path & place: drawings from rome carlo pelliccia fellowship
polly
smith
2
table
of
contents
guide introduction
5
Project Brief Historical & Theoretical Background Research: Defining Fascist-Vatican Relations: The Role of Roman Roads
10 12 18
1: via dei fori imperiali
53
Colosseum Roman Forum Campidoglio
2: corso vittorio emanuele II
82
Il Gesu Sant’Andrea della Valle Chiesa Nuova Ponte Vittorio Emanuele
3: via della conciliazione St. Peter’s Piazza & Basilica 4: off the path
127
143
EUR Quirinale Campo Marzio Trastevere
5: life in rome: photography
163
3
EXH IBIT IO N: C A MPB EL L HAL L , UNI VERSI TY OF VI RGIN I A
4
5
6
7
introduction
9
path
&
place:
drawings
from
rome
“The street is a room by a g reement. A community room the w alls of which belong to the donors. Its ceiling is the sky.” – Louis Kahn, visiting Char tres Cathedral, 1971
Thi s d raw i n g p r oj ec t t ra c es a p a t h thro ug h the city o f Rom e, fo l l ow i ng t h ree m od er n s t ree t s : C o rs o Vitto rio Emanue le I I ( wid e ne d and st ra i gh t e n e d fr om m e d i eva l s tre e ts in 1886), Via de i Fo ri I m p e r i a l i an d Vi a d el l a C on c i l i a z i on e (built in 1923 and 1935 respe c t ive l y und e r M u s s ol i n i ’s fa s c i s t re g ime ). I t s e e k s to po r tray t h e c ivi c t he a t e r i n Rom e a s i n f l u en c e d by late 19th ce ntur y - e arly 20t h c e nt ur y I t a l i a n re gi m e, u s i n g d raw i ng to unde rs tand how po lit ic al p a t r o ns o f a rch i t e c t u re i n t en t i on a l ly s hape d public s pace, d raw i ng o n t he p a s t t o fu r t h e r t h ei r goa l s. Stre e ts, in Ro me and els ewhe re, w e re c on s t r u c t e d a s l i n ks b e t we e n exis ting place s, to d raw at t e nt i o n t o t h e a c c u mu l a t i on of i mpo r tant mo nume nts f ro m an cie nt , m e d i eva l , b a r oq u e, a n d m od er n time s. They s ubs e que ntly ser ve a s a p l ac e of d es i re for fu t u re bu i l ding, thus re info rcing the imp o r t anc e o f t h e s t ree t a s b ot h org a n i z ing inf ras tructure and d es t i na t i o n. Co r so Vi t t or i o E m a nu e l e II w a s bu ilt to ho no r the le ade r wh o uni f i e d I t al y ; t h e s t ree t i s i t s el f a u n if ie r, fo llow ing a be ndin g p a t h t o c o nn ec t m onu m en t s a n d s i gh ts. Via de i Fo ri I mpe riali an d Vi a d e l l a Co n c i l i a z i on e c a n b e s ee n as manife s tatio ns o f the Fasci st -Vat i c a n pol i t i c a l re l a t i on s h i p. Th e s e tw o s tre e ts w e re built u n d e r Musso l i ni , a t t em p t i n g t o l i n k t h e n ew Fas cis t pow e r o f I taly t o t he Anc i e nt I m p er i a l p ow e r s of Rom e while s ur mo unting Papal in f lue nc e. The se u r b a n i n t er ve n t i on s em ploy axial s tre e ts, cre ate lo n g v i st a s, and give a c c e s s ( a l t h ou gh p res cribe d and to uris tic) to areas o f i nt e re st - t h e A n c i e n t Rom a n Fora and the Bo rg a ne ig hbo rh ood. My p at h b e gi n s i n t h e e a s t a t t h e C o lo s s e um and w o rk s wes t w ard t o S t . Pet e r ’s B a s i l i c a . I t h i n k o f the path as div ide d in t o t he t hre e st ree t s t h a t c on n ec t i m p or tant s ite s as no de s. I fo c use d o n t he s e a re a s a n d t h ei r rel a t i ons hip to the s tre e ts : t h e Co l o sse um, t h e C a m p i d o gl i o a n d P i a z za Ve nezia, I l Ge s u, San t’And re a d e l l a Va l l e, C h i e s a N u ova , Ponte Vitto rio Emanue le I I ,
10
St . Pe t e r ’s B a si l ic a . D raw i n gs of ot h e r bu ilding s and s pace s jus t o f f the p a t h d e m on s t ra t e t h e s t re et s ’ c on ne ctiv ity and acce s s ibilit y, i .e. t he Pa nt h eon , S a n t ’ Ivo a l l a S a p i e n za, Piazza N avo na, and Cam p o d e ’ F i o r i . I have o rg a n i ze d t h e d raw i n gs geo g raphically, aro und the map o f t he p a t h wh i ch c on t a i n s n ot a t i on s s how ing whe re pe rs pe ct ives w e re d raw n a s w el l a s s ec t i on c u t s. The re are a my riad o f w ays t he se d raw i n gs c a n b e rea r ra n ge d - the exhibitio n is move able an d t ra nsp are nt t o en c ou ra ge d i f fe re n t w ay s o f co mbining and seeing. Met ho d o l o g y: My i nt e nti on w a s t o u s e Rom e a s a labo rato r y to deve lo p a d raw i ng me t ho d ol o g y t h a t s h ow s t h e fu l l characte r o f the urban sp ace a s a c o nnec t or a n d a t t ra c t or. Th i s me ant w o rk ing o n many d raw i ng s si mul t a n e ou s l y, fi l l i n g i n i n for m atio n as I explo re d the t er ri t o r y. Ro m e pr ov i d e s re c u r re n t r oot s a nd a v is ible palimps e s t o f co m p ara t ive c a s e s t u d i e s i n on e c i t y. Tw o analy tical me tho ds, sy n tac t i c a s se l f - refe re n t i a l a n d s em a n t i c as co ntextual, w e re emphasi ze d a s a w ay of rea d i n g t h e c i t y thro ug h dialo g ue be t wee n t he t w o. I ch os e c iv i c t h e a t e r s wh i ch fo r mally link ne ar and far, t he L aw n and Rom e, a s l ab ora t or i e s fo r le ar ning — lo ng itudin al sp ac e s w i t h s e c on d a r y c r os s - a xe s a re f rame d at o ne e nd by a c en t ral -p l an e l e m en t . Anal yt i c a l d raw i n gs s u ch a s p l a n s, s e ctio ns, and s e ctio nal axo ns c o m p r i se t h e s y n t a c t i c b ra n ch , d emo ns trating inte r re latio nsh ip s b e t w e e n t h e s t re et a n d t h e m onu m e nts it co nne cts. This in c lu d e s p o si t i o n i n g of ea ch m onu m e n t i n re latio n to the s tre e t, p ed est r i an ac c e s s, a n d s t r u c t u ra l c om p a ris o ns. Pe rs pe ctive s, d et a i l d raw i ng s, a n d r u b b i n gs i l l u s t ra t e the s e mantic, that is, the c o n tex t and l arger rep os i t or y of i d ea s t h at adds me aning. The s e d raw i ng s a t t e m p t t o s h ow t h e re l a t ive or ie ntatio n o f the s tre e ts, visu al l i nk s al o n g t h e op e n s p a c e, a n d c o nvey e mo tio ns e nhance d by t he st re e t ’s p os i t i on a n d s p a t i a l q u a l i tie s.
