[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
From antiquity to the first half of the 21st century, reconstructions and restorations have been recurring events in Rome’s urban history. The purpose of this book is to expand on the political imperative of restoring the Eternal City over the long term by discussing a series of case studies. The volume offers the proceedings of a conference held at the École française de Rome and at Sapienza Università di Roma on October 30-31, 2019. The four sections present sixteen contributions in French, Italian and English—arranged not chronologically but thematically—from archaeologists, historians, classicists, and art historians who highlight the political meaning of restoration. They cover more than two millennia divided as follows: ancient Rome (three), Middle Ages (five), Renaissance (two), 16th century (one), 19th century (two), Fascist era (two), and contemporary Rome (one).
This work does not claim to be exhaustive: key periods such as the principate of Augustus, who made restitutio the watchword of his new regime, or Rome after 1870, might be explored in the future. Other neglected topics include spolia and the reuse of entire buildings.[1] Nowadays some alleged “anastylosis”—e.g. the “new” colonnaded portico of the Temple of Peace or the interior of the Basilica Ulpia[2]—have altered Rome’s cityscape just to please the tourists; these, too, are political restorations overlooked by the volume, together with digital reconstructions. Another future avenue of research might be the representation of the city, from the Forma Urbis, carved on stone in one of the halls of the Temple of Peace, to Raphael’s Letter to Leo X (1513-1521).
Rome was not built in a day. Emperors, popes, and dictators presented themselves as protectors of the ancient heritage and made restoration one of the foundations of their legitimacy. The notion of Roma Aeterna appears at the beginning of the Imperial era. Yet, aeternitas was not conceived as a linear continuity but as inscribed within a cyclical time—the trajectory of a city could be improved in periodic renovatio. Eternity, therefore, implies not the absence of crises and catastrophes, but the capacity to overcome them. In this respect, Rome is the best laboratory for studying the capacity of individuals or systems to recover from a traumatic event—fires, floods, earthquakes, sackings, and bombardments—using their own resources.[3]
On coinage, Septimius Severus was restitutor Urbis; Sixtus IV was renovator Urbis. Yet, restitutio or renovatio do not have the same meaning across different periods. Rebuilding is all the more delicate, since the sacred aura surrounding certain buildings has made them untouchable, in theory: suffice it to recall the controversies about the old St. Peter’s.[4] From the 19th century onwards, theory and practice have explored the authenticity of ancient monuments, adopting philological and critical approaches to the built heritage enshrined by international charters. Following the 19th-century debates on the meaning of the word “restoration,” those documents have produced sharp definitions of the different terms, but they are primarily valuable as models for future actions.
Part One of the volume highlights how restoration may mean asserting authority over the city. In the first essay in this section Maxime Emion highlights how two foreign powers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ostrogothic Kingdom, sought to justify their domination of the city through various restoration projects during the Gothic Wars. Procopius’ narrative of these emergency repairs contributes to the heroic image of Belisarius, Justinian’s general and defender of Rome, who rebuilt the city walls to resist the Gothic assaults. Procopius emphasizes Totila’s activity, too: the barbarian king restored Rome to its former glory and legitimized his political power. The Romans themselves did not lose agency over their city by preserving the monumental buildings of the past. The description of the elusive ship of Aeneas resonates as a metaphor for late antique interrogations on Roman identity and on the materiality of legendary monuments.[5]
Riccardo Santangeli Valenzani and Andrea Antonio Verardi try to explore the building activity of two Carolingian popes, Adrian I (772-795) and Leo IV (847-855). By comparing the information in the Liber Pontificalis and the archaeological evidence, the authors try to clarify the political and ideological reasons behind the huge building works carried out by both popes. Having shown that one pope devoted great care to the restoration of the city walls, the authors’ conclude that his successor was more interested in church restoration; however, if the city walls had been just repaired, that shift appears to be inevitable.
Dario Internullo and Mariele Valci explore the 12th-century urban programs, when restoration was the prerogative of the Commune. After the analysis of documentary and archaeological sources, the authors dwell specifically on the relationships between Rome and its monuments by discussing the Aurelianic Walls and the spiral columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.[6] The collected data reveal that there was no well-planned ‘urban politics’ at the time but rather an appropriation of Rome’s infrastructures and decorum with the goal of representing the Commune as the new public power, especially after the Renovatio Senatus (1143).
