he confined himself to brief titles and designations of the buildings depicted. He soon started to play with scale and mass. The monuments are central and the figures who populate the streets and monuments are drawn on a comparatively very small scale, often as admirers. As a result, Piranesi underlines the grandeur of the buildings by making them look even bigger and more monumental (fig. 21).121 The artist deliberately selected a low viewpoint, which makes the monuments appear to tower over the viewer and gives extra emphasis to their size (fig. 22).122

The 135 capital prints, mostly 515 × 760 mm, of views of ancient and modern Rome and its environs, were to become his most famous series. They were the best-selling works in his lifetime. Here, too, he responded cleverly to the demands of the purchasers. The tourists in Rome were primarily prosperous young Europeans on their Grand Tours as the completion of their education, aristocrats, scholars and artists. They wanted to take a souvenir home with them and Piranesi provided an alternative that was cheaper and easier to transport than the popular paintings of cityscapes.123 Piranesi became a successful vendor in the eighteenth-century tourist market and gave the series a prominent place in the middle of his fund catalogue.95 The idea of large cityscapes in the form of prints was innovative compared with the output of other printmakers, who published much smaller cityscapes, among other things for travel guides. The large size made it an expensive proposition which Piranesi, as the publisher of the series, had to finance himself. He was able to use the dowry of his wife, Angela Pasquini (c. 1730-?), whom he married in 1752.125 Piranesi did not produce all 135 prints in one go. He gradually built up the series, which meant he could spread the investment in 135 copper plates over several years. He usually sold his cityscapes as separate works, but in the beginning he also published some of them as a series, the Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna (Magnificence of Ancient and Modern Rome) 1751.126

Piranesi worked on this series throughout his life, so the moments at which he made the separate impressions vary very widely. Piranesi did not date the sheets, with one exception. Because of this, many authors have focused on the dating of the Vedute.127 Although 1747 is generally considered to be the start date of the series, there are prints with a possible earlier date. There is, for example, a set of ten prints on Venetian paper, which suggests a start date of 1746.128 The dating of the series is impeded by the fact that Piranesi regularly reworked his copper plates in order to make changes and because the plates had become worn after being used to make very many impressions. This also continued after his death, initially by his son Francesco, who added two prints he made himself to the series, which took the total to 137.129 Because there were multiple reprints, there is considerable variation in the quality of the prints in circulation. There is therefore good reason for Hind to have described them as ‘mere wrecks of their former selves.’130 In 1922 Hind made a first attempt to date the separate sheets of the Vedute and a rough classification that led to the identification of eight different states: proofs without titles, impressions made during Piranesi’s lifetime comprising three states, and four posthumous editions. The differences between the states identified by Hind were based on whose name was mentioned on the print. For each state, he stated whether Piranesi had used thick or thin paper and what the watermark is.131 Although this was a revolutionary step in Piranesi research, Hind’s classification was refined later on, particularly with regard to the differences between states.

As part of this investigation, the 132 prints were re-examined to establish whether they are contemporary or posthumous impressions, and to narrow down the dating of the prints. Robison’s datings referred to above provide a guideline for the production date. The states and watermarks of the prints were compared in order to determine the first possible date of the specific impressions. The sheets were divided into two groups for the purposes of this investigation – the prints that were made before and after Piranesi relocated in 1761. Generally speaking, it can be said of the prints dating from before the move in 1761 that the earliest impressions do not mention a publisher’s address, subsequent sheets show the address of the publisher Bouchard, and after the move they have Piranesi’s address and the price on the prints. After that, this price was removed from the copper plates, and numbers were added in the later posthumous impressions.135 It is striking that most of the prints in the museum’s collection dating from before 1761 bear Piranesi’s address, which indicates that they are reprints. If the price is still present, it is very probably an impression made during Piranesi’s lifetime. The impressions made after the price had been removed from the copper plate are most likely to have been printed in Rome after his death. This picture is confirmed by the watermarks.