11
historical
underpinnings
An c i e nt Ro m e : The Roman Forum was the center of public life during the Roman Republic (5th century BC- 1st century BC) and Empire (1st century BC- 6th century AD). Rome’s senators and emperors erected buildings for public services and amenities, as well as monuments commemorating conquests. The Forum’s judicial, political, religious, and social spaces were arranged axially from the modern day Piazza del Campidoglio to the Colosseum as a collection of repeated, recurrent elements. The Forum reflects ancient Rome’s advanced technologies, rationality, republican values, and subsequent far-reaching power of the emperors. It also provided a venue for military processions and other displays of authority which attracted celebrating citizens. Recurrent elements brought the emphasis of political conquest over 1,000 years into the daily life of citizens. Buildings along this ancient road form a linear open space for gathering, conversing, and governing within the framework of monuments to the state and its leaders. Pap a l Ro me : Under control of the Catholic church, much building and city planning took place, most notably in the Renaissance under Popes Sixtus V, Alexander VII and Clement IX, and then in an explosion of papal authority during the Baroque era beginning in the late 16th century. New visual rhetorics of communicating church beliefs to the faithful were part of the CounterReformation after the Protestant Reformation, the 1519 northern European breakaway from the Holy Catholic church. Architects such as Pietro da Cortona and Francesco Borromini enhanced the vocabulary of Renaissance architecture, adding grandeur and emotion without forgetting ancient Roman and early Christian predecessors. It ali an Ro me : Ro me b e c a m e It a l i a n on S ep t e m b e r 20, 1870 unde r K ing Vit t or i o E ma nue le II, u n i t i n g t h e p en i n s u la into a new natio n. Th e new gove r nm e n t d rew h i gh l y on i m pe rial traditio ns f ro m An c i e nt Ro me a n d u n ive r s a l s p i r i t u a l i t y f ro m Papal Ro me. Urb an and a rchi t e c t u ra l t ra n s for m a t i on s we re bo th f ue lle d and ch all e nge d by wh a t c a m e b efore : t h e n a tio n de face d s y mbo ls o f p ap a l p ow e r a n d e l eva t ed h i s t or i c a l mo nume nts o f ancie nt Rom e t o show t h e s h i ft of p ow e r fr om p a pal to natio nal co ntro l. Nat io nal l e ad e r s a l s o t h ou gh t i t t h e i r d uty to le ave an imprint o n the c i t y fo r f u t u re gen era t i on s.
12
K i ng E m a nu el e’s s u d d e n d ea t h o n Januar y 9, 1879, pro vi d e d a c a t a l y s t for u r b a n p l a n n i n g and natio nalis t archite ct ura l sym b o l is m . H i s fu n era l w a s h el d at the Panthe o n, and the ma ssive Vi t t o r i a n o m onu m e n t w a s bu ilt in the Piazza Ve nezia, t ak i ng c ue s fr om t h e p os i t i on i n g of M iche lange lo ’s Campido g l i o, fa c i ng aw ay fr om t h e for m er Rom e and ove r the expanding c i t y. U r b an pl a n n er A l e s s a n d r o Viva ni de s ig ne d a new s tre e t, t he Co r so Vi t t or i o E m a nu el e II, wh i ch car ve d o ut a co nne cting p assa ge t hr ou gh t h e h i s t or i c c e n t e r. I ts cur v ing path cre ate s vi ew a nd a c c e s s t o i m p or t a n t h i s t or i c and ar tis tic s ite s alo ng t he r o ut e, c u l m i n a t i n g a t t h e Pon t e Vitto rio Emanue le I I which uni t e s t he t w o s i d e s of t h e r iver a n d bring s the Vatican into the re c o nf i g ure d It a l i a n Rom e. Th e s t ree t trace s ove r par t o f the Via Pa p al e, t he t ra d i t i on a l r ou t e of t h e Pope f ro m St. Pe te r’s to St. Jo hn L at e ran , Rom e’s c a t h ed ra l . I n t he 1 9 2 0 ’s a n d ‘ 3 0 ’s, M u ss o lini’s fas cis t rule drew up o n t he se e f for t s of s ep a ra t i on fr om the church and e levatio n o f a nt i q ui t y, bu t a l s o i n c l u d ed i d ea s of g rande ur and acce ntuati ng Ro m e as a n i m a ge of c en t ra l i zed co ntro l and re new e d impe r i al i st a sp i ra t i on . Tw o m a j or r oa d s w ithin the his to rical ce ntre w e re bui l t , bot h a s w i d e, s t ra i gh t v i s ual co nne ctio ns to mo nume nt s o f t he p a s t . Th e Vi a d el l ’ Im p er o, to day calle d Via de i Fo ri I m p e r i a l i , c o n n e c t e d t h e P i a z z a Ve n ezia to the Co lo s s e um; the Vi a d e l l a Co n c i l i a z i on e bu l l d ozed t h r oug h the Bo rg a ne ig hbo rho o d f r o m t h e Pon t e Vi t t or i o E m a nu e l e I I to Be r nini’s St. Pe te r’s p i azza . B o t h p r oj ec t s n ec es s i t a t e d l a rge -s cale de mo litio n and d i sp l a c e d t hou s a n d s of fa m i l i e s. Th es e e f fo r ts to s uppo s e dly re uni t e t he era s of Rom e t op o g ra p h i c a lly w e re, in re ality, f rami ng t he c i t y’s m os t s i gn i fi c a n t m onu me nts in Fas cis t v is ual and p o l i t i c a l i d e a l s. A rch i t ec t u ra l l y a n d po litically ro o te d in antiqui t y, t he E U R w a s c on s t r u c t ed ou t s i de o f Ro me as a fo rum o f t he f ut ure. The c re a t i on of t h es e s t re et s re lative to e arlie r mo nume nt s d e mo n s t ra t e s t h e p ol i t i c a l i n t entio ns g uiding the trans fo r ma t i o n, wh i ch c l ea r l y s h i ft s a u t ho rity f ro m e cc le s ias tical t o se c ul ar r u l e by e s t abl i s h i n g a n u r ban re latio ns hip w ith the church.
Re fe r t o D e f i n i n g F as c i s t- V a ti c an R el a t io ns: The Ro le o f Ro ma n R o a ds fo r a m ore t h or ou gh a c c ou n t of M us s o lini’s inf lue nce o n ur b a n p l a nni n g. 13
ANCIENT
PAPAL
MODERN: MY ROUTE 14
15
theoretical
underpinnings
“…the system of architecture as a system of cultural meaning; it attempts to explain the nature of form itself, through viewing the generation of form as a specific manipulation of meaning within a culture.” - Mario Gandelsonas, “On Reading Architecture,”1972 “[Architecture] could be read again and again, not only alone but in combination, in the endlessly shifting combinations of a nature that tells its own stories and colors ours.” - Rebecca Solnit, A Field Guide to Getting Lost, 2005
S e m i o t i c s, t h e s t u dy of rel a t i on s h ips be tw e e n s ig ns, pro vid e s a w ay o f rea d i n g a rch i t e c t u re. A c r os s the e ras o f I talian Rom e, Pa p al Ro m e, a n d A n c i e n t Rom e, le ade rs explicity pro ject ed m e a ni ng o n t o t h e c i t y t h r ou gh a rch ite cture as s ig ns and sy m b o l s. Thi s p r oj e c t c on t i nu e d my s t u dy o f a dialo g ue be tw e e n semi o t i c s, t he A c a d em i c a l Vi l l a ge a t t h e Unive rs ity o f Virg inia, an d a rchi t e c t ure h i s t or y by d raw i n g a n d analy zing trans chro no lo g ic al c ivi c sp a c es of Rom e. Pol i t i c a l p atro ns o f archite cture t ransl a t e d a nd s h a p e d e a r l i er c iv i c s p a ce s in Ro me to make st re e t s, p i azze, a n d n on a c a d e m i c a l v i l l a ge s that inf lue nce its c it ize ns by w ay of s p a t i a l ex p er i e n c e. S t re e ts w e re built to pro vid e c o nne c t ive t i s s u e s b e t w ee n p l a c e s o f s ig nif icance fo r the c it ize ns o f Ro m e a s w e l l a s v i s i t i n g s t ra nge rs ; the ir planning w as a c o nsc i o us c on s t r u c t i on of h ow on e v iew e d the city and its mo nume nt s.
