Rome

ROME. - Metropolis of the Roman world, later capital of the Papal State and, from 3 February 1871, of the Italian State (law no. 33, art. 1), it is the center of Catholicism as the episcopal see of the Roman Pontiff:

A) ANCIENT AND IMPERIAL ROME.

I. NAME AND GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.

I. NAME

It certainly derives from the Etruscan word rumon = river (W. Corssen, I. Guidi, G. De Sanctis, Fr. Altheim), given to the Palatine settlement because of its proximity to the Tiber, as if identified as the "city of the river."

In the southwestern area of the Palatine, the one closest, across the marshy Velabrum, to the Tiber, are gathered the most ancient memories of the city linked with that word: the Porta Romana or Romanula (Varro, De lingua lat., V, 164; Festus, s. v.), situated in the Roma quadrata, at the outlet of what was later called the "Clivus Victoriae," and which is also found in the name of the Porta Flumentana in the corresponding place of the later circuit called Servian; the ruminal fig tree that stood near the Lupercal and was transferred by the augur Attus Navius into the comitium through magical prestige; the Diva Rumina, who had a sanctuary of her own on the Palatine Hill. The etymologies from the Greek 'ρωμη = strength; from the Latin ruma = breast, on account of the two highest peaks of the Palatine, the Germalus and the Palatium; from the Etruscan gens of the Ruma (W. Schulze, G. Herbig) are to be discarded. In Roman tradition R. also had a name kept secret for fear that it might become known and magically evoked by the enemy to the city's harm. The secret concerned either the name of the city (Pliny, Hist. nat., III, 65; Servius, Aen., I, 277; Macrobius, Sat., III, 8; John Lydus, De mens., IV, 73), or that of its protecting deity (Pliny, Hist. nat., XXVIII, 28; Plutarch, Quaest. Rom., 65; Servius, Aen., II, 351; Macrobius, Sat., III, 8).

Valerius Soranus, who made public the true name of R. (Pliny, Hist. nat., III, 65) or, according to Plutarch (Quaest. Rom., 61), that of the protecting deity, was punished with death for it. According to John Lydus (De mensibus, IV, 73), the secret name of R. was Flora, deity of fertile nature (Flora mater), served by her own flamen (flamen Floralis), worshipped in a temple of her own on the Quirinal; in myth considered as a courtesan who left the Roman people heir to her riches. According to A. Brelich, Flora and other similar deities (Acca Larentia, Pales, Opa Consivia, Diva Angerona) had, despite the differences in their figures, the role of secret protecting deities of R. by virtue of their original meaning of fertility, from which the city was to draw, as from an inexhaustible source, the reasons for its existence.

Nicola Turchi

II. GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION

Situated at 41° 54' N latitude and 12° 29' E longitude (Greenwich), with the coordinates calculated at the Observatory of the Collegio Romano, the city, the center of Mediterranean civilization, occupies a privileged position in the peninsula and in the Mediterranean Sea.

Set in an alluvial plain through which wind the meanders of the Tiber and the volcanic offshoots of the Sabatine and Alban Hills, which together with the Prenestine Hills and the Tyrrhenian coast enclose it in its

(phot. Albani)
ROME. - The des R. Statue in marble of imperial art - Rome, Palazzo Senatorio Campidoglio.

outer lines, R. registers at various points heights varying from 15 to 80 meters above sea level. From the primitive city on the Palatine to the present urban complex, the growth over the course of the centuries was enormous. If the great roads of communication belong to the Republican era, the development of the city was more rapid during the Empire; the 16th century was the century that saw the beginning of the great constructions of papal R., while only at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century did the great transformation begin that has almost totally changed the appearance of R. From the 210,000 inhabitants of 1870, the population rose to 400,000 in 1900 and to over a million and a half in 1950 (1,599,894 in 1951). This enormous increase, which surpasses that of all Italian cities, is due, besides the high birth rate, to the considerable immigration from every region of Italy. Ecclesiastically the population of R. is divided into 136 parishes, grouped into 16 prefectures. The climate, very pleasant, presents an average of 7° in the coldest month (Jan.) and of 25° in the hottest (July). Within its territory is located the State of Vatican City; moreover, all the departments of the state administration, the government and ecclesiastical universities, the major banks, bodies, institutes, etc. Among the few industries, those of construction and printing are fundamental. In recent decades the traffic of its port (the river port of S. Paolo and the canal port of Fiumicino) has registered notable progress.

Gastone Imbrighi

II. ARCHAEOLOGY.

I. ORIGINS AND THE REGAL PERIOD

Its foundation was fixed by Varro at 21 April of the year 753 B.C.; to this traditional date a relative and approximate value must be attributed, certainly somewhat later than reality.

In Latium, once a sea gulf, filled in the course of the Tertiary era by the volcanic eruptions of the Alban and Ciminian Mountains and by the floods of the Tiber, man appeared in the Quaternary era when, having already left the primitive stage of civilization, the Paleolithic, he had progressed into the Neolithic. The earliest inhabitants of Latium were the Mediterranean Ligurians, who adopted the rite of inhumation (2nd millennium B.C.). In the

•

transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, once life in Latium had become less fearful owing to the cessation of the volcanic activity of the Alban Mountains, between the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., there occurred an incursion of peoples of northern origin, akin to the terramara-dwellers of the Po valley, of Aryan race, speaking an Indo-European idiom and observing the funerary rite of cremation, who, attracted by the fertile and rewarding soil, settled there, giving rise to the Latin people. This people, produced by the mixture of the autochthonous Mediterraneans with the new Aryan population, with a predominance of the latter, more evolved, assumed a stable character in Latium. At the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 7th century B.C., a more advanced phase of the Latian Iron Age civilization began, with overseas influence and contributions, in the period called Orientalizing. Meanwhile a league of the various centers inhabited by the Latins had been formed, the Alban League, headed by Alba Longa. The confederated villages, which arose in elevated places for the defense of the flocks and herds from raiders, were, according to Pliny (Nat. hist., III, 69, 70), 31 in number. Meanwhile Rome was being born. Near the broad bend formed by the Tiber, a little downstream from the confluence of the Aniene, at a short distance from the sea, villages arose on the tufa hills, cut by the erosion of the waters, rising above the surrounding marshy plain, isolated and easily defensible, almost inaccessible and covered with dense woodlands of oaks (mons Querquetulanus), of beeches (Fagutal), of willows (Viminalis). The site, eminently strategic and suited to commercial traffic, attracted both the Latins of the Alban hills and the Sabines of pre-Aryan Mediterranean stock; the latter, descending from their mountains, traded by river route with the Umbrians and, along the Via Salaria, which they had laid out, pushed as far as the mouths of the Tiber to obtain salt. Archaeological finds, with the discovery of burial grounds and remains of dwellings, show that between the 10th and 8th centuries B.C. on the hills of Rome there arose villages of huts (pagi or oppida); Latin settlements on the Palatine (Germulus, Palatual, Velia), the Esquiline (Fagutal, Cispius, Oppius) and part of the Caelian (Querquetual or Sucusa), Sabine on the Capitoline, the Quirinal and the Viminal; the Aventine perhaps continued to be inhabited by Mediterranean Ligurians. On the village of the Germulus (Palatine), the square Rome of the mythical founder Romulus, fictile household goods of the 8th century B.C. have been recognized. In the necropolis of the Forum, extending from the foot of the Esquiline toward the Capitoline, the oldest tombs go back to the 9th century, with the presence of ossuaries in the shape of a dwelling (hut-shaped urns); its expansion descends as far as the 7th century. The necropolis of the Esquiline is more recent, does not go beyond the 7th century; it has more rudimentary objects and reveals no trace of Oriental or Hellenic commerce. After a first union into a single political center of the pagi of the Palatine and the Esquiline, the seven villages in time constituted their own federation (lega septimontialis) with a religious and political basis and for the protection of common interests. It flourished in the full 8th century, in which legend places the reigns of the Latin Romulus (753-717 B.C.) and of the Sabine Numa Pompilius (717-673 B.C.). The myth of Romulus was formed in Rome, deriving the name Romulus from Rome itself; the legends of Aeneas, of the 12 Alban kings; of Rhea Silvia and of the Twins, were imported to Rome by the learned Greek historians of the 4th century B.C., after the conquest of Campania, applying to Roman myths analogous Hellenic myths, among them that of Tiro, son of Salmonca violated by Neptune on the banks of the Enipeus, whose abandoned twins were given to a goat to suckle. To the first two kings of Rome are attributed the institution of the Senate, of the three tribus and of the 30 curiae into which the new city would have been divided, the promulgation of laws, and the institution of cults and priesthoods. The latent dissension between the Septimontial union and Alba Longa ends with the submission and destruction of the latter and the transfer of its inhabitants to the Caelian hill; this would have occurred during the reign of the third king of Rome, Tullus Hostilius (672-641), who would have given his name to the meeting place of the Senate, the Curia Hostilia, in the Forum. The Septimontial federation, having become, through its position, its industries and its commerce, the most important state of the Latin League, takes the place of Alba Longa as capital and begins the unifying conquest of the nearest inhabited centers. To the fourth king Ancus Marcius, grandson of Numa Pompilius (639-616 B.C.), is attributed the regulation of the declaration of war with the institution of the Fectales and the founding of the first colony of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber (Ostia).

With the end of the 7th century and the beginnings of the 6th, we enter a period of the history of R. that is more certain and better documented, a period of subjection and at the same time of significant progress. The Etruscans, at the height of their power, already commercially linked with R. through the Tiber and the wooden pons Subliatae downstream of the Tiber Island, invaded and subjugated the Roman territory and Latium, pushing as far as Campania. Their dominion lasted until the end of the 6th century. Great founders of cities, to them R. owes its transformation from a federation of pagi into the unity of the urbo (an Etruscan word). National tradition refused out of pride to acknowledge foreigners as the true founders of the city. The names of the Latin and Sabine kings appear only in the account of legendary tradition; those of the Etruscan kings are documented by historical monuments; the names of Tarchia (Tarquinius) and of Mastarna (Servius Tullius) appear in the paintings of the François tomb at Vulci from the 4th century. The very name of R. is derived from rumon, an Etruscan word indicating a watercourse, that is, the city of the river. Moreover, the rites of the city's foundation are taken from Etruscan discipline. Tarquinius Priscus (616-579), an Etruscan of Greek origin, who combined in himself Etruscan practicality with Greek genius, is the great transformer of the city. He drained the marshy valleys between the seven hills by building sewers channeling the waters to the Tiber, and he resolved upon the construction of defensive walls of the entire inhabited area, in stonework, in the parts not naturally defended. Once the marshy lands between the Palatine, the Capitoline and the Quirinal had been reclaimed, it became possible to construct buildings and houses and to create the Roman Forum and the Forum Boarium for the assemblies and the markets. In fulfillment of a vow made in war against the Sabines, Tarquinius Priscus began the construction of the temple of Jupiter on the sacred Capitoline hill and created in the Murcia valley, between the Palatine and the Aventine, the Circus Maximus, to celebrate there the Ludi magni of the Roman people. Having set aside the authority of the patres of the Senate, a radical constitutional change was introduced tending toward the absolute dominion of the king, according to Etruscan tradition with regard to the head of state. The twelve fasces that accompanied the king were perhaps a symbol of the twelve Etruscan lucumonies. R., under Etruscan dominion, besides being an ever more important center of trade, became an industrial city; under the guidance of Etruscan craftsmen and workmen it began artisanal activity in the field of metallurgy and coroplastics. Servius Tullius (575-535 B.C.), who succeeded Tarquinius Priscus, favored by the latter's wife, Tanaquil, proceeded to divide the classes of citizens, creating a plutocratic organization and regulating the collection of taxes and the operations of the levy. To this end Servius Tullius is said to have modified the system of dividing citizens into tribes and gentes by introducing the system of distribution on a topographical basis. R. was divided into 4 regions: Palatina (Palatine), Subarana (Caelian), Collina (Quirinal and Viminal) and Esquilina (Esquiline); these were called urban tribes to distinguish them from the rustic ones, instituted later in the suburb. At the basis of this division stood, according to Varro, the 24 shrines of the very ancient and mysterious cult of the Argei, 6 per region, centers of the compitalician cult, preserved in the Republican and Imperial age and transformed into sanctuaries dedicated to the cult of the Lares, guardians and protectors of the vici. With the new system the population was distinguished according to domicile, no longer on the basis of birth: a first step toward the rise of the plebs. Continuing the work of his predecessor, Servius Tullius completed the defense of the city with ditches, walls and an embankment. To this primitive circuit of the regal age are attributed the remains of the existing Servian walls, formed of small squared blocks of tufa cappellaccio; the remains in larger blocks of compact lithoid tufa would instead belong to the reconstruction of the walls in the 4th century, after the Gallic invasion. The Servian city comprised only the inhabited soil and the soil of quiritarian private property, with the exclusion of land in public domain; therefore the Capitoline and the Aventine, property of the State, were excluded from it. The Capitoline was included in the primitive defensive circuit, the Aventine only in the 4th century.

The last of the kings of R., Tarquinius Superbus (532-509?), despite the efforts of historians to portray him as a model tyrant, appears as a noble promoter of grandiose public works in R., such as the definitive erection of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline, the arrangement of the Circus Maximus with fixed tiers for spectators, and the perfecting of the system for reclaiming the lowlands of the city by means of ample canalizations channeling to the Tiber the spring waters and those descending from the hills which, invading and stagnating on the plain, prevented communication and became unhealthy. These formed three hydrographic basins: the first, northern (Petronia amnis), collected the waters of the Pincio and the Quirinal; the middle one (Spinon), those of the Esquiline and the Viminal; the southern one (Nodinus), between the Palatine, the Caelian and the Esquiline, which stagnated in the Velabrum maius. The most voluminous of these canalizations or sewers was that of the middle basin, therefore called Cloaca maxima, which, running beneath the depressions of the Suburra, beneath the Argiletum, the Forum, the vicus Tuscus and the Forum Boarium, emptied into the Tiber. Its remains belong to the reconstruction that took place between the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., in which the primitive Etruscan vault was replaced by the elliptical vault in ashlar masonry.

The expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus (509 B.C.?) was the revolt of R. against the attempt to make the monarchy absolute and hereditary; at the same time R. shook off the yoke of Etruscan dominion, already in decline in Campania and Latium at the end of the 6th century B.C. With the defeat at Aricia (505 B.C.) the attempt of Porsenna to consolidate that dominion failed; with the Roman victory at Lake Regillus (497 B.C.) the other attempt failed — that of Tarquinius Superbus and his allied cities of the Latin League — to restore the monarchy and to break, at its rebirth, the predominance of R. over Latium. R., with the subjugation of the neighboring cities, prepared to fulfill its mission as unifier of the Italic peoples.

II. REPUBLICAN AGE

1. 6th-5th centuries B.C. - At the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the republic, at the end of the 6th century and in the earliest years of the 5th century B.C., Rome already constituted a homogeneous whole both from the ethnic point of view and from that of building. Its principal monument was the temple of Jupiter, an ancient Latin deity, on the southern summit of the Capitoline, of Hellenized Etruscan art, partly wooden with terracotta facing, with a triple cella, dedicated to the triad Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. The statue of Jupiter was, according to Pliny, a distinguished work of the coroplast Vulca of Veii. The temple, scarcely completed by Tarquinius Superbus, was according to tradition dedicated by the suffect consul M. Horatius Pulvillus, in the very year of the founding of the republic (509 B.C.).

On the Capitoline there was also the shrine dedicated to Iuppiter Feretrius, to whom the mythical founder of the city, Romulus, is said to have dedicated the spolia opima taken from the leader of the defeated

Ceninenses; on the northern summit of the hill was the arx with the auguraculum. From the sacred summit, by way of the clivus Capitolinus, one descended to the Forum, the common center of life and of trade, crossed from north to south by the Via Sacra, as far as the opposite height of the Velia (summa Sacra Via). On the left of another slope descending from the arx was the great cistern or water reservoir called the Tullianum, of conical form with a round plan and an Etruscan vault, later adapted as a public prison. On the right stood the primitive temple of Saturn, attributed to Tullus Hostilius, restored by Tarquinius Superbus, dedicated anew in 501 B.C. by the dictator L. Laetorius; in the middle the Vulcanal. Proceeding, there opened on the left the plaza of the Comitium and the Curia Hostilia, seat of the Senate. In the level area of the Comitium, in front of the Curia, was the tomb or heroon of Romulus, discovered in 1899 by Giacomo Boni, later sealed with the lapis niger, which originally formed part of the great necropolis of the Forum. The entrance of the heroon was guarded by the images of two crouching lions: there was the very famous stele inscribed with ritual norms. The curving profiles of the plinths of Etruscan type accord well with monuments of the end of the 6th century or the earliest years of the 5th century B.C. Beyond the Comitium, at the point where the Forum was crossed from east to west by the Cloaca Maxima, was the shrine of Venus Cloacina. On the slopes of the Palatine stood the round sanctuary of Vesta, whose cult came originally from Alba Longa, with the sacred lucus and the dwelling of the Vestals. Nearby were the fons Iuturnae and the new temple of the Castors, vowed during the battle of Lake Regillus by the dictator Aulus Postumius (498 B.C.). The south side of the Forum was occupied by the tabernae of merchants, later called ceteres. To the east a street called the Argiletum communicated with the Subura and the hills; at its outlet into the Forum was the small temple of Janus; to the west the clivus Ingarius and the clivus Tuscus led to the Forum Boarium, the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus.

On the Palatine at the center, at the intersection of the cardo and the decumanus, was the mundus, a circular trench into which at the founding of that pagus clods and first-fruits of the land of origin had been thrown; on its edge was the votive arx of the Roma quadrata. On the height of the Germalus was the tugurium Faustuli or house of Romulus, and on the slopes of the hill toward the Velabrum opened the Lupercal, the cave of Faunus Lupercus, seat of the ancient rite of the Lupercalia. There was perhaps placed the celebrated bronze image of the Wolf, called the Capitoline, a totemic symbol, a distinguished work of the end of the 6th century B.C. of full Etruscan realism. Also on the Palatine were the arx of Evander or of Victory, and the temple of Iuppiter Stator, vowed, according to tradition, in the war against the Sabines. In the plain between the Palatine and the Aventine (vallis Murcia) extended the Circus Maximus (600 × 150 m.); from its end departed the communication to Ostia (Via Ostiensis) and that to the Alban hills and Latium (Via Latina). Near the carceres of the Circus (S. Maria in Cosmedin) was erected by the victor of the battle of Lake Regillus (497 B.C.), Aulus Postumius, a temple with a triple cella dedicated to the infernal-terrestrial triad: Ceres, Liber (Bacchus) and Libera (Proserpina). Between the Aventine and the Forum Boarium were the temples of Hercules Invictus, of Mother Matuta and of Fortuna Virilis, erected in the regal age.

The Esquiline, formed by the well-distinct peaks of the Cispius and the Oppius, was only partly inhabited. There extended the vast necropolis of the city, enlarged when that of the Forum ceased to be active. It consisted of hypogea carved in the rock and of broad common pits (puticoli). To avert the dangers of the miasmas that spread there, a shrine had been dedicated on the Cispius to the goddess Mefitis. Between the Esquiline and the Viminal ran the vicus Patricius (Via Urbana), inhabited by the ancient patrician families, followed by the Subura descending to the Forum.

The Quirinal was then divided into several heights by deep gorges. To the north was the collis Quirinalis properly so called (near Via delle Quattro Fontane), on which were the Capitolium vetus, seat, as on the Capitoline, of the triple cult of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, and the sanctuary of Quirinus, deity of the Sabines of Cures. There followed to the south the collis Salutaris (Piazza del Quirinale), where the templum Salutis was later dedicated (302 B.C.), and still further south the collis Sanqualis, which took its name from the very ancient temple of Sancus or dius Fidius (near the church of S. Silvestro). The hill was traversed from southeast to northwest at a high level by a street (Alta Semita) that joined with the Via Nomentana leading to the Sabina.

Part of the vast plain extending north of the hills (Campus Tiberinus) on the left bank of the Tiber, the property of the State, consecrated to Mars (Campus Martius), was destined for gymnastic exercises and military drills. In the part near the Capitoline were the Saepta, vast enclosures destined for the curiate, tribal and centuriate assemblies and for the voting for the election of magistrates. The zone on the right bank of the Tiber, at the foot of the Janiculum hill, joined to the city by means of the pons Sublicius, was marshy and unhealthy; on the hill was a pagus with an arx and fortifications. At the first mile of the Via Portuensis, which led to the salt works near the mouth of the Tiber, there perhaps already existed the ancient temple of Fors Fortuna. On the mons Vaticanus, north of the Janiculum, extended vast banks of marl, an excellent clay much used in the brick industry and in figurative art. River trade on the Tiber upstream and downstream of Rome must have been active since those remote times. The sacred river was still only partly embanked and with rudimentary systems.

2. 4th-3rd centuries B.C. - From the first years of the 4th century B.C. the monumental and building development of R. is identified with its history. Camillus, to give thanks for the capture of Veii, dedicated the temple of Juno Regina on the Aventine (369 B.C.) and to celebrate the peace between patricians and plebeians he erected the temple of Concord at the foot of the Capitoline on the Forum (366 B.C.); to him is also attributed the erection of the temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline height (345 B.C.). Meanwhile R. had suffered the disaster of the Gallic invasion (390 B.C.) followed by plundering and destructive fire. The date of the Gallic fire closes the first period of the city's building history. The disaster was due to R. being undefended; the harsh lesson led to the reconstruction of the defensive circuit of the regal age, which had become ineffective. The new walls, of which conspicuous remains are preserved, also go under the name of Servian walls. They started from the Tiber near the Forum Boarium (porta Flumentana), encircled the Capitoline hill and crossed the narrow gorge between it and the Quirinal (porta Ratumena or Fontinalis) where the communication with the Campus Martius was. They then rose to the Quirinal and surrounded it (portae Sanqualis, Salutaris, Quirinalis) up to the crossing with the via Salaria (Palazzo delle Finanze) where the earthwork (agger) began, of whose supporting walls imposing remains are admired near the Termini station (porta Viminalis). The agger defended the Viminal and the Esquiline and ended at the porta Esquilina (arch of Gallienus). There the wall system resumed; the circuit descended to the gorge between the Esquiline and the Caelian (porta Caelimontana, Via SS. Quattro) and ran along the valley between the Caelian and the Aventine (porta Capena); it protected, encircling it, the latter hill (portae Naevia and Raudusculana) to reach the Tiber a short distance from its beginning with the porta Flumentana. Of this last stretch grandiose remains survive near the clivus of S. Balbina and in the Via di Porta S. Paolo (13 m. in height with 25 layers of squared tuff blocks). R. was rebuilt in a short time, but irregularly. Private individuals were allowed to build where and as they could; public areas were occupied without regard. The domus of the wealthier were rebuilt in imperfect brickwork, those of the less well-off in unbaked bricks and mortar. Until the 1st century B.C. the expansion of the city was not regulated; with the increase of the population the buildings and houses increased in proportion and the perimeter of the city extended also outside the ring of defensive walls. During the second Samnite war (326-304 B.C.), in 312 B.C. the first aqueduct (aqua Appia) was conducted by the censors Appius Claudius and C. Plautius, from the Via Collatina (casale della Rustica). Until then the Romans had drawn water from the Tiber, from the scanty springs and from wells. The same censors began the construction of the via Appia, on the line of the path that, leaving the porta Capena, headed for Capua. During the third Samnite war, R. saw the erection of the temple of Bellona, in the Campus Martius, vowed by Appius Claudius in a battle against the Etruscans (296 B.C.), and the rebuilding of the ancient temple of Jupiter, vowed by M. Atilius Regulus in combat against the Samnites (295 B.C.). Belonging to this period are the peperino sarcophagus of L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, victor over the Samnites at Sentinum (298 B.C.), and the funeral elogium of his son L. Cornelius Scipio, conqueror of Corsica, with the mention of the dedication he made of the temple Tempestatum, outside the porta Capena (295 B.C.). The two monuments were part of the hypogeum of the Scipios between the Appia and the Latina, in the ancestral estate of the illustrious gens Cornelia. Largely with the rich booty of the war against Pyrrhus (280-275 B.C.) the censors Manius Curius Dentatus and L. Papirius Cursor (272 B.C.) conducted to R. a second aqueduct, the Anio Vetus, deriving its waters from the Aniene, on the via Valeria (S. Cosimato).

Commemorative monuments of the first Punic war (263-241 B.C.) were the rostrate column of C. Duilius in the Forum and the temple of Spes, in the Forum Holitorium, vowed by M. Atilius Calatinus. In the year 242 B.C. the censor C. Aurelius Cotta built, on the line of a pre-existing path, the via Aurelia as far as the river Marta, and the aediles M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paullus supervised the construction of the Emporium, a warehouse for provisions on the Tiber, at the foot of the Aventine. In the year 233 B.C., the censor C. Flaminius, already victor over the Cisalpine Gauls, laid out the via Flaminia from R. to Ariminum. Shortly afterwards (221 B.C.) C. Flaminius built on the Campus Martius a second great circus (Circus Flaminius), intended for the ludi plebei. A memorial of the second Punic war (218-202 B.C.) was the temple of Venus Erycina on the Capitoline vowed by Q. Fabius Maximus after the battle of Lake Trasimene.

3. 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. - At the end of the 3rd century B.C., R., by now mistress of Italy, was preparing for the conquest of the world. During the Macedonian wars (214-168 B.C.), with the increase of wealth, building activity intensified in R. with better and more comfortable buildings. The old temples, largely of wood with terracotta decorations, give way to stone temples of a mixed Etruscan-Hellenistic type, mostly pseudo-peripteral: typical examples are the small Ionic temple of Fortuna Virilis, the temples of the Forum Holitorium of Juno (197 B.C.) and that of Pietas, vowed by Manius Acilius Glabrio at the battle of Thermopylae (182 B.C.). Alongside this type of sacred building the Italic round-shaped one is preserved, as in the temple group of the Largo Argentina. It was precisely in the Campus Martius, near the Circus Flaminius, that in this historical period numerous temples were erected; among others the temple Larum Permarinorum, vowed by L. Aemilius Regillus in a naval battle against the prefects of Antiochus (190 B.C.), and the temple Herculis Musarum, in memory of the victory of M. Fulvius Nobilior over the Aetolians (189 B.C.). Meanwhile on the Palatine a new great temple arose to venerate there the sacred dark stone of the Magna Mater or Cybele, brought from Pessinus (191 B.C.). It was the first temple in R. with great peperino columns and a broad flight of access steps. It is due to the censors M. Fulvius Nobilior and M. Aemilius Lepidus (179 B.C.) the construction of a bridge over the Tiber (pons Aemilius), not far from the ancient pons Sublicius, as well as that of the Navalia, a station for ships on the left bank of the Tiber, between the Forum Boarium and the porta Trigemina. The same censors founded in the Forum the Basilica Fulvia Aemilia in imitation of the Hellenistic basilica, a building with three naves with apses, a covered place of assembly for commercial negotiations, to serve also as a tribunal. Already in 184 B.C. M. Porcius Cato had erected the Basilica Porcia to the west of the Curia Hostilia. Q. Caecilius Metellus, after his Macedonian triumph (148 B.C.), entrusted to the architect Hermodorus of Salamis the construction of a temple in the Campus Martius dedicated to Jupiter, according to Velleius Paterculus the first marble temple seen in R., and it was surrounded by porticoes in which was included the temple of Juno (S. Maria in Portico) already dedicated in the year 175 B.C. by M. Aemilius Lepidus.

After the capture and destruction of Corinth (146 B.C.) a true and proper embellishment of the city began. Architecture was taking on that direction which, according to Strabo, made Rome from that time onward superior to the Hellenic cities. New quarters arose outside the wall circuit, rendering it of no value. Building development took place especially in the Campus Martius toward the Tiber, where commercial activity was greater, outside the Porta Capena and in Trastevere. In the year 144 B.C. the Senate decided to repair the aqueducts of the Appia and the Anio Vetus and to build a new one. The execution was entrusted to the urban praetor Q. Marcius (aqua Marcia), with the new waters derived from the springs of Monte Autore, near Agosta. In the year 125 B.C. the aqua Tepula was conducted to Rome, from the springs near Casal Morena, west of the Via Latina. The last years of the 2nd century B.C. saw the restoration of the temple of the Castors in the Forum, under the care of L. Caecilius Metellus (117 B.C.), the construction of the pons Fabricius, giving access to the Tiber Island, begun by the curator viarum L. Fabricius, the rebuilding of the temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal under the care of Papirius Cursor (113 B.C.), the erection of the porticus Minucia, near the Forum Holitorium, for the sale of grain (112 B.C.); in the year 101 B.C. work was undertaken, by decree of the Senate, by Q. Lutatius Catulus for the enlargement and restoration of the Tabularium, on the slope of the Capitoline facing the Forum, a building intended for the archives of the city.

4. 1st century B.C. - The disastrous struggles between Marius and Sulla brought the armed legions within the sacred precincts of Rome; the city was given over to pillage and fire, the Capitoline burned with its venerable temples (82 B.C.); Sulla himself began the restoration of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, having some columns of the temple of Jupiter Olympius brought from Athens. The reconstruction work was continued under Q. Lutatius Catulus, to whom was given the extraordinary title of curator restituendi Capitolii. During the first triumvirate a new bridge over the Tiber was built under the care of the urban prefect L. Cestius (pons Cestius). In the year 56 B.C., through the munificence of the great Pompey, Rome had in the Campus Martius the first theater in solid material (lapideum marmoreum); the curve of its cavea is still indicated by the semicircular form of the former Palazzo Righetti, founded on the masonry of the theater in Via di Grotta Pinta. The steps of the cavea formed two broad stairways rising to the temple of Venus Genetrix. Behind the stage of the theater extended vast porticoes enclosing gardens and walks (between the Vie di Torre Argentina and del Monte della Farina). Onto the porticoes opened broad apsidal halls, in one of which, the Curia Pompeii, Julius Caesar was killed (44 B.C.).

It was Julius Caesar who first conceived a great development of the old city; in the year 43 B.C. he promulgated the decree de urbe augenda, with the intention of building in the Campus Martius, but death prevented him from carrying out the noble design. Nevertheless the great residences and suburban villas were beginning to be adorned with sculptures and decorative paintings by the work of freedmen, Greco-Asiatic and Oriental artists. A new center of city life was created, the Forum of Caesar, which came to be added to the Forum properly so called, occupying part of the Comitium, with at its center the temple of Venus Genetrix, vowed by Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus and dedicated after his triumph in the year 46 B.C. To the great statesman are also owed the beginning of the construction of the Basilica Iulia in the Forum and of the rebuilding of the Curia, completed by Augustus, as well as the restoration of the Circus Maximus and the creation of the horti Caesaris, which he left by testament to the Roman people. Then in the western part of the Campus Martius, closer to the Tiber, still uninhabited, tombs were being erected; Sulla was buried there, and in 44 B.C. the tombs of the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, who died as a result of the battle of Mutina, were erected there; the tomb of Hirtius came partly to light in 1937, during the work of consolidation of the Palazzo della Cancelleria. In the year 29 B.C., after celebrating the triumph of Actium, Octavian dedicated in the Forum the temple of Divus Caesar on the site where the latter had erected the new tribune for orators, adorned with the beaks of the ships captured in the battle of Actium (rostra Divi Iulii), differently oriented in comparison with the pre-existing tribune in the Comitium adorned with the beaks of the ships taken from the Antiates in 338 B.C.

The grandiose idea of Julius Caesar to make Rome the worthy metropolis of the Empire was taken up by Octavian his heir. The latter, establishing his residence on the Palatine, then inhabited by patricians and illustrious men, began the transformation of that hill into an imperial palace. The group of Augustan buildings also included the temple of Apollo Palatinus vowed by Octavian before the battle of Actium and the Greek and Latin Palatine Libraries. The transformation of Rome began to have its realization with the aedileship of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, the faithful friend and intelligent collaborator of the young prince (33 B.C.). In that year the immense works of reclamation of the Campus Martius were begun, which continued until the year 27 B.C., in which Agrippa was able to lay the foundations of the Pantheon, consecrated to the gens Iulia and to its divinities Mars and Venus, and of his Baths, the first example in Rome of a sumptuous center of sporting, intellectual and hygienic life; to supply them he conducted to Rome in the year 19 B.C. the new aqua Virgo, whose springs were at the eighth mile of the Via Collatina (Salone). Agrippa's care in his aedileship was particularly directed to the restoration of the aqueducts and to the revision and enlargement of the sewers; to him is also owed the construction of a new bridge over the Tiber, upstream of the present Ponte Sisto (pons Agrippae). The reclamation was extended to the unhealthy region of the Esquiline, whose vast necropolis was covered by a thick layer of earth and materials; there soon arose an elegant quarter. Maecenas was among the first to lay out there his famous horti and to live there. Imposing was the monumental and building development of the Campus Martius, which was soon invaded by new constructions with the exception of an area that was left clear to perpetuate the memory of the ancient military field; for this purpose it was delimited by boundary stones, one of which was recovered in Via del Seminario.

On the right of the Via Flaminia (Via delle Muratte, Via S. Claudio) a vast field made of public use was embellished by porticoes that took their name from Agrippa (porticus Vipsania) and from a sister, Vipsania Polla (porticus Pollae); in this, after the census of the year 8 B.C. (descriptio orbis), the great cosmographic map totius orbis was displayed. On the left of the Via Flaminia, Agrippa erected the temple of Neptune (Poseidonion), at the center of a portico called that of the Argonauts; of the temple the 11 Corinthian columns in Piazza di Pietra remain visible. A little farther off, more to the north, Augustus had built, under the care of the mathematician Novius, a sundial (Piazza S. Lorenzo in Lucina), which had as its gnomon the Egyptian obelisk, brought from the sanctuary of Hierapolis, which now stands rebuilt in Piazza Montecitorio.

III. AUGUSTAN AGE

Toward the end of the 1st century B.C. the works of transformation and embellishment of the city followed one another at an accelerated pace.

The portico of Metellus was restored and embellished, through the work of the Lacedaemonian architects Batrachus and Saurus, and dedicated to the sister of Octavian, Octavia (porticus Octaviae). At the same time (31 B.C.) the Circus Maximus, damaged by a fire, was restored; on its spine was erected the Egyptian obelisk brought from Heliopolis, which now stands in Piazza del Popolo. There followed the important construction of the mausoleum, on the left of the Via Flaminia, begun in the very year in which Octavian received the title of Augustus (27 B.C.), and destined as a tomb for himself and for the members of the gens Iulia; with its form of a circular tumulus it continued the great Etruscan tradition. Near the mausoleum, to celebrate the happy return of Augustus from Spain and the Gauls and the peace in the world, was erected the ara Pacis Augustae, a distinguished monument of Augustan Roman art characterized by a composed verism (23 B.C.), dedicated in the year 9 B.C. In the year 13 B.C. the construction of the theater of Marcellus was begun, dedicated in the year 11 B.C., and the other theater erected by L. Cornelius Balbus, the friend of Augustus (Palazzo Cenci), was inaugurated.

Division of R. into 14 regions. - In the year 8 B.C., following the general census, Augustus proceeded to the organization of R. by dividing it into 14 regions.

The numerical subdivision began to the south of the city and proceeded in a circle from south toward east, then turned to the northwest and to the west.

The I region (porta Capena) extended to the south of the stretch of wall, from the porta Navia to the porta Querquetulana along the urban course of the Via Appia and the Via Latina; the II (Coelimonium) comprised the Caelian; the III (Isis et Serapis) part of the Oppian, of the Carinae and of the Subura; the IV (Templum Pacis) the Velia and the remaining parts of the Subura and of the Carinae; the V (Esquilino) the Esquiline properly so called and the urban territory beyond the Servian agger; the VI (Alta Semita), the Quirinal and the Viminal; the VII (Via Lata), took its name from a wider stretch of the Via Flaminia and extended to the right of this as far as the Quirinal; the VIII (Forum Romanum) comprised the Fora, the Capitoline and part of the Velabrum; the IX (Campus Martius) the part of the ancient Campus Martius extending to the left of the Via Flaminia to the Tiber. The X region (Palatium) comprised the Palatine; the XI (Circus Maximus), the smallest of the Augustan regions, was formed by the surroundings of the Circus Maximus and by part of the Velabrum. The XII (Piscina publica) comprised the pseudo-Aventine and the zone included between the Via Appia and the present-day Via di Porta S. Paolo; the XIII (Aventinus) the Aventine and the XIV (Transtiberum) the plain to the right of the Tiber as far as the Janiculan and Vatican hills. The names of the aforesaid regions are not all from the Augustan age; some, such as those of the III and IV region (Isis et Serapis and Templum Pacis), take their name from buildings constructed later; it is unknown what their first name was. Each region was administered by a curator drawn by lot annually from among the praetors, the aediles and the tribunes of the plebs, and was subdivided into compita and into vici. The individual vici were presided over by vicomagistri, to whom was entrusted the task of performing in May and in Oct. sacrifices on the compital altars in honor of the Genius of Augustus and of the Lares.

The renewal of R. also brought about a transformation in building. Alongside the domus of the Hellenistic Pompeian type, a new type of rental house (insulae) became widespread, very tall, with external balconies and windows closed by slabs of mica and selenite and by shutters; a form of dwelling that anticipates modern ones. In the absence of precise data it is difficult to calculate the population of R. as capital of the Empire; it may be supposed that in the period of its greatest splendor it rose to more than 1,000,000 inhabitants. The great reorganization of R. was perfected with the restoration of as many as 82 temples carried out by Augustus, with the restoration of the aqueducts and with a revised delimitation of the protected zones of the banks of the Tiber and of the waters. Augustus also provided for a further enlargement of the Forum, made necessary by new requirements; by means of expropriations and demolitions of old hovels the Forum of Augustus was obtained, enclosed by a great wall suited to hiding the humble houses on the slope of the Quirinal; in it arose the temple of Mars Ultor, already vowed in the year 43 B.C. at the battle of Philippi and dedicated in the year 2 B.C.

IV. IMPERIAL AGE

1. 1st century of the Empire. - To Tiberius (14-37) are owed, besides the reconstruction of the temple of Concord, which was titled templum Concordiae Augustae, begun while Augustus was alive, the enlargement of the imperial Palace on the Palatine (domus Tiberiana) joined by a cryptoporticus to the house called that of Livia, believed also to be his paternal home. Furthermore Tiberius had the Castra Praetoria built, the permanent quarters of the cohorts of the Praetorians. His successor Caligula (37-41) further enlarged the imperial Palace with imposing arched structures, beneath which passes the divus Victoriae. He also dedicated the temple of Augustus below the Palatine and began the construction of a circus (Gaianum), beyond the Tiber, near the Via Cornelia, completed by Nero, to decorate whose spina he destined the great obelisk that today stands at the center of the Piazza of St. Peter in the Vatican. He had also planned the erection of a bridge between the Palatine and the Capitoline. During the reign of Claudius (41-54), following the census of the year 46, the pomerium of the city was widened, as a reflection of the expansion of the Empire's boundaries; it nevertheless remained far from the outermost limits of the inhabited area. Claudius attended to the restoration of the arcades of the aqua Virgo and completed the restoration of the theater of Pompey, begun by Tiberius following the damage of a fire. A temple dedicated to his memory (templum Divi Claudii) was erected by Agrippina on the spur of the Caelian that overlooks the Flavian Amphitheater, destroyed by Nero and rebuilt with magnificence by Vespasian.

The reign of Nero (54-68) marks another milestone for the building history of R. The fickle Emperor, who was also a refined aesthete, first conceived the construction of a vast imperial residence, which from the northern slopes of the Palatine, including the Velia, was to extend as far as the slopes of the Oppian; it was therefore called domus transitoria, joining the Palatine to the Esquiline. The famous fire, described by Tacitus (Ann., XV, 83), which blazed from the night of July 10 to 19 of the year 65, devastated three regions of R. and damaged the others, leaving only four unharmed; it did not spare the new Neronian construction, not entirely completed. On the resumption of the works the grandiose idea was reduced and limited to a building complex no longer joined to the Palatine, but extending from the Velia to the Esquiline. The works were directed by the architects Severus and Celer and the decoration was entrusted to the painter Fabullus. This new imperial residence, for its profusion of luxury, was called domus aurea, but it had an ephemeral life. The great bronze statue of Nero with the radiate head, the work of Zenodorus, which dominated the vestibule of the domus aurea, was removed and later set up again by Hadrian near the temple of Venus and Rome. The serious damage produced by the fire was soon repaired; the execution of the new master plan brought symmetry and regularity to the reconstructions and a renewed artistic elegance; care was taken, in order to reduce as much as possible the extent of fires, to isolate the houses by eliminating shared walls. Amid the tumult of a heterogeneous population exceeding a million, amid the desolation produced by the terrible fire and the feverish activity of building reconstruction, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, walked about. The tragic siege of the Capitoline by the Vitellians (69) caused serious damage to the buildings of the sacred hill, especially to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This was immediately restored and again inaugurated by Vespasian, to whom is owed the completion of the Neronian plan for the general reorganization of the city and the widening of the pomerium. On the basis of the new census (73-74) and the mensura urbis, the new iconography of the city was delineated, displayed on an outer part of the templum S. Urbis (SS. Cosmas and Damian), the city archive that Vespasian had erected in the Forum Pacis which he created in memory of the Jewish Peace (75-78). On the Palatine the construction of the grandiose Flavian Palace was begun, and on the site of the artificial lake of Nero's domus aurea work was started on the Flavian amphitheater (Colosseum), inaugurated by Titus in the year 80, to whom a triumphal arch was erected at the top of the Sacred Way, a genre of monument of pure creation of Roman art. The reign of the gentle Emperor (79-81) was afflicted by another serious fire (80) that raged on the Capitoline, near the Circus Maximus and in large part in Region IX. Where the gardens of the domus aurea extended, the grandiose baths of Titus arose, a triumph of arches, vaults and superb pictorial decoration. To Domitian are owed, besides the repairs of the damage of the fire of the year 80, a further enlargement of the imperial Palace on the Palatine and the construction of the Stadium (Piazza Navona) and of the Odeon (Monte Giordano), in Region IX. Nerva (96-98) further enlarged the Fora with the creation of the Forum transitorium dominated by the temple of Minerva.