With regard to the prints in the second group that have a production date after 1761, it is usually the case that the first state bears the address of Piranesi’s new workshop in Palazzo Tomati. In a subsequent state the price has been removed from the copper plates and in later states there is numbering. Piranesi stopped mentioning his address in 1766, which means that distinguishing these impressions from posthumous prints can often only be based on the numbers that were added. In later states Piranesi’s copper plates were often reworked with extra added lines and etched more deeply in the acid. Piranesi did this himself and his sons continued the practice after his death, so it is tricky to establish whether or not an impression is contemporary.140 The visible watermarks in the examples held by the museum enable a more precise determination of the moment of production, for example for Veduta del Tempio di Ercole nella Città di Cora (View of the Temple of Hercules in the City of Cora). This is the second state, in which the reworking was primarily in parts of the sky. This can indicate changes that were made during his lifetime or after his death by his sons in Rome or in Paris. The watermarks suggest a dating of between 1770 and 1790, corresponding to a posthumous Roman impression, which means that the changes were made by Piranesi’s sons after they took over the workshop in Rome.141 Veduta dell'insigne Basilica Vaticana coll'ampio Portico, e Piazza adjacenta (View of the Famous Vatican Basilica with its Spacious Portico, and Adjacent Piazza) is another example where research into the states is not enough to date an impression. The first state was made before the addition of numbers and the impressions range from contemporary to early Paris prints at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Thankfully, watermarks are a means of making a more accurate dating as a Roman print made after Piranesi’s death at some point between the late seventeen-seventies and the early seventeen-nineties.139

In the cases discussed above, the watermark is used to narrow down the dating of the impressions by comparing them with the states, but this procedure can be applied the other way round to modify the dating of a watermark. In the case of eight prints that all have the same watermark of an ornamental shield with the letter F above it and the letter M below it in the paper, the probable dating of the state is different from the dating of the watermark. The states of the prints suggest a contemporary dating whereas Robison dated the watermark to between the late seventeen-seventies and the seventeen-eighties.144 The conclusion could be that, despite the state, these prints were all made after Piranesi’s death. This situation arises with several prints with this watermark, and this prompts the question as to whether the dating of the watermark should be amended to cover a longer period in this case.

As a printmaker and publisher of books of prints, Piranesi needed large quantities of paper. It was readily available from the many different paper mills in Italy. Each paper mill used a mark – a watermark – to identify its products. This mark is only visible when the paper is held up to the light because the paper is thinner there (fig. 26). It is produced in the manufacturing process. The papermaker takes paper pulp from the vat using a mould with a screen of copper wire and a deckle on top, thus creating a sheet of paper.145 The watermark is a figure or a motif made from copper wire that is attached to the screen, with the result that fewer paper fibres can collect there. When the sheet of paper is held up to the light, the watermark becomes visible, as does the pattern of screen wires, known as the chain lines and laid lines. As a result of wear during the manufacturing process, the marks could only be used for a limited time. When a new mould was made, the new watermark was similar but not completely identical to the old one because they were hand made, so there were always differences.146

The oldest Italian paper mills are in Fabriano in the province of Ancona, the centre of paper manufacturing. The use of a watermark was invented here the thirteenth century. It was a means for the manufacturer to make the paper recognizable and acted as a guarantee of the quality, for which there were very strict rules.147 Papermakers selected a very wide range of figures and motifs, from Christian to astrological symbols. Many common marks are of crossbows, eagles and lilies (fleur-de-lis, as can be seen in the illustration above).148 During the manufacturing process, two moulds were used at the same time to increase output. Both had the same, essentially identical watermark.149 After couching (when the sheets were removed from the mould, stacked with pieces of felt in between them, pressed and dried) they were packaged 500 sheets at a time in a ream wrapper.150 This paper, with almost identical watermarks from the two moulds, was packaged together and therefore sold at the same time, so impressions on this paper can be given the same date.151 Watermarks are a useful aid in more accurate dating of works on paper. The countermark can be an additional means for facilitating watermark research. This is a second watermark attached to the same mould, often bearing the name or initials of the paper mill or the vatman.152

Watermarks can be used to learn about Piranesi’s paper consumption, about which little is currently known. Where and when did he buy his paper and how did he use it? This research is important in dating his prints more accurately, and the impressions too. It can, for example, be used to distinguish posthumous impressions, which were often made using similar paper.153 As we have seen, Piranesi’s business was continued by his sons and his etching plates were used until well into the twentieth century.