Archi t e c t u re i s a for m of c om mu n icatio n; it is a fo r m o f lan gua ge, f ra me d by g rav i t y a n d or i en t a t io n. So, how do w e be g in t o und e r st a n d a rch i t ec t u re a n d a p p l y the rule s o f lang ua ge t o he l p us se e arch i t e c t u re a s a c om mu n i cative ve hic le ? O ne w ay we c an b e g i n t o re a d a rch i t ec t u re i s t h r oug h s ig ns, which in this c o n tex t a re uni t s w i t h i n a l a rger s y s t em ; fo r example, w o rds are
16
si g ns i n t he s y s t em of g ra m m a r. S e m io tics is the s tudy o f dial o g ue s b e t w ee n s i gn s, t h os e i n d iv i d u al units in a s y s te m, and what t he se si gn s s t a n d for. Th i s reve a ling pro ce s s is pe da go g ic al - t he c o nsci ou s n es s of ex p os i n g s i gns and the ir re latio ns hips g ive s t he sys t e m n ew m e a n i n g. Wh en s tudie d thro ug h the le ns o f se ma nt i c s, a rch i t e c t u re b e gi n s t o frame the w o rld aro und us.
U si ng t h e m e t a p h or of l a n gu a ge, w e may think o f be ams and c o l umns a s a l p h ab e t i c a l ch a ra c t ers be caus e they are a unit t ha t t ra nsmi ts m ea n i n g. A n a s s e m bl a ge o f co lumn and be am c an b e re a d a s l oa d a n d s u p p or t , w e i g ht be ing dis tribute d, and st r uc t ura l i m p l i c a t i on s. Th e e l e m e n ts mus t be as s e mble d in a p re sc r i b e d ord e r, j u s t a s g ra m m a r de f ine s how le tte rs and w o rd s m ay b e p u t t o ge t h e r t o for m m e aning thro ug h s e nte nce s. Cl assi c a l a rch i t ec t s d eve l op ed a s y s t em o f rule s, f irs t in Gre e ce and t he n ex pa n d e d i n Rom e, a n d a rch ite cture be came a s pe cif ic w ay o f o rg an i z i n g c on c ep t s by m a n i pulating s ig nif icant fo r ms i n t he d e si g n a n d c on s t r u c t i on of bu i lding s and citie s. The s y s t e m i nt e r re l a t e s t h e u n i t s of a m e s s a ge and make s po s s ible its und e r st and i n g, a s geom e t r y i s a n abs tractio n to me as ure the world.
Fo r a rch i t ec t s, p a i n t e r s, t h eor is ts, and many o the rs, the l i ng ui st i c me t h od ol o g y b e c om e s a t e a ching to o l, w ith its main o b je c t ive b e in g t o ex p os e a s y s t e m , a re latio ns hip, inte r re lat i o nshi p, o r d i a l ec t i c . We c a n rel a t e this to bo th Je f fe rs o n’s Ac a d e m i c al Vi l l a ge a n d u r b a n s p a c e s and the ir mo nume nts in Ro me, whe re mu l t i p l e rea d i n gs ch a n ge ove r time as s y nthe tic i d e a s are b r o ke n d ow n a n d re a s s e m ble d w ith adde d me aning. The re c ur re n t d i a l e c t i c , c onver s a t i on, debate, dis co urs e, dis c ussi o n, st udy i s ou r l e s s on of t h e e t er nal city.
17
DEFINING FASCIST‐VATICAN RELATIONS: THE ROLE OF ROMAN ROADS Polly Smith Transnational Modernisms Professor Sheila Crane May 10, 2013
Fascism took hold in Italy under leader Benito Musolini during a period of unrest in Rome. One contributing factor to that unrest was an uneasy relationship between the Italian state and the Catholic Church, which had ruled Rome for centuries prior to the 1870s unification of Italy under socialism. With its rise to power in 1922, the Fascist party pursued extensive architectural and urban planning projects that expressed not only Fascism’s agenda, but the nature of its relationship with the Vatican state. Fascist planning and architecture appropriated meaning from the multiple histories of the city. The primary use of imperial Roman history reflects differing ideals between the two entities of the Fascist party and Vatican state. However, Fascism did place some significance on Renaissance and Papal Rome, alluding to moments of agreement and attempts at reconciliation. I will look at the building of two streets, Via dell’Impero and Via della Conciliazione, as reflective of the tense position between Mussolini and his counterpart Pope Pius XI (Figure 1). Benito Mussolini, at age 39 the leader of the National Fascist Party, took control of Rome on October 1922, by the invitation of King Victor Emmanuel III. The party staged a March on Rome when his army, known as ‘blackshirts,’ ceremoniously took power in a public proclamation (Figure 2). Mussolini transformed the country into a one party dictatorship, effective January 1, 1926 the governatore was directly responsible to him, consolidating control over the city and construction work. (All governors but one were Roman aristocrats, legitimizing his moves on the city.)1 Mussolini’s advisors, ministers, and beaurocrats rotated through offices, keeping positions for short times and thus guaranteeing Mussolini remain the unchallenged head of state and dictator. The
2
Italian monarchy, King Vittorio Emanuele III, survived with diminished, largely symbolic, power.2 Mussolini’s extensive building, archeological, and urban planning campaigns have forever marked the city. After the fall of Fascism in July 1943, largely cosmetic efforts at removing Fascism’s mark on the city included changing street names, defacing statues, removing inscriptions, and chiseling out the fasces, the symbol of the totalitarian party.3 However, the large flat streets made possible the Fascist revolution and became landmarks themselves. These constructions forever transformed the look of Rome and how one looked at the city.4 Streets built during the Fascist era, in particular, have changed the city of Rome dramatically. By building roads spatially adjacent to Ancient Rome and Papal Rome, a dialogue between Fascism and the previous eras was established. Roads provided a sense of movement and transience, reflecting Fascism’s modernity, and established the regime’s control over various histories of Rome.5 I will examine two new streets cut through the city fabric: Via dell’Impero, which connects Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum and provides views and access to the imperial Roman Forums; and Via della Conciliazione, an artery from Castel Sant’Angelo to St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. These roads are explicit spatial expressions of political and social relationships.
PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF ABSTRACT IDEALS
Fascism was viewed at the time as strong, resolute, and successful. The transformation of Rome was a manifestation of fascism’s energy and modernity, demonstrated by Mussolini’s unequivocal power (Figure 3). The changes and additions
3
made to the city were central in revealing fascist policy and goals- its very policies, programs, and practices are reflected in urban design.6 Values of the regime particularly embodied in architecture include: change, unity, modernity, new social and economic order, and identity as a world power. Change was evident in building campaigns that broke ground almost immediately and shortly turned Rome into one big construction site. Old buildings were cleared to reveal imperial sites for display. Mussolini made evident a unified Italy by ‘liberating’ artifacts of the past to create a national identity legitimized by history. It made contemporary Italians proud and inspired awe in tourists (along with creating a tourist industry). New, wider streets were built as traffic arteries necessary for a modern city, and for marches and ceremonies that furthered national pride. A new social and economic order was encouraged by creating a ‘healthier’ environment of housing projects outside the city for all social classes, and an effort to transform youth through social services, education, sports, and physical training.7 Mussolini offered Italians a ‘hypernationalism,’ promised a new life through a program of internal unity and external strength. The previous government, in place after WWI, was democratically elected, and liberal. Italy was rife with internal unrest, unemployment, strikes, and political divisions between the Catholic Popular Party and Socialist Party, which split to form the Italian Communist Party. 8Fascism quickly gained support from the industrial working class, middle class, landowners, and businesses.9 Italy was seen as weak and degenerate, ruined by the unchecked liberal reforms of the previous government. Fascist rhetoric emphasized strength, discipline, and order, and made these tenets visible in new building initiatives, imperialist expansion, and programs
4
of urban renewal and reform. Rome’s population increased from 691,000 to 1,415,000 between 1921-1931.10 Fascism was the answer to Italy’s problems, providing a new, fresh energy with attention on youth and an unarmed revolution. Efforts to reconcile the past with the present appealed both to intellectuals and the population at large. Building projects brought the glories and achievements of ancient Rome together with the new, vibrant Rome. Monuments of the past served as propaganda and rhetoric promising youth, revolution, and modernity.11 “Fascist culture was something manufactured, an instrument of the regime to maintain, consolidate, and justify its dictatorship through an elaborate process of meaning-making.”12 Mussolini knew the importance of historical Rome for its ability to form a new fascist ideology. In his April 21, 1924, speech at the Campidoglio, Mussolini said, “Rome cannot, must not be only a modern city… it must be a city worthy of its glory and this glory must unceasingly renovate in order to hand down, as a heritage of the fascist era, to the generations to come.” Upon appointing the first governor in December 1925, Mussolini again spoke of the city: “Within five years Rome must appear marvelous to all the people of the world; vast, ordered, powerful, as she was in the times of the first empire of Augustus.”13Fascism used the city’s history, monuments, and sites to define and display the new fascist Italy. This in turn changed the meanings of historic landmarks, pointing toward the future, as Fascism was modern, dynamic, and progressive.14 Mussolini laid out specific plans in a speech at the Campidoglio on December 31, 1925: build great avenues; open up space around monuments of imperial Rome; spread
5
beyond the city. Massive efforts of archaeology, construction, restoration, ‘liberation’ of ancient structures, and new buildings were planned.15 New buildings included, in an extraordinary number, government offices, public facilities, new schools, housing projects, sporting complexes, churches, theaters, bridges, and complete towns. The incredibly extensive 1931 Master Plan called out all funded projects in detail.16
APPROPRIATING HISTORIES
This call to open space expressed the impulse of Fascism to break out of confinements. It reveals the need for destruction, and marks the creation of an imaginative landscape based on clearing away. Paul Baxa, in Roads and Ruins, finds this destructive nature, and the spatial and architectonic products of the regime in general, reflective of the Great War. Baxa claims that Fascism’s militaristic approach was informed by sights, sounds, and landscapes of the Italian front, directly linking WWI’s influence to Fascism.17 Mussolini appropriated selective monuments from the past, especially drawing on Imperial Rome, but in some instances on Medieval/ Renaissance/ Papal Rome. An ideal, cleansed version of the past was presented in tandem with modernity. Typically all postrenaissaince structures on building or restoration sites were destroyed, reflecting Fascism’s aesthetic of purification. Rome had collected, over thousands of years, “multiple zones and layers, styles and rhythms, inheritance and opportunities, desires and frustrations,” according to Kallis. Mussolini’s restoration efforts ‘liberated’ mostly imperial ruins from that which had been built around and on top of them- these ruins were cleaned, reassembled, and all else was removed from the site.
6
Aristotle Kallis claims Fascism’s totalitarian and univeralist aspirations were expressed in conquest- “of place and time, of physical space and of memory, of institutions and symbolism... and it became the hallmark of the fascist chapter in the history of Rome.” Even in conservation projects, Fascism conquered the space and symbolism by visually presenting the modern era in harmony with the Rome’s historical past. The Fascist layer of Rome became not only a horizontal layer of new spatial construction, but also a vertical layer, fascist-izing past histories.18 Time is thus collapsed into space, where continuity, progress, and process, are removed.19
PAPAL RELATIONS
The area surrounding St. Peter’s basilica and the Vatican remained a sensitive area of both topological and symbolic contestation between secular and religious authorities. When Italy was unified in the late nineteenth century, the Pope and administrators of the Catholic Church, retreated from its palace within the city of Rome to the Vatican. The area is on the west side of the Tiber river, secluded from the historic center of Rome by the river as well as the Borga, a densely built and populated, but humble and chaotic medieval quarter. The visible topographic schism within Rome was an impediment to the Fascist regime’s totalitarian intentions of regenerating an orderly and unified nation (Figure 4).20 Mussolini’s involvement in a relationship with the Vatican was necessary due to the Vatican’s importance as an administration and a symbol. Mussolini’s promise to reconcile with the church rather than increase tensions was one reason his rise to power was successful. Mussolini was an atheist and anticleric in his early socialist days, but
7
knew the importance of Rome as the center of Catholocism, and understood that Fascism shared in the church’s legacy.21 Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) and Mussolini both came to power in 1922, and Pius was receptive to Mussolini’s efforts, which he began soon after becoming prime minister. In 1929 the two came to an agreement and signed the Lateran Accords (Figure 5). Mussolini’s government made a financial settlement with the church, recognized the Vatican as an independent state, and emphasized the ‘sacred character of the city.’ Mussolini received international prestige for the agreements as an example of Fascism’s ability to solve problems, and Italians welcomed the agreement.22 The Pope found necessity in signing in order to protect ecclesiastical property from violence against the church. Articles specified that places of worship cannot be demolished for any reason without consent, and protected catacombs from excavation.23 Pope Pius XI made the city of Rome central to the Catholic Church’s mission. There was much violence between socialists and fascists when he took office, and he made an effort to become involved in the city. After signing the Lateran accords, Pius XI left the Vatican and went into Rome- the first Pope in 50 years to do so- and was greeted by thousands of Romans. He also revived the tradition of blessing residents and visitors from the balcony of St. Peter’s. He also prioritized restructuring the Vatican, putting in a new train station, modern communication, founded the Vatican Radio, and refurbished ecclesiastical buildings outside the Vatican.24 However, the two entities did not fundamentally agree on the history and archaeology of the Roman cityscape. Pope Pius XI saw Rome as Christianity’s center, offering pilgrims sequential monuments leading back to Christ through the apostles, who
8