Pierre-Bénigne Dufouleur argues that the restorations and reconstructions carried out by the Della Rovere family in late 15th-century Rome can be understood through kinship. Beyond the construction of churches, chapels and palaces carried out by Sixtus IV (1471-1484) and Julius II (1503-1513), the focus is on those led by the dozen cardinals from the family who wished to increase their visibility. Of course, the picture is more complicated: people from local families who were not linked to the papacy, such as Francesco Porcari or Lorenzo Manlio (whose house has a long inscription that begins with Urbe Roma in pristinam formam renascente) could be at least briefly involved into the discussion.[7]
Part Two, on places and powers, begins with two major monuments. Bertrand Cahut discusses the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus under the Flavians after the fires of 69 and 80 CE. In his view, both cases show the will to respect the history of the building. Restoring required recognizing the inheritance of the past but, at the same time, authorized some changes. The author argues that these restorations did not leave the same memory: respect or disrespect for the history of a place became, for ancient authors, a criterion for judging emperors.[8] Ilaria Fiumi Sermattei highlights the political significance of the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls after the fire of 1823. The debate on restoration or reconstruction was not just a contrast between innovative projects and traditional restorations. This essay presents an alternative option, sponsored by Leo XIII and aimed at ensuring continuity with the past, which involved the reuse of the ancient marbles that survived the fire, resulting in their reuse as gifts for the European sovereigns who contributed to the reconstruction.[9]
Adrián Almoguera highlights the political motivations behind the programs of the French authorities during the occupation of Rome (1809-1814). The archaeological excavations and the restoration of ancient monuments that lay half-buried or covered with vegetation contributed to the legitimization of the Napoleonic regime.[10] Fernando Salsano deals with urban renewal in Fascist Rome but, in fact, the focus of his essay is narrow: the area from Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum. The author notes that the area was transformed by a program aimed at celebrating the regime through the enhancement of the archaeological heritage. However, the new ceremonial space was not the result of an organic project but the sum of various interventions, such as the so-called “Foro Italico.”[11]
The focus of Part Three is on actual procedures. Back to antiquity, Marietta Horster examines the developments of re(building) in Rome from the Republican period to the 4th century CE, with a focus on the actors involved. In the Republican period, public building in Rome was restricted by a rather small state budget, supplemented by generals making temple building in the city a family affair. Augustus took up this rhetoric of building as an expression of piety to the gods and as a personal service for the populus Romanus. Most new public building and larger restorations became the emperor’s province, whereas maintenance and reconstruction were entrusted to curators or other officials. John Fabiano examines Late Antique inscriptions (350-450 CE) with a focus on law, fiscality and the language of rebuilding. The population participated, through taxes and forced labor, in the restorations of public buildings; this role is celebrated in inscriptions, whose rhetoric highlights a new “fiscal-social contract” between authorities and subjects. The author argues that new mechanisms for the collection of taxes and the imposition of liturgical duties meant that Rome relied increasingly on its free urban population and adjacent landowners to carry out maintenance on public projects. Restoration became a way of justifying political authority through its benefits to the people of Rome.
Giada Lepri analyses Rome’s “Tridente” region—the wedge defined by via di Ripetta, via del Corso and via del Babuino—that represents one of the most important urban achievements of the 16th century. The integration of the Mausoleum of Augustus into the Trident project attested to the claimed continuity between the emperor and the pope. The magistri viarum, the owners of the land (including religious institutions), and families such as the Chigi or the Orsini were among the actors in this operation. Finally, the author emphasizes the role of Antonio da Sangallo and Raphael. At p. 323, note that the papal bull Cum almam nostram urbem was issued by Pius II in 1462, not in 1480. Lidia Piccioni’s essay is the only one on contemporary Rome. It deals with the program of urban regeneration promoted by the Capitoline administration and called the “Centopiazze per Roma” (1994-2010), the goal of which was to redevelop neighborhood squares in the suburbia and turn them into vibrant public spaces for daily life and social interaction. However, the results were not always successful, particularly when the administration failed to involve local residents.