2. 2nd century of the Empire. - We thus come to the building activity of Trajan (98-117), the great Emperor whose reign marks the apogee of Roman power and the unification of the Empire. The Forum Transitorium of Nerva gives access to the new imposing Forum Traianum, which completes the extension of the Fora, dominated by the spiral column (112-14), a distinguished example of historical sculpture in which, with effectively narrative art, the episodes of the conquest of Dacia are handed down. Trajan built his Baths near those of Titus (S. Martino ai Monti) and had the aqua Traiana conducted from the lake of Bracciano to R. to supply Trastevere. His successor Hadrian (117-38), a refined cultivator of art, had the Pantheon rebuilt, giving that distinguished monument its round form. His architect Apollodorus of Damascus erected on the Velia the temple of Venus and R. with two opposite apses. The templum Divi Traiani was erected as the backdrop of Trajan's Forum, the Poseidonion (piazza di Pietra) was rebuilt, taking the name Hadrianum, and the mighty mass of the Mausoleum of Hadrian (130) was raised, to which the pons Aelius (Ponte S. Angelo) gives access. With Antoninus Pius (138-61) the political stagnation was matched by the stagnation of building activity; the only monument worthy of note is the templum Faustinae in the Forum (141), which was later (161) also dedicated to the memory of the pious Emperor by M. Aurelius. In honor of this Emperor (161-80) the Antonine column was erected to narrate his exploits against the Quadi and the Marcomanni, in which the attempt to imitate the Trajanic models is evident. Despite the accentuation of artistic decline, the technical skill of the Roman portrait still stands out in the equestrian statue of M. Aurelius, which was erected and remained, until its transport to the Capitoline, on the Caelian, near the Emperor's birthplace, close to the domus of the Laterani. M. Aurelius and his son and colleague in the Empire Commodus (180-92) attended to the revision and extension of the customs boundary of R. on the basis of the ever greater extension of the inhabited area. R. suffered another fire under Commodus (191), with damage to the buildings of the Forum and the Palatine.

3. 3rd century of the Empire. - The reign of Septimius Severus (192-211), which marked the beginning of the decline and the assumption by the Emperor of full legislative and administrative power, was beneficial for Rome. The city was compensated for the damage of the Commodian fire and embellished with the reconstruction and restoration of numerous sacred and profane buildings. A law was issued for the restoration and adornment of the insulae and the aqueducts, and there was a new edition of the forma Urbis, replacing the one executed under Vespasian, which was posted on the rear side of the templum S. Urbis. Noteworthy is the construction of a new imperial residence on the eastern side of the Palatine, whose facade on the Via Appia was the multi-tiered structure known as the Septimius, the restoration of the Pantheon (202), the reconstruction of the atrium Vestae and the house of the Vestals in the Forum, and the erection of the arch of the Argentarii (near S. Giorgio in Velabro [204]). In honor of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, associated in the Empire, an arch with three passageways commemorating the victories over the Parthians was erected in the Forum by the Senate and the Roman People (203). Rome received the appellation of urbs sacra dominorum nostrorum. The construction of the magnificent Antonine Baths in region XII was begun under Septimius Severus (206), but it is due especially to Caracalla, who gave them their name; Elagabalus and Alexander Severus oversaw their completion (235). In the year 212 Caracalla supplied the Marcian aqueduct with new water; by means of a separate conduit, it came to feed the various services of the new Baths. To Alexander Severus (222-35) is due the enlargement of the Neronian Baths in region IX, which took the title of Thermae Alexandrinae, and the bringing to Rome of the aqua Alexandrina to feed them. The valiant emperor Aurelian (270-75) had a temple to the Sun erected on the Quirinal, to whose protection he attributed his victories in the East. But the Alemanni, vanguard of the barbarian invasions, had pushed as far as Fano. Rome was threatened and infiltrated; a great part of its built-up area extended outside the venerable but by then useless walls of the Republic. Aurelian decided to surround the city with a strong defensive circuit that would meet strategic requirements. Urgency imposed the rapidity of construction and the incorporation of already existing buildings (e.g., the horti Aciliani of the Pincio, the great wall of the Castra Praetoria, the arcades of aqueducts, the Castrense amphitheater, tombs, etc.), all for an extent of about 12 miles. A separate stretch of wall ran along the Tiber from the Via Flaminia to the Janiculan bridge; a part of Trastevere was included in a triangle of walls with its apex on the Janiculum (Porta S. Pancrazio). The main gates of the new circuit of walls took their name from the consular roads that issued from them. The imposing undertaking, begun by Aurelian in 271, was completed by Probus (276-82). During the brief reign of Carinus, a fire damaged a great part of the center of Rome (284).

4. 4th century of the Empire. - With Diocletian (284-305) the Emperor is no longer merely the general of the armies, but is the new sovereign of the Roman world and the diademed dominus of his subjects. Rome felt the powerful breath of life given to the Empire by the Diocletianic reform and, though with a decadent character, recovered in art and especially in architecture grandeur and boldness. Maximian had the grandiose Baths of Diocletian built in honor of his colleague in the Empire, naming them after him (302), dedicated by Constantius Chlorus in the year 305. The theater of Pompey and the Iseum underwent immense restorations in those years. Maxentius (306-12), while Rome was no longer the center of the Empire, still understood its greatness and wished to endow it with another monument by beginning the construction of a new Basilica in the Forum, which was later called that of Constantine, since this Emperor completed it. Also of Maxentius are the great Circus on the Via Appia and the small heroon or little temple dedicated to the memory of his very young son Romulus (vestibule of the church of SS. Cosma and Damiano). To Constantine, victor over Maxentius, was erected in the year 312 the triumphal arch near the Colosseum, whose figurations, partly taken from a similar monument of classical Trajanic art and partly of contemporary decadent art, seem to sum up and conclude the glorious cycle of Roman art and to give beginning to Christian art. Constantine had his baths erected on the Quirinal and the arch of Janus Quadrifrons at the entrance to the Forum Boarium. The emperor Constantius visited Rome with the Persian prince Hormisdas (356) and granted the city the obelisk that Constantine had destined for Constantinople and that had remained at Alexandria; it was raised, near the one placed there by Augustus, on the spina of the Circus Maximus (Lateran obelisk). Among the last flashes of life of paganism should be noted the erection near the Forum of the portico of the Dei Consenti, with cells dedicated to the 12 major divinities of the pagan Olympus, under the care of the Prefect of the city Vettius Agorius Praetextatus. Noteworthy in this period is the reconstruction of the Aurelian bridge, already built by Caracalla, when Valentinian, Valens and Gratian were emperors (370). Between the years 379 and 383 porticoes were extended through the region across the Tiber (porticus maximus), ending near the Aelian bridge (Ponte S. Angelo), where a triumphal arch was erected in honor of the emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius.

5. 5th century of the Empire. - In the year 403, because of the impending threat of barbarian invasions, the emperors Arcadius and Honorius had the walls of Aurelian restored and strengthened. Rome was no longer the imperial residence, which was fixed at Ravenna, a heavily fortified city. An ephemeral rejoicing for Rome was the celebration of the triumph of Honorius over the Goths (405); it saw for the last time bloody games in the Colosseum with the sacrifice of the monk Telemachus. Dark were the days of the entry of Alaric's army, of the Gothic sack and fire (410). Honorius (423) and his wife Maria had their mausoleum near the Basilica of the Vatican, which also received the body of Valentinian III. Further damage was brought to the city by the sack of the Vandals of Genseric (455). We come to the fall of the Western Empire with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odoacer (476). The last ray of the declining glory of Rome was the stay in the City, lasting six months, of the King of the Ostrogoths, Theodoric (500), an Arian, who, conscious of the greatness of the eternal city, ordered the repair of the crumbling monuments and instituted officials for the protection of the works of art spared by the plundering and devastation of the barbarian hordes. A new force succeeds the previous one; the young and vigorous Church gathered among the ruins of classicism the useful seeds which, flourishing and bearing fruit, were to produce the new Christian civilization.

und Topogr. der Stadt Rom im Altertum, 3 voll., Lipsia 1883-90; R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the light of recent discoveries, Londra 1888; id., Pagan and christian R., ivi 1892; id., Forma Urbis Romae ad modulum 1: 1000 delineata, tavy. 46, Milano 1893-1901; id., The ruins and excavations of ancient R., Londra 1897; L. Borsari, Topogr. di R. antica, Milano 1897; G. Richter, Topogr. der Stadt Rom., 2ª ed., Monaco 1901; R. Lanciani, Stor. degli scavi di R., 3 voll., Roma 1902; A. Merlin, L'Aventin dans l'antiquité, Parigi 1906; H. Kiepert - Ch. Hülsen, Formae Urbis Romae antiquae, accedit nomenclator topographicus, 2ª ed., Berlino 1912; W. M. Davis, The seven hills of R., in Bull. Amer.*

Georg. Society, New York 1912; A. Pignaniol, Eva sur les origines de R., Paris 1917; T. Frank, Roman buildings of the Republic, in Papers of the Amer. Acad., III, Rome 1924; P. Fraccaro, I fattori geografici della grandezza di R., in La geografia, 1926, p. 84 ff.; L. Du Jardin, Mundus, R. quadrata e Lupis niger, in Rendic. della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., 6 (1927-29), p. 47 ff.; V. Lundström, Undersökninger i Roms topographie, in Svenkt Arkiv för humanistika anhandlingar, II, 1929, p. 138 ff.; G. B. Platner - Th. Ashby, A topographical diet of ancient R. (completed and revised by Th. Ashby), Oxford 1929; L. Schudt, Materialien zu einer Gesch. der röm.

(Int. Knit)

Topographie, Vienna 1930; I. A. Richmond, The City Wall of Imperial R., Oxford 1930; B. Wigkström, Till pagan an templen på piazza Argentina, in Eranas, 38 (1930), p. 148 sgg.; G. Lugli, I monum. antichi di R. e suburbio, vol. I, La zona archeol., 2ª ed., Roma 1931; vol. II, Le grandi opere pubbliche, 1934; vol. III, A traverso le regioni, 1938; vol. IV, suppl., 1940; G. B. Giovenale, Le porte del recinto di Aureliano e Probo, in Bull. Comun. di R., 1931, p. 9 sgg.; G. Saefund, Le mura di R. repubblicana (Acta Iustit. Rom. Regni Sueciae), 1, Lund 1932; E. B. van Deman, The buildings of the Roman aqueducts, Washington 1934; Th. Ashby, The aqueducts of ancient R., Oxford 1935; Arvast Nordh, Prolegom. till den Romerske Regionskatalogen, Göteborg 1936; G. Marchetti-Longhi, Sinteal star. e topograf. dello sviluppo del Campo Marzio nell'antica R., in Atti del V. Congr. Intern. di Arch. in Berlino, 1939, p. 495 sgg.; A. Pignaniol, Hist. de R., Parigi 1939; P. Ducati, Come nacque R., Cremona 1939; R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, Codice topograf. della città di R., 3 voll., Roma 1940, 1942, 1946; M. Santangelo, Il Quirinale nell'antichità classica (Memorie della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., 5), Città del Vaticano 1941, p. 77 sgg.; M.-G. Dumézil, Iupiter. Mars. Quirinus (Naissance de R.), Parigi 1941; M. J. Perret, Les origines de la légende troyenne de R., ivi 1942; A. M. Colini, Stor. e topogr. del Celio nell'antichità (Mem. della Pont. Accad. di Archeol., 7), Città del Vaticano 1944; A. Degrassi, L'edificio dei fasti Capitolini, in Rendic. della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., 9 (1945-46), p. 57 sgg.; G. Lugli, R. antica. Il centro monumentale, Roma 1946; R. Bloch, Les origines de R., Parigi 1946; I. Lugli, Fontes ad topographiam veteris Urbis Romae pertinentes, Roma 1952 (vol. I: l'opera costerà di 11 voll.).

Gioacchino Mancini

III. POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.

I. THE MONARCHICAL PERIOD

Rome was certainly governed, in the first centuries of its history, by a monarchical regime. Around a life-long chief (rex) — whose existence is attested, besides by the constant tradition, by archaeological finds (the stele of the forum) and by the persistence, in the republican period, of offices (rex sacrorum) and institutions (interregnum) that are linked to it — stand the assembly of the patres, heads of the political groups (gentes) pre-existing the formation of the State, and that of the people (comitium). This latter assembly, composed of 30 curiae, subdivisions of the three tribus of the Ramnes, Tities and Luceres, had a limited competence and was restricted, substantially, to the field of private law.

To a first phase, called that of the Latin monarchy, another succeeds, that of the last three kings, which, even from the names of the sovereigns, proves to be Etruscan; and which coincides precisely with the moment of the greatest expansion of the Etruscans toward the south. This regime of conquerors would have come to an end following a revolutionary movement in 509 B.C. Nevertheless the Etruscan domination was not without advantage for Rome; from the invaders the Romans learned the interpretation of the signs offered by the divinity (haruspicy), the art of construction (the arch) and, above all, military organization, which constituted the basis of the exercitus centuriatus, whose institution Roman annalistic tradition indeed traced back to Servius Tullius. The period of the Etruscan monarchy was therefore for the city of the Tiber an age of splendor and made it «the great Rome of the Tarquins» (Pasquali).

The primitive rex, surrounded by certain priestly colleges (v. AUGURI; FIZIALI; PONTEFICE MASSIMO), had beside him some auxiliaries: the duoviri perduellionis and the quaestores parricidii, who assisted him in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and the magister populi, who commanded the army.

II. FROM THE MONARCHY TO THE REPUBLIC

It was in all likelihood through this assistant of the rex that the transition from the monarchy to the republic came about. That this happened gradually and not as the result of a revolution, half popular and half palatine, is today unanimously admitted. There is less agreement on the manner in which the passage was made from a single and life-tenured head to a collegiate magistracy. Some hold (De Sanctis) that the rex was replaced by three magistrates (praetores, from prae-ire, the function of one who leads the army in battle), heads of the three tribus: in 367 B.C. two of these would have become the supreme magistrates, heads of the civitas, while the third would have retained the exercise of civil jurisdiction. Others (Arangio-Ruiz) think that there existed from the very beginning, and in conformity with what is found among other Italic peoples (e.g., the Oscans), a pair with unequal power, which would subsequently have been transformed into a collegiate pair. Still others (de Francisci) hold that the rex was stripped of his military powers by the magister populi, who commanded the army by his delegation; he further thinks that the magister populi was for some time a sole magistrate, normally assisted by a magister equitum, and that he then formed a collegiate pair with the latter, when, in the first half of the 5th century B.C., there took place, owing to increased military needs, the duplication of the army's cadres, with the constitution of two legions.

Alongside the two praetores, who, from a certain moment onward, assume the name of consules (colleagues), there are found, as auxiliaries, the quaestores. In case of grave necessity (rei gerundae causa and seditionis sedandae causa), the supreme ordinary magistracy is replaced by an extraordinary magistrate (dictator), to whom all the other magistrates are subject; in this figure the ancient magister populi lives again, with his unlimited power, against which neither intercessio (v.) nor provocatio can be opposed.

The new community, in which to the primitive gentes there had been added other groups (of immigrants, of clients who had broken the bond of dependence on their gentiles, perhaps of former slaves) which together formed the plebs, was tormented, from the decades immediately following the constitution of the republic, by the struggle between the two orders of the population: the plebeians demanded, in fact, the right to contract marriage (conubium) with the patricians, access to the magistracies (ius honorum), the easing of the fiscal and debt burden and, perhaps, a distribution of lands or the limitation of landed property.

A first result of this struggle between patriciate and plebs, characterized by secessions or threats of secessions

(of the Aventine, of the Sacred Mount) of the plebs under the guidance of its leaders (tribuni), was the constitution, for the years 451 and 450, of two colleges of decemviri legibus scribendis who drafted the Law of the Twelve Tables (v.). Only in 445 B.C., however, with the rogatio Canuleia, was conubium granted to the plebeians: a path opened for the other claims. In the years following the legislative decemvirate, the Fasti record now consular pairs and now colleges of tribuni militum consulari potestate, in variable number. To this last magistracy, constituted by the senior officers of the legions, and to which recourse was had, in all likelihood, because of the increased military needs caused by the struggles for expansion, plebeians too were admitted. And finally, in 367 B.C., by one of the Liciniae-Sesitae laws, it was established that one of the consular seats should belong to the plebs (in practice this happened regularly only after 320), while a new magistracy was instituted (praetor urbanus), to which the exercise of civil jurisdiction was assigned.

III. THE EXPANSION IN LAZIO AND IN ITALY

The new State found itself having to face, immediately after its constitution, a series of struggles with the neighboring populations; Roman annalistic tradition insists on these wars against the adiidui et anniversarii hostes. First it was the Etruscans who, attempting an offensive return, must have obtained successes over the Romans, as can be inferred from the traditional account concerning Porsenna, lors of Chiusi, who would have besieged R. for a long time. Then began the work of expansion in Latium. Around 493 B.C., R. united with the Latins in an alliance (foedus Cassianum) to which the Hernici, inhabitants of the Tero valley southeast of R., soon adhered; this alliance was principally directed against the threat of the Aequi, settled between Rieti and the Fucino basin, and of the Volsci, who had advanced from the upper Liri valley onto the Lepini mountains to the point of threatening southern Latium between Terracina (Auxur) and Anzio. Toward the end of the 5th century these adversaries had been forced partly to retreat, partly held in check. Also in the north, after a hard struggle (in which there occurred the episode, not entirely legendary, of the Fabii at the Crémera), the powerful Etruscan city of Veii was taken and destroyed (396 B.C.).

Barely having overcome this grave trial, in 390 R. suffered the Celtic invasion which ended with its conquest and its almost total destruction. The consequences were grave, especially from the political point of view, in that they nullified the activity of conquest carried out up to the capture of Veii; only in 338 did R. succeed in uniting the Latins and Hernici to itself in alliance, in order to turn to face the Volsci and, subsequently, Tarquinia, Cere and Faleria. Having consolidated itself, R. concluded two treaties: the first with the Samnites (354) and the second with Carthage (348); but its position of growing power and predominance caused the Latins to rise against it (340), aided by the Campanians. The Romans, victorious, came shortly afterward into conflict with the Samnites, who saw the road to the plain and the sea cut off by R. In 326 B.C. Naples surrendered to the Romans; but when they, in 321, sought to penetrate from Campania into Samnium, their army was forced to surrender in the gorges of Caudium. The war resumed in 316, with a great initial success of the Samnites, followed, two years later, by a Roman defeat at Terracina. After a phase of Roman successes in the Liri valley and in Apulia, in 310 R. found itself threatened simultaneously by the Samnites, by Etruscan cities, by the Aequi and by the Hernici; after a peace concluded in 304, the struggle resumed in 298, against the Italic coalition stirred up by the Samnites. The Romans were victorious at Sentinum, in Umbria, and, as a result of this and of the blockade of Samnium, in 290 definitive peace was reached.

Subsequently R. turned to subdue the populations settled in the north; victories over the Gallic and Etruscan populations permitted the founding of colonies on the Adriatic coast. However, almost simultaneously, the struggle resumed in the south. Some Greek cities of southern Italy had followed with sympathy the affirmation of Roman power: in 282 B.C., Thurii, threatened by the Lucanians, requested the aid of R. The liberated city received a Roman garrison, to the grave concern of Taranto; an incident led to war with the latter, which had assumed a leading position over the cities of Calabria and which could count on the military assistance of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, eager to found a Hellenistic kingdom in southern Italy. The Romans were defeated at Heraclea in 280, at Ascoli in Apulia in 279; but, after an fruitless campaign in Sicily and a battle of doubtful outcome near Benevento, Pyrrhus abandoned Italy. The effect of the war was the extension of Roman dominion in Magna Graecia: Taranto surrendered, and in 270 Reggio received a Roman garrison. Almost simultaneously, in the north, the Latin colony of Rimini was founded (268).

IV. THE STRUGGLE FOR DOMINION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome now found itself confronted with the power of Carthage; the latter had long since established a commercial monopoly in the western Mediterranean, and had seen its predominance over Sicily reaffirmed following Pyrrhus's setbacks. The clash between the two powers was provoked by the request of the Mamertines, mercenaries who had occupied Messina, to be admitted into the Italic League. In 264 a Roman army crossed into Sicily and forced the Carthaginians to abandon Messina; this led to an alliance between Hiero of Syracuse and Carthage, which in turn sent further military forces to Sicily. After the formal declaration of war, once the Roman advance on Syracuse had begun, Hiero abandoned the Carthaginians, who lost Agrigentum, their principal stronghold on the island, in 262. The Carthaginians were defeated at sea a first time near Mylae in 260 and a second time in 257; as a result of this, the Romans decided to carry the struggle into Africa, where initial successes were followed by a grave defeat. After a great Roman naval victory at the Aegates, in 241 B.C., the peace treaty stipulated among other things that Carthage should evacuate Sicily. Thus the latter, in 227, became the first Roman province, almost simultaneously with the elevation of Sardinia and Corsica to provincial status.

Rome immediately afterward consolidated its position in northern Italy and in the Adriatic. In 225 B.C. large Celtic tribes infiltrated into Etruria, but were defeated at Telamon; in 223 a Roman army crossed the Po; the Latin colonies of Piacenza and Cremona were founded and the military Via Flaminia was built from Rome to Rimini. Simultaneously, between 229 and 219, Rome swept the Adriatic clear of Illyrian pirates.

Carthage meanwhile sought to compensate for the loss of power and prestige suffered in Sicily by means of conquests in Spain. In the face of this expansion Rome deemed it opportune to fix, in agreement with Carthage, a limit to their respective spheres of influence: in 226 this limit was established at the Ebro. But south of this river lay Saguntum, a city allied with Rome since about 230. The internal affairs of this city required the intervention of the Romans in 220; the following year Hannibal Barca besieged Saguntum. From this the Second Punic War originated. Hannibal began his march toward Italy, encountering only slight resistance before the crossing of the Alps. The Roman armies were defeated successively west of the Ticino, on the Trebia (218), at Lake Trasimene (217); Hannibal, having passed into southern Italy, established his winter quarters in Apulia. The consuls for the year 216 confronted him, with a great army, on the Ofanto near Cannae, but once again the Carthaginians prevailed.

Simultaneously Macedonia and Syracuse joined the Carthaginians; Philip V of Macedonia wished to conquer the Roman possessions in Illyria. Rome succeeded first in holding him in check in Macedonia, then (210) arrayed the Aetolian League against him.

The war in Spain received a new impulse through the efforts of Publius Cornelius Scipio the younger, who, in 206, forced the Carthaginians to abandon the Iberian Peninsula.

In Italy too the fortune of arms was changing: Capua in 211 and Taranto in 209 fell into the hands of the Romans. In 207 the Carthaginian army led by Hasdrubal in aid of his brother Hannibal was defeated at the Metaurus, and in 205 Hannibal abandoned Italy to return to Africa, where Scipio carried the war (204). Having established himself solidly at Utica, the Roman general, who had procured the alliance of Masinissa, conducted a successful campaign, concluded with the victory over Hannibal at Zama (202). By the peace treaty Carthage abandoned all its possessions outside Africa; ceded Numidia to Masinissa; surrendered its fleet and its elephants; undertook to pay a huge indemnity and not to wage war without the consent of Rome. The latter, at the price of a most arduous struggle, had triumphed over the only power capable of barring its path in the Mediterranean; and it had achieved an enormous political success, having been able to count, contrary to Hannibal's expectations, on the substantial loyalty of its Italic allies.

There now remained the work of consolidating the results. Having defeated the Celts, northern Italy was fully organized, with the founding of new colonies and the construction of the Via Aemilia, from Rimini to Piacenza, while Liguria was conquered and the eastern frontier secured with the founding of the Latin colony of Aquileia (181) and, subsequently, with the conquest of Istria.

The long struggle in Spain was concluded only much later, with the capture of Numantia (133 B.C.). Simultaneously, the Third Punic War definitively broke the power of Carthage. Carthage (146) was destroyed and its territory (a large part of present-day Tunisia) constituted the province of Africa.

Dominion over the entire Mediterranean basin was attained by Rome through a patient policy, whose first phase, begun in 201 B.C. with the aid given to Pergamum and Rhodes, continued with the struggle against Philip (200), concluded with the Roman victory at Cynoscephalae (197) and the proclamation of the independence of the Greek states (Corinth, 196). This phase was followed by that of the war against Antiochus of Syria, defeated first in 191 at Thermopylae and a second time the following year at Magnesia near Mount Sipylus and forced into the Peace of Apamea (188). The Third Macedonian War, against Perseus son of Philip, was concluded, after varying fortunes, likewise with the Roman victory at Pydna (168).

From this moment Rome, which had limited itself to making its influence felt in the East, changed policy: Macedonia became a province and Greece too was subjected to Roman dominion, after the destruction of Corinth, which occurred in the same year (146) as that of Carthage.

V. THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION AND ITS CRISIS

The constitution of the city that had extended its conquests over the entire Mediterranean basin was founded, at the moment of the Republic's apogee, on three organs: the magistracy, the senate, and the assemblies. The magistracies had grown in number: alongside the consules there were, in fact, not only the praetor urbanus instituted in 367, but the censores (probably instituted by a lex Aemilia in 434 to draw up the census and later raised to the very high office of controllers of public morality), the quaestores, the aediles curules, and another praetor, instituted in 242 to administer justice between Romans and foreigners and between foreigners, and therefore called peregrinus. Alongside these patrician magistracies — inasmuch as they belonged to the whole State — (whose characteristic is to be collegiate, unpaid, and temporary), there are others, called plebeian: the tribunate and the aedileship of the plebs. The task of the tribuni is to defend the interests of the plebs; and, to this end, they are furnished with the intercessio (v.), by which they can block the acts of any magistrate, and with the prensio, the power to arrest anyone who opposes their will, while they enjoy personal inviolability (sacrosanctitas).

The principal magistrates of the Republic, those called to exercise military and governmental activity, are, like the ancient rex, furnished with imperium, the general capacity for command, to which is connected the auspicium, the faculty of interpreting the will of the gods.

The Senate is, in the advanced republican era, composed of patricians (patres) and plebeians (conscripti), through a selection made first by the consuls, later by the censors. It is this assembly, which one enters after having held the magistracies, that constitutes the true command center of the Republic, also because of the continuity of policy that it can better ensure in comparison with the annual magistrates. To it belongs the direction of foreign and financial policy; to it belongs the assumption of power (interregnum) when the higher magistrates are lacking; it exercises, finally, a power of ratification (auctoritas) with respect to the deliberations of the popular assemblies.

These last, too, had grown in number: alongside the ancient comitia curiata, there arose, around the middle of the 5th century, the comitia centuriata, an assembly of military origin on a timocratic basis, composed, in its completed phase, of 193 centuries, divided into five classes according to the census and arranged so as to ensure the predominance in the voting to the wealthier classes.

Equally very ancient are the comitia tributa, in which the people is organized by tribes. Both these assemblies assumed, over time, a threefold competence: electoral (for the appointment of magistrates, maiores in the centuriata, minores in the tributa), legislative, and judicial.

In contrast to these assemblies, which gather the whole people, there is one that is exclusive to the plebs (concilia plebis tributa), which meets under the presidency of the tribunes and whose deliberations (plebiscita) had value for the plebs alone, until a lex Hortensia (286 B.C.) placed them on the same footing as the comitial laws (v. PLEBISCITO).

This constitutional structure, in which the people is called to exercise political rights (limited, moreover: R. has never been a democracy in the modern sense) directly, and not through representatives, was nevertheless suited to a community confined, at most, to the limits of the Italian Peninsula. The conquest of the great world empire posed not only the necessity of organizing the new territories according to schemes different from those employed in Italy (federation, municipalities, colonies), but also created the need for a strong central power, capable of controlling not only the territories but also the magistrates placed over them.

The form of organization employed in the territories outside peninsular Italy was the provincia. Over the territory incorporated and become the property of the Roman people was placed a magistrate (who first bore the title of praetor, then of proconsul or propraetor, depending on the office previously held in the city), assisted by ten legates of the Senate and by a quaestor.

Roman dominion had undergone an enormous expansion; sion; but it is precisely in this expansion, and in the profound modification that it produced in the economy and in Roman life in general, that we must see the primary cause of that complex series of phenomena that go under the name of the crisis of the Republic. The large influx of capital, goods, and slaves had profoundly changed the economic physiognomy of Italy. The abandonment of the fields, at first a consequence of the military operations carried out in the Peninsula, had continued afterward because certain crops had become uneconomical and certain products (e.g., grain) reached the Italian ports at a price much more advantageous than the domestic one. There then came to be formed a series of large landed estates, concentrated in the hands of the senatorial class, which had to employ in this way the wealth accumulated during the wars, since it was forbidden to engage in commerce. To commerce, on the other hand, there devoted itself, practically under a regime of monopoly, the class of the equites (ordo equester), which had been progressively asserting itself and which set itself, also as a political force, in opposition to the senatorial nobilitas. Below these privileged classes there no longer existed, by now, almost any of the people that had once exercised its political rights in the comitia and that was ready to rush to defend the Republic on the fields of battle. With the citizen-soldier gone, the ancient army had been replaced by a professional one, composed of soldiers who enlisted for long periods, eager to share in the large distributions of booty and bound, by the long habit of service, more to their direct commander than to the abstract and distant authority of the magistrates and the Senate. In R., in the comitia, there remained only a crowd of propertyless men, ready to follow the leaders of the various factions in struggle, who, according to their momentary ability, knew how to stir their instincts and satisfy their interests with distributions of food and money.

Around R., moreover, the discontent of the Italian allies began to gather, harshly tried by the war and too scantily rewarded; and who had in vain asked for the concession of the right of Roman citizenship.

VI. FROM THE GRACCHI TO CAESAR

The first evident manifestation of the crisis of the Republic occurred in 133 B.C., with the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. More than the individual proposals he made, it is of interest here to note that, for the first time, we witness an attempt to assert the principle of popular sovereignty, understood not only in the sense that the will of the people must prevail over that of the organs of the civitas, but also in the sense that the people confer upon the magistrates a binding mandate and may therefore revoke them when they depart from the instructions received. To these principles of a revolutionary order the Senate opposed others, equally at variance with the republican constitution; by attempting to resort to the senatusconsultum ultimum, by ratifying the killing of Tiberius Gracchus, declared hostis reipublicae, and above all by granting magistrates exceptional powers, it anticipated the extraordinary magistracies through which the transition from the republic to the principate was to be accomplished.

The work of Tiberius was continued by his brother Gaius Gracchus, tribune for the years 123 and 122; but this tribunate too, which ended with the death of Gaius, only aggravated the situation that had followed the death of Tiberius.

Immediately afterward Rome found herself obliged to confront, in Africa, the threat of Jugurtha, heir, along with two other princes, to the throne of Numidia. Jugurtha succeeded in excluding his co-heirs, one of whom, Adherbal, had obtained the protection of the Romans; these, in 111 B.C., began the war, which dragged on, with varying fortunes, until 106, the year in which Gaius Marius, having defeated Jugurtha, succeeded in having him handed over by the King of Mauretania, with whom the Numidian sovereign had sought refuge.

Marius then turned to confront the threat of the Cimbri and the Teutones, who had, in 105, defeated the Romans at Arausium (Orange). Having established himself in 104 in southern Gaul, he set about reforming the army and teaching it a new tactic; in 102 the Teutones were defeated near Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence) and the following year the Cimbri near Vercelli.

Marius had held the consulship uninterruptedly from 104 to 100 B.C., and was by now the recognized head of the popular party. Two exponents of this party, L. Appuleius Saturninus and G. Servilius Glaucia, attempted, in the years 100 and 99, to establish the predominance of the democratic party; but the disorders they provoked gave the Senate the occasion for an energetic repression; with the failure of their attempt the political position of Marius declined, as did that of the equestrian class, which had allied itself with the populares.

But the need for reforms was present also to the most enlightened exponents of the nobilitas: one of these, M. Livius Drusus, tribune for the year 91, prepared a series of laws, which however encountered great opposition. Drusus, who had also presented himself as a defender of the interests of the Italian allies, was mysteriously killed. His death was the signal for rebellion in Italy: the allies constituted against Rome a veritable State, with magistrates and a senate, having its capital at Corfinium and called Italia, and with various armies they prepared to march on Rome. After a year of struggle, in 90, a Lex Julia granted Roman citizenship to the Italian allies who had remained loyal, provided they laid down their arms; in 89, a Lex Plautia Papiria extended it to all residents in Italy who within 60 days applied for it to the praetor.

Shortly afterward the conflict broke out between Marius and Sulla, who had become consul and been designated for the command of the war against Mithridates, king of Pontus. In the face of the attempt by the Marian party to take this command from him following a plebiscite, Sulla marched on Rome and occupied it. But, compelled to set out again to conduct the war, he left the city at the mercy of his adversaries: in the year 86 Marius and L. Cornelius Cinna were named consuls without a popular election.

Sulla, meanwhile, conducted successful military operations in the East: having conquered Athens in 86, he won two victories, at Chaeronea and near Orchomenus; and, following negotiations with Mithridates, he quickly concluded peace with him. Having reorganized Asia, in the spring of 83 Sulla landed at Brindisi and, having successively defeated the consular armies and that of the Italians, who intended to take advantage of the situation to assert their independence from Rome, he re-entered the capital. The repression against the democratic party was ruthless: the proscriptions cleared the political scene of Sulla's adversaries, the property of the proscribed was sold at auction and their slaves, manumitted by the victor, became, under the name of Cornelii, his strongest supporters. Sulla was named dictator legibus scribundis et reipublicae constituendae, having himself conferred a title and powers already entirely outside the republican constitution. The regime he established, defined as a regnum by the ancients and a failed monarchy by the moderns (Carcopino), intended to erase every political relevance of the popular party and of the equestrian class. The Senate was increased to 600 members, the number of quaestors to 20, that of praetors to 8. The career of the magistrates and the manner of designating provincial governors were established. The fact of having held the office of tribune of the plebs excluded one from further advancement in the political career. The number of permanent criminal courts (quaestiones perpetuae) was increased, whose members had to be chosen from the senatorial order.

Having completed this work, Sulla in 79 laid down the dictatorship and retired to Pozzuoli, where he died the following year. The structure he had laboriously erected was to suffer its first blows, harbingers of definitive decline, at the hands of a figure who had been one of his lieutenants, that Gnaeus Pompey who, very young, had raised at his own expense and led to Sulla two legions and had from him obtained, without being a magistrate, the triumph and the epithet of magnus. Pompey's military abilities were immediately put to use in 77, when he, as a private citizen, was charged with conducting the war alongside the consul Q. Lutatius Catulus against the rebellion that had broken out in Etruria, in the localities where Sulla had made large assignments of land to his veterans. Shortly afterward he was sent to Spain with imperium proconsulare to confront Q. Sertorius, an exponent of the democratic party, who, having become governor of northern Spain in 83, and subsequently having placed himself at the head of the partisans of Marius and of the Lusitanian rebels, was, in 77, master of Hither Spain. After a long campaign, Sertorius and his lieutenant Perperna were defeated (72 B.C.).

Pompey returned to Italy at a delicate moment; in 74 the war against Mithridates had begun again and, shortly afterward, a great slave revolt, led by Spartacus, had broken out in Italy. This uprising, of over 40,000 men, was put down with great difficulty; the last army of slaves was defeated by Pompey himself.

To obtain the consulship without having administered the lower magistracies, he came to an agreement with the popular party and with the equites: and he was, together with Crassus, elected consul for the year 70. The new consuls carried out certain reforms contrary to Sulla's policy, while the Senate's authority suffered a serious blow because of the trial against Gaius Verres, former governor of Sicily.

Another blow to the constitutional norms was to be dealt by Pompey a few years later. In 67, in fact, in order to clear the Mediterranean of pirates, a Lex Gabinia established that to him, praetor cum imperio, should be given the command of the war, with the right to appoint lieutenants (legati), to levy troops, to command the fleet and to dispose of the treasury. Thus a figure of commander with practically unlimited powers was created. And the success achieved by Pompey in the struggle against the pirates brought it about that by a Lex Manilia the command of the war against Mithridates and Tigranes was entrusted to him: to the powers already granted him by the Lex Gabinia he thus added the government of the provinciae of Cilicia, Bithynia and Asia. Between 66 and 62 B.C., he not only defeated Mithridates and made Tigranes a vassal of R., but thoroughly reorganized the whole East: he reordered the provinces, founded various cities and created a series of vassal principalities. Syria was erected into a province, Palestine became a tributary state of R.: the Greek cities of all these territories had their autonomy recognized and entered into direct relations with R.

The work accomplished by Pompey was to secure the eastern frontiers for a long time; and it demonstrates, despite the oblivion that fell upon this figure after the defeat in the conflict with Caesar, his high capacities as a military commander and as an organizer.

Another figure, in fact, was emerging in the Roman political world: C. Julius Caesar. Of patrician origin, he exercised his action in accordance with the thinking of the popular party; he was driven to this partly by a broader vision of the situation that had come about in R., and partly by the more immediate objective of counterbalancing the growing authority of Pompey.

Having come to an agreement with Crassus, Caesar probably in 66 favored the revolutionary machinations of L. Sergius Catiline. The conspiracy came to nothing a first time in 65, but was reorganized in 63, the year of the consulship of M. Tullius Cicero. The latter forced Catiline to unmask himself and to flee to the conspirators in Etruria and had the rebels who remained in R. executed, by a procedure constitutionally censurable. Catiline was subsequently defeated and killed in battle near Pistoia.

This was the situation when, toward the end of 62, Pompey landed at Brindisi: the following year he celebrated his triumph, but he did not succeed in obtaining the distribution of lands to his veterans, nor even the ratification of the organization he had given to the East. He thus came to find himself in conflict with the Senate, as Caesar had clearly foreseen. The latter, who had been propraetor in Spain, where he had given proof of good abilities and had replenished his fortune, was elected consul for the year 59, together with M. Calpurnius Bibulus.

He came to an agreement with Pompey and Crassus to exercise, to his own profit and that of his allies, authority over the State in the years to come. He proposed a series of laws and had approved by the comitia, against the Senate's opposition, the organization given by Pompey to the East, while he had financial concessions granted to the tax-farmers who sided with Crassus.

As a consequence of the agreements, Caesar as proconsul was entrusted for five years with the government of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, to which was subsequently added that of Narbonese Gaul. This allowed the ambitious leader to form a solid base for his political influence, binding to himself the armies under his command: he extended the dominion of R. from the Pyrenees and the Ocean as far as the Ardennes and the Vosges, repelled the Helvetii and defeated Ariovistus on the Rhine, thus removing the Germanic threat from Gallic territory.

At a conference with Pompey and Crassus at Lucca (56) it was established that the latter should assume the consulship for the year 55: for the following five-year period Pompey was assigned the government of Spain, Crassus that of Syria, while to Caesar the command in Gaul was to be confirmed. During this time, Caesar definitively settled Gaul after the victory over Vercingetorix. But following the death of Crassus (year 53), Pompey deemed the moment to have come to assume a more prominent role in the State: consul sine collega for the year 52, he held himself ready to support the Senate's policy militarily. In the face of this attitude Caesar sought to negotiate with the Senate his own appointment as consul for the following year (49), upon the expiration of his provincial government. This went against a constitutional norm, but Caesar requested it above all to avoid a judgment on his activity as governor. The Senate not only refused the appointment, but recalled Caesar. The latter crossed into Italy and passed the Rubicon (Jan. 49), which marked the boundary of the territory subject to his government. Pompey abandoned R. and Italy with the magistrates and the Senate in order to prepare in the East the army for the decisive battle. Caesar, having occupied R., went to Spain where he defeated Pompey's legates; and after returning to the capital for a few days, he went to Macedonia to confront his rival, whom he defeated at Pharsalus (year 48). Having crossed into Egypt, where Pompey, believing he would find refuge with the King, had instead met his death, Caesar found himself involved in the dynastic struggle of the Ptolemaic family. Having returned to R. in the autumn of 47, he was named dictator, but, even before he could devote himself to the activity of government, he was forced to confront the last remnants of the Pompeian party, which, in Africa, had reorganized themselves, securing the alliance of Juba, king of Numidia. Having defeated his adversaries at Thapsus and reduced Numidia to a province (year 46), Caesar was by now the master of the State. Dictator perpetuum, invested with the hereditary title of imperator, holder of the praefectura morum and invested with tribunician inviolability, he behaved like a monarch in his acts of government. This was not, at that moment, the way to secure dominion over R. and its Empire: and because of this political error of his Caesar fell in 44, the victim of a conspiracy.