transformed Rome from a secular to a spiritual power. He thought that buried ruins should remain so unless furthering the transformative power of Christianity. In 1927, Mussolini’s brother Arnaldo, told the Vatican “The Pope will have to adjust to a new Rome which reveals the ancient Roman temples to the admiration of the world and shows a Rome that will be the centre of new doctrines appropriate to modern states.”25 Mussolini placed the grandeur of Rome as independent of Christianity. Upon signing the Lateran Accords, Mussolini announced that “it was Rome that transformed an obscure Jewish sect into a universal religion, not Christianity that sanctified Rome.” The Fascist view of history as civilizations rising and falling, rather than a Christian teleological notion, angered the pope. Baxa writes that Fascism’s elimination of layered historical time demonstrates the fascist belief that “salvation lay not in waiting for the end of time, but in the active resurrection of a long-buried primitivism.”26 Fascist urban planning attacked the papacy in a subtle way, as interventions repeatedly demonstrated Fascism’s power over Catholocism. The church had been the patron of Roman urban planning for over 1000 years, and the existing cityscape was the work of popes. Sixtus V (1585-90) and his architect Dominica Fontana also worked to integrate the ancient past into contemporary Rome. Sixtus built wide roads connecting major Christian monuments of Rome; he dismantled and destroyed of parts of the city in order to further a clear Christian message (Figure 6). Mussolini followed in this papal tradition, but remaking the city with secular intent.27 Unlike the papacy before, the Fascist regime was able to gather resources and supervise a group of engineers, landscape architects, urban planners, architects, and artists, to successfully implement a comprehensive citywide plan.28
9
Pius XI used the words pagan and neo-pagan to describe the ideology of fascism. He was concerned with the secular Italian state ‘sacralizing’ itself, and wanted to preserve ecclesiastical Rome.29 Indeed there was a growing fascination with primitivism and pagan Rome among the fascists, especially evident in urban planning interventions to excavate ancient ruins and build roads alongside them for walking and viewing access, thus reviving the pagan landscape following centuries of solely Christian influence. The church had previously overtaken vestiges of paganism and transformed them; Fascism reclaimed the primordial Roman landscape by revealing pagan temples and artifacts.30 The fascist party attempted to revive the mythological potential of the Roman cityscape with pagan- like festivals, including the burning of debts in October 1927, and supremacy of the state, as in ancient pagan times.31 In 1932 Mussolini said, “I consider myself without false modesty the spiritual father of the Master Plan of Rome.” This statement demonstrates the importance of urban transformation to the regime, and also infers Mussolini’s own identification with the Pope by using the term ‘spiritual father.’32 Pope Piux XI saw Mussolini’s rise to power as an attempt to establish Fascism as a rival religion.33 The papacy was concerned with preserving ecclesiastical Rome from the new ‘sacralized’ Italian state since the Vatican’s power was reduced and the Vittoriano monument was built as an altar worshipping the secular state. There was a Fascist tendency toward political religion; Emilio Gentile argues that Fascism borrowed rituals, ceremonies, and liturgies from Catholicism, presenting a new secular religion to rival Christianity.34 In opposition to Fascist blackshirts suppressing Catholic Action with military force, Pius wrote that the demonstrations were “… for the exclusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on
10
an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State- or ‘Statolatry.’”35 The Fascist party promoted the celebration of the two-thousanth anniversary of Augustus’ birth in almost religious terms, as a pilgrimage-like occaision for devout Fascists.36 Pius laid out three essential features of the policies of Italian fascism that he claimed were a result of increase in paganism and the construction of fascism as a rival religion to Christianity. First, Fascism rejected universalism and favored ideologies which exalted a particular race or nation above all others. Secondly, the regime exalted the material world and made the built environment sacred. Third, it held a specific view of history, different from the Christian interpretation of the past.37 The church was also in disagreement with Catholic Action (groups of lay people encouraging Catholicism), the Racial Laws of 1938, and Fascism’s increasing friendship with Nazi Germany.38 The Racial Laws declared Italians to be descendants of the Aryan race and targeted non-Aryan Italians, especially Jews. It banned non-Aryan groups from many professions, established the right of the government to confiscate property, made marriages between Italians and Jews illegal, and other anti-Semitic provisions. This reflection of Hitler’s power over Mussolini was unpopular with most Italians, and Pope Pius XI wrote a letter to Mussolini in protest. Mussolini responded: “The Vatican is composed of men who are mummified and out of touch.”39
THE ROAD TO ANCIENT ROME
Via dell’Impero spatially represents Fascism’s attempt to identify with Imperial Rome and the promotion of paganism so abhorred by the Catholic Church. Mussolini’s
11
celebration of ancient Rome, romanità, was a manifestation of Fascism’s agenda. Mussolini chose to promote selective histories of Rome, focusing on Rome’s ancient greatness as a standard for the new Italy, and downplaying unified Italy’s decadence and failure (1870-1922). The uncovering of ruins and new access to them physically constructed a strong sense of unified Italy, and renarrated history in new physical terms for political ends.40 Mussolini aligned himself with Augustus, the first Roman emperor (27 BCE- 14 CE), who was praised for transforming Rome from a city of brick into marble through vast building campaigns, including new temples, a new forum, and restoration of existing buildings. Mussolini took on the title duce, the Italian of the latin dux, meaning leader, first adopted by Augustus and used by subsequent emperors.41 Art historian and archaeologist Corrado Ricci conceived Via dell’ Impero (today renamed Via dei Fori Imperiali) as a wide boulevard extending from Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum, through Ancient Roman forums. Via dell’Impero thus linked the new Italian state, represented by the Vittoriano monument and Mussolini’s office in Piazza Venezia, to the most important monuments of Ancient Rome. The road, thirty meters wide, provided space for traffic and pedestrians, new views and pedestrian access to the ruins, and a venue for large congregations to more fully participate in Fascist life. The ancient city became an outdoor theater for Fascist cultural celebration, and the renewal of the city was executed with events in mind. The Baths of Diocletian were used for concerts, rallies were held at the Colosseum, the Arch of Constantine was a monumental passageway for triumphal parades (Figure 7), and the Circus Maximus hosted large scale exhibitions. Via dell’Impero also provided a highly visible venue for military parades which had previously been held at the periphery of the city. The road’s construction
12
literally brought Fascism into the center of Rome, and permanently fixed antiquity as the backdrop for the new government.42 The construction of Via dell’Impero, with its width and removal of the preexisting Velia Hill, displaced forty thousand cubic meters of earth and thousands of working class residents. The project was rationalized by aesthetics, archaeology, traffic, public health, and government employment of construction workers.43 The residential housing near the Roman forum was dismissed in the Fascist-controlled popular press as “hovels, huts, shanties, random, tumbledown, disgraceful, unseemly, miserable, nasty, insignificant, and filthy,” (Figure 8). Architectural scholars defended the decision to remove these medieval and 19th century buildings. Ricci was well studied in Baroque architecture and referred to the ‘conflicting faults’ between ancient and subsequent building. Antonio Muñoz, the planner of the forum area and a specialist in art and architectural history at the University of Rome, dismissed the Baroque structures as ‘lacking artistic value.’ The working class residents living in the site had little authority, so most buildings identified for demolition had no advocates and were removed without protest. Residents were moved to new housing projects outside the city and billed as part of Mussolini’s effort to provide healthier living quarters.44 Via dell’ Impero united Italians with a new sense of purpose and accomplishment. The public received the radical change in landscape with great admiration. The day the Colosseum became visible from Piazza Venezia, residents filled the piazza with enthusiasm for the sight. In its first year, Via dell’Impero carried over 6 million automobiles, 700,000 trucks, 2.7 million horse-drawn carriages, and 14 million pedestrians.45 Massimo Bontempelli, write and co-editor of the publication Quadrante,
13
proclaimed himself a “fanatic of the Via dell’Impero,” calling it “the center of the world.” Bontempelli wrote that the Coliseum had come to life, whereas it had been hidden away, and that, as the “new Via Sacra,” (the main road of the Ancient forum), Via dell’Impero would act as a stage for triumphant military processions in the same way (Figure 9).46 National Geographic included, in 1937, “Old ruins are more imposing if surrounded by parks and squares instead of slums. Il Duce may by inference point and say, ‘That’s what you once were; I’ll make you great again.’” Mussolini’s references to Augustus and Imperial Rome were apparent to citizens and strangers alike.47 The road physically expressed a bringing together of traditional and modern. A member of the Fascist administration called Via dell’Impero “Certainly the grandest Fascist monument, having captured the unique vision of today’s Rome, and having restored to life of the people the most beautiful structures, formerly suffocated by superstructures, hovels, and alleys. It will have the greatest importance in the orientation of the new Italian taste.” Four maps of the Roman Empire and one map of the Fascist empire were placed alongside the road to further emphasize the ancient- modern link. Painter writes, “Via dell’Impero demonstrates Mussolini’s claim of a new Rome and expresses the political revolution that was transforming Italians into a new, energetic, thoroughly fascist people.”48