Part Four examines the relationships between old and new. The reconstruction from the great fire of 64 CE offered Nero the opportunity to extend his imperial residence, known as the Domus Aurea. After his death, the Flavian dynasty built vast architectural complexes such as the large public buildings discovered underneath the Baths of Trajan. Rita Volpe argues that the construction of the Baths of Trajan transformed the appearance of the neighborhood more than the fire itself—which is hardly surprising. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill explores the concept of restoration in 6th-century Rome relying on Cassiodorus’ official letters (Variae) and talks of a general neglect of Greek and Roman ideas of restorations by modern conservation theorists (which is not completely true).
José Carlos Miralles Maldonado deals with restoration and propaganda in Counter-Reformation Rome, when the city experienced a deep transformation under Pius IV, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V. The author adopts as a primary source the Neo-Latin poetry and encomiastic oratory composed in that period and he analyzes the humanists’ parallels and contrasts between ancient and modern Rome. Maddalena Carli’s essay deals with four exhibitions organized by the National Fascist Party and held at the Circus Maximus between 1937 and 1939. The site (the author prefers the old name of vallis Murcia that, however, was not cited in the late 1930s) was a mere backdrop, in which ephemeral pavilions, internal avenues, garden beds and recreational facilities were inserted. The author argues that these exhibitions restored the recently excavated circus to its ancient functions, repurposing it to host mass events and transforming it into a space for entertainment and political education.[12]
Altogether, this thematic journey across Rome’s history highlights that the restoration of its buildings and spaces has always been a major political issue. New questions underlying this volume concern the specificity of Rome. What is Rome’s value as a reference, model, or counter-model for the restoration of other cities? This volume might encourage the examination of restoration within the field of urban history and inspire similar works elsewhere.
Authors and Titles
Bruno Bonomo, Charles Davoine, Cécile Troadec, ‘Introduction. Reconstruire les monuments, rénover la ville, restaurer Rome’
Première Partie. Restaurer pour affirmer son autorité sur la ville
- Maxime Emion, ‘Rome brûle-t-elle? Détruire ou reconstruire la Ville pendant la Guerre gothique’
- Riccardo Santangeli Valenzani, Andrea Antonio Verardi, ‘La politica edilizia dei papi “carolingi”. Lo spazio cittadino tra continuità e rifunzionalizzazione da Adriano I (772-795) a Leone IV (847-855)’
- Dario Internullo, Mariele Valci, ‘Luoghi di potere e di memoria. La politica urbanistica e monumentale del comune di Roma nel secolo XII’
- Pierre-Bénigne Dufouleur, ‘Restaurer la ville, instaurer un lignage. La politique édilitaire des cardinaux della Rovere à Rome à la fin du Quattrocento’
Deuxième Partie. Lieux symboliques et pouvoirs à prétention universelle
- Bertrand Cahut, ‘Restaurer ou reconstruire le Capitole? Enjeux des interventions architecturales flaviennes sur la colline sacrée de Rome’
- Ilaria Fiumi Sermattei, ‘Ricostruire la basilica / restaurare la Chiesa. Il dibattito sul cantiere di San Paolo fuori le mura nel terzo decennio del XIX secolo’
- Adrián Almoguera, ‘À Rome, pour Rome et contre Rome. Enjeux artistiques, politiques et culturels de la restauration de monuments antiques pendant la période napoléonienne (1809-1814)’
- Fernando Salsano, ‘Il rinnovamento urbano nella Roma fascista. Gli sventramenti nell’area del Campidoglio, di piazza Venezia e dei fori imperiali’
Troisième Partie. Pouvoir et société urbaine : opérations, procédures, acteurs
- Marietta Horster, ‘(Re)building in ancient Rome. The development of the legal framework in its political setting’
- John Fabiano, ‘Inscribing a “fiscal-social contract”. Law, fiscality and the language of rebuilding in Rome, 350-450 CE’
- Giada Lepri, ‘Progettare il moderno, evocare l’Antico. Leone X, Raffaello e la nascita del Tridente romano’
- Lidia Piccioni, ‘“Centopiazze per Roma”. Un programma di rigenerazione urbana (1994-2010)’
Quatrième Partie. (Dis)continuités : tensions et dialogues entre l’ancien et le nouveau
- Rita Volpe, ‘I quarant’anni che sconvolsero il Colle Oppio. Trasformazioni urbane dall’incendio neroniano alla costruzione delle Terme di Traiano’
- Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Antiqua in nitorem pristinum contineas et nova simili antiquitate producas. Restoration and modernization in the Rome of Cassiodorus’
- José Carlos Miralles Maldonado, ‘Roma vetus vs. Roma nova. Restoration and Propaganda in the Papal Court in Counter-Reformation Rome’
- Maddalena Carli, ‘Exposer le présent dans les lieux du passé romain. Les pavillons fascistes au Circus Maximus (1937-1939)’
Bruno Bonomo, Charles Davoine, Cécile Troadec, ‘Reconstruire Rome: bilan et perspectives’
Notes
[1] See G. Ajello Mahler, Monumental transformations. Reuse, adaptation and the evolution of Rome’s theaters after antiquity (Turnhout 2024: Brepols).