VII. OCTAVIAN AND THE GENESIS OF THE PRINCIPATE

Octavian, Caesar's nineteen-year-old nephew, seemed at first to side with the party of his uncle's murderers, being above all concerned to consolidate his own position: he had his adoption by Caesar confirmed by the comitia, obtained the consulship in Aug. 43, and succeeded in having conferred upon him an imperium superior to the consular one, the right to levy troops, and the task of defending the State against his rivals Antony and Lepidus.

These saw an opportunity to come to terms: and toward the end of Oct. 43, they met with Octavian at Bologna. The fruit of this meeting was an agreement which shortly afterward received its official consecration in a lex Titia, proposed on 27 Nov. 43, which appointed Octavian, Antony and Lepidus tresviri reipublicae constituendae with unlimited power.

Having definitively defeated the senatorial party in the last battle of Philippi (Nov. 42), Octavian and Antony agreed that Gallia Cisalpina should be united with Italy and administered by R.; Gallia Transalpina was assigned to Antony together with the eastern provinces; to Octavian were allotted the Spains and freedom of initiative in Italy and the Mediterranean was granted him; the African provinces were assigned to Lepidus. In a subsequent distribution Africa was retained by Lepidus, the West was given to Octavian, while the East was entrusted to Antony, who was to conduct the struggle against the Parthians, while Octavian fought against Sextus Pompey.

The powers of the triumvirs were to have expired, according to the lex Titia, on 31 Dec. 38. Despite this they continued to exercise the extraordinary power, and only in Sept. or Oct. 37 did Octavian and Antony meet at Taranto to decide the prorogation of the triumvirate and to fix the new expiry at 31 Dec. 32. In 36 Octavian forced Lepidus to lay down his office, while obtaining, by plebiscite, the right to sit on the subsellia tribunicia with the inviolability attached thereto.

Public opinion, in the meantime, followed with concern Antony's conduct in Egypt; and popular indignation reached its peak when there was published, through Octavian's doing, the will that Antony had entrusted to the Vestals and from which appeared his intention to transfer the capital from R. to Alexandria. Antony was, albeit illegally, deposed from the triumvirate, while war was declared against Cleopatra.

Octavian, to whom the command of this war was entrusted, ably provided for strengthening his own position with an oath of loyalty sworn to him by Italy and by certain provinces (coniuratio Italiae et provinciarum: Mon. Ancyr., 25); he defeated Antony on 2 Sept. 31 at Actium, occupied Alexandria on 1 Aug. 30 and deposed the dynasty of the Ptolemies, replacing it. Having returned to R., he celebrated there, on 13-15 Aug. of the year 29, the triumph that marked the end of the civil wars.

He set about a work that was not merely a reconstruction but, through successive stages, the foundation of a new regime. In 28 Octavian held the consulship. But his personal position was far more prominent than that of his colleague in the supreme republican magistracy. He bore indeed, as a praenomen, the title of imperator, which belonged to him as Caesar's heir and which had been confirmed to him by the Senate in 29 B.C.

He further obtained the title of princeps Senatus, while, through various concessions, he had come into possession of almost all the powers and prerogatives of the tribunes of the plebs, even if, as appears more probable, the tribunicia potestas was granted to him in full only in 23.

He was, finally, still invested with the extraordinary constituent power that had had its first source in the lex Titia, as appears, besides from his acts, from the terms by which in the sources is indicated the renunciation he made in the session of the Senate of 13 Jan. 27 B.C.

He himself affirms (Mon. Ancyr. lat., VI, 13-16) that per consensus universorum potitus rerum omnium, he transferred the State (and therefore the powers of the State) from his potestas "in Senatus Populique Romani arbitrium". He therefore abandoned (as other sources also confirm) the constituent power and the general command over the troops, while retaining instead all the other powers, titles and prerogatives.

In exchange for this renunciation he was conferred the title of Augustus (he who is sacred by divine designation), while a whole series of honors was paid him. For the exact understanding of his position it is important to bear in mind what he himself says regarding the period of time that follows the renunciation of 27. He (Mon. Ancyr. lat., VI, 31 ff.) affirms that he was superior to all in auctoritas, without however having had greater potestas than those who were, between 27 and 23, his colleagues in the consulship. Now, the term auctoritas is widely employed in Roman law, public and private; the specific meaning that it comes to assume in the case of Augustus "designates... the juridically pre-eminent position of the man in whose person public power is connatural, in a manner completely different from that in which it is attributed to republican magistrates: and it is linked with the new concept of the maiestas of the emperors, in which the religious element is accentuated" (de Francisci).

This auctoritas is concretized, on the other hand, in the granting of powers. Indeed Augustus is invested with a ten-year imperium proconsulare, with the government of the provinces not yet pacified and the related command of the troops; and he obtains the cura et tutela rei publicae universa, that is, in substance, the faculty to perform all those acts and to take those measures that he deemed useful for the good of the State.

Already in the face of these concessions it is difficult to speak, as some historians do, of a republican restoration carried out by Augustus. But his constitutional construction is completed in 23, when he renounces the consulship (so as no longer to assume afterward any republican title): in that year, in fact, there were conferred upon him the tribunicia potestas (in its fullness) for life and an imperium proconsulare (infinitum, that is not subject to the limit of the pomerium, and maius, inasmuch as superior to that of any magistrate). But the one and the other power
ROME - The Ara Pacis Augustae, in its definitive recomposition - Rome.

(phot. Anderson)

was conferred on him separately from the respective republican offices.

With the founding of the principate we witness the creation of a bureaucracy, of a series of officials, who slowly absorb the attributions proper to the ancient magistracies. To some of these, preserved, new functions are assigned within the framework of the new constitutional order, but any directive force in the government of the State comes to be lacking; the comitia were called by Augustus to legislate and voted numerous and important laws (de ambitu, de vi publica et privata, iudiciorum publicorum et privatorum, de maritandis ordinibus, etc.); but their function was destined to wither away as the authority of the princeps increased. The organ that instead increased its functions was the Senate (and this may explain the opinion of Mommsen, who defined the Augustan regime as a diarchy formed by the princeps and the Senate); it acquires broad competence in criminal jurisdiction and becomes capable of issuing legal norms: the senatus consulta become, in fact, sources of law. Even in this case, however, such increased competence is more apparent than real, since quite often the senatus consultum is nothing but the text of a proposal (oratio) of the prince adopted by the assembly.

By virtue of his powers the princeps then influences justice, civil and criminal, both by judging on appeal and by entrusting to his own officials the right to judge without observance of the rules of ordinary procedure (cognitio extra ordinem). He makes his authority felt, finally, also on jurisprudence, conferring on certain jurists the ius respondendi ex auctoritate principis. Moreover, he can manifest, even directly, his own will in the normative field, through imperial constitutions, which, in time, would cause every other source of law to wither away.

One can therefore easily conclude that, at the end of this complex legalitarian revolution, we find ourselves faced with a new organ, superimposed on the republican constitution, formally preserved but destined to atrophy.

VIII. FROM AUGUSTUS TO THE SEVERANS

Augustus's successor was Tiberius (v.), who had been adopted by his predecessor and who, already during the latter's lifetime, had obtained a part of his powers (imperium proconsulare maius) in order to facilitate the transfer of authority. In the principate, in fact, there was no pre-established system for ensuring the succession: and this lack, which dragged on through the centuries and which attempts were made from time to time to remedy with expedients of various kinds, was one of the causes of the crisis that ended with the passage from the principate to the absolute empire.

Referring for this and for the other emperors to their respective separate entries, it will suffice here to recall the essential lines of the policy of R. Under Tiberius the Germanic territory facing Mainz was occupied; under Claudius (v.) expansion into Germany was further extended, while Mauretania, Thrace, the south of Britain were occupied, and Raetia and Noricum were reduced to provinciae. Under Nero (v.) the Kingdom of Pontus was transformed into a provincia and Armenia again became a tributary state of R. The revolt of Judaea was put down in blood and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian (v.), to whom the definitive conquest of Britain is also due.

A decisive assertion of the power of the princeps comes, after the brief rule of Titus (v.), with Domitian (v.). Having set out in domestic policy on the path of Caesarism, in foreign policy this Emperor went over to the offensive along the entire line of the Rhine and the Danube, reaching as far as the Main. Domitian ended his reign tragically: and he had as his successor Nerva (v.), a mild and prudent politician, who governed the Empire on liberal principles. Under him laws were presented to the comitia for the last time.

With Trajan (v.) the Empire reached its greatest territorial expansion. Under this emperor, the first provincial to ascend the throne, the political and economic equilibrium of the Empire shifts definitively from R. to the provinces. And that this is true is seen at once with his successor Hadrian (v.), when, under simultaneous pressure on the eastern and western frontiers, the most recent conquests are abandoned and there is a return to the substantially defensive policy of Augustus, with the creation of a fortified limes.

Nevertheless this Emperor stands as a figure of great importance in the history of the principate. Perceiving precisely the importance that the Empire has as opposed to R., he traveled through its entire territory, staying only briefly in the capital. To him, apparently a tenacious traditionalist, is due a series of innovations that definitively consolidated the structure of the principate, organized the army and the imperial bureaucracy, and regulated the sources of law. With Augustus, in fact, the creation of new organs and offices alongside the republican ones had begun. The princeps had set up a chancery of his own, divided into various sections according to the matters dealt with (a memoria, a libellis, ab epistolis, a cognitionibus); he had placed his own officials over the provinces directly dependent on him and over the direction of particularly delicate services. Thus various categories of officials arose: besides the legati (v. LEGATO), the praefecti (with military duties, such as the praefectus praetorio, administrative and jurisdictional ones such as the praefectus urbi, and, with more limited competence, those vigilium and annonae; the government of Egypt was moreover entrusted to a special praefectus), the curatores, the procuratores (v. PROCURATORE). Hadrian reorganized the entire career of these officials, generally drawn from the equestrian order, and fixed their remuneration. In the juridical field, Hadrian regulated the ius respondendi and, with the aim of asserting ever more greatly the influence of the princeps, gave the jurist Salvius Julianus the task of the definitive arrangement of the praetorian Edict (v.), thus also halting the remaining creative activity of the praetor.

Hadrian, however, had also not succeeded in creating a system capable of automatically ensuring the succession. He had named Caesar and invested with the tribunicia potestas Antoninus Pius (v.), who ascended the throne in 138 and during whose long reign there was a new expansion of the Empire. An interesting phenomenon from the constitutional point of view occurred with his successors, Marcus Aurelius (v.) and Lucius Verus, who reigned together in the years 161-69. From the death of Antoninus Pius, R. found itself having to face a twofold threat, in the west and in the east. The pressure of the Germanic peoples was practically never to halt again: and even the whole activity of the successor Commodus (v.) had to be limited to perfecting and strengthening the system of the Hadrianic limes. With this Emperor there closes what may be called the "dynasty" of the Antonines. It is characterized by a government directed only at preserving the situation inherited from the preceding emperors, a government inspired by mildness, although precisely in this very period a harshening was recorded in the policy toward the Christians.

The death of Commodus was followed by a grave crisis, which ended with the accession to the throne of Septimius Severus (v.). He concluded that process of equalizing the eastern regions with the other parts of the Empire which had already begun in Hadrian's time and which led to the granting of citizenship to all those within the orbe romano, carried out by his successor Caracalla (v.) in 212.

The age of the Severans, which ended with Elagabalus and Alexander Severus (v.), is the one that sees the predominance of the army over every other force of the State asserted, including for the designation of emperors. But it also witnesses the last great flowering of jurisprudence, with Papinian (v.), Paul (v.) and Ulpian (v.).

IX. THE ABSOLUTE EMPIRE

After 235, the date of the death of Alexander Severus, a period of grave crisis begins. It is also in this epoch that some of the most serious persecutions against the Christians occur. To save the State from a ruin that seemed imminent, a strong personality was needed: this was represented by Diocletian (v.). The energetic work he carried out seemed to restore order in the Empire; but a great part of his reforms could not, given the objective conditions of the moment, endure. Even the tetrarchy was unable to ensure the succession, and the Empire once again had a single sovereign with his successor Constantine. Referring for the historical events to the relevant entry and to ORIENTE, IMPERO DI, it will suffice here to recall that to Diocletian and Constantine is owed the new organization of the Empire, both territorial (into prefectures, dioceses and provinces) and bureaucratic. The State, in fact, is now governed by a pyramid-shaped order, at whose apex stands the emperor, with four great central officials beside him, the magister officiorum (v.), the quaestor sacri palatii (v.) and, for financial functions, the comes sacrarum largitiorum and the comes rerum privatorum.

In the new constitutional structure, the emperor is no longer the princeps, but the absolute dominus; and since his power is of divine origin and is linked to the divinity, he is also deus. On this conception of imperial power there have, in all probability, been influences from Eastern systems (especially Persian). But it is interesting to note how this conception, aimed above all at repelling the increasingly dangerous influence and at counterbalancing the weight of the barbarian troops and their leaders, was characteristic of Diocletian as of the Christian or Christianized emperors, although it had, of course, a different basis, given the change in the cult of the Empire.

The affirmation of the absolute power of the emperor opens the last period of the constitutional history of R. This period, which saw the definitive political decline of Italy and of R., and the capital itself transferred to the East, is commonly considered a period of crisis. Anyone who considers, however, how this epoch saw the realization of Roman-Christian unity and the constitution of a State that is the first example of a bureaucratic-political organization of the modern type, will have to speak not of a crisis but of a colossal transformation, through which there was to be perpetuated not so much a concrete political order as, and more, the idea of the Empire, which was later to continue in that of the "Holy" Roman Empire.

For legal history: Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 5 vols. in 4 tomes, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1887 ff.; P. Bonfante, Stor. del dir. rom., 2 vols., Rome 1934; P. de Francisci, Stor. del dir. rom., I, Milan 1939; II, 1, ibid. 1938; III, 1, ibid. 1936; id., Arcana imperii, vol. III, 1 and 2, ibid. 1948; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del dir. rom., Naples 1950; G. Scherillo-A. Dell'Oro, Man. di stor. del dir. rom., Milan 1950; F. De Martino, Stor. della costituzione rom., I, Naples 1951. Mention is then made of some very recent studies on particular points: G. I. Luzzatto, Le organizzaz. preeviche e lo Stato, in Publicaz. della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell'Univ. di Modena, Bologna 1948; C. W. Westrup, Quelques recherches sur le problème des origines de Rome, in Revue intern. des droits de l'antiquité, 3 (1949), p. 551 ff.; P. de Francisci, La formazione della comunità politica romana primitiva, offprint from Ann. Triestini, 21 (1951), sect. 1; U. Coli, Regnum, Rome 1951.

Rodolfo Danieli

IV. RELIGION OF THE ROMANS.

I. SOURCES AND STUDIES

The historical study of Roman religion faces a fundamental and permanent difficulty: Roman literary culture is formed only through contact with and on the model of Hellenistic culture, beginning from the 3rd century B.C. onward; apart from relatively few archaeological documents, all the data on Roman religion therefore come from an era in which the educated Roman classes who transmit them think in Hellenistic categories foreign to the mental forms that created the most ancient Roman civilization. In the religious field, almost all the divinities are considered identical to analogous Greek divinities; the myths, iconographic types and theological conceptions of these are applied without hesitation to those. Only the facts, mostly of a cultic order, recorded by historians and antiquarians, can serve as a sure basis for that work of reconstruction which is essentially the task of the scholar of Roman religion.

The literary sources must therefore pass through a severe critical sifting. Moreover, the great shipwreck of classical civilization has swept away most of the literature that could be useful for present purposes: the great classical poets and school texts, late compilations, were saved more easily than the relatively reliable antiquarian writings which, like the works of Varro or Verrius Flaccus, were still based, at least in part, on priestly writings and on direct observation of facts. Inscriptions, coins, artistic monuments, likewise come from the age and the Hellenized circles, barely letting some genuine element of Roman religion leak through here and there.

After a few predecessors, M. Terentius Varro (1st century B.C.) carried out a colossal activity in the field of Roman religious antiquities: his works, about 500 books, of which a minimal part remains, were exploited throughout the duration of Roman civilization. Later scholars, Gellius, Macrobius, the scholiasts and the Fathers of the Church (St. Augustine left a summary of Varro's lost Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinorum) draw in good part from him and from some other more ancient scholar (such as the aforementioned Verrius Flaccus, whose knowledge survives, reduced, in the glossary of Festus, in turn reduced by Paul the Deacon). Even the poets, such as Ovid in the Fasti (poetic commentary on the Roman festive calendar), are based on this grammatical-antiquarian tradition, which, moreover, has also saved some fragments of ancient ritual formulas (e.g., of the carmen saliare), of cultic regulations, of annalistic notations, etc. Also precious are the informations of Greek authors (Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus), who willingly point out the specifically Roman elements of the religion.

The epigraphic sources, inscriptions scattered throughout the Roman Empire, are published in the CIL of Th. Mommsen, supplemented by the various epigraphic periodicals (Ephemeris epigraphica; Année épigraphique, etc.). Apart from the innumerevoli dedications that reveal the diffusion of individual cults, epithets and functions of the deities, etc., some direct cultic documents have also been preserved epigraphically (the tables of the Arval Brethren, the ritual of the Secular Games, the calendars, etc.).

Coins are found collected and arranged in works by Cohen, Babelon, Mattingly and others, and they shed light on aspects of the religious policy of the period to which they belong.

It is difficult to hint in a few words at the contributions of archaeology and particularly of excavations, but everyone understands that starting from the architectural layout of a temple down to a stamped brick that allows its chronological dating, from a symbolic bas-relief of a sarcophagus down to the tiny furnishings of the tomb or the remains of the funerary sacrifice, everything can be important for the study of religion.

The studies on Roman religion thus begin as early as Roman antiquity itself, but immediately under the sign of substantial identification with Greek religion. To find the first conscious distinctions between the two great religions of paganism, which throughout the Middle Ages and even for humanism remains an undifferentiated concept, one must go all the way to the beginning of the last century; but precisely then, above all under the influence of German Romanticism, a clear preference of the classicists for Greek civilization and religion takes shape, as being older and more artistically and philosophically formed than the Roman religion which, on examination of the data, appears as a poor imitation. Niebuhr's energetically critical position was necessary to give the start to a scientific direction in the whole field of Roman studies. After the first attempts at synthesis by Hartung, Klausen or the detailed works of Ambrosch or Preuner, Roman religion finally obtains its place alongside the Greek, for example, in the diligent activity, though compromised by a simplistic naturism, of L. Preller. But a new phase, more rigorously scientific, is opened only under the influence and stimuli of Th. Mommsen, which determine the birth of the so-called philological-historical school. Alfred von Domaszewski and Georg Wissowa, the latter of whom would later be the author of the still fundamental manual on Roman religion as well as the re-editor of the important volume on Roman religious antiquities by J. Marquardt, are direct pupils of Mommsen. The philological-historical school lays the scientific foundations for the study of Roman religion by meticulously ascertaining the consistency of the data and drawing from them all philologically possible deductions: it is prejudiced, however, by its strictly philological limitation and by the lack of historico-religious perspectives. A certain corrective comes to it from the development of folkloristic studies (initiated, in Germany, by the Grimms and exploited for the classical field by Mannhardt), from the nascent ethnological interest (in England: W. Warde Fowler) and universal historico-religious interest (in France: the school of S. Reinach). Thus Roman religion becomes part of the study material of comparative religions (and leaves the limited horizon of the Greco-Roman comparison, represented by Preuner or, later, by Roscher), which however leads to an accentuation of the general and abstract schemas of evolutionism (Deubner) and to a distancing from the specific classical spirituality. Meanwhile, with the progress of historical studies, the horizon of classical civilization widens: Roman religion can no longer be treated in isolation nor even within the frameworks of a generic comparison. The concrete historical unity in which it must be framed is the ancient Mediterranean civilization - from Asia Minor, through Greece, to Spain - and within this one must reckon with the cultural heritage of the Indo-European-speaking peoples of which the Italic peoples are part. At present the whole study of Roman religion finds itself called into question again, partly through the criticisms of F. Altheim's school against the philological-historical synthesis, partly through the new developments of "Indo-European" (G. Dumézil) and ethnological (H. J. Rose) comparison.

The first scientific work on Roman religion is the volume by J. A. Hartung, Die Religion der Römer (Erlangen 1836). The two volumes by R. H. Klausen, Aeneos und die Penaten (Hamburg 1839-40) represent an encounter between the new scientific demands and the still not dead Romantic sensibility, albeit with a notable lack of critical sense. By J. Ambrosch, Studien und Andeutungen im Gebiete der altrömischen Bodens und Cultus (Breslau 1839) and Über die Religionsbücher der Römer (Bonn 1843) still deserve to be read. At this point a more severe scientific criterion enters the study of Roman religion, accompanied unfortunately by a growing spiritual aridification. L. Preller, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed. edited by H. Jordan, Berlin 1881-83) is an example more of the second than of the first factor. The school of Th. Mommsen (who in his works on Roman history, law, inscriptions and chronology also personally dealt with religious subjects) reveals its characteristics in the work of J. Marquardt, which constitutes vol. III of the Mommsenian Römische Staatsverwaltung (vol. III in 2nd ed. edited by G. Wissowa, Leipzig 1885). The works in which W. Mannhardt developed his folkloristic theses are Antike Waldund Feldkulte (Berlin 1877) and the (posthumous) Mythologische Forschungen (Strasbourg 1884). For the most recent general literature v. bibl.

II. THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The Roman religion, like every other cultural product, is substantially determined by three basic factors: the cultural heritage of the people that created it, the influences of the environment in which it arose, and the specific creative historical moment through which it came to be constituted as an unmistakable and organic unity. One can speak of a Roman religion only from the moment when R. exists: and this not out of logical quibbling, but because R., having constituted itself as a political unity, would distinguish itself immediately from its environment by a spiritual orientation not before the 8th century B.C., through the work of various Italic peoples (Latin and Sabine). The cultural heritage of these peoples has its roots in a high archaic civilization: the Latin words concerning social organization (e.g. rex), priestly organization (e.g. flamen), certain divinities (e.g. Iuppiter) recur in other forms among various peoples of Indo-European language, from India to the western Celts, demonstrating the existence of a common original civilization. This does not mean that the cultural level of those peoples, who spent long centuries in migrations and in a probably harsh struggle for existence, always remained at a height comparable, for example, to that of Vedic India: but the structural forms of the civilization were, in part, preserved. The new environment was saturated with the radiations of other high civilizations, the Mediterranean civilizations: in central Italy there are found, from the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C., the Etruscans, coming probably from Asia Minor. The trade routes of the eastern Mediterranean enveloped the West too in their net: the Greek colonizers, who appeared in Italy in the 8th century B.C., traveled roads already trodden by eastern trade, e.g. Cretan. At the moment of the founding of R., the richest culture of the East must have had the effect of a revelation upon the necessarily rough Italic peoples, though anything but barbarous and "primitive." In this extremely complex cultural constellation there matures the moment in which the different groups of population dwelling in the territory of the future R. would feel the need to constitute themselves into a political and sacral unity, founding a city-State on the type and at the level of the cities of their environment.

III. FOUNDATION OF ROME AND FIRST PHASE OF ROMAN RELIGION

To approach the first Roman religious phase there are few starting points, but fortunately some of them are also fundamental: in the first place the calendar which, preserved unaltered, that is, with clearly distinct additions in the calendars of more recent ages, demonstrably goes back to an era prior to the foundation of the Capitoline cult (509 B.C.). It is like the charter of the religious union of the communities living in Rome, now united also politically, inasmuch as it comprises cults both of the Palatine and of the Quirinal; in the divine names and in the names of the months a significant Etruscan influence is noticeable. It is a luni-solar calendar of twelve months (plus an intercalary period) with 45 fixed festivals on odd days (with two exceptions). The days of the new moon (kalendae) and of the full moon (idus), as well as the ninth day preceding the idus (nonae) have a particular name: moreover every day bears an abbreviation that defines its sacral character. The idus are sacred to Jupiter, the kalendae to Juno. From the names of the festivals other divine names appear: Vesta, Vulcan, Saturn, Consus, Ops, Pales, Portunus, Angerona, Larentia, etc.

Other festivals have a name deriving from the ritual action (e.g., Armilustrium) or from the central object of the festival (e.g., Vinalia), but more recent data always inform us of the divinities involved: thus there emerges, for example, the great importance of Mars.

We find ourselves therefore faced with a sacral life regulated by the cosmic order (and also by the value attributed to numbers) and with a developed polytheistic system. Such a system already presupposes a perfect and mature fusion of elements and influences of various origin; through the Etruscan influence the Greek one also operates (in fact, the neuter plural of the names of festivals corresponds exactly to the usage of the Greek calendars). The great spheres of religious interest are, as roughly in all the great archaic polytheisms: agrarian life, war, death, the cosmic recurrences and, with a specifically Roman accent, the existence of the State.

Since in Roman literature, which as has been said arose much later, many divinities of the calendar recede into the background and indeed almost disappear (e.g., Portunus, Volturnus, Furrina), and on the other hand it is precisely these divinities that, according to antiquarian data, are shown to have their own flamen, one may deduce that the original priestly organization also goes back at least in part to the era of the calendar: also because in it the number 12 predominates (12 flamens, 12 Salii), that of the months.

The priestly organization can be briefly summarized as follows. There are four priestly collegia: that of the pontiffs, which includes the rex sacrorum, the flamens, the Vestals and the pontiffs properly so called; that of the augurs; that (certainly later than the calendar) of the duoviri (later increased until they became quindecemviri), charged with consulting the Sibylline books; and that of the triumviri epulonum. In addition there are priestly sodalities which are distinguished from the collegia perhaps by an activity tied to single occasions or recurrences. These are: the Fetiales, the Salii, the Luperci, the Arvales, the Titii. The spheres of competence of the individual priesthoods are well delimited. The rex sacrorum has specific functions, probably those which even in the time of the calendar were reserved to the king (cult of Janus). The pontiffs are the expert regulators of the sacral life of the State, the overseers of every cult, without specific relations to particular divinities or to particular types of religious function. The flamens, on the other hand, are particular priests of individual divinities - the three major flamens are those of Jupiter, of Mars and of Quirinus -, which does not exclude their participation in the cults of other well-determined divinities: so too the Vestals. The augurs have the exclusive task of ascertaining the divine favor for the undertakings of the State and of ensuring the ritual conditions necessary for every act that requires them. The priests charged with the Sibylline books had to deduce from these the exceptional sacral measures to be adopted in the various situations that arose in the life of the State.

On the basis of the names of festivals, the priestly specializations and with the help of more recent data, the great variety of rites can also be partially reconstructed. The sacrifices themselves, which could be bloody or bloodless, were very varied: male victims belonged to the gods, female victims to the goddesses; even the color of the victim depended on the character of the divinity (black victims to the Underworld); to Jupiter, on the ides, a sheep was due, to Janus a ram, to Mars a horse or the suovetaurilia (sacrifice of a pig, a sheep and a bull), etc. Besides sacrifices there are lustrations, purificatory rites. Some rites are connected with processions, others with dances (of the Salii), others with races of men (Luperci) or of horses (equus october), etc. The antiquity of other ritual forms, such as the votum, the auspicium, the evocatio, etc., is undoubted.

The sacred places are well defined: some divinities must have their sanctuaries outside the pomerium, others within the city. In this first phase there seem to have been no temples built of stone: there were instead altars placed in sacred enclosures or in grottoes.

IV. FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE CAPITOLINE CULT TO THE BEGINNING OF HELLENISTIC CULTURE

The frameworks of Roman religion characterized above were thus fixed in the period between the founding of the city and the beginning of the 5th century B.C. They represent the permanent basis of what may be called Roman religion, not in the sense that it was created ex nihilo by the Romans, but insofar as its various elements reached at Rome an organic and autonomous form, clearly distinct from all the other religions of its environment and, all the more, of the world. This basis would remain faithfully preserved in public worship throughout the whole duration of Roman civilization. It is not, however, a rigidly closed system, but only a basis, susceptible to organic expansions dictated by the needs that arise in the course of history.

The autonomy of Roman civilization manifests itself, in the political sphere, for the first time with the expulsion of a ruling Etruscan dynasty and with the proclamation of the Republic. The State as such, administered by magistrates rather than incarnated in a monarch, no longer recognizes above itself anything but the will of the gods: to Jupiter, freed from every preponderant naturalistic element and conceived purely as optimus maximus, and also released from the polarity with Juno, are conferred the royal attributes (though without the odious title of rex); the colossal Capitoline temple, built by the last kings, is dedicated to him in 509 B.C., which tradition regards as the first year of the Republic; at the side of the supreme god, in a subordinate position and equal among themselves, stand Juno Regina and Minerva.

This political revolution of theirs places Rome in decided contrast with its environment, forcing it into a tenacious struggle destined to end with Roman hegemony in Italy; on the other hand it initiates a development of democratic politics, in the course of which the non-patrician classes gradually succeed in asserting their own demands. These two fundamental motives, plus an extraordinary cultural development due both to a greater self-awareness and to close contact with the surrounding peoples and to the broadening of historical horizons, determine the unfolding of Roman religion between the 5th and the 3rd century B.C. The new cults, which now find their seat in well-built temples, rise to the level of classical Greek spirituality: there appear at Rome the plastic divine figures of the Hellenic Olympus. Apollo, whose veneration is already a presupposition of the use of the Sibylline books (introduced at Rome perhaps already in the monarchic era and kept in the Capitoline temple), obtains a temple in 431; Mercury as early as 495. In the lectisternium of 399 B.C. figure the "twelve deities" of the Greek cult. Meanwhile, the plebs outlines its own religious physiognomy: the first step in this direction is the introduction of the cult of the triad Ceres-Liber-Libera (corresponding to the Greek deities Demeter, Dionysus, Persephone), as early as 494 B.C. The cult of Aventine Diana, too, besides its aspect of "foreign" policy (it is a Latin federal cult under the sign of Roman hegemony), has a plebeian character. The struggle of the plebs in the religious sphere would culminate in the conquest of the right to enter the public priesthoods, sanctioned by the lex Ogulnia (300 B.C.). Extending its dominion, Rome naturally extends its religion as well: it receives, transforming them according to its own spirit, the cults of the subjected peoples (Diana, at Rome, loses her slave-priest whom she has in the Aricine valley; Juno Sospita the cult of the serpent connected with her at Lanuvium; Fortuna Primigenia the oracle that is her specialty at Palestrina, etc.). Furthermore, great development is taken on by the cults that consecrate the fundamental ideals that must guide Rome in this period of its ascent: as already in the archaic era the cult of Fides (whose great antiquity is demonstrated, besides by tradition, by the participation of the three major flamens), so now that of Spes (477?), of Salus (302), of Concordia (367), with reference to the disputes between patriciate and plebs, of Victoria (294), express the sacral sense that Rome confers on the cornerstones of its own conduct.

V. FROM THE FIRST HELLENISTIC INFLUENCES TO THE AUGUSTAN AGE

In few national histories does one observe so abrupt a break in cultural development as that which occurs at Rome upon its first direct contact with the Hellenic world. And it is understandable: the Greeks in that period had already passed the peak of their maturity and reveal tendencies toward cultural and intellectual refinements: Rome, substantially archaic, but with aspirations to superiority, seeks to assimilate that higher cultural level which strikes it in its own adversaries. From one moment to the next (in the 3rd century B.C.: from the first wars with Magna Graecia) the intellectual, literary, artistic culture of Rome arises.

In the religious sphere the State controls the cults that are admitted. Aesculapius is the first Greek divinity accepted from Greece itself (295 B.C.). But by now Greece is no longer Greece alone: it is the Hellenistic world, saturated with Oriental influences. From this world there comes to Rome, in 205 B.C., the cult of the Phrygian goddess Cybele, called at Rome Magna Mater Deum Idaea (with an allusion to the Trojan origins of the Romans): characteristically, the Roman religion receives it only on condition of transforming it in accordance with its own ritual forms and of isolating the elements incompatible with these, entrusting them to Phrygian priests who do not figure in the public cult.

In the 3rd century, and also during the Hannibalic wars, the continuity of the public cult is demonstrated by a series of foundations of temples dedicated to the most ancient divinities: Consus, Pales, Tellus, Janus, Juturna, etc. But among the private masses, and precisely both in the intellectual class now devoted, body and soul, to Hellenistic culture, and among the people who had become extraordinarily mixed during the vertiginous growth that had turned a small city into a world power, a notable estrangement from the archaic religion takes place. The State, on the alert, combats cults incompatible with its religious line: the bloody repression of the Bacchanalia (186 B.C.) constitutes an energetic beginning of that series of measures which the State will take with regard to every religious orientation that, under the sign of individual salvation, leads to the neglect of the supreme public interest: thus one will arrive, through hostilities against Oriental cults, such as astrology, the Jews, all the way to the persecutions of the Christians.

In the 1st century B.C. the ruling classes themselves hardly separate their public duties from their Hellenistic cultural formation. One aspect of the Hellenistic-Oriental religious world is the sacrally conceived monarchy: exactly what Rome had to defeat in order to create its own spiritual line. The first great Roman commanders who operate on a world scale, such as Scipio Africanus, already reveal themselves sensitive to the forms of Hellenistic monarchy, and their claims find full consent on the part of the composite masses. But this situation matures above all in the times of Sulla, Caesar, Antony. The victory of Octavian over the latter presents itself at first as a backlash of the Roman spirit against Hellenistic orientations. And indeed Augustus, who claims to be only the first magistrate of the State and rejects (permitting it only in the provinces) the cult dedicated to his person, makes notable efforts to restore the Roman religion as well in its ancient forms. The neglect of these had reached extreme points: from 87 to 1 B.C., Rome was without a flamen Dialis; of many divinities the scholars knew only the name (Furrina, Angerona, etc.). Augustus has 82 temples restored. But by now neither his sensibility nor that of the people is that of the ancient Roman. As pontifex maximus, Augustus also introduces bold reforms: he imposes his own personal orientations on the public religion (to the new cult of Mars Ultor he transfers the privileges of the Capitoline temple; he intensifies the cult of Apollo; he confuses his own private cults, of Vesta and of the Penates, with those of the State, etc.). And around his figure the ideology of the Hellenistic monarchy revives, which with his successors will culminate in the imperial cult.

VI. THE EMPIRE

The imperial age brings to completion the process begun toward the end of the Republic: a process in the course of which the properly Roman religion is transformed into the religion of the Hellenistic world dominated by Rome. Not that the fundamental elements of the Roman cult disappear: through its administrative and military organs Rome imposes on the world respect for its gods and particularly the Capitoline cult; on the other hand the Italic people faithfully preserves the rites of the domestic cult. But the general religious consciousness definitively comes under the ascendancy of two new factors of religion: the imperial cult and the Oriental cults.

In any case, in order to judge rightly the importance and to measure the novelty of these factors, certain facts must be kept in mind. The imperial cult has roots not only in the end of the Republic, but also deeper roots in the distant Mediterranean protohistory, in which nascent Rome too was once framed. It signifies an identification between State and sovereign, and, through this indirect formula, ensures continuity for that central position of the State which has always been the principal characteristic of the Roman religion.

The Oriental cults (Isis, Dea Syria, Jupiter Dolichenus and Jupiter Heliopolitanus, Attis, Mithras: v. individual entries) increasingly win over the mixed masses of the Empire. But within them various shades must be distinguished. The exotic divinities could appear to the Romans as identical or similar to the divinities of their polytheism (Isis and Fortuna; the Ba'al of Doliche and Jupiter, etc.) and become assimilated, syncretistically, to these: in that case they do not represent a substantial novelty in Roman religious life. Their vogue among intellectuals can be misleading as regards their actual religious value, which, in this case, is practically nil. Practiced in authentic form by the exotic faithful themselves, these cults have no significance for the Roman religion. Their most important form is the mystery form, long opposed by the State: but when the Roman ruling classes have themselves initiated into all the Oriental mysteries, this means two things: first, that the mysteries have already lost their original form and well defined, so as all to become the same thing; second, that they now represent a common front, and precisely in a Roman and pagan function, against the only true danger for Roman paganism: Christianity.

VII. PRIVATE CULT

It does not have, in the proper sense of the word, a history. The difference between public worship and private worship is that the latter, rather than by the State as such and by its constituent elements, is practiced by individuals and their private groupings (family, gens, associations), and practiced directly, that is, without priestly mediation. Among the deities of Roman polytheism there are several that concern the State more (Janus, Vesta, Quirinus, etc.) than the individual, and vice versa (Silvanus); others have a reason for being only in the private sphere (deities of domestic worship: the individual Genius, the Lares, the Penates of the family, etc.: v. relevant entries). Domestic and rural cults, in particular, preserve their archaic forms throughout the entire duration of Roman paganism.

Angelo Brelich

V. ANCIENT ROMAN LITERATURE.

On the morrow of the founding of R., around the 8th-7th century B.C., the various Italic peoples in their different dialects had not left any literary document in the true meaning of the term. The numerous false-Oscan-Umbrian, Paelignian, Sabellic, etc. epigraphs that have come down to us contain for the most part sacred laws, dedicatory and juridical expressions, and formulas of worship

(e.g.: tabulae Eugubinae, Umbrian; tabula Bantina, of Agnone, of Capua, Oscan, etc.). Nor can the Faliscan inscription engraved on a cup be considered the result of a literary labor: - foied. uino. pipafo. cra. carefo - (today I will drink wine, tomorrow I will lack it: Corpus inscrip. Etruscarum, 8179, 80), even if such a precept springs from an easy and contingent state of mind.

The Italic peoples, apart from the myths, prayers, songs and mimic forms handed down orally and in tradition, have left a substratum that is always found enduring at the bottom of the Roman mentality: clarity of thought, severe religiosity, concrete expression of human feelings. Scanning the most ancient Latin inscriptions, one is struck by this reserve, by the grave pietas with which the sacral epigraphs, the laws, the consular eulogies and the funerary stones are pervaded. Especially from the latter, voices of wives, of mothers, of children, of slaves speak almost aware of the great mystery they have faced and serenely enumerate to the passerby the merits they had in life: and they have phrases that denote a conscious acceptance rather than a resigned abandonment. Equally the ritual precepts, the sacred laws, etc., obey this intimate sense of balance and practicality, to the signification of one's own individuality which, with the passing of the years, even while refining itself spiritually, constitutes no small part of Latin literary expression.

I. ARCHAIC AGE

Traditionally Roman literature is made to begin with the Odysia of Livius Andronicus (3rd century B.C.); yet this beginning will not be considered under the sign of the translation of the Homeric poem, so much as with the memory of the hymn that, in honor of Iuno Regina, Andronicus composed to be sung by twenty-seven maidens in expiation of certain prodigies that had then occurred. Precisely the carmen of this semigraecus, which Livy (XXVII, 37, 7) criticizes for its rough composition, worthily inaugurates the archaic age, wholly pervaded by a heroic spirit and by reverent fear of the divine. The laborious work of conquest to amalgamate the fierce Italic peoples, the great epic of the Punic Wars constitute matter of noble song and worthy memory for the Roman, if Cn. Naevius makes himself their interpreter. Naevius, who had already honorably served in the first Punic War, was the creator of a national drama with the fabula praetexta, and his Bellum Poenicum, which takes its start from the adventurous coming of Aeneas into Latium, ideally links the events of his own time to the carmina convicialia, to the naeniae in honor of the ancestors, to the most ancient heroic and religious legends. The carmina convicialia, by their kind of poetry, constitute the forerunners of the Roman epic and were sung in turn at banquets, by the guests and by well-born youths, to commemorate the praises and deeds of the great departed.

The archaic age possesses to a large extent this devotion to history, another fundamental element of Latin spirituality. Naevius composed his poem in saturnians, an ancient meter probably of a recitative nature (cf. G. Pasquali, Preistoria della poesia romana, Florence 1936) and which Ennius, the pater of Latin poetry, replaced with the hexameter in setting out the great web of his Annales.

Some aspects of Ennius's work testify to contact with Greco-Hellenistic culture. Much has been written and discussed on this encounter of the Latin mentality with the Greek, especially in the last century. Today, everyone can more calmly conclude that, if the Greek world undoubtedly revealed to Latin literary experience broader forms of culture, facilitating a more advanced technique, often the two spiritual strata, while completing each other, can be distinguished, and often the Greek one can have little or no hold on the Latin mentality. Plautus boldly contaminates Greek comedies and Latinizes their meters, but scenes and situations are stamped by the Roman environment, even if his characters bear Greek names and the theatrical action takes place in cities of Greece. His numeri innumeri in some of his comedies (e.g., the Casina) show the influence of that repertoire of a typically Italic burlesque genre that is born and draws nourishment from the rural environment: from the fescennini, from the Atellan farces, from all the anonymous Oscan farces, etc. (cf. E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin 1922; G. Pasquali, Plauto, in Pagine quarte e supreme, Venice 1951; G. E. Duckworth, The nature of roman comedy, Oxford 1952). Roman good sense always regained the upper hand against any infatuation with the Greek, regarding it as a foreign fashion. Lucilius in his saturae smiled at it, taking aim at the Graecizing praetor Albucius (Baehrens, 59); literary criticism, in agreement with the tastes of the public, rose up against the theater of Terence, finding in his comedies a too obvious derivation from those of Menander (cf. G. Coppola, Teatro di Terenzio, Bologna 1942). The conservative attitude of the small landowners represented by the prudently enlightened work of Cato the Censor (cf. bibliographical review of studies in Paideia, 7 [1952], pp. 213-217) hinders the activity of the circle of the Scipios, unprejudiced in its ways and a supporter of the new currents.