In Piranesi’s case, there are two complicating factors relating to the visibility of the watermarks. He used very thick paper to make impressions with his etching plates and applied large quantities of printing ink, as a result of which much less light shines through the paper. In the second half of the eighteenth century, moreover, another sort of paper, wove paper, was introduced. There was demand for a type of paper in which the structure of the mould was no longer visible. Papermakers responded by using a finely woven brass wire cloth as a screen in the mould, as a result of which the surface of the paper was much smoother.154 Piranesi worked with laid paper, in which the chain lines and water lines are visible, and wove paper, in which the watermarks are less visible.

Despite these complicating factors, an attempt was made to track down the watermarks in Piranesi’s prints in Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen’s collection and, in so doing, provide insight into his paper selections. This was a continuation of Andrew Robison’s research. In 1986 he used watermarks for the first time in research into Piranesi’s work, particularly to date early impressions and a number of print series. Robison’s pioneering work was limited to determining how frequently certain watermarks are found within Piranesi’s oeuvre.155 He did not note any dimensions of the watermarks or their position in the paper, yet this type of information is important when comparing watermarks and variation differences. Nor did he look into the origin of the paper, in other words which region or which paper mill the paper came from. This is important because it can tell us something about Piranesi’s paper consumption and possibly reveal a pattern of purchase and use. The information from this investigation supplements existing research and provides a better understanding of Piranesi’s working practices.

The first step is to identify and analyze the watermarks: their numbers and the categories they come into. After manufacture, paper was often folded and cut, and this is a determining factor for the presence of a watermark in a print.156 The position of a watermark in a sheet of paper consequently indicates whether or not the page is still the original size. If a sheet of paper is uncut, it is referred to as plano, and if a sheet is divided into two, four or eight, it is referred to as folio, quarto or octavo respectively.157 This is not yet related to the size of the paper. There were standard paper sizes in early modern Europe. In the seventeenth-century, for example, the variants in the Netherlands were pot (280 x 350 mm), gemeen (320 x 420 mm), mediaan (420 x 540 mm), royaal (480 x 580 mm) and imperiaal (550 x 720 mm).158 In Italy it was traditional to have four paper sizes: Reçute (315 x 450 mm), Meçane (345 x 515 mm), Realle (445 x 615 mm) and Inperialle (500 x 740 mm).159 Piranesi worked primarily on large sheets of paper. Based on the museum’s collection, it can be established that the sizes are primarily Meçane or Inperialle. Meçane was used for smaller, often vertical prints or for two small prints on one sheet, and Inperialle was used for larger, often horizontal prints that were sometimes folded with a binding strip in the fold so that they could be bound. In view of this large paper size, many prints could be expected to contain a watermark.

The watermarks present were sorted, categorized and compared. Comparing watermarks has become relatively easy thanks to the development of a new computer tool. Overlay videos can be used to digitally superimpose one watermark on top of another and make a comparison at preselected points.160 This comparison technique yielded 16 different watermark prototypes that range from a fleur-de-lis in a circle with the letter F below to a watermark that depicts a shield with crossed keys and crown above, letters SUBIACO below.

