Paul Balchin - Rome

The architectural heritage of a country may be described as history preserved in stone, and arguably expresses the political, economic and sometimes ecclesiastical attributes of bygone ages better than any other form of art. This is even truer of many capital cities where the levers of power were customarily located. In Europe, much of the architecture of central Paris is a reminder of the power and influence of the Ancien Rgime and the later reign of Napoleon III, while evidence of the Medieval city is sparse. The built environment of much of Central London similarly dates from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, with only a sprinkling of buildings however interesting architecturally representing an earlier age. And when one considers Washington DC, the magnificent city core and its constituent buildings date very largely from the late eighteenth century, and anything older is virtually non-existent. But in Rome, the citys architecture dates back to the seventh century BC, and over the centuries the Eternal City has performed the role of capital four times: first under the Caesars and their republican predecessors, second under the popes, third during the period from 1870 to 1945 when it became the centre of monarchical and Fascist power, and finally since the second war when it again became the capital of a republic.

Thus throughout its long history, the physical development of Rome was dependent upon the will of its rulers, the availability of economic resources, and the overarching impact of its citizens attitude to the sacred and the profane. Overall, it can be suggested that a significant proportion of buildings and public open spaces were developed to generate awe, respect and subservience among the citys population at large, an explanation by no means confined to Rome. In examining the history of the Eternal City or any other major city, it might be illuminating to consider Deyan Sudjics observation that architecture is [and has been] used by political leaders to seduce, impress and intimidate.1 Whether, for example, one looks at the impact of Julius Caesar and the Emperor Augustus; Popes Julius II and Innocent X; or Agostino Depretis and Benito Mussolini, political leaders [have used] architecture for political purposes. It [was] a relationship that occurred in almost every kind of regime and [appealed] to egotists of every description.2

There have, of course, been a very large number of books written on the architectural history of Rome, and on the political, economic and papal history of the relevant centuries, but very few books deal concisely with the impact of politics, economics and ecclesiastical history on the development of the city over the full extent of its history. This book is intended to fill a perceived gap in the literature. Using selected examples, it deals essentially with the political and architectural history of Rome in the two-and-a-half millennia following the demise of its last Etruscan king. examines the first seventy years of Rome as the National Capital from the Risorgimento to the demise of Mussolini in 1945. Since the period post-1945 is relatively short and still ongoing into the indefinite future, an examination of the architectural history of Rome as the capital of a modern republican state has been eschewed by the author.

_______________

D. Sudjic, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powe0t1 Shape the World, London, Allen Lane, 2005, p2.

Ibid., p8.

Rome, on an ancient salt route traversing the fertile plain of Latium, is located in the very heart of Italy. Initially it was mainly situated on the left bank of the Tiber, about 22 kilometres from the Tyrrhenian Sea. The city commanded the first convenient crossing of the Tiber north of its swampy estuary where the Isola Tiberina bifurcated the river into two fordable reaches. The river in its entirety brought produce from the inland regions, and seaborne commerce from abroad, and although the coast was near enough for convenience it was not so near as to bring danger from maritime intruders.