II. REPUBLICAN AGE

The republican age has its significant representatives in the prose of Sallust and in the poetry of Catullus. The historian narrates the experiences and the dark sides of a society in whose vicissitudes he was a protagonist, and one does not know whether his pages still vibrate with resentment or regret. Catullus expresses love in its pure state with all its irrationalities, its raptures and its melancholies. The De rerum natura of Lucretius, composed patriai tempore iniquo (v. 41), while it seeks to clear minds of the fear of the gods, at the same time giving an explanation of natural phenomena, is wholly marked by the religious horror of one who has attempted to lift the veils of the divine. Amid so much fervor, voices calling back to tradition rise here and there, in the mimes of Decimus Laberius, in the maxims of Publilius Syrus, in the honest biographies of Cornelius Nepos.

Varro, for his part, takes refuge in the otium of his prodigious philological activity, while his saturae menippeae show him to be a sharp and caustic observer of the defects of the society of his time.

At the close of this age, Cicero examines how much of the new political and literary experiences can be inserted into the continuity of Roman tradition or, should it depart from it, rejected as transient. In the De natura deorum the doubts and demands that had arisen concerning the divine are combated, in order to conclude that there exists aliquot numen (II, 2) which in its harmonious ordering intelligence sustains and governs the universe. The pages concerning morality indicate that the summum bonum does not reside in what is sculptus temporanea and corporeal, but that the spiritual end is another: ad altiora nati sumus (De fin., II, 34). The ideas on the State seek to balance the rights of the people and the powers of the ruling class; the vetus republica thus ordered formed the object of his regret and of his hope for the future (Ch. Wirzubski, Libertas as a political ideal at Rome, Cambridge 1950, pp. 79-97).

This ideal, perhaps too cautiously conservative, failed him as a plank of salvation by which to survive in the maelstrom of the new times. The style of Caesar's Commentarii, cold and detached notations of a great man of arms and a very lofty politician, marks the transition to the spare and essential phrases of the Monumentum Ancyranum. Nevertheless the culture of the Augustan age, while approving, consciously or not, the new transformations that the skillful and attentive work of the princeps was creating in Roman society, seems to suffer from a poorly concealed anxiety. Looked at closely, these poets and prose writers, apart from what is a formal echo of external reality, all express a sentiment of indefinable regret. It is the subtle melancholy that shines through certain odes of Horace, more than a recalling of his beloved Greek lyric poets, when the poet introduces the ineluctability of death in comparison with the happy course of earthly days; in the ode to Leuconoe, for example (I, 11). It is that tenuousness that Tibullus calls upon in support of his frailty and his restless love: tam possim contentus vivere parvo (I, 1, 25). Propertius enriches elegy with a romantic tone by evoking the ancient ages of R. and the desolate squalor of cities in ruin. Livy's prose confers an epic tone on the deeds of R., exalting its poetic fabulae which are at the origin of its history. The poetry of Ovid represents, in that Augustan age, something like a patch of color with softly shaded contours; with the voluptuous mythological interpretation of the Metamorphoses, with the elegant and precious complacencies of the Amores and the Ars amandi. The Fasti describe the religious festivals of R. in lively little pictures (on Virgil, v. the relevant entry).

III. IMPERIAL AGE

In the imperial age, writers native to the various parts of the Latin world become the interpreters of the increased demands of the human person and mirror reality in its different aspects. The pages of Seneca (v.) bear witness to this aspiration, seeking a justification of life's problems not in metaphysical heights but by examining and sifting earthly anxieties. It is a rich and interesting experience, even if many pages of this moralist sometimes resemble the advice of a man of letters careful not to commit himself too far. The De brevitate vitae, on the other hand, possesses a sincere tone and color. The Satyricon of Petronius - if this author belongs to the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. rather than to the Neronian age (cf. E. V. Marmorale, La questione petroniana, Bari 1948) - poses no problems; it is a story poised between the picaresque and the refined, disconcerting and coarse. The satire of Juvenal perhaps lays on the colors too thickly, but it is the frank opinion of a bitter and honest spirit. That of Persius remains too much under the Stoic influence to rise to true poetry.

More affable, more insinuating, more stylistically refined are the epigrams of Martial; elegant and rhetorical the poetry of Statius. The events narrated by Tacitus (v.) are not so much intended as a criticism as an acceptance into history of a reality no less painful. The burning lust for dominion of the Roman commanders, which forms the background of Sallust's Jugurthine War, the firm and dignified fighting of the Roman legions described by Livy, is replaced in Tacitus' Histories and Annals by the atrocious and pitiable spectacle of civil wars and by figures of emperors, sinister in their greatness. Tacitus accepts the principate as an inevitable political evolution, even if men have taken from it the most debased lesson and ruere in servitium (Ann., I, 7, 1). In Quintilian the laws of civil and literary education, sustained by morality and good sense, assume an honest and lasting vision. At the end of the Trajanic age taste and culture fall back upon erudite activities (one thinks of Fronto), upon little notes and philological and grammatical skirmishes; law is codified, in history one takes pleasure in anecdote and spicy gossip. A system inaugurated by Suetonius and continued with a hand not at all happy by the Scriptores historiae augustae. The Christians have already appeared, bringers of an exitiabilis superstitio (Tacitus, Ann., XV, 44) that could not be repressed, confused by Suetonius with the Jews assidue tumultuantes (Claud., 25), who cast a shadow of perplexity over the happily impressionistic but somewhat superficial letter collection of Pliny the Younger (X, 66). Almost all the authors of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. are examined with erudite curiosity, few are read with true delight. They are precisely those who start from the observation of everyday custom, as Apuleius does with a skeptical eye in his Metamorphoses.

Some voices of lesser writers are fresher and more sincere; the unknown Celeuma or song of sailors and the Pervigilium Veneris. There is a return to the practical observation of the cultivation of fields with the De re rustica of Palladius; a thread never interrupted in the Latin literary tradition and which, departing, one might say, from the ancient Carmen Arvale, down to Virgil, is never divorced from a moral and religious concern. A short poem in which you truly hear the fresh landscape described laughing is the Mosella of Decimus Magnus Ausonius; inflated and agitated is the poetry of Claudian. Thus we have reached the threshold of the 4th century A.D., and from then on it is very difficult to distinguish how much of Rome still remains in literary forms. The last authors in whom dying paganism expresses itself are Aurelius Symmachus, nobly anchored to the past with his oration for the altar of Victory, and Rutilius Namatianus who in the De reditu suo finds expressions of spite against the hermit monks who inhabited Capraia (I, v. 439 ff.) and pities a friend who led a monastic life on Gorgona (ibid., 517 ff.). In the mists of the island as in the ruins of Populonia (ibid., 401) the writer saw the sunset of those ideals, long since vanished, which had animated ancient literature.

Lanfranco Fiore

B) CHRISTIAN ROME DOWN TO OUR OWN DAYS.

I. CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.

I. ROME IN SACRED SCRIPTURE

The Romans are perhaps spoken of in Dan. 11:30; of Rome or the Romans indirectly in 1 Macc. 1:11; 7:1, and directly in the account of the alliance requested (161 B.C.) by Judas Maccabeus to defend himself against the Syrian aggression (1 Macc. 8:1-32; 2 Macc. 4:11), later renewed (in 144 B.C.) by his brother Jonathan (1 Macc. 12:1-4, 16). Rome associated herself with the mourning of the Jews for the death of Jonathan and reconfirmed friendship with his brother Simon (1 Macc. 14:16-19, 24, 40; 15; 15-24). But, through her interventions in Palestine, Rome was slowly preparing its conquest, which took place through Pompey in 63 B.C.

In the time of Jesus, after the death of Herod and of his son Archelaus, who had reigned over the whole land of Israel, part of the country was entrusted to tetrarchs and Judea was placed under the government of a Roman procurator (v. PALESTINA, I). Rome is not named in the Gospels, but they speak repeatedly of her emperors (Lk. 2:1; 3:1; Mt. 22:17-21; Mk. 12:14-17; Lk. 20:22-25; 23:3; Jn. 19:12, 15; etc.) and of their representatives: the legate of Syria (Lk. 2:2), the procurator of Judea Pilate (Lk. 3:1; etc.). The danger of a harsher servitude on the part of Rome offered the Sanhedrin a pretext for the death of Jesus (Jn. 11:48), as a supporter of one of those pseudo-Messianic movements that from time to time shook Palestine; while the fear of losing the favor of Caesar induced Pilate to condemn Jesus, and only by asserting the exclusive sovereignty of Caesar do the Jews overcome the procurator's hesitation (Jn. 19:12-15).

Acts 18:2 recalls the Edict of Claudius (v.) which ordered all Jews to leave Rome (A.D. 49), and on this occasion the two Jews, Aquila (v.) and Priscilla, having left Rome, met Paul at Corinth. The journey to Rome was a constant aspiration of Paul for many years (Rom. 1:13; 15:23), becoming more ardent at the end of the third missionary journey (Rom. 15:19 ff.). On the night following his arrest in Jerusalem, Jesus, appearing to Paul, assures him that he must bear witness for him in Rome as he had borne witness in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). St. Luke emphasizes the humane treatment used by the Roman authorities toward Paul as a prisoner in Jerusalem (the tribune Lysias), in Caesarea (the procurators Felix and Festus), on the journey to Rome (the centurion Julius), and during his stay in Rome, during which Paul lived in a rented house, with freedom to receive anyone who came to visit him and to preach (Acts 28:30 f.). Different, however, must have been the treatment given to St. Paul during his second imprisonment, if Onesiphorus (v.) must overcome great difficulty to track down the Apostle (2 Tim. 1:17), who finds himself abandoned (cf. 2 Tim. 4:9-15) and awaits death (2 Tim. 4:6 ff.; v. PAOLO APOST., I). It is generally held that the Babylon of 1 Pet. 5:13 is Rome, according to a metaphor not infrequent in rabbinic usage (texts in H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Commentar zum N. T. aus Midrasch und Talmud, III, Munich 1926, p. 816); therefore the letter would have been written from Rome. Also in the "great Babylon," whose splendor, corruption, cruel impiety toward the faithful of Jesus and ruin the Apocalypse (chaps. 17-19) describes, according to traditional exegesis Rome must be considered to be depicted.

Teodorico da Castel San Pietro

II. ANCIENT HISTORY

Christian preaching must have reached Rome very early; however, there is a lack of any precise information about the time and about how it began there. Converted Jews, Eastern and Greek neophytes, brought by the most diverse circumstances and from different countries, must have contributed to creating in Rome groups of the faithful who, around the year 58, provoked praise and solicitude on the part of St. Paul, as is evident from the letter he then sent to them.

When later, in the year 61, Paul was approaching Rome as a prisoner, the faithful went out to meet him at Forum Appii and Ad tres tabernas (Acts 28:15), but the sacred author does not pause to say anything about his relations with them during that first stay of his. Unknown, on the other hand, are the circumstances that brought the apostle St. Peter (v.) to Rome, who took over the governance of the community, perpetuating that primacy over all the Churches which had been conferred upon him by the divine Founder in His final appearances in Galilee (v. PRIMACY).

Rome was immediately a center of Christian irradiation and of hierarchical organization, first of all in the surrounding regions, then in all of Italy and the neighboring countries, in Africa and in the valleys of the Rhine and the Danube; there was sure conviction of this at the beginning of the 5th century, when Pope Innocent I wrote to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, appealing to constant tradition. The various phases of this evangelization have remained unknown, even though local legends have attempted to dispel its obscurity. It is understandable, however, that in the intervals, sometimes quite long, between successive persecutions, the resumptions must have been rapid and ever broader. Yet even about the internal events and the direct external interventions of the Roman Church in the first two centuries of its existence, little is known. Pope Clement (v.), toward the end of the 1st century, intervened with a noble and energetic letter in the discord of the Church of Corinth; St. Ignatius (v.), bishop of Antioch, writing to the "brethren" of Rome, praised their charity, imploring them not to deprive him, through some intervention of theirs with influential persons, of the glory of martyrdom; St. Justin (v.) died a martyr at Rome after having kept a school there and having addressed his apologies to the Emperor; Hermas, brother of Pope Pius I, wrote there his Shepherd, which at that time acquired great credit; Pope Anicetus received the visit of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who had come to discuss the Paschal controversy, and later Pope Victor successfully strove to enforce the Roman usage in this matter throughout the East. To Rome in this age came faithful of distinction, from every quarter, to find there confirmation of the unity of the Church, such as Abercius and Hegesippus; heretics also came there to have their doctrines approved, such as Valentinus, Theodore, Marcion, Praxeas, Cleomenes, but they were promptly unmasked.

Even the pagan reaction was at Rome, at various times, particularly fierce, because the imperial police must have shown itself very vigilant in executing the edicts, and so the community had a particularly bloody consecration of its privilege of being at the head of the new spiritual empire (v. PERSECUTIONS); however, the number and the personality of the martyrs become clearer with the progress of the cult on their tombs, even if it is not always possible to establish the time and manner of their torture and if only of some could the memory be perpetuated, especially in the earliest moments of Christian propaganda. Numerous, moreover, must have been those who, without shedding their blood, sacrificed everything for the exercise of their faith.

An important testimony to the efficiency of Christianity at Rome on the morrow of the persecution of Decius is had when in 251 Pope Cornelius gathered around himself a Synod of 60 bishops and, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, speaks of a numerous clergy and of a suitably organized charity (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 43). From the times of his predecessor Callistus, the burial system had also been organized (v. CHRISTIAN CEMETERIES) and perhaps ecclesiastical property as well. The Roman community passed through particularly critical moments after the martyrdom of Pope Zephyrinus, when the secession of Hippolytus (v.) occurred; after that of Pope Fabian (v.), when Novatian (v.) arose as antipope; and after that of Sixtus II, because of the confiscation of the cemeteries and the prohibition of assemblies. The persecution of Diocletian-Maximian was bloody for only two years, but it produced numerous martyrs and left a trail of internal dissensions, so that after the death of Pope Marcellinus (v.) his successors Marcellus and Eusebius were sent into exile by the emperor Maxentius, and only with the election of Pope Miltiades (311) did peace return to the Roman Church. Under him Constantine entered Rome in triumph, definitively secured the triumph of Christianity (313), and assigned to the Roman Church the domus Faustae in Lateranis, which became the stable residence of the Pontiff until the whole of the 13th century. Here indeed, in 313, was held that Council of bishops assembled to settle the questions that had arisen in the Church of Carthage concerning Bishop Caecilian. The turmoils of Egypt concerning Meletius and the agitated controversies caused by Arian propaganda, resolved in the Council of Nicaea (325), did not at first have grave repercussions at Rome during the pontificate of Pope Sylvester, when the Roman Church, thanks to constant imperial favor, adorned itself with grandiose constructions, such as the basilicas over the tombs of the Apostles and martyrs outside the walls, the titular churches within the city, and intensified its propaganda for the conversion of the pagans.

The Arian party, strong in the growing favor of the emperor Constantius, went so far as to demand from Pope Julius (v.) the disavowal of St. Athanasius (340); the Pope resisted and sent his legates to the Council of Sardica (345) to make peace between the opposing factions. When later Constantius, having returned as sole emperor after the divisions among the sons of Constantine, wished to exert pressure on the West in favor of Arian conceptions, in the vain hope of thereby restoring spiritual unity to the Empire, he found tenacious opposition in Pope Liberius (v.), who was sent into exile by him and replaced with the antipope Felix II. The latter could not last, and Liberius returned; but at his death (366) bitter discords arose at Rome, when the antipope Ursinus was set up against the new pope Damasus by a part of the clergy, giving occasion for violent scenes, and life was made hard for Damasus by repeated appeals to the imperial tribunal. This did not weaken Damasus's activity in gathering councils, erecting titular churches, and reorganizing the cemeteries. Under him St. Jerome succeeded in spreading among the aristocratic female circle an ardor for the spiritual life that was never again extinguished. Moreover, the monastic life (v. MONASTICISM), which St. Athanasius had made known around the middle of the 4th century, had found followers also at Rome, where monasteries began to arise, particularly in the vicinity of the Vatican Basilica and of the most venerated sanctuaries.

It is not to be believed, however, that paganism in Rome had been completely vanquished. Although the emperor Constantius had prohibited its public worship and ordered the closing of the temples, in Rome it was necessary to proceed in this regard with great caution. After the brief interlude of Julian the Apostate (v.), Gratian renewed the decrees of Constantius, confiscated the property of the temples and prohibited public largesses, refused the title of pontifex maximus that the emperor had borne since the time of Augustus, and in 382 he willed that the altar and the statue of Victory be removed from the hall of the Senate. A deputation of pagan senators led by Symmachus was unable to obtain the revocation of this order and the preservation of the ancient privileges. A literary polemic between Symmachus and St. Ambrose (later also Prudentius) made this episode famous. But the pagan senators attempted to recover their position on the occasion of the rebellion of 392 by restoring the statue of Victory to the hall, celebrating the ancient cults anew and imposing upon the city a solemn lustratio, as if to purify it from Christian contamination. The victory of Theodosius in 394 put an end to this last effort of paganism to survive; the temples were closed, the college of the Vestals dispersed, a few years later the games of the Circus also ceased; the accusation that Christianity was the cause of the ruin of the Empire did not cease; St. Augustine had to polemicize against this prejudice, tenacious in a part of the aristocracy and in the literary tradition.

With the death of Maxentius, Rome had ceased in fact to be the capital of the Empire. Not only had Constantine caused Constantinople to arise as the metropolis of the East, but for the West, Trier (later Arles) and Milan had arisen to compete with Rome. With the Visigothic invasion, Ravenna was the true capital of what remained of the Western Empire. In 410 Alaric with his Visigoths seized Rome and sacked it; Pope Innocent had labored in vain with the emperor Honorius to avert the calamity. Pope St. Leo (v.) witnessed the tragic end of the dynasty of Theodosius, and if in 452 he succeeded in turning Attila and his Huns away from Italy, in 453 he saw Genseric and his Vandals, setting out from Africa, seize Rome and then depart laden with booty. The following decades marked the agony of the Empire, until a leader of the barbarian auxiliaries, Odoacer, having proclaimed himself king (476), put an end to it, though without destroying its internal institutions. Odoacer in turn succumbed (489-91) under the blows of a new barbarian, Theodoric king of the Ostrogoths, who made himself master of Italy. Rome meanwhile continued to govern itself with its Senate and with the praefectus Urbi, but it was no longer the arbiter of the destinies of the world, though it always preserved the memories and the majesty of its past. In the East they would gladly have done without even its spiritual primacy, which could not be taken from it, in the presumption that the authority of the Empire was a sufficient safeguard of religious unity. Instead, the schisms provoked by the great Christological questions, Nestorian and Monophysite, had indeed overcome Arianism, still professed by the barbarian invaders, but only to perpetuate deeper divisions. In Rome Byzantine dogmatism had taken no hold, yet against the barbarian domination a sense of legitimism toward the Empire, considered as the continuation of Romanity, had become lively; and this, though with different phases, dominated the vicissitudes of the following age. An expression of it were the turmoils stirred up over the election of Pope Symmachus (v.) by the antipope Lawrence, a few years after the suspicions of king Theodoric that cost the life of Pope John I (v.) and of some members of the Roman aristocracy (v. BOEZIO), until matters came to the Gothic wars, desolating for all Italy, but in particular for Rome. Besieged by the Gothic king Vitiges for more than a year, and subjected to the harshest trials, the city was able to resist only through the ability and valor of Belisarius, the Byzantine general who had succeeded in occupying it. Meanwhile Pope Silverius (v.) was removed from Rome and deprived of the see, which was given to Vigilius (537). With the fortunes of the Goths raised again, Rome was besieged a second time by the Goths, and this time it was Pope Vigilius who had to leave Rome, because Justinian wanted him in Constantinople. The city fell into the hands of Totila through treachery on 17 Dec. 546, and scarcely could the deacon Pelagius, having gone out to meet him, succeed in inducing the King to clemency; but the population was forced to leave the city, while its walls were in part destroyed. Rome remained in the power of the Goths, until Narses restored it to the Byzantines in 552, after new fighting and new slaughters. This was one of the most critical moments of its history; it had also remained without the Pope, who died in Sicily in July 555; the following year Justinian sent as pontiff Pelagius (v.) who, received with much diffidence at first, finally succeeded in restoring order and confidence in the troubled city.

The Lombard invasion of 568, which threw the Byzantine Italy into confusion, stopped in the surroundings of Rome, where the sinister echoes of the calamities caused by the new barbarians arrived; from Tuscia and Sabina they aimed to hurl themselves upon the city, which however was not reached by them, thanks above all to the activity of Pope Gregory I. From here began, with the constant decline of imperial authority, the vicissitudes of Rome in the Middle Ages.

III. FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO STEPHEN III (590-772)

The Lombard invasion had deeply encroached, between 569 and 589, upon the neighboring provinces of "Tuscia et Umbria" and of "Campania"; Rome itself had been repeatedly in danger, and it returned to being so at the beginning of the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604). It was saved, together with the surrounding territory, thanks to the initiatives as bold as they were opportune and timely of the great Pontiff, also on the military and political-diplomatic ground in dealings with Agilulf and with the duke of Spoleto Ariulf. Thanks to him the popes of the 7th century no longer had to face the same trials; but the work of Gregory the Great had marked a decisive moment in relations not only with the Lombards, but also with the Empire.

Still around the middle of the 7th century, the official announcement to the exarch of Italy of the election of a new pope solemnly declared that it was the power not of imperial arms but of God and of St. Peter, in the person of the Pontiff, his vicar, that held in check and pacified, at his approach, the ferocity of the barbarians. Gregory the Great, moreover, had always acted, in his diplomatic initiatives, as a loyal subject and out of his own personal assessment of the interests of the Empire in Italy; but without hesitating to set himself even in opposition to the exarch Romanus and to the emperor Maurice, and to proclaim himself authorized to act on the political plane by virtue of his own supreme pastoral ministry as servant of God. The resistance opposed by the successors of Honorius I (d. 12 Oct. 638) to the Ἔκθεσις of Heraclius, issued in favor of the Monothelite doctrines, provoked the first signs of an important, though tormented, historical period. When the imperial authorities of the peninsula tried to break this resistance, they did not dare to engage openly in the struggle on religious ground, given the situation so very different from the times of Gregory the Great, who advised the greatest prudence. The armed forces were made up, in the mass, of elements gathered by the system of local conscription, while the officers came from the major families of landowners, and the units of the regular army stationed in the various territories constituted in Byzantine Italy the military class of the local populations and took their name from the respective regions or cities. They were therefore in solidarity with the populations in their aversion to Monothelitism and in agreement with the Church of R. in opposition to the Ἔκθεσις; and this spiritual solidarity was particularly felt by the exercitus Romanus (the designation now appears for the first time in the sources of the time).

The exarch of Italy Isaac therefore appealed only to motives of a material order. The Byzantine treasury was accustomed to send the funds for the pay of the troops of R. to the Pope, who kept them on deposit at the Treasury of the Church in the Lateran Palace, from which the paymasters drew the necessary sums. These operations often took place very late, provoking keen discontent among the troops. The Exarch thought to exploit it and gave secret instructions to the highest-ranking officer of the exercitus Romanus, the chartularius Maurice, to accuse before the soldiers the recently deceased Pope Honorius I of having unlawfully withheld in the Treasury of the Church the funds regularly sent by Heraclius. The soldiers stormed the Lateran, where Severinus, the successor of Honorius I, had been installed, and after three days of resistance occupied the Palace. The chartularius had seals affixed to what was kept in the Treasury (end of 639 - beginning of 640); the Exarch, having arrived from Ravenna, sent the leading members of the clergy into exile, as guilty of resistance to the constituted authorities, proceeded to the inventory of the Treasury, recovered from it what could be claimed for the imperial treasury, and sent it back to Byzantium. The true purpose of this violence masked as legal fiction was to intimidate the Church of R. to make it more malleable to the Ἔκθεσις; but this maneuver proved that the Exarch knew he could not count on the unconditional obedience of the Roman troops, if it were a matter of religion. Two years later the chartularius Maurice incited the troops under his command to revolt against the exarch Isaac himself. He paid for the rebellion with his life, and his was an ephemeral movement, due only to personal ambitions, to which the Church of R. remained entirely extraneous; but from it, it follows that even in Roman territory, as a result of the reforms introduced into the Byzantine institutions beginning in 584, with the institution of the office of exarch of Italy, the ancient civil provinces were being replaced by new military territorial districts, which would soon be placed under the command of duces, and would therefore be called duchies.

The condemnation of Monothelitism in the Lateran Council, under Pope Martin I (Oct. 649), brought the religious conflict between the Church of R. and Byzantium to an acute phase. The spiritual solidarity with the Pope, including that of the armed forces, proved so firm that even the exarch of Italy Olympius, to whom the emperor Constans II had entrusted the task of overcoming, by every means including violence, the opposition to his τύπος περὶ πίστεως, was induced to rebel himself against the Empire. For three years Olympius ruled as master the Italian domains of Byzantium, until however he died of illness in 652 in Sicily, where he had led the army to repel the first Arab incursion into the island. For the first time in the history of Byzantine Italy a religious conflict had had repercussions on the political situation. The fact for the moment had no consequences; but in June 653 the exarch Theodore Calliopas was able to arrest Martin I in the Lateran Basilica as a rebel, proclaim him, in the name of the Sovereign, usurper of the papal throne, and have him taken as a prisoner to Byzantium; and Constans II was able to have the Pope tried and condemned for what had happened, as a purely political offense, that is, of high treason. In July 663 Pope Vitalian (657-72), the clergy and the population of R. received with the honors of legitimate sovereign the Emperor, who had come to visit the city. In 668 Vitalian gave the moral and material support of the Church to Constantine IV, son of Constans II, after the latter had been assassinated at Syracuse, and the guilty officer had had himself proclaimed emperor.

Religious peace was re-established with the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-81, which condemned Monothelitism and its promoters and supporters at Constantinople; but whenever it seemed that Byzantium threatened this peace, in the imperial domains of the Italian peninsula the reactions were immediate, especially in R., assuming such a character that only the moderating action of the Popes could prevent them from passing outright onto the political plane. Thus twice high dignitaries were sent to R. by emperors with orders hostile to the Church; and the troops in revolt, having rushed to its defense also from other parts of the imperial domains in the peninsula and from Ravenna itself, wanted to put them to death, and they owed their lives to the personal intervention of the popes; around 695, at the time of the emperor Justinian II, the protospatharius Zacharias was saved by Sergius I; and around 701 the exarch Theophylact, by John VI. Meanwhile the reforms in the Byzantine institutions had brought the organization as a duchy also to Roman territory, with the seat of command on the Palatine; and the exercitus Romanus had organized itself into a corpus capable of administrative and political functions as well, inasmuch as the military class was by now absorbing and replacing the ancient civil aristocracy in a new military aristocracy. The first mention of a duke is found for R. only around 712-13. But certainly the Roman Duchy had its origin at approximately the same time as that of the Duchy of Naples, and the first duke of Naples was appointed by Constans II in 661. The exercitus Romanus already toward the the middle of the 7th century it appeared as a class of its own, alongside the clergy and the civil laity, in the official documents concerning papal elections. Its new position in public life is already evident toward the end of the 7th century from the fact that during the pontificate of Benedict II (684-85) the emperor Constantine IV sent to R. locks of hair of his sons Justinian and Heraclius, with a message addressed to the Pope, to the clergy and to the exercitus Romanus.

The act, in the customs of the time, symbolically conferred on the two imperial princes the status of adoptive sons of R., represented by its bishop, its clergy and its armed forces. The weight of this military class made itself felt in the disputes over the election of the successor of Pope John V (d. 2 Aug. 686). The exercitus Romanus opposed the candidacy of the priest Theodore to that of the archdeacon Peter supported by the clergy, and did not hesitate to bar the approaches to the Lateran Basilica with armed men; it adhered to the election of a third candidate, the priest Conon, probably also because he was the son of an officer of the imperial army. On the death of Conon (21 Sept. 687) the military class again took part in the contending factions, this time dividing itself between the supporters of Theodore, who had meanwhile become archpriest, and the supporters of the archdeacon Paschal; and its leaders effectively helped to bring about the victory of the third candidacy, that of the priest Sergius, consecrated on 15 Dec. 687, after the exarch of Italy John Platyn, having come in person to R., had recognized the regularity of his election. Nevertheless, more than the virtus armorum it was once again the virtus S. Petri that proved salutary for R. when the Lombard threat returned, after a century, to hang over the city. Pope John VI (701-705) obtained that the duke of Benevento, Gisulf I, after having ravaged Campania as far as the fifth mile from R. on the Via Latina, should break off hostilities and withdraw. The Roman Duchy, however, then lost, beyond the Liri, Arpino and Arce, and on the Liri, Sora, which Gisulf I annexed to his domains. And the problem of religious relations with Byzantium, and of their repercussions on the political situation, was not slow to reopen either.

In 712, if Pope Constantine I (708-15) reacted on the religious ground to the attempt of Philippicus Bardanes to reassert Monotheletism, the laity reacted also on the political ground. For the first time since it had been under Byzantine rule, the populus Romanus set itself up as judge of the legitimacy of an emperor, refusing to receive the icon of Philippicus Bardanes, to recognize as valid or to allow the drafting of acts in his name, to accept coins with his effigy, to allow the liturgical prayer for the reigning sovereign to be recited for him during Mass. These decisions were the subject of a decree, which must be presumed issued by the only assembly whose persistence is attested by the sources at least still in the time of Gregory the Great, in 603: the Senate. But the decisions had also had the support of the exercitus Romanus. Its commander, Christopher, the first duke of R. whose name is known, was the champion of the great majority of the laity, when this, in 713, had it established by virtue of another decree, the logical consequence of the preceding one, that Peter should not be recognized as duke of R., Peter having been promoted, in place of Christopher, by Philippicus Bardanes.

The supporters of the new duke were confronted with arms, when they tried to force from the Via Sacra the access to the command seat on the Palatine, and they escaped extermination only through the timely arrival at the combat site of the priests, with the Gospel and with the Cross, sent by the Pope to make peace. A significant fact: the promotion carried out ad nomen heretici had not been recognized zelo fidei; defensores heretici Petri were called those who wanted to impose it, and pars Christianus was the name given to the party of Christopher. And the Romans consented to receive Peter as duke only after, once Philippicus Bardanes had been overthrown (June 713), his successor Anastasius II had transmitted to the Pope at R. through the exarch Scholasticus a solemn profession of faith in conformity with the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Constantine I, no differently from Sergius I and Giovanni VI, had carried out an effective moderating action to keep the conflict within the limits of the religious problem. Probably the attitude of political prudence maintained by the Popes between the close of the 7th century and the beginning of the 8th was contributed to by the fact that only one of them, out of nine, Benedict II (684-85), was Roman, while all the others belonged to families originating either from the Greek East or from Sicily, which was strongly affected by Byzantine influence.

But what had happened gave a foretaste of what developments political events in Rome could take once the popes had changed their line of conduct. Economic, and not religious, in character was, at the outset, the conflict that Gregory II (715-31), of a Roman family, perhaps among the few surviving ones of the ancient Roman senatorial aristocracy, engaged in with Leo III the Isaurian (717-41), in the early years of his pontificate, by refusing to submit to the Emperor's fiscal ordinances, which also burdened ecclesiastical property. In solidarity with the Pope were the lay landowners, who constituted the regular armed forces of the Roman Duchy, and therefore all the efforts of the Isaurian and of the exarch of Italy Paul to crush the rebellion failed, by seizing the person of Gregory II, considered its leader and therefore liable to capital punishment. The imperial spatharios Marinus, sent by the Emperor to assume, with this precise task, the command of the Roman Duchy, found himself powerless; an occasional cause for his abandoning Rome was a sudden, very serious illness, but by a popular uprising the duke Basil and the chartularius Jordanes were removed, who, with the connivance of John, subdeacon of the Church, had taken over the enterprise in his place by order of the exarch Paul. The first, forced to become a monk, ended his life in reclusion; the other two were killed. At the same time the Pope, in full agreement with the leading circles of the city's laity, launched a bold, clearly political action, aimed at securing the military support of the Lombards.

The Roman Duchy, which a few years earlier - around 717 - had seen Narni taken from it by the duke of Spoleto Faroald II, found in the latter's son Transamund II a valuable ally, whose warriors contributed to the victorious defense of the borders of the Roman Duchy against the exarch's troops; and other Lombard dukes also contributed to the defense, certainly with the understanding of King Liutprand himself. A significant fact: the defensio pontificis, a motive undoubtedly spiritual, had induced Lombards and Romans to unite their forces against the Exarch. On the Romans the spiritual factor then acted in all its power when the Isaurian extended the conflict to the religious ground, with the iconoclast ordinances of 726, and Gregory II prepared, to put it in his biographer's words, to fight the Emperor almost as an enemy; and he admonished all Christians to guar-

to guard against such impiety. The new character of the conflict at first strengthened the alliance between the Lombards and the Romans, who, writes the biographer of Gregory II, were bound together like brothers by the chain of the faith, eager to face a glorious death for the safety of the Pontiff. But the political foundations of the alliance were far less firm than the religious ones. Liutprand feared that it might foster relations too close and dangerous for his power between the dukes of Benevento and of Spoleto and R., and in 728 he had Sutri in the Roman Duchy occupied, and only after painful negotiations, lasting more than four months, did Gregory II obtain its evacuation, though not that of its rural dependencies. The following year Liutprand came to an agreement with the exarch Eutychius, sent by the Isaurian to replace in Italy Paul, who had been killed in 727 by the anti-iconoclast rebels at Ravenna, and joined him before R., after having forced the dukes of Spoleto and of Benevento to swear allegiance to him and to give him hostages. He then acted as a mediator of peace, received Gregory II with great reverence when he came to his camp to negotiate; paid devout homage to the tomb of St. Peter with his arms and his royal insignia; and obtained that R. should receive the Exarch and that the latter should renounce carrying out the orders of ruthless repression willed by the Emperor.

But R.'s alliance with Liutprand in the struggle against iconoclasm had ceased. Nevertheless, the Exarch's renunciation increased the prestige of the Pope, who, for his part, could now see in Eutychius the representative of the legitimate authority of the Empire, never denied by Gregory II, and not the instrument of an emperor's impious religious doctrines. This explains how Gregory II, immediately afterward, supported—having it accompanied by high officials of the Church—the expedition conducted in Roman Tuscia by the Exarch against that Tiberius Petasius, who had had an oath of fidelity as emperor sworn to him by the inhabitants of Luni (a little downstream from the confluence of the Vesca with the Mignone), of Blera and of Monterano (near the western shore of Lake Bracciano). And this further explains why the Roman troops obeyed the Pope's exhortations in following the Exarch on the enterprise, which concluded with the killing at Monterano of the rebel. With the vicar of St. Peter they now felt themselves indissolubly united, the populations of the Roman Duchy now felt themselves indissolubly united. All classes of the city laity, from the aristocracy to the plebs, attended the Council presided over in St. Peter's, in Nov. 731, by the successor of Gregory II, Gregory III (731-41). A Council that launched excommunication against the adversaries of the sacred images. For its tenacity in the struggle against iconoclasm, the Roman Duchy was stripped by the Isaurian of the territories of Terracina and of Gaeta, transferred to the Duchy of Naples, which had remained faithful to the Emperor.

And when, in the last years of Gregory III, the Isaurian was induced to more conciliatory intentions, and made the patrician Stephen, then appointed duke of R., their executor, the latter, the exercitus Romanus and the Pope collaborated against the ambitious plans of Liutprand, counting decisively on the traditional antagonism of the dukes of Spoleto and of Benevento with the kings of Pavia, in order to draw them into forming with R. a politico-military bloc capable of holding the former in check. In 738 Gregory III as arbiter declared that Gallese belonged to the Empire and to the corpus of the exercitus Romanus, which the duke of Spoleto Transamund II claimed as his domain; and the pacts of non-aggression and mutual assistance stipulated by the Church and the Roman people with the same duke and with the duke of Benevento Godescalc and guaranteed by the Church, were the first signs of a political program in which the duke of R. and the military class of the Roman Duchy were in solidarity with the Pope and entrusted themselves to him as its most authoritative interpreter. The patrician Stephen and the exercitus Romanus refused together with Gregory III to submit to Liutprand's injunction that Transamund II be handed over to him when the latter, in 739, took refuge in R., to escape the King who had invaded his domains; and they persisted in the refusal even when Liutprand had pitched camp before R. In that terrible moment the Romans were in agreement with Gregory III also in the other most audacious political move of sending to Charles Martel a papal mission, bearer of secret documents that provided, in the event of the intervention of the all-powerful mayor of the palace of the Merovingians against Liutprand, for the stipulation with him of a formal pact, which bound the Roman people to detach itself from the Emperor, and to place itself, by force of a senatus-consultum proclaiming the lapse of Byzantine dominion, under the protection of the Frankish prince. For the first time since R. had been a subject of Byzantium, one of its bishops, with the consent of his people, dared to become the promoter and interpreter of a political design intended to tear it from the nexus of the Empire, and to insert it into the direct sphere of the political interests of the Kingdom of the Franks; the Roman Duchy now intended to conduct a policy of its own independent of the Emperor's interests, and this direction was inspired and directed by the Pope, and oriented toward seeking in the Franks the most effective support in the most dangerous crises.

In Aug. 739 Liutprand withdrew from R., leaving however garrisoned, on this side of the borders of the Roman Duchy, Blera, Orte, Bomarzo and Amelia. Still in agreement, Gregory III, the patrician Stephen and the Romans renewed the pact with Transamund II, and on the promise of being later helped by him in retaking the four localities lost in the Roman Tuscia, placed the exercitus Romanus at his disposal for the reconquest of his domains, which at the end of 740 was rapidly concluded. The animator of the politico-military action aimed at preventing Liutprand's counteroffensive was the successor of Gregory III, Zachary (741-52), who, overturning the alliances, offered the King the support of the Roman army against Transamund II, who had failed in his commitments toward R., and disinterest in the fortunes of the duke of Benevento Godescalc, although the latter, during the Spoletan crisis, had shown himself favorable to R. At Terni, in 742, Zachary, having met with Liutprand, obtained for the Roman Duchy the restitution of Blera, Orte, Bomarzo and Amelia, stipulated a twenty-year peace, and six years later obtained its confirmation from Ratchis, at Perugia.

A decisive turning point in the history of the Roman Duchy was impressed by the complex political work of the successor of Zachary, Stephen II (752-57), against Aistulf, who, after having conquered, between 750 and 751, Ravenna and captured there the last exarch of Italy, Eutychius, also aimed at R. For two years, the Pope induced the Lombard King to defer the carrying out of the plan to attack R. in earnest, without allowing himself to be intimidated by Aistulf's growing pressure on the Roman Duchy, which culminated in the summer of 753 with the capture of Ceccano. At the same time Stephen II solicited from the emperor of the East Constantine V the sending of troops and negotiated with Pepin, king of the Franks from 751, so that he might take an interest in the situation in which R. was struggling. The Pope obtained from the Emperor, not reinforcements, but the commission to go to Pavia, to negotiate in his name with the Lombard King; and from Pepin the official invitation to go to Francia, to examine with him what was to be done. But when, on 14 Oct. 753, the Pope departed, the problem of the salvation of R. was no longer merely politico-military, but once again also religious. Constantine V had in fact returned to the iconoclast doctrines and the Church of R. naturally feared that a restoration of direct imperial dominion over the Ravennate exarchate might offer the Emperor the possibility of attempting, as his father had already done, to make use of those Senators to fight R.