BUILDING VIA DELLA CONCILIAZIONE
Although linking Fascism and Ancient Rome was Mussolini’s primary ambition, the leader also drew on Renaissance and Papal traditions, following in the urban planning traditions of Sixtus V, and by appropriating access to and views of St. Peter’s Basilica
14
with the construction of Via della Conciliazione. This project of a monumental road leading from Castel Sant’Angelo on the western bank of the Tiber River, to St. Peter’s Basilica, the heart of the Catholic Church, reveals the respective roles of the regime and of the Vatican, as it had immense political significance. It served as a symbolic monument to the 1929 Lateran Accords, the official reconciliation of the Italian state and the Vatican. The road broached the impasse of physical separation of the two entities on opposite sides of the city, and separated by the medieval quarter of the Borga; it metaphorically marked the conquest of Papal Rome by the Fascist government.49 A road from St. Peter’s to the Tiber had been proposed several times, first by Bernini during the design of the piazza in front of the basilica, through the nineteenth century.50 It had not yet been constructed due to several problems which Fascism aimed to solve: the street plan of the Borgo, demolition of a densely populated area, architectural proportions and topographic balance of the basilica, and the relationship of the Vatican to the rest of Rome. In 1933 Pope Piux XI made it clear that he could no longer oppose a Fascist plan for the Borgo because it almost exclusively lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the Italian state.51 The Borgo consisted of seven streets running east west towards the river, two of them central arteries, the Borgo Nuovo and the Borgo Vecchio (Figure 10). The architecture between these arteries was called the spine and ran into Bernini’s piazza- this space was eventually demolished for the building of Via della Conciliazione (Figure 11). The neighborhood of narrow streets had been occupied since ancient times, always on the periphery of the city, and made awkward in relation to the new monumental basilica in the Renaissance. The displacement of thousands of families and social-anthropological
15
disruption of the area was dealt with similarly to the site of Via dell’Impero; underrepresented residents were forced to move to suburban housing projects.52 Architects Attilio Spaccarelli, who was awarded the area around Castel Sant’Angelo in the Master Plan of 1931, and Gustavo Giovannoni, a revered architect, urban expert of the older generation, and an author of the 1931 plan, collaborated on the project. It was agreed that a deeper vista of the basilica would improve the proportions of its massive façade, but the approach was debatable. Initially, the two architects both supported a modest plan, making the Borgo Nuovo and Vecchio symmetrical but rejected full demolition. Piacentini, an architect working closely with Mussolini on other projects, became involved and supported a full demolition of the spine. Piacentini replaced Giovannoni, and he and Spaccarelli moved forward with this plan.53 In the 1931 plan, the Vatican authorized the Borgo to be retained, not demolished, and continued to be tepid about the idea. In 1935 the objections were eliminated. Mussolini officially sanctioned the project as an appendage to the Master Plan, and six days later Pius XI was shown the final plan and expressed his overall satisfaction. Mussolini moved swiftly, allocating 1.4 million lire for the destruction, and he inaugurated the demolition of the spine on October 28, 1936, the 14th anniversary of the March on Rome (Figure 12). Demolition was completed in less than a year, totaling 729 buildings and nearly 5,000 people displaced.54 Piacentini and Spaccarelli published articles in 1937 regarding the future shape of the Via della Conciliazione, and how it met Bernini’s existing piazza (Figure 13). Mussolini visited the site, observed tests in situ and in model, and gave his full support along with Pius XI (Figures 14, 15). Giovannoni and Via dell’Impero collaborator Muñoz
16
voiced criticism, and coverage in the press was mixed. Piacentini and Spaccarelli remained defiant, stating, “access to the grandest temple of Christianity could not be through the color locale of the Borghi with its narrow, unhygenic and disorderly lands, constantly overcrowded with pilgrims.”55 Work continued on the project until Italy entered into WWII in 1940. After the war, the project was reassigned to Piacentini and Spaccarelli, who oversaw resurfacing and lined the street with obelisks and candelabra, inferring fascist ideology (Figure 16).56 Neither the destruction of the spine, or the idea of monumental access to St. Peter’s basilica were specifically Fascist ideas since they had been previously proposed, but the project profoundly expressed fascist ambitions. Political ambitions linked the building of Via della Conciliazione with the legitimacy of the Fascist party and its ability to revive and valorize Rome into a worldwide, modern, utopian capital. Kallis sees the project not as a reconciliation but as a framing and claiming of Papal Rome’s “most cherished and significant monument within a cadre of fascist visual, aesthetic, and political values.”57 REFRAMING ROME
There was a conscious decision to manage the viewer’s experience, forcing a consciousness of fascist ideology. Giovannoni and Piacentini, urban planning advisors and architects for various Fascist projects, described their designs as “sites of scenography, architectural environments that created a complete, controlled, and visually harmonic experience.”58 The viewer’s experience of the built environment was also controlled in the mass media, among the film institute, newspapers, journals, and books funded by the Fascist government. Mussolini’s projects and his relationship to them were
17
highly documented, promoting the unparalleled scope and scale of construction and thus manipulation of history and experience.59 Mussolini reconstructed the experience of Ancient Rome, transforming the ruins into objects to be viewed as exhibition rather than architecture to be experienced.60 The new panoramic cityscape that combined the modern and ancient in a single frame embodied Fascism.61 From the northern end of Via dell’Impero, lined with ancient statuary, one could now see at once Trajan’s Column, Trajan’s Market, Trajan’s Forum, Forum of Nerva, Augustus’ Forum on the left, and Caesar’s Forum on the right.62 One traveler wrote of his experience of Via dell’Impero:
It traces a wider path for our thoughts, it comforts our spirit, brightens our vistas; opens-amidst visions of real beauty and ideals- our mind and soul to less material and egoistic concepts of life; it comforts and exalts us; it refreshes and prods us towards new goals and greater destinies.63
There was an awareness of the new and strange landscape, of observation points, the road as a platform for viewing, and fresh juxtapositions between landmarks now visible in the same frame (Figures 17,18).64 The Fascist construction of Via dell’Impero and Via della Conciliazione indicate Mussolini’s widespread efforts to redesign Rome as a stage for the display of contemporary politics. These constructions manipulated the visual forms of restored ancient sites to enhance perspectives that demonstrated Fascism’s modernization of Italy as a restored ancient empire.65 Ancient ruins were made into tourist attractions by the new roads’ visual and physical access. The Fascist regime created a new way of experiencing the ruins of Ancient Rome- by open, panoramic vistas rather than personal,
18
eventual discovery of ruins through a maze of medieval dense streets which produced surprise and wonder.66 This change in perception was also evident at the Vatican, where pilgrims formerly traversed the narrow streets of the Borga to be suddenly confronted with the massive basilica; after the building of Via della Conciliazione, St. Peter’s could be viewed from far away and the path for visitors was made evident. Timothy Mitchell’s analysis of the exhibitionary order in colonial cultures applies to Mussolini’s transformation of Rome. The Fascist interventions can be seen as reducing the past histories of Rome to objects of study by making them orderable and comprehensible to viewers. By reducing the context surrounding both Ancient ruins and St. Peter’s Basilica, the experience is reduced. Historical artifacts, the signified, become devoid of their own voice and reliant on the signifier for expression, in this case the roads of Fascist Rome. Mussolini’s extensive interventions into Rome’s city fabric greatly reduced the independence of previous histories from the modern regime.67
19
FIGURES
1. Via della Conciliazione and Via dell’Impero.
2. Fascist blackshirts stage the March on Rome.68
20
3. Photomontage of Mussolini and the Coliseum.69
4. Physical separation of Vatican from central Rome.
 