The next step was to compare these prototypes with existing manuals and databases in order to trace the origin and narrow down the dating. The calibrated method is to search for corresponding watermarks that occur in dated historical documents. Various researchers, including Churchill, Heawood, Piccard and Zonghi, have studied watermarks and developed catalogues that can be used as a source of information about watermarks.161 Over the years databases, including online databases, have been created; the memory of paper is one of the most comprehensive.162 It should be pointed out that these sources specifically focus on watermarks from earlier centuries. The eighteenth century therefore requires more study.163 The general books and databases have consequently provided less help in this investigation than had been hoped, so a supplementary search technique had to be used. We therefore got in touch with the Fondazione Fedrigoni Fabriano, which manages the papermills’ archives in Fabriano.164 Given that this was the oldest centre of paper manufacturing in Italy, it was obvious that the paper used by Piranesi came from there. The Fondazione has developed a database of all the types of paper manufactured in Fabriano since the end of the thirteenth century, the Corpus Chartarum Fabriano (CCF).165 The watermarks database, the Corpus Chartarum Italicarum (CCI), which covers a larger part of Italy, was also consulted.166 The following overview shows what this quest produced and the tables indicate how often the different watermarks occur (figs. 27, 28).167

A number of general conclusions about the origin of the paper can be drawn on the basis of this overview. Piranesi used paper from different papermills in Fabriano, for example Sordini and Serafini. Apart from the watermarks, the latter mill is also confirmed as a supplier by a document in the archive of the Fondazione Fedrigoni Fabriano in which it is stated that Piranesi used Serafini paper.168 There is a suspicion that paper was also obtained from the Mariotti papermill in Fabriano, but hopefully more research in the future into the watermarks in the paper used by Piranesi will confirm or disprove this.169 Two other centres where he acquired paper were Subiaco in the region of Lazio and Bracciano just north of Rome. The papermill in Subiaco was founded under Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590) in 1587, but this specific watermark points to the period in which Subiaco was controlled by Pope Pius VI (1717-1799). Above are the papal insignias of a tiara with crossed keys and below is the shield of Pope Pius VI with three stars and a small cherub’s head blowing the wind towards a lily (a zephyr).170 Bracciano had a papermill that was constructed in 1724 and was very active in the eighteenth century. Its closeness to Rome explains the distribution of Bracciano paper there. It enjoyed a good reputation.171 Piranesi visited the town himself to record the Palazzo del Duca di Bracciano Odeschalchi for his series the Varie Vedute (Various Views) in 1745. In addition to Italian watermarks, the investigation also found marks with a French origin. These indicate a descendant of the Dupuy family, papermakers from the Auvergne. This French paper is linked to the continuation of Piranesi’s business by his sons in Paris from the end of the eighteenth century.

The commonest watermark among the group of 751 Piranesi prints is the fleur-de-lis in a double circle with the monogram CB above, as can be seen in the table above (fig. 28).172 This image corresponds to the findings of Robison, who distinguished between ten variants of this type of watermark, which was used from about 1760 to about 1790.173 Five of these variants were found in the museum’s collection in, for example, the four volumes of the Antichità Romane, the two volumes of the Vasi, candelabri, the Opere varie, the Paestum series and the Vedute di Roma series. The corresponding examples in the manuals and databases have comparable dating.174 Although the motif of this watermark was used frequently in Italy in the second half of the eighteenth century, the origin unfortunately remains unclear. It is suspected that it originated in central Italy, in the regions of Lazio, Umbria or Marche. Papermakers used the watermark to distinguish between the quality of the different sorts of paper that they supplied. As a general rule, the good-quality paper had a watermark in a circle.175 The vast majority of the watermarks found have such a circle, which confirms that Piranesi preferred to use the best quality.

Thanks to this investigation, a great deal of information could be added to the existing knowledge about the watermarks in the paper of Piranesi’s prints, such as the location of the watermark in the paper, the origin and a few watermarks not previously discovered. The results have provided insight into Piranesi’s working practices and the existing dating of individual impressions and books of prints could be confirmed or disproved. The investigation into eighteenth-century watermarks is ongoing. If the databases are expanded and more research in done in Italian archives, this type of investigation can become an even more valuable aid. By sharing all the information and references online, the museum is hoping to encourage further research into the watermarks in Piranesi’s prints.