But the populations of Ravenna and the adjacent territories, unlike those of the imperial duchies in southern Italy and of Sicily, had sided with Gregory II and Gregory III, thereby acquiring a good claim to be regarded by the Popes, together with the populations of the Duchies of Rome and of Perugia, as a flock more particularly entrusted by Christ to the care of St. Peter and which therefore the Popes, as vicars of St. Peter, had a particular duty to defend. This spiritual factor had already moved Zachary when in 743 at Pavia he had wrested from Liutprand the restoration to the Empire of a great part of the latest conquests he had made in the territories of Ravenna and of Cesena. But now Stephen II considered it his duty to wrest the little sheep of the Lord in the Ravenna Exarchate not only from the Lombard wolf, but also from the heretical Byzantine wolf. During his stay in France, in 754, he learned of the intensifying in the East of the iconoclast threat in connection with the decisions taken by the Council of Constantinople (10 Feb. - 8 Aug. 754). Stephen II therefore increasingly and more decisively shaped his action according to the thought intent on transferring to the political plane the scriptural conception of the little sheep of the Lord, in the sense that the dominus of the populations of the Roman Duchy and of the Exarchate should be considered, as long as the particular religious conditions of the moment in the East persisted, not the Emperor, but St. Peter, and therefore the Pope his vicar; and that to the Church of Rome, rather than to the Emperor, Aistulf should restore the territories he had conquered. In other words, the idea of a new politico-religious system, guided by Rome and by its Church, was taking shape. The idea shines through, synthesized in the expression «Sancta Dei Ecclesia rei publicae Romanorum», which precisely in these years begins to appear in the writings of the papal Chancery and in Lateran circles. This politico-religious system was to be realized through the acquisition of an autonomous position with respect to Byzantium, while remaining within the state framework of the Empire, through the work of the Pope, with the help and a tutelary action of Pepin, which would victoriously overcome the Lombard danger and create a guarantee against the Byzantine iconoclast danger. The Roman Duchy would have been the essential nucleus of the system, to which it would have given a precious foundation with its administrative, ecclesiastical and lay institutions, and with its army, though with a de facto subordination of the civil and military institutions, and of the duke of Rome himself, to the person of the Pope. The leading circles of the Roman laity, the very high officials and functionaries who, by rank and by the offices held, should have acted in the exclusive interest of the Emperor, undoubtedly adhered to these politico-religious ideas.

A representation of the Roman military aristocracy stood beside the Pope when, in Oct.-Nov. 753, he negotiated at Pavia with Aistulf. It did not accompany him to France as well; but the whole conduct of Stephen II during his stay in the Transalpine Kingdom presupposes a series of prior understandings, some of them secret, with the Roman laity, and his certainty of being their authorized interpreter. Particularly significant in this regard appears the conferring of the eminent dignity of patricus Romanorum, with which Pepin and his sons Charles and Carloman were invested by Stephen II on that same occasion, and during the same religious rite of their anointing as kings of the Franks, at St. Denis, in 754, perhaps on 28 July. Only the Senate of R. could be considered competent to dispose, in competition with the Emperor, of the patrician dignity; it was therefore by its delegation that Stephen II must have performed his act. But the Pope also acted as vicar of St. Peter, and so the conferral took on the character of an attribution proceeding from the Prince of the Apostles himself, by the will of God, conferring powers analogous to those that a centuries-old practice considered joined with that dignity within the Empire. The acclamation with which the clergy and people of R. triumphantly welcomed Stephen II on his return, in the summer of 755, "our shepherd has come, and our salvation after God," now greeted in the vicar of St. Peter also the temporal shepherd. When Aistulf besieged R. from Jan. to March 756 and Stephen II was the animator of the resistance, two high officials of the Roman army were part of the papal mission, which reached France by sea and carried the desperate appeal, placed in the mouth of the Prince of the Apostles himself, that Pepin, his sons, and the Franks should save from the Lombards the Church of R. and "the people of the Church of R." entrusted to him by God. Stephen II, after his return from France, and his successors, openly exercised temporal government over R., over its Duchy, over the Duchy of Perugia and over the parts of the Exarchate of Ravenna "restored" to St. Peter in 756 by Aistulf and in 757 by Desiderius.

The transfer of the latter to the temporal government of the Popes was in a certain sense sanctioned by the "promissio" of Quierzy-sur-Oise of 754, by the "donatio" of the summer of 756, both issued by Pepin to Stephen II; and by the agreements stipulated with Stephen II by Desiderius between Jan. and March 757. For R. and for the Roman and Perugian Duchies, the new state of affairs was instead the consequence of an acceptance by all classes of the laity and of the local civil and military authorities of a situation already existing in fact. The functioning of the public services was provided for or supervised for some time by the papal administration, because the offices of the lay administration, to which their care fell, were paralyzed and were disappearing owing to the growing scarcity of means, to which they were reduced by the abandonment in which Byzantium left its Italian domains. The praefectus Urbi, who still in the time of Gregory the Great was the highest magistrate of the city administration, if in the 8th century he still existed, retaining the functions of superior judge for criminal cases in R. and within a radius of a hundred miles around, appeared in fact to have been replaced by the Pope as the directing authority of the public services. On the other hand, the number and the positive action of the offices of the ecclesiastical administration had increased. There were six directors general - the primicerius and the secundicerius of the notaries for the Archive, the Chancery and the Library of the Popes; the primicerius of the defensores, charged with many duties, including economic-social and juridical ones; the arcarius and the sacellarius, for the treasury services concerning, respectively, revenues and expenditures; the nomenclator, with financial and ceremonial attributions; the vestararius for the Treasury of the Church - and dependent on them were officials and employees organized in a rigorous hierarchy.

In contrast with the drying up of the resources available to the lay authorities, the Church drew substantial means from its landed properties, the most extensive, productive and best managed of the entire Duchy, and situated in localities of great strategic and military importance, with inhabited centers arranged as fortified strongholds along the borders, as, to mention but a few, Ceccano. Moreover, the deaconries (v.) were passing under the control of the Church, extending their activity to the grain supplies for those who could not procure foodstuffs. The fact that the Popes, from Gregory II onward, had become the driving center of the political-military life of R.; the spread of the conviction that only under their guidance could R. be saved from the Lombards and from the fiscalism and iconoclasm of the Byzantines, amply explain why everyone, not excepting the duke of R. himself, accepted the passage of the temporal government to the vicar of St. Peter. This acceptance, as far as one may suppose, was expressed formally as an oath of fidelity to St. Peter. Certainly this happened with Stephen II in the parts of the exarchate of Ravenna ceded to him by Aistulf and by Desiderius. It is not certain whether and to what extent the Roman military aristocracy had solicited and obtained from Stephen II to be in some way a sharer in the government, as may be suggested by the fact that the duke of R. of the time, Eustachius, was sent by him together with the priest Philip, to administer temporally in the name of the papal authority Ravenna and the territories of the Exarchate "restored" to St. Peter.

It is certain that during the pontificate of Paul I (757-67), brother of Stephen II, but far less endowed than he with political qualities, the high officials of the papal administration, the so-called primates or proceres Ecclesiae or de clero, among whom the six directors general stood foremost, called iudices de clero, led by a man of great energy, the primicerius of the notaries Christopher, strove to make the government of R. their monopoly. They were supported by the families and the kindred, who had identity of interests with them and formed an aristocracy that in this sense could be called ecclesiastical. They were opposed - this too is certain - by at least a part of the officers of the army, with whom the lay aristocracy, the so-called optimates or proceres exercitus or de militia, was by then identified, among whom the iudices de militia stood foremost. It seems in fact that the military class had divided between supporters of friendly relations with the proceres Ecclesiae, which included the duke of R. of the time, Gregory; and supporters of an action decisively aimed at taking back from the proceres Ecclesiae the political predominance. The counterattack was attempted by four brothers, Totone, Passivus, Paschal and Constantine, of a family originally from Nepi, who at the death of Paul I (28 June 767), imposed by violence the elevation to the Chair of St. Peter of Constantine, spreading terror with masses of armed peasants brought in from the lands they owned in Tuscia. Duke Gregory was killed, and his place taken by Totone, while Christopher fled into Lombard territory together with his son Sergius, who was sacellarius of the Church.

Brief were the fortunes of Totone's faction. After barely a year, at the end of July 768, Sergius re-entered R., at the head of armed men gathered, with the consent of Desiderius, in the Duchy of Spoleto, after a brief skirmish on the Janiculum in which Totone fell, treacherously killed by the chartularius Gratiosus. Sergius was immediately joined by Christopher, who with an iron hand took up power again. The energetic primicerius, after having brought minds back to unanimity of consent so that Paul I might be given as legitimate successor Stephen III (768-72), was an implacable accuser of Constantine in the Council, which the new Pope presided over in the Lateran in Apr. 769, and which, besides condemning the usurper, regulated the procedure of papal elections so as to remove them from the violence of armed factions, and to prevent other dangerous interferences of the laity, restricting the true and proper active electoral right to the clergy, and reserving the right to be elected to the cardinal priests and deacons alone, who had previously regularly passed through the entire ecclesiastical career step by step. Christopher, having consolidated his personal position, by procuring from Stephen III for his son the appointment as secundicerius and nomenclator, and by giving a daughter in marriage to the officer who had killed Totone, Gratiosus, promoted to duke of R., concentrated all his energies on orienting relations with Desiderius toward the combative course followed twenty years earlier against Aistulf by Stephen II. On this ground he clashed with new adversaries, led this time not by one of the proceres de militia, but by one of the very dignitaries of the papal court, the cubicularius Paul Afiarta, whose greed and personal ambitions Desiderius had known how to skillfully flatter, and who therefore instead patronized a policy of friendship with the King of Pavia.

The conflict became complicated, rushing to its epilogue, as soon as Christopher and Sergius received support from the king of the Franks, Carloman. This drove Desiderius to hasten in person to the aid of his supporters. In Lent of 771 the Lombard King pitched camp beneath R., and forced Stephen III, worried about the excessive influence acquired by his two ministers, to abandon Christopher and Sergius to their enemies, who atrociously mutilated them of their eyes and tongue. The primicerius died of it three days later; his son survived in harsh imprisonment, only to perish in his turn under the blows of the assassins of Paul Afiarta, at the beginning of 772, a few days before Stephen III died. The revolt led against the proceres Ecclesiae by Totone, and the internal palace struggle among papal dignitaries, with the intervention of Franks and Lombards, in which the cubicularius Paul Afiarta had overpowered the primicerius of the notaries Christopher, and the secundicerius and nomenclator Sergius, were the sign of the value that was by then attributed to the Chair of St. Peter as an instrument of temporal dominion; and the prelude to the dramatic contests with which, during the Middle Ages, Roman factions and factions from other parts of Italy, and foreign powers, would dispute the papacy, in order to enslave it to their political ends.

The borders of the Roman Duchy at the death of Stephen II (757). — The Roman Duchy had arisen from the union into a single military district of the remnants of the ancient civil provinces of Tuscia and Umbria, of Valeria and of Campania north of the Garigliano. It bordered to the north with Lombard Tuscia and with the imperial Duchy of Perugia; to the east with the Lombard Duchies of Spoleto and Benevento; to the south with the Duchy of Benevento and with the imperial Duchy of Naples; to the west with the Tyrrhenian Sea. The course of the borders at the death of Stephen II, so far as may be inferred from the sources, can be outlined approximately as follows. The border with Lombard Tuscia began on the sea, at the mouth of the Mignone stream, a little north of Civitavecchia; it headed toward the southern shores of Lake Vico, leaving Blera in Roman territory; it skirted to the south and east Lake Vico, which lay in Lombard territory; east of it, it followed the crest of the Cimini Mountains, from which it descended in a northerly direction to the Vezza stream, so that Seriano del Cimino and Bomarzo lay in Roman territory and Bagnaia in Lombard territory. From the confluence of the Vezza with the Tiber, the border ran between the two imperial Duchies of Rome and of Perugia, to the former of which Amelia belonged. From Amelia the border descended to the Nera river, dividing the Roman Duchy from the Lombard Duchy of Spoleto, to which Terni belonged, while Narni and Orte lay in Roman territory. South of Otricoli the border coincided with the Tiber up to the area upstream of Mentana, where it broke away from it, in order to cross the area of the Cornicolani Mountains and reach the Aniene upstream of Tivoli; it then ran along the southern slope of the Simbruini Mountains and through the area of the Ernici Mountains descended to the Liri valley, where the border with the Lombard Duchy of Benevento began. The border then coincided with the course of the Liri up to the confluence of the Sacco, whence it headed toward the depression between the Ausoni Mountains and the Aurunci Mountains. After Fondi and before Terracina the border with the imperial Duchy of Naples began, to which it left the territory of Terracina, and it reached the sea in the area adjacent to Monte Circeo.

List of the dukes of Rome in the 8th century up to the death of Stephen III (772). — Christopher (around 712-13); Peter (around 713); Basil, Marinus, Esilaratus, Peter (all four in the time of Gregory II, 715-31); Theodore (around 731-38?); Stephen (from c. 738 to c. 741); Eustathius (around 757); Gregory (around 767); Toto (767-68); Gratiosus (around 768-72). The dates indicate the years to which with a certain probability they can be reto refer the mentions of these dukes that are found in the sources.

Ottorino Bertolini

IV. THE 8TH-12TH CENTURIES

The fall of the Lombard Kingdom, the coming to Rome of Charlemagne, the renewal of the reciprocal commitments between the Frankish Sovereign and the Pope, the fortunate economic policy of Adrian, his cultural and artistic merits lead up to the great episode of the imperial coronation, which was preceded, however, at the death of Adrian, by an attack against the new pope Leo III, weaker and more hesitant, by his flight to France, by his return under Frankish protection and his public exculpation in St. Peter's. For the internal history of Rome the ceremony of the year 799 had no consequences because Charles did not reside in the city; however, the prestige of the City grew in the memory of ancient glories and in the common conviction that only in Rome and through a religious consecration could a legitimization of political power be obtained.

The whole 9th century is dominated by the conflict between the ecclesiastical forces (familia sancti Petri) and the lay aristocratic ones (exercitus Romanus) which, with alternating fortunes, sought to seize the city government, at one time requesting and at another rejecting Frankish imperial aid; from this followed insurrections, schisms, conciliar decisions or imperial constitutions of brief duration and scant effectiveness. Meanwhile a more urgent danger threatened Rome, namely the Arab incursions; the very basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul were sacked, provoking an enormous impression throughout the Catholic world, and driving pope Leo IV to the construction of a protective wall raised with the contribution of the various monasteries and of the domuscultae and with the labor of the citizens divided into scholae; in 849 at Ostia the enemy fleet was dispersed by the ships of various southern cities united in a league blessed by the Pope.

Despite this glorious episode, Roman life tended to grow impoverished, closing itself within its limited local sphere and remaining influenced by family intrigues; typical is the case of the imperial missus Arsenius and of his sons Eleutherius and Anastasius, the famous librarian author of various lives included in the Liber pontificalis, who failed in the ambitious design of seizing the ecclesiastical and civil direction of the city, but opened the way for others more fortunate attempts of the kind. The violent death of Pope John VIII (882); the atrocious violence of the "Synod of the Corpse," when the dead pontiff Formosus was judged, deposed and thrown into the Tiber at the instigation of the dukes of Spoleto, who had been harmed by his policy favorable to Arnulf of Carinthia (897); the double elections, the sieges and so many other murky and obscure events are so many manifestations of a process of laborious consolidation, which was to lead with the new century to a strengthening of the noble forces, to the formation of a true and proper seigneurial dynasty capable of guiding with an energetic hand the ecclesiastical and urban politics, imposing members of its own family on the pontiffs and making use of nearby powers (Spoleto, Tuscany, the maritime republics of southern Italy) or distant ones (emperors, kings of Italy, great monasteries) for its aims of enlarging its territorial possessions in the Sabina and in other localities of the Roman countryside.

The first figure of note is Theophylact, who was at one and the same time pontifical vesterarius and head of the city militia, related by marriage to Alberic of Spoleto, and who had on his side first Pope Sergius III and then John X. Theophylact's wife, Theodora, must also have been an energetic and able woman, but not so corrupt as some chroniclers have described her; indeed, against her, her daughters and other Roman women of the time were hurled shameful accusations, supinely copied by historians of every tendency, so that the Roman pornocracy of the 10th century became one of the most abused commonplaces; but against this prejudice one must react by showing all its absurdity and seeking, on the contrary, to understand the political attitudes, the ideals and the achievements of those often tragic and enigmatic personages.

Under John X a new, successful battle against the Arabs took place at the mouth of the Garigliano (Aug. 915), but the Pope's plan to free himself from the tutelage of the local aristocrats by relying on the kings of Italy failed, and in the city Marozia, the daughter of Theophylact and Theodora, governed with the titles of senatrix and patricia; but when she wished to marry Hugh of Provence against the canonical laws and for political ends, the Romans rose up under the leadership of her own son, Alberic (932); and for more than twenty years the City lived gathered under the princeps et omnium Romanorum senator, who with wisdom and ability knew how to resist external assaults, come to an agreement with Byzantium, reform the monasteries, improve economic conditions and, in a word, concentrate all the city's energies to good purpose. His son, however, called by the auspicious name of Octavian and elevated to the pontificate under the name of John XII, proved immoral and reckless; after having summoned Otto of Saxony to R. and crowned him emperor (962), he joined his enemies and ended by being overpowered, while in the city the anti-German reaction continued with the choice of Benedict V against the imperial pope Leo VIII, but it was a short-lived affair, and in the second half of the 10th century the German imperial influence set itself victoriously against the dominion of local families, among which the famous one of the Crescenzi.

The crucial point of the duel was represented by the insurrection attempted against Otto III in 998 by a Crescenzi who tragically ended in Castel S. Angelo, where he had shut himself up; the Emperor sought to win the Romans over to himself but with little success, and soon died, nor could the popes chosen by him, Bruno of Carinthia (Gregory V) and Gerbert of Aurillac (Sylvester II), do much in the face of the return of the Crescenzi. From 1002 to 1012 the city remained quiet under the patriciate of John of Crescenzi; then another great Roman family came to the fore, that of the Tusculani, which repeated the maneuver of occupying religious and civil offices, placing successively as many as three of its own on the papal throne, and treating with the various emperors of the West and East. But around 1044, whether because of the excesses of Benedict IX, or because of the hostility of the Crescenzi and the marquises of Tuscany, or because of the pressure of the reformed clergy on Henry III of Franconia, the political system of the Tusculani fell; with the Synod of Sutri a direct imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs began, attested, as regards the sovereign's position before the citizens, by the conferral of the patriciate and the related right of the principatus in electione papae.

The consequences of the great Gregorian reform movement and of the long investiture struggle on Roman city life were of incalculable scope, because in the duel between popes and emperors the inhabitants of the City gained the advantage, and not the old families but new nuclei, such as the Pierleoni, who based their power on money, and the Frangipani of popular origin; at the same time new political organisms were taking shape and communal expansion was directed along lines that would thereafter be constant in the following centuries. In its turn the Church, energetically detaching itself from lay entanglements, became somewhat estranged from the city; the Curia filled with people who had come from afar, and the gaze of the pontiffs could broaden to a horizon far vaster than the very limited one of the preceding period. The resistance of the old elements was long and ferocious, as various bloody episodes occurring under the pontificates of Alexander II and Gregory VII show (such as Cencius's assault at Christmas 1075); to these must be added the various sieges by Henry IV, who in the end managed to enter the city, have himself crowned by his antipope Guibert and occupy the Capitoline. But the arrival of the Normans provoked further horrors, and such sad alternations were repeated several times under the successors of Gregory VII, with frequent flights of the popes, appointments of antipopes, sackings of the houses of nobles, visits of emperors now well received, now driven out. Only Callixtus II, after concluding the Concordat of Worms (1122), was able to take the government of the city back into his hands, relying decisively on the Pierleoni; the Frangipani, however, prevailed under his successor Honorius II, so that a clash between the two houses appeared inevitable, and that duel constituted one of the constant recurrences in the Roman history of the 12th century. Its culminating episode was the schism opened in 1130 with the double election of Innocent II and Anacletus II; the latter, a Pierleoni, had to yield before the other, who had St. Bernard and the Emperor on his side, but from this bitter struggle, only apparently religious, there sprang, in the manner of other Italian cities, the Commune of the people.

Much uncertainty reigns about the exact sequence of events that led to the constitution of the new institution, but it is certain that, discontented with the outcome of the war against Tivoli, the Romans rose up against the Church, restored the Senate, reformed the equestrian order composed of the middle class and the lesser city nobility, and shortly thereafter elected a patrician invested with every right; the acts of the Chancery were marked with a new era as a symbol of conscious pride and in memory of ancient, unforgotten glories. But the pontiffs, after a brief bewilderment, soon got the better of the new forces and after forty years succeeded in signing an agreement (Clement III, in 1188) by which the Senate was placed back under ecclesiastical investiture, the regalia and usurped properties were renounced in place of the annual payment of a sum; the prefecture became little more than an honorary title, but the city magistrates retained civil jurisdiction, the determination of weights, measures, duties, tolls, etc. Before this peace there had been the violent clash between Frederick Barbarossa and Alexander III, which had been useful to the Roman Commune for drawing advantage from both sides; however, in 1167 a terrible defeat of the city army at Monteporzio had been neutralized only by the pestilence that had struck the imperial forces. The Commune's foreign policy proved more fortunate, with an expansion of the territory subject to its control (from Radicofani to Ceprano) and with commercial agreements with other cities, such as Genoa, in favor of local small industries; nevertheless, R. always lacked a robust middle class and an effective economic autonomy, which would have allowed it to give solid consistency to the periodically recurring aspirations for liberty.

The case of Benedetto Carushomo, sole senator in 1191, is significant; after seeking to withdraw certain provinces from the jurisdiction of the Church, he was driven out, and shortly thereafter the great Innocent III succeeded in making the curial intrusion into communal affairs advance another step; likewise the entry of nobles into the Senate, increasingly enlarged during the 13th century, emptied that institution of much of its significance. Instead, new kindling for the dissensions between city and Church came from the renewal of the struggle between popes and emperor in the time of Frederick II, who was lavish with promises and flatteries toward the Romans, without however obtaining much in concrete terms. First with Giovanni Poli, then more effectively with Luca Savelli (1234), the whole city rose up against Gregory IX, claiming rights over Tuscia, imposing burdens on the clergy, demanding free election of the Senate, etc.; but it was once again a flash in the pan, because R. could not live without reckoning with that complex of interests that were tied to the Curia. Instead, once the energetic Pontiff had died, the exponent of a new family imposed himself, the senator Matteo Rosso Orsini, who for two years during the vacancy of the see acted at his own discretion, but succeeded in keeping Frederick at a distance by withdrawing the city from a dominion that would have been far harsher than the mild papal supremacy.

Particular difficulties, however, stood in the way, and these made the medieval history of R. quite different from that of any other city Commune. First of all, the economic preconditions, unfavorable to the formation of a solid and wealthy bourgeoisie or rather "popolo," in the technical sense of the time; environmental conditions did not permit the development of a flourishing craft industry, much less of a noteworthy export trade; the city's geographical position was also unfortunate, too far from the great routes of European traffic. The greatest source of revenue for the Romans always remained the industry of the foreigner, indissolubly connected with the Curia's residence in the city: the influx of ecclesiastics coming ad limina and together of pilgrims visiting basilicas and sanctuaries. It is therefore of vital interest to R. that the Pope and the Curia reside there. But it would not be right to assess everything solely on the plane of simple economic convenience: the Romans are also proud to have the Pope as bishop and sovereign, and they are attached to him, even if they often do not show it, and they are not truly insensitive to the high ideal privilege of living in the holy city of Christendom.

In any case, it is probable that it was chiefly through the hotel trade that a certain availability of capital was formed, which seems to have been fairly strong, especially between the middle of the 13th century and the first decades of the following century. Roman merchants and bankers were able to make substantial loans to Italian and foreign personages (famous was the one to Charles of Anjou, before the battle of Benevento); not only that, but we also see them present at the great international fairs of France; indeed, at least once, they are also accredited at the papal Curia, a field usually reserved for Florentine bankers.

Roman life was hampered by another obstacle unknown to other Communes, at least to this extent: the local nobility, the barons, equally strong in the city and in the countryside and therefore very difficult to defeat, all the more so since they could always count on solid support at the Curia. Their bitter struggles for predominance paralyzed city life; in the surroundings of R. they blocked the Commune's expansion, and not only that, but with their abuses and even highway robberies they made the roads unsafe or impassable, thus preventing the arrival of pilgrims and the provisioning of the city. For at least a century (from the middle of the 13th century) attempts would ever anew be made to humble them, with special anti-magnate laws, often severe, but without result; only with the formation of the popular militia of the "banderesi" did the situation improve, helped by the strengthening of papal power. But in the 15th century the nobility once again brought very dark days upon the city.

The most serious obstacle to a normal communal life, however, was represented by the presence of the Pope. No other Commune must, like R., live together with its own high lord; the cities that depend on the Empire are, from this point of view, infinitely better off. For R. autonomy was practically impossible, except for brief periods. But this is a rather complex problem. On the one hand, the papacy by its very nature is elusive and invincible on the ground of power relations (nor would R. ever have been capable of inflicting a Legnano on it); on the other hand, R. cannot do without the Pope, without the presence of the Curia, for the reasons already stated. Thus, the history of relations between the citizenry and the Pontiff curiously oscillates between invitations and rebuffs, between slights and proofs of devotion. On the whole, however, loyalism predominates.

But R., it was said at that time, has two sovereigns, two spouses: the Pope and the Emperor. Relations with imperial power were much simpler. R. was never a typical "imperial city," nor did it set much store by the flatteries that now and then came to it from the Emperor. Not even in the time of Frederick II, when one might even have thought, in a damned hypothesis, of the city's detachment from the Ecclesiastical State and of an effective function for it as capital of the Empire. It was seen precisely then that, between Pope and Emperor, the Romans, since they could not be independent, preferred to side with the Pope. Account must be taken, in this regard, of a singular myth entirely Roman-municipal: the "imperial idea," that is, the conviction that still, as in ancient (and mythicized) times, it fell to the Roman people to confer the imperium, of which it was the depositary: a claim that, for the mentality of the time, was far less strange than it may appear today. A Cola di Rienzo could really build much of his adventure upon it, and for this he was not treated as a madman by his fellow citizens. This "imperial" claim, eminently rhetorical and cultural, this "Capitoline complex" always maintained its fascination: but it never truly moved or stirred the Romans to action. It is probable that it was cultivated only in a small circle of idealists and utopians of extreme anti-ecclesiastical tendency; in other words, of Roman "nationalists."

In the period of time mentioned, the Roman people therefore developed its communal constitution. But with noticeable differences compared to what may be called the "average type" of the Italian Commune. Such diversities had, moreover, begun from the very first moment, in 1144, when a typical aristocratic Commune with a consular regime did not form, but the Senate rather had a popular stamp. In any case it is clear that R. totally lacked the intermediate class, the lesser nobility, the secundi milites or valvassors, those who elsewhere are precisely the soul of the first Commune. Correspondingly, the Commune of the popolo did not form in opposition to the commune unius, but as a new creation. The whole life of the Roman Commune, in short, presents itself in its own peculiar way.

It is not an easy life at any moment; the city never manages to truly flourish and, in a hypothetical ranking of the importance of the Italian Communes, R. would occupy a very modest place. Also as cultural life: although it cannot be called a crude or uncultured city, it is nevertheless undoubted that it was singularly poor in men of genius; the sole, very notable exception being the anonymous author of the life of Cola di Rienzo: but is he, then, a Roman? One more observation, which holds for the whole period: unlike almost all the other Communes, R. does not seem to have truly known party strife, the factional dissension between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Naturally Roman sources too speak of the two factions, and it is clear that, here as elsewhere, the two famous names are merely labels for alignments of local interests; but it appears certain that the phenomenon remained confined to the baronial world and did not involve, except sporadically and for a short time, the "popolo," the citizenry proper. It is a proof of its good sense.

At the beginning of the thirteenth century the life of R. was still mortified by the powerful personality of Innocent III and absorbed into the renewed political-statual structure of the Church. However, it revived under the weak Pope Honorius III and above all by taking advantage of the open struggle between Frederick II and Gregory IX. From 1232 to 1235 there took place a truly great rebellion, the most considerable effort for autonomy that R. had made after the «renovatio Senatus». Above all, the «conquest of the contado» began systematically, more precisely of the «distretto», that is, of jurisdiction over the surrounding territory, with the aim of improving the living conditions and security of the city. For a vast radius around R. special delegates demanded the oath of loyalty and the payment of tribute from the various centers (and often
not even such small ones, like Viterbo, Anagni, etc.); in R. itself the clergy were subjected to civil
jurisdiction and to the Capitoline taxes, free election of the senators, heads of the city regime, was demanded,
then the issuance of its own coinage: there
was enough to provoke the protest
of the Pope, against whom the incredible decision was taken that he was to be considered «in
perpetual exile» from R. if he had not paid
a kind of contribution to the citizens. Provisions
of undoubted gravity, certainly dictated by
extreme «nationalists», and it is not to be
excluded that a certain heretical tendency
also revealed itself in them.

Roman autonomism then received an impulse that lasted a long time, and the formation of a new consciousness of «popolo» was encouraged by it. Very favorable to these developments were the 22 months of vacant see that followed, in 1242, the death of Gregory IX. Then Matteo Rosso Orsini, senator, committed acts of incredible arbitrariness, actually terrorizing the cardinals of the Conclave. Precisely around that time, on the occasion of the signing of an anti-imperial treaty between R. and Narni (it is the first time that the Commune acted on the intercommunal plane), the names of Roman bankers appear for the first time. It is to be believed that it was then that the professional associations, the guilds of the arts and crafts, were taking shape, and that, accordingly, the Commune assumed an increasingly democratic and anti-noble direction (not necessarily anti-papal). In 1232 the «popolo» was strong enough to conquer the city regime; by analogy with what had happened only two years earlier in Florence, we can speak also for R. of an advent of the «first popolo», of the government of the guilds, of the popular regime, which would be, until the end of the fourteenth century, «the only great line, alive and fruitful, of the city's history» (Falco). Great merit for it belongs to the vigorous personality of the senator Brancaleone degli Andalò. The popolo, which had called him from Bologna, had conferred on him true dictatorial powers, of which the senator made very wise and cautious use, above all to establish the new regime ever more firmly. Thus he introduced the captaincy of the popolo and divided the citizenry according to its productive categories (cohadunatio artium); the conquest of the distretto was vigorously pursued, public order assured, and a true anti-magnate legislation introduced. With him the city's autonomy reached the highest degree of efficiency and lasted a very long time; Pope Innocent IV (and likewise later Alexander IV) had to resign himself to coming to terms with the Romans.

Although in 1238 the nobility regained the upper hand (but for a long time there would be alternation between it and the popolo on the Capitol), it is certain that R. acquired a new importance, a new political weight, during the interregnum. This is proved by the fact that between 1261 and 1263 there was a veritable competition of sovereigns and princes for the Roman senatorship: Alfonso of Castile, Manfred, Richard of Cornwall, Charles of Anjou. Exceptional candidacies, through which great European politics entered R. In 1263 the Angevin became senator, and for twenty years he would remain in relation with R. For thirteen years (in total, between 1263 and 1284, but with interruptions) he would even be its senator and its harsh and equitable administrator, and the city perhaps never knew a period of greater peace. A great pope, the Roman Nicholas III Orsini, in 1278 attempted to remove him from the Capitol by means of the constitution Fundamenta, which forbade the election of foreign senators or of royal dignity, but shortly afterward, with the compliant support of the Frenchman Martin IV, Charles resumed the reins of R.; only in 1284, as a remote consequence of the Vespers, did the popolo drive him out.

Nicholas III had shortly before renewed the juridical figure of the Pope-senator, being himself elected senator himself (1278). We might say that the period of the signoria then began for Rome, the Pope being nothing other than a "lord," that is to say the true master of the Commune, but under the juridical fiction of the conferral of the principal civic magistracies, made to him in full form by the people. This took place with the curious limitation that the senatorship was conferred on him as on a private person and not as on a Pontiff, and that at every new election the conferral was renewed. Subsequently all the Popes would be de iure senators of Rome, as well as holders of all the other civic magistracies, and they would regularly delegate the office to a pair of senator-vicars, usually taken from the nobility; there would, however, be a revival of the royal senatorship with Robert of Anjou.

If with Nicholas III the Orsini family had come to the fore (or rather, if its power had been consolidated), with Nicholas IV (1288-92) the Colonna would rapidly acquire importance. From then on the two families would almost uninterruptedly have their senators on the Capitoline and their cardinals in the Curia, and their contest for civic supremacy would last for centuries.

For some time the history of Rome records no further noteworthy events. Also because it is clearly overshadowed by the activity of the papacy, especially under the regal and magnanimous Boniface VIII, with whom a new family comes from the Campagna to insert itself among the Roman ones: the Caetani. To this Pope Rome owes many timely provisions, among them the institution of the Studium, a certain flourishing of art and culture, and then a particularly precious gift: the Jubilee of 1300. Precious not so much for the economic profit, which was not lacking, as rather for the extraordinary increase in importance and renown that Rome gained from it before the world. It was the sanction, such as only the Pope could give it, of its position as an ecumenical city.

Shortly thereafter, however, the beginning of the Avignon period dealt a very grave blow to Rome, which for 70 years lost, along with the Curia, the economic advantages inherent in it. It was then seen very clearly that, without it, the city could not live, and that every autonomism was illusory. Not that attempts were lacking, though dictated by desperation. At first they were combined with a revival of the "imperial idea," but understood and invoked as a means of pressure or blackmail. If the Pope did not return, word was sent in 1305 to Clement V, the Romans would create an emperor; likewise, in 1327, when the Bavarian was at the gates, the citizens let John XXII know that, if he did not come, they would welcome the excommunicated pretender, because they did not wish to be eternally "orphans of Pope and Emperor."

There were two occasions particularly favorable to the development of autonomism, but which nevertheless left no traces: the two imperial coronations, of Henry VII, in 1312, and of Louis the Bavarian, in 1328. Of exceptional importance was the second, in which the imperial crown, the candidate being in full rupture with the Church, was conferred by the Roman people, certainly on the basis of those imperial rights of theirs, which for the first and last time came into operation. But perhaps it was the initiative of a few persons, among whom was certainly Sciarra Colonna. Certainly, the affair was very convenient for the Bavarian. Afterwards, it seems that the Roman imperial pretension fell entirely into oblivion.

After this truly clamorous event, Rome offers no further notable episodes. The consequences of the papacy's absence make themselves felt more and more. Especially in the very grave internal disorders of 1335-38, caused by the usual Orsini-Colonna rivalry, but now so violent as to drag in the whole citizenry. Still in a climate of violence, in 1341 there took place a ceremony of high ideal value: the coronation of Petrarch as poet and citizen of Rome, on the Capitoline. An act whose importance should not be underestimated and which was also understood by the Romans; certainly, it bound the poet indissolubly to Rome and made him its most passionate defender, in the polemic against Avignon.

Already in 1342 Cola di Rienzo (v.) appears at the papal Curia. His fantastic enterprise can be judged the most resolute and desperate attempt made by the people to establish communal autonomy. Noteworthy in any case because Cola joined it with a, albeit vague, program of Italian national rebirth, thus reinserting Rome into the Italian political world. Once the mad and generous dream had failed and the second Jubilee (1350) had taken place, Rome by degrees renounced autonomy, though it was still attempted a few more times. A true civic affirmation was, moreover, increasingly difficult, from the time when an iron hand like that of Cardinal Albornoz governed and consolidated the Papal State, prelude to the inevitable return of the Pope. A new fact: the nobility declined. In 1358 it lost the senatorship, and the people, by now in agreement with the Pope, organized itself into the "Felice Società dei balestrieri e pavesati" (more commonly called of the banderesi), a strong civic militia and garrison of Rome, both against the barons and against the companies of fortune, a new scourge. In 1363 Rome drew up its statutes, characterized above all by measures against the magnates; the Pope is not much considered in them, but one cannot say that they are hostile to him. By now it is clear that for Rome nothing is possible but submission. With the first, ephemeral return of Pope Urban V (16 Oct. 1367 - 17 Apr. 1370), and the second, definitive, one of Gregory XI (17 Jan. 1377), the long absence of the papal Curia comes to an end. And the last phase of the communal regime begins.

The conditions of the city during the great Western Schism, which is moreover a kind of struggle around Rome, were tragic. If the city had wished it, that would have been another favorable moment for autonomist affirmations, and indeed the regime of the banderesi was attempted there; but the energetic and able Boniface IX, just as he fortified the Capitoline (which still bears his coats of arms), in 1393 imposed very clear terms on the city, by which he became its "true lord" (and the regime of the banderesi then ceased for a while); energetic moreover also toward the barons, who had tried to take advantage of the situation, especially the proud Onorato Caetani, but also the Colonna. Unfortunately he was succeeded by the weak Innocent VII, and the most chaotic period of the schism ensued. Then the city fell outright under military occupation (Ladislas of Durazzo, 1408-10 and 1413-14; Braccio da Montone, 1417) and its conditions became terrifying: wolves came down to devour the bodies in the Vatican cemetery.

In 1417 the election of Martin V Colonna brought a Roman Pope back to Rome (1420) and also a certain order. It may be said that the medieval period then closed for Rome, and with it also the history of its Commune, entirely obliterated by the presence of the Pope, by now a true temporal prince. Then "democracy yielded power to the Pontiff, after having fulfilled its task of working vigorously for the solution of the centuries-old conflict between the two supreme powers, of asserting on high the consciousness of empire and the universal value of Rome, of strengthening civic energies, of wearing down in the territory communal and feudal particularism to the advantage of itself and of a Papal State that was leveled, unified, centralized" (Falco).

What follows, still in the 15th century, is, from the point of view of the municipal history of Rome, only a progressive exhaustion of the impulses of local "nationalism," ever less clear, less conscious of itself, less "medieval," because classical phantoms are superimposed upon it. A more concrete political reality speaks through the continuation of the baronial struggles, but these too are impoverished, because the barons are no longer the masters of Rome, but merely quarrelsome courtiers. The people are by now entirely outside public affairs, take no interest in them, and know only some isolated outbursts of fury. On May 29, 1434, the Romans rise up, create for themselves a revolutionary magistracy, the "Seven Governors of Liberty," and go so far as to commit violence against the cardinals: the Pope, who is Eugene IV, flees from Rome. The interesting thing is that the city declares that it would govern itself according to the will of the Council of Basel. It is, however, an episode without consequences. The city is occupied for a short time by Niccolò Fortebraccio, in the name of Filippo Maria Visconti; then the stubborn resistance of Castel Sant'Angelo, which sides with the Pope, and the renewal of the factions between the Orsini and the Colonna induce the Romans, after about five months, to submit once again. Not very clear is a fact of slightly later date: a valiant and harsh prelate, the bishop and later cardinal Giovanni Vitelleschi, who in 1434 had retaken Rome on behalf of the Pope, and had then acted with energy in the surroundings of the city, seems to have wished in 1440 to make himself its lord; once again the loyalty of the castellan of Castel Sant'Angelo, Antonio del Rio, who arrested and put the cardinal to death, saved the city for the Pope. Eugene IV returned there in 1443 and found it once again in the most wretched conditions: famous is the description that Vespasiano da Bisticci left of it. From that time Rome begins to live again: Nicholas V, the learned pope who placed his passion "in books and building," does much to clean and beautify it. In 1450 there is the new Jubilee, in 1452 the coronation of Frederick III, the last and palest piece of pageantry. Immediately afterward comes the attempt of Stefano Porcari (v.), indeed without any relation to the authentic Roman environment; in the same way must be judged the strange "conspiracy" of the Roman Academy, attributed to Pomponio Leto and to Platina, in the time of Paul II (1468), but it is also true that the trial gave no concrete proof of its existence.

By now the Renaissance is in full development. The Vatican becomes an ever more magnificent and worldly court; the city of Rome passes ever more into the shadows; above all it no longer thinks of impossible autonomist adventures; from the administrative point of view it is satisfied with what Paul II grants it in 1469 on the occasion of the revision of the statutes: at the head of the city a senator and three conservators, besides a governor on behalf of the Pontiff; all the offices and benefices reserved to the citizens, all the revenues of the Capitoline possessions and of the subject localities (of which there were still a fair number), destined solely to Roman needs. The city is also satisfied with the rapid building renewal, to which one Pope after another devotes himself; especially active are Sixtus IV and Cardinal Pietro Riario, the first of the great cardinals whose magnificence eclipses the baronial power. This still has its tragic splendors, especially in the troubles following the death of Sixtus IV (1484), when the city is in a veritable reign of terror, and under Innocent VIII, when there are the repercussions of the conspiracy and war of the Neapolitan barons. It may be said that in these chronicle episodes the history of the Roman aristocracy also comes to an end, so often the mistress, in the Middle Ages, of the city, but now definitively depressed by the power of the Church, especially under Alexander VI and then under Julius II.

VI. FROM THE 16TH CENTURY TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

1. The early 1500s

During the 15th century the Curia did indeed gain the upper hand over the city government, but Rome, thanks to the splendor it had won, rose to an importance that was also political, which led it gradually, through the work of the Pontiffs, to exercise a leading primacy over the affairs of Italy.

The constant artistic, literary and demographic progress combined to lend greater luster to the development of this new phase of Roman life, despite the prevalence, from the very beginning of the 16th century, of foreign domination in Italy and the religious schism of Europe. The threatening descent of Charles VIII of France toward Naples in 1498 had a sensational episode also in Rome, which saw Alexander VI, having withdrawn to Castel S. Angelo, forced to receive that King and treat with him. Charles VIII passed through Rome again, almost a fugitive because of the League that the Pope had raised against him in his rear. Then Julius II and Leo X restored to Rome that course which under Alexander had suffered a halt.

Roman society of the 1400s finds its development in the 1500s; of the classes that compose it, the high baronial nobility, represented always by the Colonna, the Orsini, the Conti and the Savelli, excluded from predominance in the affairs of the City, consumed itself in sterile jealousies that vented themselves in vulgar crimes due to individual arrogance. To sustain their credit its members were forced to practice the trade of condottieri: the Colonna for the Empire, the Orsini for Venice; the members of the other principal families continued to do likewise.