21 
5. Signing of the Lateran Accords.
6. Piazza del Popolo, redesigned under Sixtus V as a signifier of Christianity.
7. Triumphal parade of Fascist army through the Arch of Constantine.70
 
22 
8. Medieval buildings on the future site of the Via dell’Impero.71
9. Military parade on Via dell’Impero; the Coliseum and Baths of Diocletian form a backdrop.72
10. The Nolli plan of Rome shows the Borga neighborhood before demolition.73
23
11. The Borgo Vecchio and Borgo Nuovo form the spine, the future site of Via della Conciliazione. 74
12. Mussolini breaking ground for the demolition of the spine.75
 
24 
13. Piacentini and Spaccarelli’s alternate plans for the Via della Conciliazione.76
14. Piacentini and Spaccarelli framing the future view for Mussolini.77
25
15. In situ tests for options to the piazza entrance.78
16. Completed design of Via dell’Impero after WWII.79
26
17. View of Via dell’Impero and Ancient Forums from the Coliseum80
18. View of the Coliseum and Ancient Forums from Via dell’Impero
1
Borden Painter, Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 5. D. Medina Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected: Architecture, Spectacle, and Tourism in Fascist Italy (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 1. 3 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, xvi. 2
27
4
Paul Baxa, Roads and Ruins: The Symbolic Landscape of Fascist Rome. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 78. Ibid., 118. 6 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, xviii. 7 Ibid., 3. 8 Ibid. 9 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 1. 10 Ibid.,2. 11 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 5. 12 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 6. 13 Aristotle Kallis, “ ‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’? The Opening of the Via della Conciliazione and the Fascist Vision for the ‘Third Rome,’ ” in Rome : Continuing Encounters between Past and Present, ed. D. Sophie Caldwell and L. Caldwell, 129-151. (Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011), 134. 14 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 2. 15 Ibid., 5. 16 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 7. 17 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 6-8. 18 Kallis, “‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’?”, 129-130. 19 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 9. 20 Kallis, “‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’?”, 131-134. 21 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 69. 22 Ibid. 23 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 33. 24 Ibid., 125. 25 Ibid., 130. 26 Ibid., 130-133. 27 Ibid., 122. 28 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 4. 29 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 6. 30 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 10. 31 Ibid., 122-124. 32 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 6. 33 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 124. 34 Emilio Gentile, The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. trans. Keith Bosford. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 11. 35 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 123. 36 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 9. 37 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 124. 38 Ibid., 122. 39 Ibid., 130. 40 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 2. 41 Ibid., 7. 42 Ibid., 6. 43 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 21. 44 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 5-6. 45 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 84. 46 Ibid., 119. 47 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 6. 48 Ibid., 21-23. 49 Kallis, “‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’?”, 134. 50 Terry Kirk, “Framing St. Peter’s: Urban Planning in Fascist Rome,” Art Bulletin 88 (2006), 756-759. 51 Kallis, “‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’?”, 136. 52 Ibid., 135-37. 53 Ibid., 140. 54 Kirk, “Framing St. Peter’s,” 764. 5
28
55
Kallis, “‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’?”, 143. Ibid., 144. Ibid., 146. 58 Ibid. 59 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 8. 60 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 13. 61 Ibid., 77. 62 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 23. 63 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 100. 64 Ibid., 80. 65 Ibid., 3. 66 Baxa, Roads and Ruins, 11. 67 Timothy Mitchell, “Orientalism and the Exhibitionary Order,” in Colonialism and Culture, ed. Nicholas Dirks, 292-296. 56 57
68
Painter, Mussolini’s Rome, 1. Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, xliv. 70 Ibid., 6. 71 Ibid., 3. 72 Baxa, Roads and Ruins. 73 Kirk, “Framing St. Peter’s,” 758. 74 Ibid. 75 Painter, Mussolini’s Rome. 76 Kirk, “Framing St. Peter’s,” 768. 77 Ibid., 757. 78 Ibid, 770. 79 Ibid, 757. 80 Lasansky, The Renaissance Perfected, 3. 69
29
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baxa, Paul. Roads and Ruins: The Symbolic Landscape of Fascist Rome. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Ciucci, Giorgio. Gli Architetti e il Fascismo: Architettura e Città 1922-1944. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1989. Ciucci, Giorgio. La Piazza del Popolo: Storia Architettura Urbanistica. Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1974. Gentile, Emilio. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. Translated by Keith Bosford. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Habel, Dorothy Metzger. The Urban Development of Rome in the Age of Alexander VII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Kallis, Aristotle. “ ‘Reconciliation’ or ‘Conquest’? The Opening of the Via della Conciliazione and the Fascist Vision for the ‘Third Rome,’ ” in Rome : Continuing Encounters between Past and Present, edited by D. Sophie Caldwell and L. Caldwell, 129-151. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011. Kirk, Terry. “Framing St. Peter's: Urban Planning in Fascist Rome.” Art Bulletin 88 (2006): 756–76. Kirk, Terry. “The Political Topography of Modern Rome, 1870-1936: Via XX Settembre to Via dell’Impero,” in Rome: Continuing Encounters between Past and Present, edited by D. Sophie Caldwell and L. Caldwell, 101-128. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011. Lasansky, D. Medina. The Renaissance Perfected: Architecture, Spectacle, and Tourism in Fascist Italy. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004. Mitchell, Timothy, “The Stage of Modernity,” in Questions of Modernity, 1-34. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008. Mitchell, Timothy, “Orientalism and the Exhibitionary Order,” in Colonialism and Culture, edited by Nicholas Dirks, 289-317. Nicoloso, Paolo. Mussolini Architetto: Propagande e Paesaggio Urbano nell’Italia Fascista. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 2008.
Painter, Borden. Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Tinniswood, Adrian. Visions of Power: Ambitions and Architecture from Ancient Times to the Present. New York: Stewart, Tabori, & Chang, 1998. Westfall, Carroll William. In This Most Perfect Paradise: Alberti, Nicholas V, and the Invention of Conscious Urban Planning in Rome, 1447-55. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1974.
50
51
1:
via
dei
fori
imperiali
53
20, 21, 22, 23 24, 25
40, 41, 42, 43
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
30 CORS
27 O VIT TO
RIO
EM
AN
UE
LE
II:
18
86
18 C
29
19
D
26
28
36, 37, 38, 39
16
54
20, 21 , 22, 23
17
14
15
13
B
VI
A
D
EI
FO
RI
IM
PE
RI
AL
I:
19
32
7 8
6
9
10
A 4
5
3
11, 12
2
via dei fori imperiali: 1932, ricci 1
55
14
16
15
B
8
56
13
VI
A
D
EI
FO
RI
IM
PE
RI
AL
I:
19
32
7 8
6
9
10
A 4
5
3
11, 12
2
via dei fori imperiali: 1932, ricci
1
57
6
58
VIA D EI FO R I IMPERI AL I : 1932, RI CCI T EMP IO D ELLA PACE, 75 AD, VESPASI AN C O LO SSEU M: 70 AD, VESPASI AN
7
VIA D EI FORI I MPERI AL I : 1932, RI CCI C H IESA D I SANTI LUCA E MARTI NA: 625; REBUI LT 1 5 8 8 , PI E T RO DA CORTONA IMP ER IAL F ORA: 46 B C- 113 AD
59
60
14
VIA D EI FORI I MPERI AL I : 1932, RI CCI C H IESA D I SANTI LUCA E MARTI NA: 625; REBUI LT 1 5 8 8 , PI E T RO DA CORTONA
61
5
62
C O LO SSEU M FROM VI A SACRA
4
C O LO SSEUM VI EW TO VI A SACRA & ARCH OF TI T U S : 8 2 A D
63
2
64
C O LO SSEU M: 70 AD, VESPASI AN
3
65
8
66
ARC H O F SEP T I MI US SEVERUS: 203 AD
15
T EMP LE O F VESPASI AN AND TI TUS: 79 AD
67
9
68
V IEW FRO M PALAT IN E HI L L : CHI ESA DI SANTI LUCA E MA RT I NA & F ORA
10
C O LO SSEUM F ROM PAL ATI NE HI L L
69
PA L AT I N E H I L L E N T RA N CE : C. 1 8 0 0
11
70
PALAT INE H ILL, DOMUS F L AVI A: 92 AD
12
71
40, 41, 42, 43
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
30 CORS
27 O VIT TO
RIO
EM
AN
UE
LE
II:
18
86
C
29 D
26
28
36, 37, 38, 39
72
20, 21, 22, 23 24, 25
18
19
17
14
16
15
B
campidoglio and piazza vene zia
73
B
74
P IAZ Z A D EL C AM PI DOGL I O & PAL AZZI FACADES: 1576 , M I CH E L A N GE LO PALAZ Z O D EL SENATORE: 13-14th C.