[2] Both reconstructions were financed by Russian oligarchs.
[3] See Galen’s reaction to the fire of 192 CE in I. Polemis, S. Xenophontos, Galen. On Avoiding Distress and On My Own Opinions (Berlin, Boston 2023: De Gruyter).
[4] H. Bredekamp, La fabbrica di San Pietro. Il principio della distruzione produttiva (Turin 2005: Einaudi).
[5] See J. Finn, ‘The Ship of Aeneas,’ The Ancient History Bulletin 34.1-2 (2020), 1-24, with previous bibliography
[6] At pp. 88-89, dealing with the church of S. Nicola de Columna, the authors missed G. Intra Sidola, ‘Sistemi per l’analisi storica e lettura delle fonti: il caso dell’ubicazione della Chiesa di S. Nicolò De Columna sulla base della pianta di Roma di Alessandro Strozzi del 1474,’ in G. M. Cennamo (ed.), Processi di analisi per strategie di valorizzazione dei paesaggi urbani. I luoghi storici tra conservazione e innovazione (Proceedings of the Conference, Rome, 29 January 2016) (Potenza 2016: Ermes), 187-196.
[7] P. L. Tucci, Laurentius Manlius. La riscoperta dell’antica Roma, la nuova Roma di Sisto IV (Rome 2001: Quasar)
[8] K. Kaderka, P. L. Tucci, ‘The Capitoline Temple of Jupiter: the Best, the Greatest, but not Colossal,’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 27 (2021), 147-187; J. N. Hopkins, Unbound from Rome. Art and Craft in a Fluid Landscape, ca. 650- 250 BCE (New Haven, London 2024: Yale University Press), 199 n. 8 considers this article to be a “recent, specious argument against a colossal superstructure” but he does not explain why.
[9] R. Wittmann, Rebuilding St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. Architecture and the Catholic Revival in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge 2024: CUP).
[10] I would have included J-P. Garric, S. Pasquali, M. Pupillo Punto (eds), Roma in età napoleonica. Antico, architettura e città da modello a laboratorio (Rome 2021: Officina Libraria) into the bibliography, in which some works in English are missing, too.
[11] The author overlooks P. L. Tucci, ‘Ephemeral architecture and Romanità in the Fascist era. A Royal-Imperial tribune for Hitler and Mussolini in Rome,’ PBSR 88 (2020), 297-341. A. Sebastiani, Ancient Rome and the Modern Italian State. Ideological Placemaking, Archaeology, and Architecture, 1870-1945 (Cambridge 2023: CUP) covers this topic, too, but superficially.
[12] See O. Lanzarini, ‘Due allestimenti di Luigi Moretti: il Padiglione dell’Opera Nazionale Balilla (1937) e la Rassegna dell’edilizia della Gioventù Italiana del Littorio,’ in F. Oppedisano, P. S. Salvatori, F. Santangelo (eds), Costruire la nuova Italia. Miti di Roma e fascismo (Rome 2023: Viella), 115-140.