In the Curia, the Romans of the various classes vied with the foreigners, who had flocked from every side, in attaining the highest offices, such as cardinals, nuncios, governors, officials, prelates in the various ranks. The foreign element, moreover increasingly predominant in the Curia, did not conceal its intention of procuring a stable residence in Rome, where the multiplicity of affairs and the tangle of political interests offered the occasion to build solid economic positions and to rise in their careers. In the preceding age the relatives of the Pontiffs had broadened their ambitions to the point of aspiring even to create principalities for themselves; now they would aim to create fortunes for themselves and to take the foremost place by creating new city dynasties in competition with those already existing.

If political-national interests, rather than religious ones, are found in conflict at the moment of the election of individual

Pontiffs, creating networks of influence and for this reason prolonging the conclaves, the pressures are no less whenever cardinalatial appointments are at issue; the various Italian and foreign powers now claim to be largely represented in the Sacred College. The cardinals are in fact able to exercise in practice a manifold influence in the conduct of public affairs; they many times form veritable courts around themselves, where even bishops are in their service, at the head of a retinue made up of ecclesiastics and laymen among whom there are even adventurers; thus family interests become entangled with political intrigues. Their preeminent position and their wealth move them to build sumptuous palaces, following that tradition of family splendor to which Pietro Barbo (Palazzo Venezia), Pietro and Raffaele Riario (Palaces of the SS. Apostoli and of the Cancelleria), Stefano Nardini (at the Governo vecchio) had been obedient, and which was continued by Domenico della Rovere (Penitenzieri), by Adriano Castellesi, by the Cesi (in Borgo), and in particular by Alessandro Farnese. The new nobility will not wish to be outdone, and so in turn the Aldobrandini, the Borghese, the Barberini, the Altieri, the Panfili, down to the Braschi, will do likewise. Some among them will replace the ancient suburban vineyards with luxurious villas in the immediate vicinity of the city, or in the neighboring Castelli romani. Emulating the cardinals in all this are also prelates of lower rank, according to their economic power, and Roman families who, having left behind their primitive coarseness, aim to model themselves on the example of the more powerful, such as the Millini, the Santa Croce, the Della Valle, the de Cupis. The papal finances are provided for by bankers, such as the Medici, and the Spannocchi and Agostino Chigi; for splendor, by artists, contractors of works, artisans, to whom are added singers, jugglers, men of letters. A particular element in the Curia are the orators or permanent ambassadors of the major powers of Italy and Europe, to whom are added those sent for various or extraordinary circumstances, the solicitors in lawsuits or in business, and persons even of humble condition to earn a living, Italians from different regions not excluding Germans and Flemings. These foreigners gravitate to the national churches to which are attached hospitals for pilgrims, and the poorest prefer to enroll together with the Romans in the confraternities out of devotion to them or to obtain suffrages or burial.

It cannot be a matter of wonder that in such a society in which many, too many, were celibates and those who had for a time, sometimes a long time, been far from their families, morals left much to be desired, so much so that they seemed to tend toward paganism. Sumptuous festivities, banquets, hunts, luxury of clothing, of furniture, of silverware, of art objects, of horses, created an ostentation of worldliness without example; and it was an occasion of scandal and of invectives that became ever more furious. If one must admit that they were not undeserved, it would however be unjust to suppose that in R. every trace of true spiritual life had been extinguished. This was always affirmed in those manifold manifestations of piety and charity that the times suggested in relation to new needs and as a remedy for growing abuses, and that would be fundamental for that reaction against the worldly spirit that would be called the Catholic Reformation. In fact, besides new churches, new hospitaller provisions, orphanages, shelters for fallen or endangered women, confraternities and religious houses with specific aims of apostolate arise with uninterrupted rhythm. The Roman University too is reorganized during the 16th century with a broader scope of studies and in seats more suited to the purpose. The Roman College of St. Ignatius, founded in 1552, under Gregory XIII carries out the didactic experience of the Jesuit Ratio studiorum, extending it to a more rational teaching for the progress of knowledge. Alongside the Roman Seminary (1564) are established under that Pontiff the German-Hungarian, English, Greek, Maronite and Armenian Colleges; later St. Joseph Calasanz establishes free schools for the people.

The dangers to the safety of R. were not, however, a thing of the past. Alexander VI had attended to making Castel S. Angelo stronger and safer with new munitions, among which a great tower at the front at the end of the bridge. Paul III, in order to confront a possible Turkish danger and to make the city strong against any enemy incursion, since the Aurelian walls were entirely inadequate against the most modern means of siege, entrusted to Antonio di Sangallo the task of providing for it with the erection of new bastions: thus arose those on the Aventine almost sheer above the Tiber, those at the Porta Ardeatina, those between the Vatican and the Janiculum behind S. Spirito, and moreover the bastion of Belvedere; but a new complete system of defense was not possible given the extent of the city. There was, however, always lacking a well-organized urban militia; and its consequences were unfortunately seen.

2. Roman misfortunes

Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, who was acting in agreement with the representatives of Charles V, entered with his men through the Porta di S. Giovanni in Laterano on 20 Sept. 1526 and, having crossed the whole city, gave assault to the Vatican Palace, put it to sack together with the Borgo, causing very grave damage, while the Pope, undefended, took refuge in the Castle and on the 22nd found himself compelled to come to terms with the assailants.

Worse was the following year, when the imperial bands that were fighting in Lombardy, unpaid, moved toward the South under the command of Bourbon, terrorizing the whole center of Italy, until they arrived before R., which attempted a hasty defense. Bourbon moved to the assault on 6 May from the direction of S. Spirito and there lost his life; but the militias, having overcome the resistance, penetrated into the Borgo, spread rapidly into the square, moving toward the Castle where Clement VII had precipitously taken refuge with part of his court in the hope of being able to resist. From there they moved toward Ponte Sisto, broke the courageous resistance of a few Romans and penetrated into the city, which suffered that horrible sack, whose ferocity remained memorable in history. Nothing was spared, neither sacred places, nor monasteries, nor the palaces of citizens. For months the city remained at the mercy of the unbridled license of the soldiery. The Pope, not aided by his allies, on 6 June had to accept very burdensome terms, remain shut up in the Castle under enemy guard, forced to give hostages, to undergo in the end a most onerous treaty which, concluded on 31 Oct., was signed only on 15 Nov. On 8 Dec. he left the Castle and took refuge in Orvieto; but the invaders left R. only in Feb. 1528 after having reduced it to complete ruin like the surrounding lands: 30,000 citizens had died there. Four fifths of the dwellings were "deserted," so that "it seemed rather a desert than R." Clement VII, who had gone to Viterbo on 1 June 1528, re-entered it on 6 Oct. and took prompt measures to repair the ills, so that R. soon began to breathe again, returning to its former tenor of life. However, although in Roman society and in the Curia, which was a great part of it, there was not yet evident a movement toward that reform that was in everyone's heart. The sack had remained as a severe warning, thanks to which an ever more insistent appeal to reform kept being repeated and which was to apply "in capite et in membris."

A serious danger of war for R. loomed on the occasion of the disputes of Paul IV with Charles V and Philip of Spain because of the political machinations of the Carafa. Once hostilities opened on 1 Oct. 1556, the need was immediately felt to provide for the defense with hurried fortifications at various points of the city under the direction of Camillo Orsini; while the Pope in Feb. 1557 opened a trial for felony against the sovereigns of Habsburg. Since the Duke of Alba, having occupied Tivoli and then Ostia (18 Nov. 1556), brought the war before R., a grave danger for the city seemed imminent, especially after the defeat suffered by the pontifical troops (27 July 1557) and the loss of Segni. But the defeat suffered by the French at St. Quentin and the withdrawal of the troops of the Duke of Guise, sent to the aid of Paul IV, induced the Peace of Cave of 8 Sept., obtained, thanks to the intervention of Venice, on good terms.

A great tumult instead broke out in R. at the death of Paul IV (Aug. 18, 1550), when the Romans, mindful of the recent dangers and of the damages caused them by the war and also driven by those who had felt the consequences of the recent reforms and of the rigors of the Inquisition so greatly promoted by the Pope, attacked the prisons of the Inquisition itself, freeing the prisoners and burning its records; the statue of the Pope on the Capitoline was also thrown down.

Less than twenty years later the abuses of that brigandage organized on a large scale which then kept the Pontifical State agitated were reflected in R., inasmuch as it found favor and impunity even in the city. Only the well-known energetic reaction of Sixtus V succeeded in crushing it, without however eradicating it entirely.

Urban VIII, in the following century, in order to prevent possible dangers on the occasion of the War of Castro, renewed the defenses, especially around Castel Sant'Angelo; they remained definitive until the French invasion.

3. From the 17th Century to the Revolution

With the end of the 16th century, following the enslavement of Italy to the dominion and political supremacy of the foreign powers, that is, of France and of Spain and then also of the Empire, R. lost importance as a political center; the destinies of Europe were decided at Madrid, at Paris, at Vienna; and the spiritual authority itself, fiercely fought by Protestantism, would be undermined by the new politico-religious currents arising within the Catholic nations, to the point of flowing into anti-religious encyclopedism. Yet it seems that each of these pressed upon R. with greater importunity in order to make its own influence prevail there and eliminate that of its rivals, except for those national advantages that the center of Catholicism could still offer. Everything served to guarantee this predominance: the pomp and privileges of its own representatives, the credit of cardinals and prelates devoted to it, of canonists, of theologians, of scholars; the coaxing or the threats brought to bear on the relatives and friends of the pontiffs, the favor shown to the interests of particular categories of persons.

Moreover, R. lacked the particular guarantees offered by a dynastic tradition, and since the duration of individual pontificates was not long, it brought frequent changes in political orientations and in the composition of the personnel of the Curia; therefore during the conclaves the skill, many times unscrupulous, of the diplomats had room to operate, to favor and to hinder the candidacies according to the circumstances. No regard was paid to the long delays of vacancies, which had manifold repercussions on the public life of the city.

Grave incidents, which the governor of R. was not always in a position to prevent or to repress, were provoked by the exemptions that the envoys of the powers (especially of the most important ones) never ceased to claim, with ever greater liberality, for their residences. They demanded that in these everything be permitted them. Thus when Urban VIII on 22 Nov. 1636 prohibited gambling in any place, the French envoy Marshal de Coeuvres claimed he did not have to take account of it. Besides for their palaces, the envoys claimed immunity also for the adjoining houses and streets; prisoners were not to be made to pass in front of their dwellings; within these they even boasted of administering justice against the guilty or those presumed to be such. In 1662 the French Duke of Créqui, a notorious brawler, embittered the spirit of the citizens with his haughtiness; he wanted to extend the so-called liberty of the quarter beyond the palace he inhabited "as far as his gaze reached." A brawl between his men and the Corsicans of the papal militia provoked the resentment of the latter, who ran against the Palazzo Farnese; a scuffle arose from it and there were deaths. The apologies on the part of the Pope were of no avail; Louis XIV threatened war; the Chigi and Alexander VII himself had to humble themselves by accepting the terms imposed by the King; the Corsicans were banished and were no longer to be enlisted in the papal guards; to the perpetual execration of the event a pyramid was erected with an infamous inscription that was only later removed.

All this did nothing but increase the abuses. Malefactors sought refuge in the dwellings and streets of the privileged quarter, and the Roman and foreign rabble sought a hiding place; the Palazzo Farnese was open to them even at night, and bloody struggles resulted from it. In order to obtain protection from the envoy, the refugees paid at times considerable sums: while suppliers raised the arms of the relevant nation on their own houses and thus shared in the liberty of the quarter in exchange for compensation for the envoy. Always in exchange for compensation, certificates were issued by which those who obtained them, as members of the retinue, were withdrawn from ordinary jurisdiction. Since they enjoyed customs immunity, the envoys made agreements with commercial houses to obtain merchandise without paying customs, then dividing with them the profits of the resale. Innocent XI wished to put an end to such unbearable abuses that also continually threatened public tranquility. In 1677 the King of Spain declared himself ready to renounce such pretended rights, provided that the others did likewise. Meanwhile it was commanded that the insignia be removed; extending such an order also to the cardinals who had begun to imitate the diplomats. Venice yielded in 1679; Spain in 1682. At the death of the ambassador Duke of Estées (1687) the Pope declared that he would not accept his successor unless the quarter were first renounced. Louis XIV instead appointed outright the Marquis of Lavardin. The latter on 16 Nov. 1687 entered R. with a great retinue against the will of the Pope, who did not wish to receive him and treated him as excommunicated. And since at Christmas he presented himself at the sacred functions in the church of St. Louis of the French, he launched the interdict upon that church. Lavardin continued in his authoritarian conduct, sustained also by the favor of Christina of Sweden, a guest in R. There followed threats of armed intervention on the part of Louis XIV and attempts at mediation. In the end Lavardin had to be recalled (14 Apr. 1689); the dispute was settled under Alexander VIII with the renunciation of the quarter.

There was no lack of other episodes to demonstrate how heavily the interference of representatives, including ecclesiastical ones, of foreign powers weighed upon the internal life of the city, to the detriment of the Pope's effective sovereignty. One of the most clamorous occurred under Clement XII, when the Spanish side, disregarding every prohibition, dared to proceed with the recruitment of troops, creating what amounted to a forced conscription. The recruiters, aided by the worst local elements, lay in wait and, by every kind of deceit, forced young Romans into military service; others were even assaulted at night and taken to be embarked at Ripa Grande. This aroused great excitement in Rome, kept alive also by the party opposed to the Spaniards, so that on 23 March 1738 Trastevere rose up; it freed the seized young men and threatened the seat of the Spanish embassy where some of these forced conscripts were held. The Pope intervened and, despite the protests of Cardinal Acquaviva, the rioters were amnestied and the recruits released, with the prohibition of further recruitments. But these measures provoked a diplomatic controversy that could not be resolved immediately.

For the rest, public life in Rome unfolded in relative tranquillity, notwithstanding clamorous private vendettas and disputes over precedence. It was not disturbed in its depths by the theological questions sometimes very heated within the priestly class, or by that concerning the suppression of the Jesuits which inflamed the representatives of the Bourbon courts. Its uniformity was interrupted from time to time by solemn religious celebrations, such as those for the Jubilees every 25 years, canonizations, papal elections, and academic sessions enlivened by music. Illustrious visitors from every country succeeded one another along with artists who sought inexhaustible inspiration in Rome, while scholarly researchers gathered for their investigations into the past. Yet the new times were approaching, which no one would have imagined to be so disastrous.

Pio Paschini

VII. ROMAN REPUBLIC (1798-99)

In Rome the course of events in Paris from 1789 was followed with anxiety, both from the religious and from the political side. Very soon Cardinal de Bernis (v.), the King's representative, had to leave his post, while the envoys of the new government did not conceal their intention of provoking incidents to legitimize an intervention. The first important episode was the one that led to the killing of Ugo Bassville (v.). With the onset of the Napoleonic invasion in the Po Valley and the fall of the Venetian Republic with the invasion of the Legations (v.), the insolences increased, kept alive by Joseph Bonaparte, who wanted to create a pretext for intervention, until on 28 Dec. 1797, in a clash between Roman pro-Jacobins and papal soldiers near the French embassy at the Lungara in Trastevere, General Duphot was killed. With this the pretext was found. Every attempt at mediation having been rejected, General Berthier advanced on Rome without encountering resistance, and on 10 Feb. occupied Castel S. Angelo. Five days later, some "patriots," under the protection of French soldiers, proclaimed in the Foro Boario the Roman Republic and the fall of the temporal power. Pius VI, forced to leave Rome (20 Feb.), was taken to Tuscany, and the Sacred College was dispersed.

The Republic received a constitution modeled, with some adaptations and under classical denominations, on the French one of 1795. At the head of the executive power were five consuls; two assemblies, a tribunate and a senate, held the legislative power; the State was divided into eight departments: Cimino, Circeo, Clitunno, Metauro, Musone, Tevere, Trasimeno and Tronto. In practice, however, the government and the assemblies were under the rigid control of the French.

The burdensome exploitation of the State's resources by the agents of the Directory, monetary inflation and embezzlements worsened the economic situation, already serious in the last years of the pontificate of Pius VI, and compromised the vitality of the new institutions, to which some elements of the bourgeoisie, especially the industrious, were favorable, along with a few aristocrats and some ecclesiastics, while the majority of the population remained irreconcilably opposed. The sullen resistance in which this popular opposition manifested itself often exploded into open insurrection; the Trastevere revolt of 25 Feb. 1798 could easily be put down, but the insurrection, despite bloody repressions, spread through the departments bordering on Tuscany and the Kingdom of Naples (Trasimeno, Circeo, Tronto) and became general after the first Neapolitan invasion (Dec. 1798), which failed to get beyond Rome and was driven back within a few days, but had as its result the transformation of the State into a new Vendée.

The difficulty of communications, the abandonment of cultivation, the closure of maritime traffic because of the war of privateering, provoked a famine that was extremely severe in Rome, which had soon remained almost isolated. The invasion of the French, the financial collapse, the clashes between the organs of the State and among the supporters of the Republic themselves (the radical Jacobins, irreligious and doctrinaire, were opposed by the moderates), the impossibility of resolving the grave problem of relations between the State and the Church were further elements ensuring that the efforts to create an autonomous administrative and political life should come to nothing. The new ruling class, which had replaced the pontifical Curia, showed generosity and enthusiasm, but also inadequacy for its task and, in many cases, corruption. A first provisional consulate (Riganti, Pessuti, Angelucci, Costantini, Bassi, Bonelli) was succeeded, with the entry into force of the Constitution, by a second (Angelucci, Panazzi, Reppi, De Matthaea, Ennio Quirino Visconti), which was overthrown by the French (12-17 Sept. 1798). The last consulate (Zaccaleoni, Brizi, Rey, Pierelli, Callisti) saw its authority increasingly restricted, contested also by the legislative assemblies. The French, faced with the grave military situation created by the second coalition, dissolved Parliament and the consulate, placed the Republic under a state of siege and governed through a provisional Committee directly dependent on them (July 1799).

While the Republic was falling apart internally, the Austrians were pressing from the north, and in the south the Neapolitan army was advancing. On 30 Sept. 1799 the French capitulated and the Neapolitans entered Rome; Ancona, besieged by land and sea, held out until 13 Nov.

Vittorio E. Giuntella

VIII. FROM THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY TO 1849

In the following years Rome followed without particular upheavals the events that led to the reconstitution of the Papal State (v.), to the coming of Pius VII (1800), to the new abolition of the State in 1809 through the work of Napoleon, to the deportation of Pius VII and to the proclamation of Rome as an imperial city. For his part, Bonaparte nurtured a great love for Rome and took pride in restoring it. He appointed de Tournon as prefect there, who administered it with circumspection; and from 1810 a new era of building opened for the city. Indeed, there were notable embellishments, such as, for example, the felicitous transformation begun of the Monte Pincio (cf. I. Ranieri, Lavori a R. nell'epoca napoleonica. Il Palazzo di Venezia e il Pincio, in Civ. Catt., 1906, IV, pp. 129-49). But the Emperor did not succeed in winning the sympathies of the people; only a part of the Roman nobility gathered around the new regime and did not disdain to scheme in order to obtain offices and appointments of the imperial court (cf. L. Madelin, La Rome de Napoléon. La domination française a Rome de 1809 à 1814, Paris 1906, pp. 255-63, 382-87). Having returned triumphantly to Rome on 24 May 1814, Pius VII once again had to fear for his personal safety when, on the occasion of the Hundred Days, Joachim Murat announced his arrival in the city. The Pope departed on 22 March 1815; but he already returned there on the following 7 June, after the defeat of the Neapolitan troops at Tolentino (3-4 May 1815), and could finally think of favoring the growth of the city and the restoration of the ancient monuments. Gregory XVI promoted the excavations at the Forum; and on his initiative three museums were opened: the Egyptian, the Etruscan and the Lateran.

But restoring to Rome an incomparable splendor in the artistic and religious respect could not constitute the essential task. Indeed, some not large but active strata of the population were troubled by a new spirit; they aimed at reforms in the structure of the Papal State, better attuned to the liberal tendencies that were asserting themselves in Europe, and they were orienting themselves toward a representative regime. Gregory XVI limited himself to broad reforms and measures of a purely administrative character. His successor Pius IX understood that denying adjustments even of a constitutional character was becoming dangerous and could compromise the existence of the temporal power. The publication of the usual decree of amnesty extended also to political exiles aroused surprising enthusiasm among the Romans and in all of Italy (16 July 1846; cf. A. Mercati, In margine alla amnistia concessa da Pio IX, in Aevum, 24 [1950], pp. 103-32). There followed (on 1 and 3 Oct. 1847) the creation of a municipal Council with the power to elect nine magistrates, who would form a Senate and attend to the civic interests of Rome (Atti del Sommo Pontefice Pio IX, part 2, vol. I, Rome 1857, pp. 1-47, 151-90). The promulgation of the Statuto fondamentale for the temporal government of the States of the Church (14 March 1848), granted unfortunately in part because of pressures from the street, had important consequences for the city, because from then on a parliament was to reside there, whose members would be elected on the basis of about one deputy for every 30,000 inhabitants and with restricted suffrage (ibid., pp. 222-38). The attempt at a greatly softened constitutional regime, implemented belatedly, satisfied neither the reactionaries nor the extremists. Among the latter, many of the political exiles, having returned to Rome, undertook to maintain there, consciously or not, a state of dangerous agitation. They discussed on the Corso or at the entrance of the cafés, emphatically recounting the sufferings endured far from the homeland and pointing out the abuses, real or alleged, that flourished in the Papal States. The firm hand of the minister Pellegrino Rossi, supported by the moderates and the neo-Guelphs, only exasperated and excited the fury of the fomenters of disorder, enemies of the Pope and of the Church, and drove them to attempt his life. Once Rossi was killed, the revolution broke out and Pius IX, besieged in the Quirinal Palace, was forced to seek safety and freedom at Mola di Gaeta (Formia; 25 Nov. 1848).

Guglielmo Mollat

IX. FROM THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (1849) TO ROME AS CAPITAL OF ITALY

Following the popular uprising that culminated in the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi (15 Nov.) and in the imposition of the democratic ministry Muzzarelli-Galletti (16 Nov.), Pius IX during the night of 24 Nov. left Rome for Gaeta. On 27 Nov. he appointed a Government Commission, presided over by Cardinal Castracane, and on 7 Dec. he prorogued the parliamentary session; but the Chamber of Deputies, judging such measures unconstitutional, entrusted the direction of the State to a provisional Junta (11 Dec.).

Once the attempts to make contact with the Pontiff failed, matters descended to radical solutions: the Junta dissolved Parliament (26 Dec.) and called elections with direct and universal suffrage. Pius IX, who had protested against the appointment of the Junta of State (17 Dec.), pronounced the major excommunication against anyone who had attacked the integrity of the State of the Church and against those who participated in the elections (1 Jan. 1849). The constituent Assembly, elected on 21-22 Jan., thus turned out to have an ardently democratic majority; having gathered in Rome on 5 Feb., at dawn on the 9th it declared the temporal power lapsed (with the promise of guarantees for the independence of the Pontiff's spiritual authority) and proclaimed the republic.

The new State, governed by an executive Committee (Armellini, Montecchi, Saliceti), confiscated ecclesiastical property (in part alienated to reduce the public debt and in part assigned in emphyteusis to the peasants); reformed the school system, until then subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops; abolished every privilege of forum and the tribunal of the Holy Office; suppressed the annona and the milling tax and removed prior censorship of the press.

The failure to implement more radical reforms provoked discontent among the common people, while the financial and monetary crisis, which remained serious even after the issuance of a forced loan, caused, with inflation, the rise in prices and the stagnation of productive and commercial activities. There followed (also because of the political and military situation that soon arose) the scarcity of basic necessities and the increase in unemployment, which worsened with the dismissal of employees loyal to the Pontiff.

The government, squeezed between pressing needs of defense against powerful internal and external adversaries and the demagogic agitations of extreme factions, had to intervene energetically to restore order in Ancona and in other localities, where bloody violence had occurred against the clergy and the upper classes, mostly opposed to the new regime. When, on the other hand, the plan of a religious reform, initially championed by the most ardent Mazzinians, also fell through because of the contrary attitude of the constituent Assembly and of most of the republicans themselves, an attempt was made to pursue a conciliatory policy toward the Catholic masses.

Considered by the Roman political currents predominantly as the solution to a local problem, the Republic took on, with Mazzini's arrival in Rome (5 March) and with the flocking there of volunteers from every part of Italy, the significance and function of the first nucleus of national unity. The Mazzinian influence became preponderant when, after the Piedmontese defeat at Novara, a Triumvirate (Mazzini, Saffi, Armellini), endowed with broader powers, replaced the executive Committee (29 March).

Against the proclamation of the Republic, Cardinal Antonelli had protested on 18 February with a note to the diplomatic corps, which had followed Pius IX to Gaeta, in which the armed intervention of Austria, France, Spain and the Two Sicilies was requested in order to safeguard the freedom of teaching and the rights of the Pontiff. Thus the Spanish thesis prevailed over the Piedmontese one (which favored intervention by the Italian powers alone); the Spanish thesis, harking back to the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, upheld the preeminent international interest in the preservation of the Papal State. The appeal was favorably received by Louis Napoleon, eager for the support of Catholics and determined to counter Austrian influence in Italy. An expeditionary corps, commanded by Gen. Oudinot, landed on 26 April at Civitavecchia, but, surprised beneath the walls of Rome by the unexpected resistance of the volunteer and regular troops, it had to withdraw (30 April). On 9 May at Palestrina and on 19 May at Velletri something similar befell the Neapolitans. While the French concluded an armistice with the Republic and attempted, through the mission of Ferdinand de Lesseps, a peaceful solution, Austria, freed from the burden of the war in Lombardy, invaded the Romagna and the Marches, and the Spaniards with a few forces infiltrated from the south into the Sabina.

The new political situation that arose in France in mid-May owing to the electoral victory of the conservatives caused the intransigence of the prince-president and of the military to prevail, for whom the expedition to Rome had also become a question of national prestige. On 3 June, while the truce had not yet expired, Gen. Oudinot attacked by surprise Villa Pamphili, the linchpin of the defense of the Janiculum, and succeeded in seizing Villa Corsini as well, repelling the desperate counterattacks of the defenders. The struggle continued fiercely throughout June before the Porta di S. Pancrazio, but, despite the heroism of the defenders, the French succeeded on 21 June in capturing a stretch of the walls and thus in bringing the fire of their cannons directly upon the city. On the 30th, the Assembly, against the opinion of Mazzini, decided to cease resistance, by then untenable. A new Triumvirate (Saliceti, Calandrelli, Mariani) replaced the Mazzinian one, which had resigned. On 3 July the French, who had rejected the terms of surrender offered by the Roman municipality, occupied the city, while the Assembly, which had proclaimed the Constitution as its last act, was dispersed.

The extremists, however, did not give themselves up for beaten and treacherously struck with dagger blows some moderates and several soldiers: while the military authority, in obedience to the secret orders received from Paris, set about establishing "a wisely liberal government" and placing the Holy See before a fait accompli. The government of the State and of the city was thus returned to the legitimate sovereign (15 June) and provisionally entrusted to a Commission of cardinals, which removed everything that had been extorted from or imposed upon the Pope by the most violent innovators. Soon agitation and unrest spread among these again (cf. Oudinot's dispatches in Mémoires posthumes d'Odilon Barrot, III, Paris 1876, p. 410). Even after the triumphal return of Pius IX to Rome (12 April 1850), political attacks continued to occur and, what is worse, in 1853 some of the most subversive even conspired against the life of the Supreme Pontiff, who nevertheless, with ever new and well-conceived administrative and social measures, and with the introduction of telegraphs and railways, strove to bring the Papal State and the city itself into line with the needs of the times, also by means of excellent urban planning and embellishment works. There was therefore in Rome, under the not always welcome protection of French bayonets, a relative calm; but after the cession of Venetia to Italy (10 Aug. - 3 Sept. 1866) a speech by Victor Emmanuel II seemed full of threats: "Italy is made; but not completed," the King had said, and Pius IX understood that Rome itself was now the target (cf. R. De Cesare, R. e lo Stato del Papa, II, Rome 1906, p. 300).

Instead of intervening directly, the Italian government allowed Garibaldian troops to attack Latium and Rome for over a month, while the Cairoli brothers attempted to bring, sailing down the Tiber, a convoy of weapons for the revolutionaries, who were to unleash the insurrection in the city. But the planned revolution was promptly repressed and Garibaldi suffered at the hands of the papal and French troops a bloody defeat (3-4 Nov. 1867) at Mentana (v.). The fall of the French Empire facilitated the Italian invasion. On 20 Sept. 1870, some pieces of artillery opened a breach in the walls of Rome between the Porta Salaria and the Porta Pia; after a fierce resistance of over five hours along the entire Aurelian wall, the papal troops, by order of the Pope, ceased fire; at 3 p.m. a capitulation stipulated at Villa Albani, with the honors of war granted to the garrison, [provided for] the occupation of the city "except the part bounded on the south by the bastions of S. Spirito, which comprised the Vatican and Castel S. Angelo and constituted the Leonine City" (cf. Archives diplomatiques, II, Paris 1874, p. 84). But Cardinal Antonelli "begged" General Cadorna (25 Sept. 1870) to occupy also the territory excluded from the capitulation, because of the excesses perpetrated by "malefactors" who had poured in in the wake of the regular troops (ibid., p. 107). On 2 Oct. the annexation of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy thus took place (ibid., pp. 110, 121, 123-31).

BIBLI: le opere concernenti questo periodo sono in numero considerevole; se ne ha una parziale citazione in G. Mollat, Question romaine de Pic VI à Pic XI, 2ª ed. Parigi 1932; P. Balan, Storia univers. della Chiesa, II, Torino 1879, v. indice; A. M. Bonetti, La liberazione di R. « del gen. R. Cadorna. Osservazioni e critiche, Siena 1889; A. Vigevano, La fine dell'esercito pontif., Roma 1921; F. Hayward, Le dernier siècle de la Rome pontificale (1824-70), Parigi 1927-28; P. Romano [P. Fornari], La satira nella R. Napoleonica, Roma 1936; P. Dalla Torre, L'anno di Mentana, Torino 1938, passim; id., L'opera riformatrice ed amministrativa di Pio IX dal 1850 al 1870, Roma 1945, passim; id., Lettere ined. di mon. V. Vannuelli al gen. E. Kanzler (1870-71), in Riv. di st. della Chiesa in Italia, 1 (1947), pp. 431-43; id., L'opera riformatrice ed amministrativa di Gregorio XVI, in Gregorio XVI. Miscell. commemor., II, Roma 1948, pp. 29-121; id., Pellegrino Rossi, il neugueffiano e l'Italia, in Arch. Soc. rom. di st. patria, 71 (1948), pp. 163-68; S. Negro, Seconda R., Milano 1943. Qualche lavoro più importante: U. Marinelli, Pio IX e Cicerucchio, Roma 1937; id., Stato degli inquisti dalla S. Consulta per la rivoluzione, del 1849, ivi 1937; M. Petrocchi, La restaurazione, il card. Consalvo e la riforma del 1816, Firenze 1941; id., La restaurazione romana (1815-22), ivi 1943; D. Demarco, Pio IX e la rivoluzione romana del 1848, Modena 1947; P. Silva, Il 1848, Roma 1948; L. Marchetti, Il 1848. Fonti bibliogr. e documentarie, Milano 1949; A. M. Ghisalberti, Rapporti delle cose di R., Roma 1949; E. de Levis Mirepoix, Un collaborateur de Metternich. Mémoires et papiers de Lebseltern, Parigi 1949;

S. Mastellone, Pellegrino Rossi ambasciatore francese a R., in Riv. stor. it., 61 (1949), pp. 76-100; Ch. H. Pouthas, Un observateur de Tocqueville à Rome pendant les premiers mois de l'occupation française (juillet-août 1845), in Rass. stor. del Risorg., 38 (1950), fasc. 1 e 11.

Guglielmo Mollat

IX. ROME CAPITAL OF ITALY

The history of R. as capital of Italy begins with the plebiscite of 2 Oct. 1870, in which only 46 "no" votes were cast, because the supporters of temporal dominion abstained from voting. The official results nevertheless legitimized the military conquest of 20 Sept., and in 1871 the Italian government moved from Florence to R. Meanwhile the urban planning works began — discussed elsewhere — intended to transform the small "second R." into a vast metropolis: a building fever, which stagnated at the end of the century into a very serious crisis. But what characterized the first decades of R. as capital of Italy was the bitterness of political passions between "liberals" and "clericals," culminating in the attempt to throw the body of Pius IX into the river during its transport from St. Peter's to the Verano (1882) and in the inauguration, as a challenge to the papacy, of the monument to Giordano Bruno in Campo de' Fiori (1887). To the apparent triumph of sectarianism — the Freemason Nathan was mayor of the city for many years — there responded, however, a reinvigoration of Catholic forces, which, besides taking part early and with great merit in the city administration, made themselves counted, finding themselves more numerous than expected, on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1900. Thus there closed, together with the Holy Door, the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, which had seen the deaths, only days apart from one another, of Victor Emmanuel II and Pius IX, and their succession, respectively, by Leo XIII and Umberto I. More popular, perhaps, was the new king: hence R., though struck, like all of Italy, by the disaster of Adwa (1896), enthusiastically greeted the marriage of the prince of Naples to Elena of Montenegro.

The new century brought a further easing of spirits, and the Roman people loved with equal affection the sovereign who succeeded his father after the tragedy of Monza (29 July 1900) and Blessed Pius X, pope in 1903. Without ceasing to be Christian, R. was becoming ever more Italian: so that the monument to Victor Emmanuel II (1911) came ever more to be joined in the hearts of the Romans with the Vatican dome. With sincere patriotism R. thus thrilled for the Libyan enterprise (1911-12), as for the war of 1915-18, ideally begun on the Capitoline in the days of the so-called "radiant May." Amid the moved consent of the Romans, Benedict XV — who became pontiff in 1914 — carried out from the Vatican his admirable work of peacemaking and charity, and the two queens transformed their palaces into military hospitals. New thrills of civic enthusiasm for the sovereign's return after the armistice; for Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, returned from Versailles, after Wilson's manifesto; for the burial of the Unknown Soldier (4 Nov. 1921).

The postwar period, marked by fratricidal struggles, ended with the fascist "march" of Oct. 1922. The events did not surprise the Romans, who at the beginning of that same year had acclaimed Pius XI blessing the crowd from the external loggia of St. Peter's, for the first time since 1870. It must also be recognized, for historical objectivity, that cautious consent to fascism was consolidated in 1929, with the signing of the Lateran Pacts. The conclusion of the fateful quarrel between Church and State, especially felt by the Romans who were its most direct witnesses, filled R. with sincere satisfaction. Then was born Vatican City, which, in 1929, no one would have believed destined by Providence to ensure, a few years later, the very safety of R.

For the sad years were indeed about to begin. The "oceanic" gatherings in Piazza Venezia could no longer conceal R.'s growing unease toward a dictatorship that suppressed liberties, that pursued an imperialist policy, that offended the Christian conscience with violence against Catholic Action, with an alliance alien to the public spirit, with racial policy and lack of consultation. And finally there was the disastrous war, there were the tragic bombings of July and Aug. 1943, which saw Pius XII bow weeping over the dead of the Tiburtino and Prenestino districts, there was the specter of hunger. Not even the clamorous fall of fascism (25 July 1943) restored tranquility: indeed, after Badoglio's "forty-five days," there followed the unexpected armistice, the abandonment of R. by the court and the government, the fighting at Porta S. Paolo (10 Sept.), prelude to the nine months of Nazi occupation. In that grave hour — perhaps the gravest of its millennial history — R. gathered around the Pope, awaiting salvation from him. Nor was the filial expectation disappointed, for Pius XII succeeded in restraining Hitlerian ferocity, in supplying the city, in sparing it the deportation of able-bodied men, even after the double massacre of Via Rasella and the Fosse Ardeatine (March 1944), and finally in preventing it from becoming a battlefield after the collapse of the German front at Cassino and Anzio. As if by miracle, R. found itself free and safe on 4 June 1944, and the Romans hastened to St. Peter's to greet in the Pontiff the "defensor civitatis," to whom alone the realization of the prodigy was due. Amid a renewed raging of political passions the new order of things was established. The "referendum" of 2 June 1946 followed, and in the subsequent political and administrative elections the Romans consistently gathered their votes on the democratic parties, guardians of Christian civilization. These very brief notes on eighty years of Roman history cannot be better closed than with the memory of the Jubilee of 1950, which must be counted among the most auspicious of the series, no less for the imposing influx of pilgrims than for the great event by which it was sealed: the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. A happy omen of R.'s emergence on the threshold of the second half of the century was the discovery of the tomb of St. Peter: the unshakable foundation on which rests the greatness of the Urbe, center of Christianity, seat of the Vicar of Christ.

Renzo U. Montini

II. CHRISTIAN LATIN LITERATURE.

I. LITERARY LATINITY: ORIGIN, FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS UP TO THE 6TH CENTURY

Since Christian Latin (v.) has already been discussed, it is now appropriate to see how and when this Latin became literary. "Primis fidei temporibus" Christianity was entirely, or rather almost entirely, free of any literary preoccupation. From the few indications that can be gathered and from the hypotheses that can be advanced, it does not appear that there was any intention of creating a new Latin in opposition to the common one; but only the diligent effort to make Latin an effective, clear, faithful expression of the "new," by all legitimate and normal means, some of which were also in use among the pagans to create that Latinity which, with an unfortunate expression, was called "silver."

In both endeavors one seems to discern that spirit of conservation, wholly Roman, which is present in all the crises of this language. At the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd, genuine literary preoccupations begin within Western Christianity, and the language feels their effect as well, which, as a language of use, had already had its complete development. The writers, sons of the school, found themselves at a crossroads, between following the pagan exemplaria, and especially those pointed out as such by the school, and opening new paths: the first decision appeared not free of grave dangers, the second bristled with difficulties and doubts. This is not the place to allude to the problem of the priority of Minucius or Tertullian in the history of Christian Latin literature. What must absolutely be discarded is only the placing of Minucius later than the beginning of the 3rd century, unless one wishes to give proof of one's own critical incapacity. In any case, the former followed the first course, Tertullian the other: as regards language and style, the former wishes scholastically to be a classic, like Pliny the Younger; in Tertullian's language much spoken Latin is mixed, much biblical Latin, with its Grecisms and its Hebraisms, much scholastic Latin, a good deal of silver Latinity. It is clear that neither the ideal of the first nor that of the second, both conceived in the twilight dawn of the Latin literature of Christianity, was achievable. But the school intervened, and, as regards language, Tertullian's Latin after about half a century was transformed into the Latin of Cyprian, where the various elements are fused together. But the school intervened, which, less than a century and a half after the Octavius had appeared, took up again with Lactantius (beginning of the 4th century) the ideal of Minucius with the evident conscious effort, as regards form, to create a Latin of Ciceronian flavor, capable of expressing, not only "copiose et ornate," but also with precision, Christian ideology.

Lactantius, however, realized that his attempt did not achieve its goal, and it did not achieve it because it was an undertaking insurmountable even for one endowed with qualities as a writer superior to his own; he changed course and gave the Latin of the De mortibus persecutorum, the authorship of which was denied him by some, especially for linguistic reasons (J. G. P. Borleffs, An scripserit Lactantius libellum qui est de mortibus persecutorum, in Mnemosyne, 58 [1930], pp. 223-92).

Sometimes the school wished to overdo things, as must have happened in the Aquitanian one, from which, rich in culture, which he then increased in the East, came Hilary of Poitiers. He, half a century after Lactantius, believed that theological subjects could be treated (v., e.g., the De Trinitate) in a language and style governed by the precepts of Quintilian, poorly understood at that time by more than one teacher, and he was that writer whom Jerome portrays in one of his epistles (58, 10). But Jerome was a pupil of Donatus; and the schools, like that of Donatus, gave the Latin of Ambrose, of Prudentius, of Jerome himself.

The school (that of grammar and rhetoric in general) raised the tone of Latin letters in the 4th century among pagans and among Christians: among the latter in particular literature had more luxuriant seeds of life. As regards language, Christian writers aimed to create that form which would be adequate to the content and give it the light and splendor that pagan writers had known how and knew how to give to their writings, which was a very different thing from pouring Christian thought into the language of Cicero, Sallust, Virgil, and so on: and such was the effort of Ambrose, Prudentius, Jerome, crowned with success.