16
P IAZ Z A D E L CAMPI DOGL I O & PAL AZZI FACADES: 1 5 7 6 , M I CH E L A N GE LO SANTA MA RI A I N ARACOEL I : 12th C. MO NU MENT TO VI TTORI O EMANUEL E I I : 1885-1 9 2 5 , S ACCON I
75
campidoglio paving
76
santa maria in aracoeli
77
17
78
T R AJAN’S FO RUM: 112 AD
79
19
80
BASILIC A D I SA N MARCO FACADE: 1465, AL B ERTI
18
SANT ISSIM O NOME DI MARI A AL F ORO TRAI ANO: 1 7 3 6 , DE RI Z E T SANTA MA RI A DI LORETO: 1507, ANTONI O DA SA N GA L LO T R AJAN’S COLUMN: 113 AD
81
2:
corso
vittorio
emanuele
II
83
ZIONE: IA DELLA CONCILIA
1936
59
58
57
56
53
50, 51, 52 54 C
O
R
SO
VI
TT
O
R
IO
55
E
M
A
N
U
E
L
E
II
:
1
8
8
6
49
47
E
84
48
20, 21, 22, 23 24, 25
40, 41, 42, 43
45
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
44
30 CORS
27 O VIT TO
RIO
EM
AN
UE
LE
II:
18
86
18 46 C
29
19
17
D
26
28
36, 37, 38, 39
16
corso vittorio emanuele I I : 1886, vivani
85
49
47
E
48
40, 41, 42, 43
45
44
CORS
46
D
86
O VIT
ORSO
24
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
30 27 V I T TO
RIO
EM
AN
UE
LE
II:
18
86
18 C
29
19
26
28
36, 37, 38, 39
corso vittorio emanuele I I : il gesu to sant’andrea
87
C
88
C H IESA D EL G E SU: 1558, VI GNOL A
26
C H IESA D EL GESU FACADE: 1575, GI ACOMO DEL L A PORTA
89
28
90
C AP ITAL AT MU S EO CRYPTA BAL B I : 1st C. B C
29
LARGO D I TORRE ARGENTI NA, TEMPL E OF JUTURNA : 3 rd C. B C
91
27
92
P IAZ Z A SANT ’ IGNAZI O: 1727, RAGUZZI NI
30
SANTA MA RI A SOPRA MI NERVA, ‘PULCI NO’: 166 7 , B E RN I N I & F E RRATA
93
31
94
PANT H EO N: 126 AD, HADRI AN
32
PANT H EO N : 126 AD, HADRI AN P IAZ Z A D E L L A ROTONDA: 15th CENTURY FO NTANA DEL PANTHEON: 1575, GI ACOMO DEL L A PORTA
95
33
96
PANT H EO N: 126 AD, HADRI AN
34
97
pantheon floor marble
98
99
pantheon exterior brick
100
35
SANTA MARI A MADDAL ENA FACADE: c. 1730
101
40
102
C H IESA D I SANT’ I VO AL L A SAPI ENZA: 1642, B ORROM I N I
41
103
42
104
C H IESA D I SANT’ I VO AL L A SAPI ENZA: 1642, B ORROM I N I
43
105
D
106
SANT ’ AND R EA DEL L A VAL L E: 1608, MADERNO
44
SANT ’ ANDREA DEL L A VAL L E & CORSO VI TTORI O E M A N U E L E I I
107
46
108
C AMP O D E’ FIO RI STAT U E O F BRUNO: 1887
109
via dei banchi vecchi
110
45
P IAZ Z A NAVONA: 100 AD, AS STADI UM OF DOMI T I ON SANT ’ AG N ESE I N AGONE: 1652, RAI NAL DI , B OR ROM I N I FO NTANA DEL MORO: 1575, GI ACOMO DEL L A PORTA & 1 6 7 3 , B E RN I N I
111
F
ILIAZ IONE : VIA DELL A CONC
1936
60 59
58
57
56
112
53
50, 51, 52 54 C
O
R
SO
VI
TT
O
R
IO
55
E
M
A
N
U
E
L
E
II
:
1
8
8
6
49
47
E
48
corso vittorio emanuele I I : chiesa nuova to ponte vittorio emanuele I I
113
51, 5 2
114
SANTA MAR IA DEL L A PACE CLOI STER: 1500, B RAMA N T E
50
SANTA MA RI A DEL L A PACE FACADE: 1656, PI ETRO DA CORTONA
115
48
116
SANTA MAR IA IN VAL I NCEL L A (CHI ESA NUOVA): 1605 FACA DE , FAU S TO O R ATO R IO D EL F I L L I PI NI : 1637, B ORROMI NI
49
O R ATO RI O DEL F I L L I PI NI : 1637, B ORROMI NI
117
E
118
SANTA MAR IA IN VAL I NCEL L A (CHI ESA NUOVA): 1599 , M A RT I N O LON GH I
47
SANT ’ANDREA DEL L A VAL L E F ROM CHI ESA NUOVA
119
oratorio
120
chiesa nuova
121
55
122
C H IESA D I SAN GI OVANNI DEI F I ORENTI NI : 160 2 , GI ACOM O DE L L A PORTA ; 1 7 3 4 FACA DE
54
C AST EL SA NT’ANGELO: 130 AD
123
56, 5 8
124
P O NT E VIT TORI O EMANUEL E I I : 1911, ROSSI
57
P O NT E SAN T’ ANGELO: 134 AD, HADRI AN
125
3:
via
della
conciliazione
127
63
64
128
62
61
F
ILIAZ IONE : VIA DELL A CONC
1936
60 59
58
via della conciliaz ione : 1936, piacentini & spaccarelli
129
45
130
BASILIC A D I SA N PI ETRO
131
59
132
VIA D ELLA C O N CI L I AZI ONE: 1936, PI ACENTI NI & SPACCA RE L L I
61
P IAZ Z A SAN PI ETRO: 1667, B ERNI NI PASSET TO DI B ORGO: 1227
133
60
134
BASILIC A D I SA N PI ETRO FAC AD E: 1614, MADERNO D O ME: 1500, MI CHEL ANGELO
62
P IAZ Z A SAN PI ETRO: 1667, B ERNI NI VIA D ELLA CONCI L I AZI ONE: 1936, PI ACENTI NI & S PACCA RE L L I
135
63
136
P IETA: 1496, M I CHEL ANGELO
64
BASILIC A DI SAN PI ETRO: 1612, MADERNO
137
passetto di borga
138
fascist era entrance to piazz a san pietro
139
pia z z a san pietro cobblestones
140
pia z z a san pietro column
141
142
4:
off
the
path
143
53
36, 37
38, 39
144
65 25
53
, 39
24 20, 21 22, 23
13
1
145
1
146
EU R : 1938, PI ACENTI NI
PALAz z O D ELLA C IVI TA I TAL I ANA: 1938, GUERRI NI
147
13
148
MO SES AT SAN PI ETRO I N VI NCOL I : 1515, MI CHEL AN GE LO
53
AR A PAC IS: 9 B C
149
20
150
SAN C AR LO ALL E QUATTRO F ONTANE: 1646, B ORROM I N I
21
151
22
152
SANT ’AND R EA AL QUI RI NAL E: 1658, B ERNI NI
23
153
24
154
P IAZ Z A D I SPAGNA T R INITA D EI MONTI FACADE: 1585, GI ACOMO DEL L A PORTA FO NTANA D ELLA BARCACCI A: 1627, B ERNI NI STAIRC ASE 1725, SPECCHI
25
P IAZ Z A D E L POPOLO: 1811, VAL ADI ER SANTA MA RI A DEI MI RACOL I & SANTA MARI A I N M ON T E S A N TO: 1 6 8 0 , RA I NA L DI , BER NINI, FONTANA
155
36
156
IL T EMP IET TO, SAN PI ETRO I N MONTORI O: 1502, B R A M A N T E
37
157
38
158
SANTA C EC ELIA I N TRANSTEVERE: 5th C.; REBUI LT 1 2 t h C. ; FACA DE 1 7 2 5 , F U GA RO MAN C ANT H ARUS: 1st C. AD
39
MART Y R D OM OF SANTA CECEL I A: 1600, STEFAN O M A DE RN O
159
santa maria in trastevere
160
65
MAXXI: 20 10, HADI D
161
162
4:
life
in
rome
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177