To the formation of the Latin of such writers the pagan masters had contributed unconsciously, the Christian ones consciously; then, through a complex of causes, the school began to decline; the work of Donatus ran its course toward the end of the 4th century, but perhaps into the scholastic measures of the very brief reign of Julian the Apostate there had also entered the thought dominant in the mind of this Emperor, who was also a scholar, of defending the classical letters: in reality such measures disturbed the school in the East as in the West; through them the Christian school was deprived of masters like Marius Victorinus. It was the time when Christian thought was rising toward the highest peaks where it was brought by the lofty mind of Augustine, who, around 400, of the African schools of grammar, in which he had been instructed, thought what is read in chapters 16 and 17 of book I of the Confessions, and of the language in which Christian thought was to be expressed he conceived the ideal that he outlined in the following twenty years both in Doctrina christiana (IV, 1, 1; IV, 10) and in the Enarrationes in Psalmos (Ps., 36, 6: PL 36, 386; Ps., 138, 20: PL 37, 1796); an ideal that did not sound, as in Tertullian, as a revolt against pagan R., but opened to Latin the paths of the future. It is a superficial judgment to affirm that the Latinity of Augustine is opposed to that of Jerome: Augustine knows classical Latin, knows the Latin of Christian writers, and from both he retains as much as seems to him suitable for expressing with clarity, precision and efficacy quae intellecta sunt... ut intelligenter, ut libenter, ut obedienter audiantur (cf. Doct. Christ., IV, 15). When it seems to him that such Latin is not enough, he draws from living speech, or, better, takes inspiration from the Holy Scriptures, shapes his Latin with meditated freedom. And the language that is born from this is truly catholic, that is, it has no limits either of space or of time.

Given the current state of studies on the language of the Christian Latin writers of the 5th and 6th centuries — studies which one cannot say when they will be completed, since for them it is indispensable to have reliable editions of the individual writers — it is to be held that the Augustinian doctrine concerning language spread quickly and rather widely, albeit to a varying degree according to the various countries; widely, for example, in Gaul, very scantily in Spain; in none of the lands where it arrived was it understood in its essence. The mediocre teachers of the time, at most, could achieve, with regard to Augustine's thought on the matter, only the effort to free themselves from the classical form in lexicon as well as in grammar, in prosody as well as in metrics; more than one of them remained bewildered, and some other was unable to free himself from the "mera linguae Latiaris proprietas." Thus in Gaul, in contrast to Salvian of Marseilles (d. ca. 480), in whom the Augustinian reflections are evident, one finds the linguistic bewilderments of Apollinaris Sidonius (ca. 430 - ca. 482) and the attempts of Avitus (5th-6th centuries) to imitate, especially in poetry, the classical form. In Africa the Latin of Victor of Vita, of Dracontius, of Fulgentius, to one who examines it well, attests the conditions of those schools (when Fulgentius [b. in 468 at Telepte in Byzacena] left Africa for the first time he had passed his 30th year), in which the literary doctrines of Augustine had penetrated tumultuously. A comparative study of the Latin of the writers of Italy of the 5th and 6th centuries (Sedulius, Leo the Great, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Arator, Venantius Fortunatus) and of the attitudes of our schools in the face of the linguistic principles proclaimed by the Tagastan, attitudes quite varied, would be very interesting. Such principles nowhere else made teachers and writers as thoughtful as in Italy, and nowhere else was their import so well understood. Cassiodorus (ca. 485-ca. 575), a writer, also by family traditions, quite bound to the past, conceived the thought that Latin must henceforth be such as to be able to serve, binding its destiny to that of Christianity (he was the true founder of the church schools), the fortunes of posteritas (Varine, I, Praef., 1), and, not knowing how to do otherwise, formed his Latin by freely putting together that of the classics of the various centuries. More modestly Venantius Fortunatus took care to write a Latin that, coming pleasing to the ears of the Germanic barbarians, might make the sweetnesses of the muses penetrate into their hearts, and he did not grow indignant in the face of barbarisms. But on the threshold of the 6th century Gregory I (540-604) solemnly proclaimed with Augustine: "indignum vehementer existimo ut verba caelestis oraculi restringam sub regulis Donati" (Ep., V, 53). This meant that, as the Empire of R. was becoming an ideal empire with Christianity, means adequate to receive the heartbeat of the heart and the thought of the mind of those who formed this ideal empire were required. Donatus no longer sufficed.

II. CLASSICAL LATIN LITERATURE, CHRISTIAN GREEK LITERATURE AND CHRISTIAN LATIN WRITERS

The literary problem presented itself to Christian writers as much more complex than the linguistic one: its solution in fact necessarily implied an assiduous and profound study of the classics, whose harms and dangers they had to fear, especially for the education of the young (Tertullian, De anima, 39; Minucius, Octavius, 23, 1 ff.: Basil, Πρὸς τοὺς νέους). In the face of it, the attitude of Christians in the Greek world was different from that of the Latins, but in the Greek world Christian literature was born when the Greek genius, by then weary from nine centuries of labor spent creating the pagan one, no longer had the strength to attempt new daring feats, so that the new literature was channeled, as regards form, into the furrow of tradition with some rare and superficial retouching, and as regards content was forced by the demands of the times to be predominantly theological and philosophical.

There, therefore, the problem of the relations that such literature ought to have with classical literature was not even faced in its precise terms, and justifications were sought only for the study of the classics, justifications often even puerile (cf. Socrates, Hist. eccl., III, 16: PG 67, 417-24). In the Latin world, on the other hand, the literature of the "new word" arose when that world, with forces still intact, was straining toward the "new," in a profound spiritual travail: therefore intentions of art prevailed in it, and one may even say "rhetorical," if this adjective is given the value it then had. In fact in Christian Latin literature the thought of renewing the "ancient" in a literary way is very soon evident, even more than once, with a revolutionary spirit (cf. Tertullian, Arnobius, Commodianus). In Justin there is manifest an absolute literary indifference, in Minucius there is the attempt to renew Ciceronian art; in Tatian there is manifest carelessness, in Tertullian a continual striving to open new paths for letters. It followed that Christian Latin writers faced and solved, in the only way it could be solved, the problem of relations with the pagan writers of all the centuries. And it was proclaimed that the study of the classics served to transform — not in the light of ethics, save for rare exceptions, but in the light of art — the "ancient" into the "new." This explains how, toward the decline of the 4th century, Basil, who had nevertheless been a famous teacher of rhetoric at Caesarea, in his Discourse to the Young does not mention the great Greek poets without adding to their names even a single adjective expressing an aesthetic judgment, whereas Jerome, some years later, in his letter Ad Magnum oratorem urbis Romae, found a way to do this by citing Cyprian, Aristides, Minucius Felix; and, at the beginning of the following century, Augustine set his hand to his De doctrina christiana (completed later in 426), that is, to the most meditated treatise on rhetoric of Christian literature: of these two, the first was the most authoritative representative of the tendency that in Christian literature wished the classical one to be renewed, but with a certain moderation; the other pointed out and carried out the renewal with the greatest — but well-meditated — freedom. And in fact the Greeks continued in Christian literature almost all the genres of the pagan one — some more than those cultivated by the Latins (e.g. drama; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Χριστὸς πάσχων) — and produced a literature certainly interesting in many respects, but which from the artistic point of view sent forth only rays of setting light. Whereas Christian Latin literature, renewing the pagan one that was gradually being eclipsed, sent forth rays of dawn light: one need only think of Ambrosian eloquence and poetry; of the commentaries and epistolography of Jerome; of the poetry of Prudentius, of the majority of Augustine's writings. And if it entered into contest with the Greeks, it conquered them: this is attested among other things by Ambrose's Homilies and Hexameron. And it created Augustine's soliloquy. When Julian, applying the measures of which we have spoken, let Victorinus go from the chair of Rome and showed himself disposed to keep Prohaeresius in that of the Athenaeum of Athens, he showed that he had understood that the danger for the classical letters, dear to him, was more serious in the West than in the East; but he had not understood, and could not understand, that it was the Christian literature of the West that had until then assured and would assure for the future as much of the thought, the literary art, the language of R. as was destined to live through the centuries.

211; id., Quelques observations sur l'originalité de la littérature latine chrét., in Riv. di stor. della Chiesa, 4 (1950), pp. 153-63; id., Le latin langue de la chrétienté occidentale, in Aevum, 24 (1950), pp. 133-61; id., Etude de la latinité occidentale, ibid., 24 (1950), pp. 133-61; id., Etude de la latinité chrét. Conférence donnée à l'Institut de linguistique de l'Université de Paris, Paris 1951.

Aurelio Giuseppe Amatucci

III. ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LATIN LITERATURE

It is not easy to grasp, in the development of Christian literature, features that clearly characterize its various periods, since from the very beginning a multiplicity of interests and a variety of forms assert themselves, in which peculiar elements can scarcely be discerned. Taking into account the historical climate in which the writers worked, the literary tendencies that prevailed to some degree, and the influence exerted by the most prominent personalities, three periods can be distinguished.

The periods: from the end of the 2nd century to about 326. - Christian Latin literature is born, one might say, fully grown, both because it expresses the life of a group by then widespread and firmly established, and because from its very beginnings it is represented by strong personalities, trained in a school capable, despite its gaps and defects, of educating toward a composed and effective expression. The first literary works arise in the Church of Africa, which would continue to hold the field, almost alone, for over a century. Tertullian (if, as many scholars think, he is earlier than Minucius Felix) is the leader of the band of the valiant. Minucius Felix (v.), an African lawyer who writes at Rome, treats in the Octavius the same subjects as Tertullian the apologist, from whom he draws abundantly, but with the aim of showing, in accordance with a tendency already nobly established in apologetics, the consonance between Christianity and philosophy. Much of Minucius Felix and especially of Tertullian passed into the writings of St. Cyprian (v.). First a pagan rhetorician, then a priest and bishop of Carthage for a decade, he put his pen at the service of the pastoral mission in some ten brief treatises (almost all of them sermons) and in 65 letters, setting aside every cultural interest, so much so that he never cites the pagan authors whom he nonetheless knew thoroughly. At the same time, at Rome, Novatian (v.), author of the well-known schism, elaborated the Trinitarian doctrine in a classical Latin and treated moral and disciplinary questions. The polemical tradition against polytheism and idolatry, which found some vigorous accents also in the work of Cyprian, was taken up with fiery ardor by another African, Arnobius (v.), formerly a rhetorician at Sicca Veneria, in the seven books Adversus nationes, composed around 304. Lactantius, also an African, closes the first period of Christian Latin literature not only because his activity unfolded astride the two ages, first under Diocletian, who summoned him to Nicomedia to teach Latin eloquence, and then under Constantine, who wanted him as tutor to his son Crispus at Trier (ca. 317), but also because in this writer the polemical interest combines, opening the way to one of the characteristic aspects of the golden period, with the aim of systematic exposition. With Lactantius, in the Hodoeporicon, lost, and in the De ave phoenice, whose authorship it seems cannot be denied him, Christian Latin poetry of certain dating makes its first appearance. To the age of Constantine belong the Laudes Domini (v.), a graceful little poem composed in Gaul. With some probability other poetic compositions are placed in the second half of the 3rd century, or at the beginning of the following one, such as the pseudo-Tertullian Carmen adversus Marcionem, the Instructiones and the Carmen apologeticum of Commodian (v.), didactic and polemical writings of a popular character in language and meter, which interprets according to a free accentual criterion the rhythm of the classical hexameter.

Of the prose writers, Victorinus of Pettau, martyred in 304, is still worthy of mention for his exegetical work. It will also be appropriate to recall the hagiographic literature, which makes its first appearance in this period (to speak only of writings literarily elaborated) with the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity (202-203), perhaps due to Tertullian, and the Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, written shortly after the martyrdom by his deacon Pontius.

The period: from 326 to 430. — Around 330 the Evangeliorum libri IV of the Spaniard Juvencus were composed, a modest paraphrase of the Gospels, especially of that of Matthew, in hexameters of diligent workmanship. But this and other figures are eclipsed by a group of writers in whom Western Christianity expresses itself with such vigor of thought and perfection of style as to form the golden age of Christian Latin literature: Hilary (v.), Ambrose (v.), Jerome (v.), Augustine (v.), Prudentius (v.), Paulinus of Nola (v.).

After the great ones, the lesser ones must also be named: Pope St. Damasus (v.), known for the metrical epitaphs of the martyrs, C. Marius Victorinus (v.), Firmicus Maternus (v.), Lucifer of Cagliari (v.), Fortunatianus (v.) and Chromatius (v.) of Aquileia, Eusebius of Vercelli (v.), Filastrius and Gaudentius of Brescia (v.), Zeno of Verona (v.), Optatus of Milevis (v.), Pacian of Barcelona (v.), Gregory of Elvira (v.), Petronius of Bologna (v.), the Ambrosiaster (v.), Nicetas of Remesiana (v.), Sulpicius Severus (v.), biographer of St. Martin and historian, Paulinus of Milan, biographer of St. Ambrose, Orosius (v.), historian and controversialist, Marius Mercator (v.), the heretic Pelagius (v.).

III period: from 430 to 636. — The vigorous creative impulse has weakened. In poetry, in oratory, in theological controversy, in dogmatic and moral treatment, a tradition has been formed, through the work of the greatest, both in that literature of a pragmatic character in which the action of men of government and of theologians is documented, and in the more properly artistic forms, in the first place in poetry. Bringing together, by analogy in literary expressions, also some writers who worked at the end of the preceding period, one notes the metrical paraphrases of the Old and New Testaments, due to Cyprianus Gallus, Cl. Marius Victor, Sedulius, Hilary; at the end of the 5th century and in the following one this genre would still be cultivated by Avitus of Vienne and by Anatolius. An accent of sincere poetry is present in some poems of the African Dracontius (d. 496); rhetorical artifice dominates in the compositions in prose and verse of Ennodius (v.), bishop of Pavia from 513 to 521. An easy vein, but scant originality of thought and superficial sentiment, is shown by Venantius Fortunatus (530-607 ca.). Lyric, hagiography and didactic writing provide material for the verses of Orientius, Paulinus of Pella, Paulinus of Périgueux, Apollinaris Sidonius. Pastoral oratory is represented with dignity by St. Maximus of Turin (v.), St. Peter Chrysologus (v.), St. Leo the Great (v.), whose characteristic is the ample periodic structure rhythmically marked by clauses with Roman solemnity, which also appears in the doctrinal letters; by St. Caesarius of Arles (470-542; v.), also author of theological and ascetic works. In the homilies on Ezekiel and on the Gospels St. Gregory the Great (v.), pope from 590 to 604, takes up many Augustinian motifs of thought and form, reworking them with acute practical sense and with a simplicity of speech not divorced from composed decorum.

Theological controversy and speculation in this period centered particularly on the Trinitarian dogma and the Incarnation, in polemic against the Arianism of the barbarians, with the Africans Fulgentius of Ruspe (v.), Vigilius of Thapsus (v.), and Facundus of Hermiane (v.). The extreme theses of the Augustinian doctrine of Grace, resolutely defended by St. Prosper of Aquitaine (v.) during the master's lifetime and after his death, met with lively opposition from John Cassian (v.), known above all as a successful writer of ascetic works and, from his monastery at Marseilles, a promoter of monastic life, and from the monastery of Lérins (v.), founded by Eucherius of Lyons and made illustrious, among others, by St. Vincent (v.), by Arnobius the Younger (v.), by Faustus, later bishop of Riez (v.), and by Salvian of Marseilles (v.), in whom theological and ascetic interests broadened into a passionate meditation on the history of his own time in the De gubernatione Dei. History, and especially biography, enjoyed considerable development: mention is made of Possidius of Calama, who between 432 and 437 wrote the life of St. Augustine; the deacon Ferrandus, biographer of Fulgentius; Eugippius, author of the life of St. Severinus, apostle of Noricum; Gennadius of Marseilles, continuator of St. Jerome's De viris illustribus; Cyprian, bishop of Toulon, who, with other disciples, composed the life of St. Caesarius of Arles; and Gregory of Tours (v.), the historian of the Franks, who by now left a broad mark also on hagiographic literature.

A place apart is deserved by Severinus Boethius, Cassiodorus (v.) and Isidore of Seville (v.). Boethius (ca. 480-524; v.), who represented and upheld the cause of Roman civilization before Theodoric with a dignity that cost him his life, gathered up the heritage of ancient philosophy and culture and transmitted it to the Middle Ages in translations, commentaries and treatises, especially on the Trinity and the Incarnation, and composed in prison the De consolatione philosophiae, in which problems of thought are reviewed, as in Plato and Augustine, in fullness of humanity, and presented, in the alternation of prose and verse, with a nobility worthy of the best classical tradition. Cassiodorus (490-c. 583), having withdrawn in the full maturity of his years from public activity, devoted himself to a life of moderate asceticism in the monastery of Vivarium, in Calabria, which through his impulse became a hearth of intense cultural activity. A notable interest in ancient culture was shown also by Martin, bishop of Braga (v.; ca. 515-79), in his moral treatises drawn largely from the philosophers and in other more original works. But he was largely surpassed by another Spaniard, Isidore, bishop of Seville (v.; ca. 570-636). With these men, who strive to educate the new barbarian world in the light of classical antiquity and of Christianity, the interests, methods and spirit of medieval culture are by now clearly affirmed, a culture in which the seeds sown during the first centuries of Christian literature will in their time have a luxuriant development.

IV. MEDIEVAL

1. From the fall of the Empire to the Carolingian rebirth

The fall of the Roman Empire with Romulus Augustulus, the successive Ostrogothic and Lombard empires, the various wars with the consequent devastation that laid Italy waste, threatened to bring about the decline of Christian culture along with whatever it had managed to save of the ancient heritage of the Roman world, which it had largely absorbed into itself. Amid all this devastation it was of indisputable benefit that the example of Cassiodorus did not remain isolated, but found favorable ground among the Benedictines and especially in St. Gregory the Great, poet, monk and pope, who succeeded in reviving the Church in Italy and in Gaul and in winning over the Visigoths of Spain and the Anglo-Saxons. A powerful means of union among so many nations was then the unity of the language of the Church, used especially in the liturgy and in worship and consequently also made use of in religious writings, in oratory, in law and in the sciences. Already among the first companions of St. Benedict is found the poet Marcus of Montecassino, who composed in distichs the life of the founder; and St. Gregory the Great, if he does not share Boethius's enthusiasm for the ancient writers, nevertheless proves by no means mediocre in the art of style and composes most beautiful hymns, which were introduced into the liturgy.

In North Africa, the Vandals destroyed everything; nor did the Byzantine conquest succeed in repairing it. Nevertheless there flourished at that time the grammarian Flavius Cresconius Corippus, author of Johannidos seu de bellis lybicis libri VIII, rich in fine narratives; Verecundus, bishop of Byzacena, author of a short poem De poenitentia, with exact meter, but devoid of true poetry; Fulgentius Ferrandus of Carthage with various canonical writings. With him Latin literature disappears from Africa. In Visigothic Spain, on the other hand, letters rose to a fine flowering; even several kings practiced them with short poems, distichs, inscriptions: Sisebut, Chintila, Recceswinth, Wamba. And the great bishops of the time had great merit in the classical instruction of the Visigoths: Severus of Cartagena, Taio and Braulio of Saragossa, Ildefonsus and Julian of Toledo, Fructuosus of Braga, Eugenius II of Toledo, with the short poem Hexaemeron, who mastered various kinds of verse like a master; and above all Isidore of Seville (v.). In Gaul, amid the numerous political upheavals the Church knew how to hold firm the unity and the Latin culture, in which distinguished themselves Gregory of Tours ([v.]: Historia Francorum); Venantius Fortunatus with his ca. 250 Christian poems of content, but clothed in the garments and forms of ancient mythology; his hymns on the Cross were introduced into the liturgy.

A fertile refuge did Latin literature find in Ireland through the work of St. Patrick (v.); his deeds were sung by the disciple Secundinus in 23 trochaic stanzas. From Ireland is the monk Columba, who founds the monastery of Iona, a center of culture and of irradiation for all Caledonia; the abbot Adamnan left a life of him in verse, where one encounters touches of exquisite poetry: to which he added De situ Terrae Sanctae, derived from the reports of Arculf, bishop of Gaul, shipwrecked there. English, on the other hand, are: Gildas the Wise ([v.]: De excidio Britanniae); Aldhelm (v.), of the royal line of Wessex, founder of the monastery of Malmesbury, another center of cultural irradiation, and author of prose and short poems, among them Synopsis, a collection of 100 riddles to « primi ingenioli rudimenta excitare », and De laudibus virginum, a survey of men and women, commendable for their virginity. Equally a center of culture was the abbey of Wearmouth, in Northumbria, where flourished the founder, Benedict Biscop (v.), who enriched it with numerous codices brought in 5 journeys from Rome; Ceolfrith (v.), also a seeker of codices, to whom is owed the celebrated « Amiatine Bible »; Bede the Venerable with his numerous works, which embrace almost all the fields of the knowledge of that time. In the first half of the 7th century Ireland sent missionaries to Germany, who with the faith also spread Latin culture in the numerous convents erected there; Columbanus, author of letters and short poems, with his pupil St. Gall, and above all St. Boniface, author of letters, short poems and of an exquisite collection of riddles, in which there is little that is enigmatic, but they describe with fine penetration the ten principal virtues and the ten principal vices. With him corresponded in verse letters the nuns Eadburga and Lioba.

2. Carolingian age

It can rightly be called a literary renaissance, because letters took magnificent flowering not only at the Court of Charlemagne, but also in the principal abbeys of Fulda, Reichenau, St. Gall and many others. Charlemagne showed extraordinary care for culture. To Aachen, his residence, came from Italy Paulinus of Aquileia, the grammarian Peter of Pisa, the historian Paul the Deacon; from Spain Theodulf; from Ireland and Scotland Dungal, a seeker of codices, Joseph Scotus, famous for his acrostic figures; from among the Franks Angilbert and Einhard (v.), biographer of the Emperor; soul of all this circle was Alcuin (v.) of York. But Aachen did not succeed in being, as was dreamed, an ideal center to be compared to R., and already before the death of Charles several paladins scattered to various parts and letters, after the promising spring, returned to gather in the circle of the monasteries, because the laity did not care much for them. At Fulda distinguished himself, among others, Rabanus Maurus (v.), the « praeceptor Germaniae », for his zeal directed to the schools and to instruction. At Reichenau were notable Walafrid Strabo who with De visionibus Wettini preluded to the Divine Comedy and with Hortulus gave a didactic poem with touches quite graceful and learned from life; Ermoldus Nigellus, with the poem on the deeds of Louis the Pious; Sedulius Scotus, Florus, Ratramnus of Corbie, Gottschalk. At St. Gall, where the first attempts at a German literature began, with interlinear versions and vocabulary, distinguished themselves: Notker the Stammerer, of great musical gifts, who gave origin to the Sequences, rapidly spread and imitated by many; Tuotilo, who did the same thing for the Introits with the Tropes; Ratpert and the five Ekkehards, the first of whom had the order to transpose into Latin verses some Germanic sagas and thus gave the heroic poem Waltherius manu fortis; later purged of the too many barbarisms remaining in it (« Haec, quicunque legis stridenti ignosce cicadae ») by the last Ekkehard, the V. The poem narrates the flight of Waltherius from the court of Attila and his most varied adventures. Slightly later is another adventure poem, by an unknown author, the Ruodlieb, story of the young knight Ruod, who, forced to leave his homeland, spends two years in exile amid adventures of arms and of loves.

An animal epic presents itself with the Ecbasis cuiusdam captivi, in 1175 hexameters, by an unknown author, but permeated with Virgil; it deals with a monk, who describes under the guise of various animals his apostasy, his vicissitudes and finally the return to the fold. Of the same genre, but shorter (344 distichs), is Isengrinus (the author, a great lover of Ovid, is unknown and belongs to the beginnings of the 12th century) with the two adventures: the illness of a lion and the pilgrimage of a chamois; to this poem can be connected the broader reworking by Master Nivard (in the middle of the 12th century) Reinhardus l'Vulpes. Particular mention deserves the nun Hrotsvitha (v.) of Gandersheim, who, besides various poetic works of hagiographic subject, occupied herself with transforming the theater of Terence, replacing its scabrous matter with other, healthier loves, treated sometimes with ingenuous unconcern.

3. Toward the Renaissance (9th-13th century)

In this period the new literatures proper to the new peoples of Europe were developing, and laymen began to cultivate them with care and even with talent, while Latin continued to be the language of the Church, of law, of diplomatic relations and also of the Universities, and above all produced a very rich historical output, though of uneven literary value. Since a detailed list is not possible amid such abundance (the works themselves published in MGH, RIS, Acta SS., PL and in other similar collections are far from proving exhaustive), it will be best to touch on the various literary genres in broad outline, all the more so since the best literary histories of the different nations, alongside works written in their own language, are also accustomed to treat those written in Latin.

Accordingly, in the field of historical production, the Vitae sanctorum hold an important place in this period, especially those of saints who have connections with churches, monasteries, sanctuaries, and pilgrimage destinations (Luitger, Aeltfred, Rimbert, Wandelbert of Prüm, etc.), to which were soon added the annals and chronicles of the principal monasteries (Fulda, Hersfeld, Montecassino, etc.), the histories of dioceses (Verdun, Auxerre, of Agnellus for Ravenna, etc.) and the vicissitudes of the lesser peoples, of their sovereigns, and of the various enterprises of conquest (Echempert for the Lombards at Benevento, Liutprand for the history of his own times, Widukind for the Saxons, Hermann Contractus, Master Adam, Anastasius the Librarian, George Syncellus, Orderic Vitalis, Flodoard, Otto of Freising, William of Tyre, etc.). Here an easy field was found by histories mixed with legends, the naive credulity of many hagiographers, and the craving for edification, so that in the various collections of golden legends (James of Varazze, Thomas of Chantimpré, Caesarius of Heisterbach, etc.) it is not always very easy to disentangle from the ample trappings of exaggerations and contaminations the kernel of truth that they clothe. Nor should we omit the attempts to give an epic dress as well to the ample material thus offered by the legends, both in the hagiographic field (for example, the various De triumphis Christi on the saints and martyrs of Palestine, Antioch and Arabia by Flodoard of Reims, already mentioned; the Vita et passio s. Christophori of Walter of Speyer; the Passio s. Mauritii, etc., of Sigebert of Gembloux, etc.) and in the historical field (the Victory of the Pisans over the Saracens [1088], the deeds of the Perugians, the conquest of Jerusalem, the Solymarius on the exploits of the First Crusade, the Ligurinus on Frederick I Barbarossa, the Alexandreid of Walter of Châtillon, the Historia Mahumetis of the monk Hildebert, the Carolinus of Giles of Paris on Charlemagne, the Aurora of Peter of Riga on the Old and New Testaments).

Meanwhile a kind of union is noted between philosophical and humanistic culture (Polycraticus and Entheticus of John of Salisbury, etc.); then humanistic studies come to be considered as the first step toward philosophical studies (the Labyrinthus of Gerard of Béthune); indeed a strong influence of Plautus and Terence becomes evident (for example, the story of Paulinus and Polla by a certain judge Richard, " Venusinae gentis alumnus "). The shadowy zones of the Middle Ages are brought into view by a whole satirical production that reaches its culmination in what is commonly called the goliardic poetry of the clerici vagantes, where at one moment assistance is sought in order to be able to study, at another the thickest matters and the pleasures of wine and love are unfurled with ample and sometimes too great freedom of words (" Mihi est propositum in taberna mori "), and at another the weaknesses of the clergy and the vices of all professions are pitilessly stung. The lack of a true art and of a true dramatic poetry is supplied by the sacred representations joined to the liturgy, especially of Easter and Christmas and of other Mysteries relating to them, which however passed into reprehensible contaminations with the feast of asses or of fools. Religious lyric and hymnody (hymns, sequences, tropes) flourished instead quite well, not only with classical meters, but also and above all with rhythmic meters (St. Peter Damian, Hermann Contractus, Peter the Venerable, Hildebert of Tours, Abelard, St. Bernard, Adam of St. Victor, St. Thomas Aquinas), and a broad path to a further development and study of literature was offered especially by the encyclopedic work of Vincent of Beauvais: Speculum triplex, naturale, doctrinale, historiale, with its rich treasure of citations and passages derived from an extraordinary quantity of authors of the pagan and Christian world.

V. MODERN

In this period of the fullest flowering of humanism, marked by a vigilant study of the ancient authors, alongside a pagan or paganizing literary production, at times of a deplorable frivolity and boldness, there is no lack of works of Christian literature well worthy of mention not only for their perfect stylistic form, but also for the loftiness of their thought and sentiment. For Italy, mention should be made of: Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pius II), one of the greatest promoters of the Renaissance, with De viris illustribus, De puerorum educatione and the autobiography Commentarii rerum memorabilium; Pier Paolo Vergerio with De ingenuis moribus de liberalibus studiis adulescentiae; Maffeo Vegio with De educatione liberorum; Giacomo Sadoleto with his short poems and his philosophical and pedagogical writings; Girolamo Vida with Hymni de rebus divinis and the Christiades; Jacopo Sannazaro with the De partu Virginis; Gian Giorgio Trissino, Gerolamo Fracastoro. Outside Italy one may cite: John Gerson, Willibald Pirkheimer, Trithemius, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, John Dantiscus, Germanus of Brix, E. Stephanus, G. Lipsius, Hugo Grotius, the Lutheran bishop of Ireland Brynjólfur Sveinsson with his fine collection of Marian poems.

In the 17th and 18th centuries the so-called theater of the Jesuits remained famous, that is, the numerous series of dramas that the teachers composed and the pupils performed in their various colleges. The field, so to speak, of action was rather limited, both because of the purely pedagogical purpose and because of the not yet fully developed artistic skill of the performers. Nevertheless it exercised a quite notable influence, and the number of compositions is very high. Generally the theme was derived from Greek and Roman history, from the Bible, from the salient events of the lives of the saints, from episodes of medieval and contemporary history, or from abstract and allegorical subjects concerning virtues and vices. From among the very dense throng of those who practiced it, some distinguished themselves: Giacomo Biedermann, Niccolò Avancini, Niccolò Poussin, John Spinelli. This school theater, adopted in almost all the schools of the religious orders, finds a counterpart in the parallel Protestant literature, already stimulated by Luther himself and which counts as its forerunner the Dutchman Willem van de Voldergroft.

In the same period lyric poetry, favored by numerous occasions of births, commemorations, marriages, religious professions, had some practitioners worthy of note: M. Sarbiewski, Giacomo Balde, Simone Rettenbacher; epic poetry produced the Sarcotis of J. Masen, in some respects a prototype of Milton's Paradise Lost, the Urania victrix of the aforementioned Balde; the Jesus puer of Tommaso Ceva and the Life of Mary of the missionary Ven. Giuseppe de Anchieta; didactic and satirical poetry with Giovanni Lorenzo Lucchesini, Giulio Cesare Cordara.

The modern neoclassical movement. — In the second half of the 19th century there is a valid revival of Latin literature, especially in the field of poetry, which, detached from humanistic schemes and freely wandering over the open seas of the modern age, seems finally to close the parenthesis of the 17th and 18th centuries, in which, if the Latin exercises were many, the voices truly worthy were few in comparison. To this new Humanism contributed the Dutch foundation of Amsterdam, established by Jacob Henry Hoeufft, and various others that followed it (in Italy: the Ruspantini Competition [Rome], the Triumviri Competition [Gerace Marina]). To remain within the assigned field of ancient Christian Latin literature, mention should be made of: the Swiss Pietro Esseiva, with the Poemetti biblici and the Elegie romane; Diego Vitrioli (Xiphias); Leo XIII with Odi, Epigrammi and Elegie, adhering to the events of the times; John Pascoli (v.) with his Poemetti cristiani; Herman Weller (Lucius, Fabius et Cornelia); A. Zappata (Mater Jesu, Mater Judae); Alfredo Bartoli (Sophronia); A. Casoli (Telemachus Lyricorum liber I et II); G. A. Rocco (Africa, Thriumphale melos); F. S. Alessio (Vitus); G. Morabito (Martyrer); Diego Verghetti (Gloriosus Ordo B.M.V. de Mercede); A. Monti (De arte volandi, Ad Polum versus); R. Carrozzari (Caecilia); O. Cagnacci (Odae); A. Trazzi (Formicae magistrae, Pio Papae XI); V. Genovesi (Carmina, Carmina fidei); A. Bacci (Inscriptiones, Orationes, Epistolae). The new (1953) quarterly Latin periodical Latinitas, published under the auspices of the Holy See, which will treat, among other things, also of the ancient and recent Christian Latin writers, is to be welcomed with sympathy.

Celestino Testore

III. ART.

I. ANCIENT AGE

The testimonies that the men who lived in prehistoric times on the hills where Rome later arose, and therefore the most ancient inhabitants of the city, have left of themselves are closely connected with those of the other populations then living in the center of the peninsula. But around the 7th century BC elements of Etruscan culture seem to prevail also in the field of figurative arts, and the name of the sculptor Vulca of Veii is linked to the most ancient images venerated in the temple of the Capitoline and to the splendid bronze she-wolf, a work of the 6th century BC, preserved in the Capitoline Museums, itself the emblem of the city.

Thus the most ancient architectural works of Rome are related to the culture of the Etruscans, such as the Mamertine Prison, the Tullianum, or the Cloaca Maxima which channeled the waters of the Forum toward the Tiber and which testifies to what a high degree of civilization and technical skill had by then been reached in the region. On the other hand, the cippus with an inscription in archaic Latin discovered beneath the so-called tomb of Romulus in the Forum is certainly earlier than the year 500 BC. Meanwhile in southern Italy and in Etruria itself, beginning in the 4th century BC, Hellenic influences arrived with greater intensity and were soon reflected also in the architectural, sculptural and pictorial manifestations of the Romans, as testified not only by the three temples of the Forum Holitorium, which lie beneath the church of S. Nicola in Carcere, or the other one called that of Fortuna Virilis, but by Roman coinage, bronze urns, cippi and marble sarcophagi from the 4th century BC onward, and by the most ancient records of a pictorial activity in Rome, such as the fragment of the fresco found on the Esquiline, today in the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline, which must likewise be assigned to the 3rd century BC.

Subsequently, in the last two centuries of the republic, art developed with greater intensity. The elements contributing to it are predominantly Etruscan and Hellenic, but fused with ever greater independence and originality. One might even say that the architectural culture and the great technical skill of the Etruscan engineers, marvelous builders of arches and vaults, then provided the skeleton of the buildings, while the achievements of Hellenic culture were kept in view above all for their decoration and their cladding of polychrome marbles.

But already from those times constructions of an official or celebratory character tended toward the grandiose, the imposing, and not only did the primitive temples of wood and terracotta gradually give way to stone constructions, but these were adorned with broad entrance stairways, such as the one dedicated to the Magna Mater on the Palatine, which dates from 191 BC, or had great porticoes like the temples erected in the Campus Martius in honor of Jupiter and Juno by the architect Hermodoros of Salamis at the order of Metellus, victor of the Macedonian war, in the year 146 BC. At the same time the Romans undertook the construction of their first basilicas, of great markets, of ports, of aqueducts, of roads. And the construction of the latter implied that of bridges whose arches became ever higher, sturdier and more daring, set, as in the aqueducts, on strong piers. Works that already then possessed that excess of structural power later characteristic of the major constructions of the imperial period. Thus already in the republican age, in works of a utilitarian character - and one could long speak of the architectural values of fortification works - that particular intonation of solemn and grandiose impressiveness asserted itself which, in the city renewed in the imperial age, would be characteristic of Rome. Meanwhile, in the increasingly rich villas and in the houses, forms evolved that were closely connected to Hellenic ones and articulated according to the architectural orders (v.) by then traditional, that is the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Tuscan and then the various types of composite.

But by the 1st century BC, while the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, which had caught fire in 83 BC during the Sullan struggles, was being rebuilt with a new taste, in 55 BC Pompey built the first great stone theater of the city, while Caesar, having erected the Saepta, that is a great colonnaded portico which, following the Via Flaminia, extended from the Campus Martius toward the Capitoline, undertook the construction of the Forum, which took its name from him, and of the Basilica Julia. In this way there began that radical transformation of the city center which subsequently, over the span of four centuries, was to crowd together one of the most important complexes of architectures ever seen in the West.

1. Architecture

At first one witnesses a strengthening, so to speak, of the Etruscan and Hellenistic forms, characterized by a greater impressiveness of the buildings in which those forms appear. A second phase follows, which begins toward the end of the 1st century of the Christian era. In it the elements of the ancient classicist tradition of Hellenic derivation are coupled with others independent of it, or, even if derived from it and from the Etruscan tradition or from still other cultures, evolved with independence and novelty of orientation. And finally a third phase which occupies almost the whole of the 3rd century and the beginnings of the 4th century of the Christian era. In this last phase the architectural forms of the Romans, matured through the preceding experiences, evolve with absolute independence and acquire absolute originality even in the goals to be pursued. Principal among all, that of raising structures in which the plastic masses, clearly defined and set against one another in a skillful alternation of lights and shadows, render almost concrete the sense of architectural space.

The principal works of the first phase existing in Rome are, besides the already mentioned constructions from the time of Sulla, of Pompey and of Caesar, those erected in the time of the emperors of the 1st century of the Christian era from Augustus to Trajan: the tomb of Augustus and that of Cecilia Metella, the house called that of Livia on the Palatine, the imperial Palace of Tiberius and that of Domitian also on the Palatine, the arch of Titus, the theater of Marcellus, the Flavian amphitheater (the Colosseum), the Forum of Augustus and that of Nerva. In all these buildings, although with new inflections and a new force of chiaroscuro acceptance, the laws of the preceding architectural syntax of Hellenistic tradition still hold value in the relations between the individual members. And such value appears in the individual parts of the major complex of buildings that begins the subsequent phase, that is in the completion of the Imperial Forums, carried out by Trajan on a design by Apollodorus of Damascus between 111 and 114 and conceived with a marvelous sense of unity and a grandeur of intent hitherto unknown in the West. Once new construction techniques had been conquered and perfectly mastered, such as the use of brick in place of tufa and stone and that of cement mortar, as well as an extraordinary skill in turning barrel and groin vaults, and domes, these conquests made their greatest test in the reconstruction, which took place between 115 and 125, of the Pantheon, already erected by M. V. Agrippa and burned in 110. Here, however, the great rotunda, covered by a hemispherical dome measuring 43.50 meters in diameter, which is in a certain sense the most original element of the building, is placed alongside but not fused with that of classicist tradition constituted by the pronaos. A sort of eclecticism of which we shall have a reflection also as a juxtaposition of architectural expressions of very different taste in the various buildings of the villa of the emperor Hadrian which lies below Tivoli, in the mausoleum of that Emperor and finally in the architectures of the time of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus such as the arch in the Forum and the palace of the latter Emperor which is on the Palatine. In which buildings there is evident an ever greater fancifulness in the plans and in the structures and a heightening of the taste for the picturesque and the scenographic in the alternating play of the projecting columns of the pediments, of the niches, of the walls variously moved and undulating. It resolves itself, in the imposing buildings of the third phase of Roman architecture, which begins with the construction, between 212 and 216, of the baths of the emperor Caracalla, into expressions of the highest and new aesthetic value. Thus in the mausoleum of the Gordians (238-44), which recalls the Pantheon, thus in the bath hall or nymphaeum known as the temple of Minerva Medica, thus in the baths of Diocletian (284-305), thus in the basilica begun by Maxentius and completed in the year 312 by Constantine, thus finally in the triumphal arch erected in 315 in honor of this emperor by the Senate and the Roman people. In these buildings, and in the others of the same age reflecting the same taste, the limpid and straightforward structures express with absolute clarity architectural ideas that are logical and harmonious at once. This is pursued by means of the full mastery of an admirable technique by which the various elements of the constructions — walls, piers, arches, vaults, domes — take their place with absolute apparent freedom, dominated as they are by the mind of very great architects.

The gigantic basilica of Maxentius completed by Constantine is, in this sense, the masterpiece of Roman architecture. The perfect correspondence between voids and solids, the alternation of the plastic masses that generate a sense of solemn harmony, the just equilibrium between effort and resistance, the vigorous relationships of shadows and lights contribute, beyond making concrete the sense of space, to expressing fully the dominion of human intelligence over matter, from which there springs from contemplation a sense of confidence in human capacities themselves that gives a full and complete enjoyment.

Yet in Rome itself, alongside these most important testimonies of an architectural activity of an official character, there continued to live — and there are manifold testimonies of it, ranging from the so-called house of Livia on the Palatine to the portico of the Di Consentes at the foot of the Tabularium beneath the Capitoline — another architectural vein. It had a simpler and almost modest intonation, which manifests itself in buildings of smaller bulk, above all in houses where around colonnaded peristyles and courtyards the rooms are arranged, covered by ceilings protected by sloping roofs and terraces. Buildings such as these, where the grave problems of the vaulted coverings and of the domes set on piers, proper to the greater architectures recalled above, are not posed, but everything resolves itself into simple and serene forms without oratory; and the weight of the coverings, which have their framework in timber, bears in a perpendicular and direct sense on the walls or on the columns and the architraved piers. It is to this second vein of Roman architecture that in the 4th century in Rome the forms used to raise the first churches were for the most part drawn (v. BASILICA; CHIESA; ITALIA, VI. L'arte in I.).

2. Sculpture

Mention has already been made of the activity of Vulca, Etruscan sculptor of Veii, active at the beginning of the 5th century B.C., author of sculptures for the Capitoline temple of Jupiter and perhaps of the bronze she-wolf of the Museo dei Conservatori. Certain it is that, as in the field of architecture, so in that of sculpture the earliest Roman activity is confounded with the Etruscan. Thus it is evident in the Ficoroni cista of the Museo di Valle Giulia, which is a bronze urn on which scenes from the story of the Argonauts are depicted with marvelous fineness and which bears a Latin inscription stating that it was executed in Rome by a certain Novios Plautios. Thus the numerous portraits of the Republican age have connections with the characteristic pronounced verism of the Etruscan tradition. Yet, by the 1st century B.C., the more cultivated and refined forms linked to the manners of Hellenism, following in this a movement parallel to that noted in the fields of architecture, often turn to representations in which the images are transferred from the plane of individual reality to that of generality, to the point of rising to the dignity of types. Thus in the frequent portraits of Cicero, of Pompey, of Caesar and finally of Augustus, among which the most beautiful is the one found at Prima Porta, and subsequently in the portraits of the other emperors and of the principal personages of their families. In this series, however, the more markedly realistic manners of the ancient local tradition often also make their mark, a tradition that asserts itself on its own account in a great quantity of portraits of citizens and private individuals.

Alongside the series of portraits, Roman art, which has also left numerous copies of Hellenic sculptures of various ages, excels in a group of splendid reliefs of historical and commemorative content that runs from those of the Ara Pacis of Augustus (year 9 B.C.), to those of the arch of Titus, to the others of the column of Trajan, where a greater independence from Hellenic culture asserts itself, to the others still that decorated the arch erected in honor of Hadrian along the Via Flaminia, where there is a return to the cultivated manners of that tradition, to the subsequent ones of the time of Marcus Aurelius and of Septimius Severus, characterized — like the contemporary architecture — by a clear search for pictorial effects. Then in the 3rd century, in the fields of sculpture, one witnesses a twofold movement. On the one hand, as in the famous portrait of Caracalla, it is a pronounced veristic search that prevails, and from it derives a pronounced torment of the surfaces in search of incisive and defined marks; on the other, subsequently, as in the portraits of Gallienus, one witnesses a gradual softening and almost pictorial dissolution of the surfaces, obtained with light transitions of shaded surfaces.

In the second half of the century the two manners coexist and sometimes appear in the same work, until, in the time of Constantine, they are again distinguished, though in two new aspects. On the one hand, in the reliefs of the famous arch, the pictorial aims serve to give vigor and character to images linked to popular and provincial manners — which, as often happens in the moments that follow the passage from one civilization to another, are a new source of inspiration — on the other hand the superficial images enclosed within almost architectural schemes appear static, hierarchical, abstract, outside any human contingency. Hellenistic naturalism, the delicate pictorialism, the soft, skillful transitions of the planes that mark the gradation of the surfaces, in a word the ancient ideals of classical beauty gradually decline, inasmuch as the new spirituality brought about by the triumph of Christianity now has need of new forms of expression. Nor does it matter that sometimes during the 4th century and then again in the 5th the ancient forms still assert themselves in works of high beauty; and it suffices to cite the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus in the Vatican Grottoes. What will subsequently appear as a valid force for the course of art will derive more from those marbles in which anti-academic and anti-classical ideals assert themselves than from the others in which such ideals, though with ever less vigor, are opposed. These represent, more than force, the weight of tradition.

3. Painting

The number of paintings by the ancient Romans that have come down to us is relatively small. The fragment with battle scenes found on the Esquiline and now in the Capitoline Museum is the oldest evidence (3rd century B.C.) of painterly activity in Rome. It was evidently connected with Etruscan art. That nevertheless in Rome painters carried on an extremely intense activity and reached very lofty heights of expression can be deduced from ancient testimonies and from what still remains of their work. The temples, palaces, houses, and tombs of the Romans were all decorated with paintings in which were reflected manners very similar to those of the paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum, which, having come down to us in greater number, perhaps give a more organic picture of the evolution and of the various stylistic manners of painting in Italy in the 1st century of the Christian era. Nevertheless the decorations of the Villa della Farnesina, those of the house of Livia on the Palatine and of the so-called Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, as well as the others from a house on the Esquiline, now in the Vatican Museum, besides the decorations of the imperial palaces and particularly of Nero's Domus Aurea, document the high degree of pictorial culture reached in Rome in the 1st century of the empire.

The stylistic manners of those paintings can be considered, because of their relations with Hellenism, analogous to those noted in the fields of sculpture and contemporary architecture. And painting continued to evolve in an analogous sense during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the empire, when lofty pictorial monuments are identified in the catacombs, indicating an attitude of taste that evolves according to manners analogous to those noted in the field of sculpture. Until in the 4th century we note a coexistence of the manners most closely bound to the ancient and official tradition and of the other anti-academic and anti-classical ones, to which, as has already been said for sculpture, the stylistic manners of art in Rome during the Middle Ages will for the most part be connected.

4. Ancient and medieval urban planning

The city continued to be, despite the splendor of certain monuments, for the most part built of timber, if the fire that broke out in the time of the emperor Nero on 18 June of the year 64 of the Christian era raged unchecked for nine consecutive days, completely destroying three regions and partially seven others. In the reconstruction that followed — Tacitus relates — the buildings were aligned with new regularity, isolated from one another and limited, or at least regulated, in height. A city by now too large and too rich not to attract the greed of the barbarians, who were becoming ever more threatening beyond and even within the very borders of the empire. Thus it was that Aurelian in the year 271 began the construction of the new splendid circuit of walls of the city, still for the most part extant. A circuit that has a perimeter of 19 km, in which were counted 383 defensive towers, 14 major gates, 5 minor ones, and which for about a century and a half effectively preserved Rome from the outrage of invaders. At the beginning of the 4th century of the Christian era Rome was truly the most splendid and wealthy city in the world. It had 27 public libraries, 11 baths, 856 bathing establishments, 1,352 public fountains, 8 playing fields, 5 naumachiae, 11 great Fora, 15 nymphaea, 10 major basilicas, 19 aqueducts, 36 triumphal arches, 8 bridges over the Tiber, 3 great theaters. Then Constantine transferred the capital of the empire to the shores of the Bosphorus at Constantinople, and by the ineluctable law of human destinies Rome began to decline.

The new society, educated in the ideals of Christianity, now pursued goals very different from the ancient ones, while the imperial militias and the walls of Aurelian were no longer a sufficient bulwark to contain the barbarian fury. And in August 410 the Goths of Alaric, having overcome those ramparts, sacked the city for two days. Forty-five years later, in 455, it was the Vandals, the Arabs and the Bedouins who put Rome to fire and sword for fourteen days. The city was by now going to ruin, nor did the provisions of the intelligent barbarian king Theodoric suffice to halt its decline. He restored the theater of Pompey, the Colosseum, some aqueducts, the sewers. But it was very little in the face of the abandonment into which everything was decaying. An abandonment that became almost complete when Vitiges, having besieged the city for over a year, from February 537 to March 538, cut the aqueducts, from which its lifeblood flowed. By now even the suburb was entirely in ruin, the villas, the gardens, the vineyards. The countryside was overrun by malefactors, and from the marshes the scourge of malaria advanced ever more terrifyingly. Nor did the provisions of the popes such as Adrian I (772-95), Leo III (795-816) or Paschal I (817-24), who restored ancient buildings or built new ones, suffice. Rome preserved its ancient splendor only in the memories and imaginations of men. Then in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, with the general reflowering of consciences and energies that characterizes the rise and development of the Romanesque age, civic building too received new impetus, and Rome in the year 1300, with the celebration of the Jubilee, was able to appear splendid also with new buildings to the two million pilgrims who flocked there from every part of Europe. But it was a brief rebirth, which the internal struggles during the Avignon exile once again exhausted, nor did the fiery words of Cola di Rienzo or the provisions of Cardinal Albornoz suffice to halt its new decline. The fourteenth century, which in so very many other cities of Italy marked a period of true splendor and impressed upon their streets, their squares, their public palaces, their entire quarters a character of beauty, strength and elegance that the succeeding centuries have not erased, marked a period of stagnation for Roman building activity, which would have a new revival only toward the end of the first quarter of the 15th century. Then Martin V Colonna, returning on 30 September 1420 to his native city, found it in a state of complete abandonment, and placed his greatest commitment in the restoration and reconstruction of the ancient buildings. And he had engraved on the commemorative medal of his pontificate the motto: «Dirutas ac labentes Urbis restauravit ecclesias».

II. ART FROM THE 4TH CENTURY TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY

1. Architecture from the 4th to the 11th century

None of the basilicas erected by Constantine and by the members of the imperial family or by his court has come down to us intact. Indeed, among the basilical architectures of the 4th century, only the church of St. Pudenziana preserves in its structures much of the original building. For the others, such as those of St. Peter, St. Paul, Holy Cross, St. Lawrence and so on, whatever remains of the original construction can be useful only for an ideal graphic reconstruction of them. They were in any case connected to that strand of the Roman architectural tradition, to which reference was made above, of essentially simple and clear forms. Walls and parallel alignments of columns supported coverings (trussed roofs) that bore perpendicularly on the load-bearing elements. On the shorter side of the building, opposite the entrance, an apse curved, decorated, like the walls, with painting or mosaics. The mausoleum of Constantina, called the church of St. Costanza, like the oldest parts of the Lateran Baptistery, instead suggest the close ties that link these centrally planned constructions to analogous types of Roman buildings covered with domed vaults. In the following centuries, up to the 10th-11th, these two types of construction were transformed according to a process of simplification and often of impoverishment of their original aspects. To the 5th century, in fact, belong the general layout of the basilica of St. Mary Major, that of St. Sabina on the Aventine, that of St. Peter in Chains, all reflecting the Constantinian basilical scheme, as well as the circular church of St. Stephen Rotondo, which can be considered, in its scheme, a simplification of a previous type of centrally planned construction.

In the Roman constructions of the 6th and 7th centuries, some of which are nevertheless in various respects similar to those of the 5th (St. Pancras), elements deriving from the Byzantine East appear. Thus in the part owed to Pope Pelagius II of the basilica of St. Lawrence outside the Walls, thus in that of St. Agnes rebuilt by Pope Symmachus (498-514) and decorated by Honorius I (625-38). To Honorius must also be ascribed the construction of the original church of the Sts. Quattro Coronati. A truly grandiose and most beautiful building. But to the 7th century also belongs the construction of the church of St. George in Velabro, which reflects a quite different architectural feeling: a sense of carelessness and ostentatious indifference to the old formulas, an inattentive and listless air. Thus in the oldest parts (8th century) of St. Mary in Cosmedin and of St. John at the Latin Gate. Then, at the beginning of the 9th century, there is something like an architectural revival that is reflected in the clear spatial harmonies created by the architects of Pope Paschal I (817-34) in St. Praxedes, St. Mary in Domnica, St. Cecilia, in the later basilica of St. Mark and in the parts that can be assigned to the 9th century in the church of St. Mary in Aracoeli. What remains of the 10th century does not suggest that that movement of rebirth had any continuation in the immediately following times.

2. Sculpture from the 4th to the 11th century

The two aspects assumed by sculpture at the beginning of the 4th century and clearly exemplified in the reliefs for the arch of Constantine and in those of the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, the one tending toward an expressionistic pictorialism of clearly anti-classical taste, the other still reflecting precisely the ideals that had for centuries been proper to classical art, are reflected in very numerous marbles of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. Thus in some statues, such as, for example, the Constantinian ones of St. John and of the Capitoline, as in the reliefs of the door of St. Sabina (422-32) or in the monograms of John II (532-35) of the church of St. Clement. Then in some decorations of architectural elements the plastic taste also suggests decided Oriental influences (capitals at St. Agnes, St. Clement, the SS. Quattro). Then between the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries even in Rome the taste spreads for plastic decoration in low relief of the type generically called barbarian (v. BARBARICA ARTE) where the wicker braid frequently appears alongside representations of the sun, the moon, palms, the cross, etc. We have examples of this at St. Sabina, at St. Mary in Trastevere, at St. Clement, at St. Mary in Cosmedin, at St. Mary of the Priory, etc. But in the 9th century, in the decorative elements of the architectures of the time of Paschal I, the aspiration toward plastic forms closer to ancient sculpture is already clear, as in the portal of the chapel of St. Zeno at St. Praxedes.

3. Painting between the 4th and 11th centuries

In Rome better than in any other place in the world it is possible to follow, reflected in pictorial works, the evolution of figurative taste throughout the whole Middle Ages. But also in the pictorial field, from the 4th century on, two clear currents are distinguished. One still academic, tied to the traditional modes of classicism, the other expressionistic and anti-academic, and, at least in part, to be connected to the modes of compendiary painting spread not only by catacomb painting. The mosaics of the annular vault of St. Costanza, those of the apse of St. Pudenziana, which are from the very first years of the century, the others also of the 5th century of the nave of St. Mary Major and of the counter-façade wall of the church of St. Sabina; as well as those of the 6th century of the apse of the church of the Sts. Cosmas and Damian can be connected to the various gradations of ancient classicism that is also being modified through contact with Oriental modes, which in the 5th century are already recognizable in the mosaic of the triumphal arch of the basilica of St. Paul. But in the 5th century forms related to impressionistic painting are evident in the mosaic of the triumphal arch of St. Mary Major. However, toward the end of the 6th century in the mosaics of the triumphal arch of the old St. Lawrence outside the Walls, and in the 7th in those of the apse of St. Agnes and then in the others of the oratory of St. Venantius near the Lateran Baptistery, Byzantine modes prevail, which likewise in the 7th and then in the 8th and 9th centuries in forms and accents we would call dialectal, assert themselves still in the fresco paintings that are in St. Mary Antiqua, in St. Sabas, in St. Clement, in St. Chrysogonus, in St. Mary in Via Lata, etc. But it is in the 9th century that a most beautiful group of mosaics, at St. Praxedes, St. Mary in Domnica, St. Mark, St. Cecilia, testifies to a substantial mutation of taste whereby are exalted, even in works of a monumental character, those values of a heated, indeed violent, chromatism that already in the 5th century appeared in the mosaic of St. Mary Major, and that marks a resolution in an anti-classical and anti-traditional sense of the vicissitudes of Roman painting of the Middle Ages. However, as for the contemporary architecture and sculpture, that particularly happy moment of Roman art had no continuation in the immediately following times, when in the 10th century in the frescoes of the apse of St. Stephen of the Palatine, in the other of Christ surrounded by angels in the Sts. John and Paul, in still others fragmentary in St. Chrysogonus, etc. weary forms of vague Byzantine imprint appear. But in the 11th century a masterpiece: the Madonna painted on panel and venerated in St. Mary in Aracoeli announces new times also for Roman painting.

4. The Romanesque age

It was during the Romanesque age that in Rome, with independence and originality with respect to what was happening in the other Italian cities, the figurative arts rose again, while with precedence and more clearly than elsewhere within its walls certain principles were defined that were to remain at the basis of the Italian Renaissance itself. Above all that of: ancient, synonymous with beautiful.

In architecture this is manifest in a complex, important series of buildings to be assigned precisely to the 11th to the 13th century: such as the churches of S. Maria in Cappella, S. Maria in Trastevere, S. Crisogono, S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, or such as the porticoes of S. Cecilia, S. Giorgio in Velabro, S. Lorenzo in Lucina, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, etc. In these buildings the forms seem to connect directly with those of the structures of the time of Paschal I, but they are still closer to those of certain great architectures of the 5th century, whose relationships were certainly taken as a model by the new builders. Despite this, some new type, or partially new, also appears in the Roman architectures of the Romanesque age. Thus those square bell towers (v.), with superimposed cubes, which were then erected in very great numbers alongside the new and the old churches, while the Lombard-style little loggia that crowned in the 13th century the exterior of the apse of the church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo is a truly new thing.

Nevertheless the most characteristic and original aspect is given in these architectures by the admirable decorative vestment that the marble-workers commonly called, from the name of one of their families, Cosmati (v.), knew how to prepare for it, and "cosmatesque" their manner of decorating with polychrome marbles and mosaics. Architects themselves, these marble-workers erected those works which in many respects we can consider the masterpieces of Roman architecture of that time: the two cloisters of the basilicas of the Lateran and of S. Paolo, works precisely of the members of one of the most illustrious families of Roman marble-workers of the early 13th century, called the Vassalletto (v.). In the architectural and decorative elements of the two cloisters it will not be difficult to recognize some product of Gothic taste, whose greatest if not only testimony remains in R., in the architectural field, the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, erected, it is said, by those friars Sisto and Ristoro who built S. Maria Novella in Florence.

The sculpture of the Romanesque age presents characteristics analogous to those of architecture, also because it was for the most part practiced by those marble-workers mentioned above, who gradually, keeping in view ancient models but also Oriental and Nordic ones, reconquered the sense of a rigorous plasticity that allowed them, toward the end of the 1200s, to understand also some essential values of the sculpture of the great Arnolfo di Cambio (v.). The latter was in R. in the last twenty-five years of the century, leaving there distinguished works such as the monuments to Charles of Anjou on the Capitoline, the ciboria of S. Paolo and S. Cecilia, the tomb of Cardinal Annibaldi, fragmentary, in the cloister of S. Giovanni in Laterano, the images of the Presepe of S. Maria Maggiore.

In painting the conquests were, between the 11th and 13th centuries, certainly no lesser, if one considers not only the beauty of the frescoes, precisely of the end of the 11th century, of the basilica of S. Clemente, to be connected with the vein of narrative and popular painting that here rises to the very highest dignity of style, but also the great mosaic decorations in the apses of S. Clemente, of S. Maria Nuova, of S. Maria in Trastevere, of S. Paolo fuori le mura, of S. Maria Maggiore and of S. Giovanni in Laterano, these last two being works of Jacopo Torriti. And it is also in R. that the great personality of one of the greatest pictorial geniuses of the Italian Middle Ages then affirms itself and dominates: Pietro Cavallini (v.), while Giotto himself works in R.

Then during the 14th century, in the times of the Avignon exile and of internal struggles, the arts declined entirely, and in the abandoned city few foreign artists who had come there from Tuscany or Campania found work. But in the third decade of the 15th century, in the time of Martin V Colonna, R. again became a most lively center of artistic activity. And while basilicas, churches and palaces are rebuilt and restored, illustrious artists come to R. from every part of Italy, summoned by that Pontiff, and there work Masolino, Masaccio, Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello as painters, and then Donatello as sculptor, while in the time of Nicholas V Fra Angelico too is summoned to R. to work in the chapel dedicated to SS. Stephen and Lawrence in the Vatican, and, summoned by Paul II, famous architects also arrive later, such as Bernardo Rossellino and Giuliano da Majano, who work successively and respectively on the restoration of the basilica of S. Marco and in the palace that rises beside it. But then Sixtus IV della Rovere, elected pope in 1471, wishes to prepare the city to worthily celebrate the Jubilee of 1475. The architectural works then promoted by that Pontiff at the hands of a vigorous architect, Baccio Pontelli (v.), are very numerous, but above all three excel: a new bridge over the Tiber, which took and preserves its name from Sixtus, a grandiose renovated hospital, that of S. Spirito in Sassia, the construction of the Sistine Chapel. When in 1484 Sixtus IV died, the frescoes of the oldest decoration of that most famous environment had been completed for about a year. Some of the greatest painters of the time had worked on them under the guidance of Sandro Botticelli, such as Luca Signorelli, Perugino, Pinturicchio, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli, Fra Diamante, Bartolomeo della Gatta, while by the will of the same Pontiff Melozzo da Forlì and Piero della Francesca likewise worked in R.

At that time the marbles of the cantorias and of the chancel screens of the Sistine were carved in the workshop of a very active Lombard master, Andrea Bregno, at whose shop almost all the other masters of the chisel active in the city worked, including Mino da Fiesole himself and Giovanni Dalmata. But not Antonio del Pollaiolo, who left the mark of his power in the funerary monuments of Sixtus IV and of Innocent VIII, the Pope who had also summoned Andrea Mantegna to work in the Vatican. Bregno, a dominant personality in the field of Roman building practice, is also the one to whom is owed for the most part one of the most characteristic architectural expressions of the city in the Quattrocento: the oldest part of the Palazzo della Cancelleria (v.), later completed or resolved, as Vasari says, by Donato Bramante.

5. The modern age

We thus come to the beginnings of the 1500s, and the city where during the 15th century artists had flocked from everywhere without managing to impress a unitary character on its production — which only the follower of Melozzo, Antoniazzo degli Aquili called Antoniazzo Romano, was such also by birth — above all through the force of the genius of certain supreme artists who took up residence and worked in R., was transformed into the true artistic capital, not only of Italy but of the whole of Europe. Donato Bramante, Baldassarre Peruzzi, Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Raphael, Leonardo work simultaneously in R. during the pontificates of Julius II, of Leo X, of Clement VII. It is they who impress a solemn, august and new tone on the art of the Renaissance. No longer the ancient R. of the Caesars but the new one of the Popes assumes uncontested prestige, indeed a true dominion over the art of all Europe. It is the pupils, the imitators, the followers of those very great men who spread everywhere the beautiful forms they imagined on the banks of the Tiber; of ancient art those forms have the grandeur, the grandeur, power and beauty of ancient art, but they reflect the inflamed spirit and imagination of the new times. And even when the art of those great masters seems, at the hands of imitators, to dissolve into a melancholy mannerism (v.) in the architectures of an Ammannati, a Giacomo della Porta, a Guido Guidetti, a Domenico Fontana, a Carlo Maderno, the new and at the same time ancient spirit of the city finds solemn expression, while in its limpid sky, through their work, there arch the most beautiful domes that have ever crowned churches on this earth. Then, while the Carracci with Domenichino were creating in the gallery of the Palazzo Farnese the masterpiece of the eclecticism deriving from the Bolognese academy, the Lombard Michelangelo da Caravaggio, who as a boy had gained his first experience in R. in the workshop of the most inflated and pompous mannerist of our country, the Cavaliere d'Arpino, was from R. pointing out new paths to painting along which Rembrandt himself and Velasquez were to set out.

A new force, that of light which reveals and exalts the plastic masses and at the same time colour, characterizes the art of the Baroque age from its very beginnings. And in R. the Baroque taste finds its most living centre of action and diffusion. This is so also in its twofold characteristic aspect of a deliberate break with tradition, and of continual references and attachments to it, generated by nostalgia for the beautiful forms of classicism.

In architecture this manifests itself along the line that runs from Francesco Borromini, the one who most clearly shattered tradition, Martino Longhi the Younger, Carlo Rainaldi, through Carlo Fontana, to Francesco de Sanctis, Giuseppe Sardi, Gabriele Valvassori, Filippo Raguzzini, Domenico Gregorini, who even in the second half of the 18th century still develops Borrominian themes, or the other line which, in a certain sense continuing the tradition of Antonio da Sangallo and the mannerists, has its most authoritative representative in Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Of this second current, together with Bernini, the great Pietro da Cortona is a most authoritative exponent, and then Nicola Salvi, the architect of the façade of the Trevi fountain, and to it is linked the art of Luigi Vanvitelli, of Carlo Murena, of Ferdinando Fuga, of Alessandro Galilei, the latter architects who, working in R. with their neo-Cinquecentism, foreshadow aspects of our native neoclassicism.

In sculpture the mannerism of the last twenty years of the 16th century had borne witness only to the incomprehension, or the impossibility, of reducing to the measure of the new times the desperate fury of Michelangelo's art. Neither Stefano Maderno, nor Nicolò Cordier, nor Pietro Bernini, all sculptors of some merit, had succeeded in impressing a true character on the Roman sculpture of the time, something that architects and painters had instead succeeded in doing, nor, we would say, in stirring from the depths the waters of the dead mannerist pond.

Between the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th, however, two sculptors, themselves also, like the others, come from outside, attempted this: Camillo Mariani of Vicenza and Francesco Mochi of Montevarchi. The two were then carrying out new researches, taking their cue from a pictorialism that harked back to Vittoria and that in Mochi had been grafted onto the modes of the Florentine tradition. At the beginning of the 17th century the two found themselves in R. in a position of pre-eminence, so that both Francesco Duquesnoy and Francesco Algardi can be linked to Mochi's art. The latter a sculptor surely gifted but of an austere composure and almost caution that smacks of the academy. Beside him, on the other hand, Gian Lorenzo Bernini immediately appears to us as a temperament of quite different stature, and a man of decidedly anti-academic mentality, despite the fact that his own culture continually pushed him back precisely towards the academy and tradition. But Gian Lorenzo Bernini is a genius and in the exercise of sculpture, even more than in that of architecture, he often worked abandoning himself to happy imagination, to free fantasy, to inspiration, to invention. So that those who came after him almost never succeeded, even when they wished to, in forgetting him. Domenico Guidi attempted it, who had the pretension of keeping alive Algardi's tradition; Ercole Ferrata attempted it, who had numerous followers around him and enjoyed great credit even during the 18th century; even Antonio Raggi and Andrea Bolgi and Francesco Baratta and Cosimo Fancelli and Pietro Le Gros attempted it, and the still later Camillo Rusconi (1628-1728), who in his statues of St. John in Lateran, carved in the second decade of the 18th century, appears to us, despite continual references to Algardi, an «absent-minded Berninian» in his highly complicated draperies.

Indeed, even in the 18th century there were very few who succeeded in eluding Berninian imitation or who did not reduce it to rhetorical manner: that Florentine Antonio Montanti who went to R. to help Alessandro Galilei in his architectural undertakings, Filippo della Valle and, in many respects, Pietro Bracci. But not for this did they succeed in creating anything truly new and great before the advent of neoclassicism and of Canova.

To the name of the Carracci and of Caravaggio, as exponents of pictorial currents in R. at the close of the 16th century, must be added that of Federico Zuccari. He, with the Cavalier d'Arpino, alongside the innovators — such as precisely the Carracci and Caravaggio appeared — could also be considered the depositary of the tradition that went back to Raphael. But such a traditional manner soon flowed into the modes upheld by the Bolognese. Thus, while the Caravaggesque derivation is clear in the group of the tenebrists such as Valentin, Manfredi, Borgianni, Saraceni, Serodine, the two Gentileschi and then in Gherardo delle Notti and in Baburen himself as in other Flemings who resolve the master's luminism into veristic counterfeits, there appears to us quite clearly the line of derivation that from the Carracci through Albani and Domenichino, with contributions from Guido Reni, reaches Sacchi and then Maratta, who at the close of the 17th century and in the early years of the 18th will still appear to us the major depositary of the tradition that boasted ascents as far back as Raphael.

But beside those two principal currents, behold, from the third decade of the 17th century, a third one takes shape, the one that then had its major exponent in Pietro Berettini da Cortona. He takes up again the decorative problem as it had been set out by the Carracci in the vault of the Gallery of the Palazzo Farnese and by the other great painters of the end of the 16th century. He takes it up with the greater experience that came to him from the progress painting had made in fifty years. Thus in his style are found Tuscan elements of drawing, Emilian elements of composition, including such as those of a Lanfranco and a Guercino, as well as experiences that from the Carracci went back to Correggio, then Venetian chromatic elements and that measure of Raphaelesque Venetianness that always enjoyed fortune in R. In short, painting was like a summing up of the most recent experiences on the part of a man of genius. The vault of the main hall of the Palazzo Barberini is his masterpiece and the work in which Pietro da Cortona, a great architect, here in the guise of decorator, appears to us, among those then working in R., as the closest, even in force of intellect and fantasy, to Bernini. Almost his equivalent precisely in the fields of great pictorial decoration. The throng of the Cortoneschi is dense; the best then was Pietro Testa, but the grandeur of conception of the master was recaptured only by the Genoese Gian Battista Gaulli, called il Baciccia, who with inspiration and supreme authority created his own masterpiece in the vault of the nave of the church of the Gesù in the great fresco representing the Triumph of His Name. Later brother Andrea Pozzo, with the imagination of a scenographer, still developed in the vaults of the church of St. Ignatius some theme of Berettini's art.

Meanwhile, while foreign artists such as Paul Brill, Poussin, Claude Lorrain and Gaspar van Wittel were developing landscape painting, followed by native painters such as Salvator Rosa and Locatelli, painters continued to arrive in R. from other regions of Italy. Thus, having crossed the threshold of the 18th century, Corrado Giaquinto and Sebastiano Conca, who came from Naples, worked there, as did Gian Paolo Pannini of Piacenza, a painter of ruins and ceremonies, and the Venetian engraver Gian Battista Piranesi was gaining predominance there even in the world of archaeological culture.

We have now reached the middle of the century, and while on the one hand the restless Marco Benefial sometimes lingers in an insistent anti-academic verism such as is revealed in the painting in the Aracoeli with the Death of St. Margaret, Cades, Corvi, Cavallucci and Pompeo Batoni of Lucca himself, alongside the Polish painter Raphael Mengs, once again take Raphael as their model and sometimes foreshadow neoclassical forms. On the other hand, Neoclassicism — this "foreign fashion" — had found its most accredited center in R., from where Winckelmann had most authoritatively spread its theories, and it is of great significance in the history of modern painting that the great canvas with the Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David was painted in R. in 1784. That painting truly marks the beginning of a new season for art.

6. Urban planning during the Renaissance and the Baroque age

The work of restoring and reorganizing ancient buildings and that of constructing new ones, begun by Martin V, which characterizes the activity of the pontiffs, cardinals and the major Roman personalities during the 15th century, was not carried out according to an initial organic plan. Each person took an interest in his own church, his own palace or a particular group of buildings. Only Nicholas V and Sixtus IV della Rovere had broader ideas, and while the former conceived a new arrangement of the buildings around St. Peter's and began work on them, the latter, on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1475, had a unified vision of the problems of building and of city traffic. Thus, according to an organic plan whose essential lines can easily be identified, he restored or built from the foundations new churches and other buildings, including the bridge over the Tiber that took its name from him, widened streets and reorganized building complexes, such as the one around the present Campo dei Fiori, soon dominated by the marble bulk of the palace of Cardinal Riario, afterwards called the Cancelleria.

Yet during the early years of the 16th century, despite this and despite the imposing, splendid buildings erected in Rome at that time, urban planning was not generally carried out with more unified ideas. But from then on, while Julius II revived Nicholas V's idea of renewing the whole Vatican, with the layout of Via Giulia and those of Via Ripetta and Via del Babuino (designed by Chiarini), diverging from the axis of the Corso, certain fundamental themes for the city's further development began to take shape. Indeed, one should consider, with regard to the Corso, the ancient Via Ripetta and the other, the Via del Babuino, that starting from Piazza del Popolo with their organic trident arrangement and plunging straight into the heart of the city, it was precisely they that provided the initial inspiration for what we can certainly define as a true and proper city master plan devised by Domenico Fontana for Sixtus V. It was based on a star-shaped layout of great straight arteries that connected S. Maria Maggiore to the Trinità dei Monti, to S. Giovanni in Laterano, to S. Croce and to S. Lorenzo, to the Forum of Trajan and to S. Susanna. The obelisks of the Piazzas of S. Pietro, S. Giovanni, S. Maria Maggiore and the Popolo, erected at that time by that Pontiff, again through the work of Domenico Fontana, marked and still mark, as it were, goals or focal points for the city's development.

The importance of Sixtus V's urban-planning conception also lies in his having urged the Romans, still all crowded together in the great bend of the Tiber, to reoccupy the upper parts of the city. To this end he brought wholesome water there by means of the Acqua Felice aqueduct, whose fountain-house can still be seen today at Piazza San Bernardo. A sure index of the new impulse given to the city's development by Sixtus V is also the increased number of R.'s inhabitants. In fact the Roman population, which during the early Middle Ages had fallen to a very few thousand inhabitants, and which in the most splendid period of the Renaissance, in the times of Leo X, had risen to 125,000-130,000, but which in the years following the sack of R. (1527) had again fallen to 40,000 souls, during the pontificate of Sixtus V rose again to 100,000 persons.

During the 17th century, work continued on Sixtus V's urban fabric, developing themes that, though grandiose, were limited to particular settings. Suffice it to think of the arrangement of the piazza near the Palazzo Barberini, then at the periphery of the city and bordering on vegetable gardens and vineyards, to that of Piazza Navona, to that of Piazza S. Pietro, and to the unexecuted projects for the reorganization of the Borghi, while in front of the new palaces and the old and new churches squares opened up and streets were widened. The work was continued during the 18th century. Then, with the construction of the staircase of Piazza di Spagna in perspective with the Via dei Condotti, and of Tor di Nona with the reorganization of the Piazza di S. Ignazio at the hands of Raguzzini, and with that of the ancient Porto di Ripetta, rebuilt for Clement XI by Alessandro Specchi, the city was provided with architectural settings of a unified character according to a new scenographic conception.

III. ART FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY TO OUR OWN DAYS

Toward the end of the 18th century, in the eyes of many, Rome still appeared the most important artistic center in the world, and architects, sculptors, and painters from every country went to Rome to study. Yet in spite of this, the architecture, sculpture, and painting of neoclassical taste that was produced on the banks of the Tiber does not appear today better or different from that which was produced elsewhere. Whoever then went to study in Rome went there to draw inspiration from the monuments of the classical period admired there, from the works of art in the museums and in public and private collections, or merely to be filled with enthusiasm, imagining that the air breathed on the banks of the Tiber was still that which had swelled the breasts of the ancient heroes. Yet it is still in Rome that, with Canova, the art that flourished on the banks of the Tiber managed to maintain a tone of universality and mastery. Then, after Canova, as in the field of painting with the Nazarenes, the Purists, and the fresco painters of the time of Pius IX, and in that of architecture with Poletti, Vespignani, and Pietro Comparese, etc., even the sculpture produced in Rome can in a certain way be differentiated, down to the last thirty years of the century, from that of the other cities of Italy, by a certain coldly academic intonation that does not change even when it concedes that much which it was not possible to deny to the novelties brought by the strong romantic gust.

When later Rome, having become the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, found itself to be, also for practical reasons, the most active center of artistic production in the whole peninsula, that certain intonation and the very impressiveness of the splendid works of the past acted as a brake on the boldest manifestations of a taste by then internationalized. This, if on the one hand it avoided those excesses which elsewhere, at that time, appeared more or less deplorable, on the other hand it delayed the free course of the most genuine expressive forms. And after the group of the Purists and the Academics there came, clearly identifiable in the domains of architecture, that of the Eclectics. The Palazzo di Giustizia, the work of Calderini, and the monument to Vittorio Emanuele, the work of Sacconi - both begun before 1890 and both brought to completion in 1911 - are the most characteristic expression of that eclecticism, perhaps not devoid of bravura but swollen with oratory and rhetoric. It had its reflections then also in the fields of sacred art (v. MODERNA, ARTE), which today, precisely in Rome, in some of its most recent achievements, has demonstrated and demonstrates that it does not shrink from the most modern and bold manifestations of taste when these are intimately sustained by a spontaneous, sincere need for expression.

Urbanistic and building vicissitudes of modern Rome. - In Rome too the last decades of the 18th century are characterized by a more widespread awareness of urbanistic problems, and if the new achievements are not many, the questions then placed on the table are instead very interesting, reflected, for example, in the themes discussed by the Accademia di S. Luca. The reorganization of the Borghi, that of Piazza del Popolo, that of the creation of a large public garden, etc.

To many of those problems the French administration wished to give a solution between 1809 and 1814, while certain works then barely begun or merely conceived had their realization in the following years during the pontificates of Pius VII, Leo XII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX. Among the major ones we recall that of Piazza del Popolo and of the public promenade called the Pincio, the greatest work of Valadier, the creation of the suburban cemetery of the Verano, the reconstruction of the Basilica Ostiense, the creation of new districts, such as the Mastai, the reorganization of the Trastevere zone near the new large tobacco-processing plant, as well as the inclusion in the city's development plan of the stretch between S. Maria degli Angeli and the slopes of the Quirinale, that is, of the lands on which the present Via Nazionale and the other streets perpendicular to it were opened, along which so many new buildings arose that helped to maintain for Roman building that solemn, austere, definitive, yet at the same time familiar tone that was proper to old Rome.

During the first 24 years of the pontificate of Pius IX, from 1846 to 1870, the Roman population had almost doubled, reaching and exceeding 200,000 inhabitants. After 1870 this movement of growth continued and at an accelerated pace, so much so that today we can say that the Roman population has increased tenfold compared with that of then. With such rapid increase the rapid development of the city and the manner in which this development took place are in direct relation, indeed are its justification.

In fact, when Rome was occupied on Sept. 20, 1870, by the troops of General Cadorna, it appeared to anyone arriving there from other cities of the peninsula such as Florence, Turin, and Milan, though splendid in its ancient architecture, very backward from the point of view of modern building. And it was that same general who on the 30th of the same month of September appointed a commission presided over by the architect Pietro Camporese, to study the "enlargement" and beautification of Rome and especially the project for the construction of new districts in that part which was most suited to new building. The commission, which worked very swiftly, after forty days presented its conclusions in a report to which projects and proposals were also attached. This conclusion served the engineer Alessandro Viviani for tracing a true master plan of the city, published in 1873, which, although it never became law, exercised a great influence on the subsequent master plans and therefore on the further development of Rome. This development has taken place in these last fifty years, as it were, in an oil stain. That is, it has taken place as in almost all cities that have a strong individuality, an ancient beating heart that cannot but exercise a strong attraction. Thus it was that the ancient city center of the Rome of 100-150-200,000 inhabitants has remained approximately the same as that of the Rome of 1,500,000, 2,000,000 inhabitants, with those damages and those inconveniences that are easy to imagine.

Preventing the occurrence of such a phenomenon, due to laws that are in a certain sense biological, is evidently not easy; indeed, it seems almost impossible. In any case, if we now cast our minds back to the old Rome of Pius IX, still entirely gathered within the bend of the Tiber, a city full of contrasts, rich in works of art and beautiful architecture, but uneven, backward from the standpoint of urban planning, and compare it with the present one, we must agree that the difficulties that had to be faced in order to transform the old Rome into a city that would also meet modern needs without completely destroying that ancient, admirable whole were enormous, and that not all the solutions adopted are to be condemned. Although the destruction of the great parks of the princely villas that crowned the old Rome with greenery represented a loss and an error without equal, even if their areas were used for the rise of new districts, such as that of the Esquiline, the Boncompagni Ludovisi, the Salario; nevertheless, the works that served to graft the manifestations of new needs onto the character and fabric of the old city, without too jarring breaks in continuity, often had notable merits. Thus it was for the majestic straight line of Via Nazionale, for the placid course of Corso Vittorio Emanuele, for the airy Via Arenula, for the widenings of Via del Tritone, Via due Macelli, and the Corso, and finally for the more modern Via dei Fori Imperiali and Via del Mare, which likewise entailed the destruction of notable architectural complexes. This also happened with the demolition of the "spina" of the Borghi and the opening of Via della Conciliazione, by which an ancient idea was realized that had kept popes, architects and urban planners hesitant for centuries upon centuries.

Emilio Lavagnino

IV. FOLKLORE.

An accurate documentation of the popular traditions of Rome, compiled with scientific criteria and with a properly folkloristic intent, is still lacking: the collections of Sabatini and Zanazzo, however extensive and appreciable, cannot stand on the same level as the works of a Pitré, Finamore, De Nino and others. Numerous, however, are the literary and iconographic sources (it will suffice here to recall the names of Goethe, Müller, Stendhal, Thomas, De Brosses, Bresciani, Belli and Pinelli) which, by their established and substantial fidelity to truth, even though they do not lack a natural magic of art, allow us to reconstruct critically the popular life of the first half of the nineteenth century: an epoch that marks, for the popular manifestations of Rome, the moment of their greatest flourishing and at the same time the beginning of their decline. The picture of Roman folklore is completed by certain ceremonies, documented historically (Gregorovius, Burckhardt, etc.) and literarily (especially in the comedies), of medieval and Renaissance Rome.

Of the ancient Roman carnival, known for the singular pomp of its celebrations, only the elements and details that are of most folkloristic interest are noted here. Noteworthy is the personification of the carnival in the bear, which was led with a chain around its neck to the scene of the performance and made to dance to the sound of music, as depicted in a print by Pinelli set near the Trevi fountain. Besides the numerous harlequins, clowns and pulcinellas, the most characteristic masks were the madmen, covered only in a shirt, who harked back to figures from the scandalous feasts of fools (against which the Church's opposition was energetic in the Middle Ages); and among the most typical caricature figures, the King of Acerra, riding a donkey and escorted by a group of pulcinellas; Don Pirrone, who proceeded in a gestatorial chair, holding in his hand a pair of fire tongs with which he hurled satirical madrigals at the women, and the unforgettable General Mannaggia La Rocca, who on the afternoon of Maundy Thursday, on a wretched nag, with a large wooden broadsword and with his imposing procession of ragamuffins in full uniform, advanced intrepidly along the Corso, taken as a target by the crowd with oranges and carrots. Ancient in the tradition of the Roman carnival was the race of the barberi from Piazza del Popolo to Piazza Venezia. The carnival closed with the feast of the mocoletti, which consisted in extinguishing candles one after another, while along the Corso there appeared on a triumphal float the dying Carnival: «Er Carnevale è morto e sseppellito: [Lì moccoli hanno chiusa la funzione]» (Belli, no. 2221).

During Lent, the custom was traditional in Rome, recalled in the following popular verses, of going to St. Peter's and giving the maritozzo to one's sweetheart: «Oggi ch'è 'r primo Vennardi ddè Marzo. [Sè va a Ssan Pietro a ppija èr maritozzo] Che cce lo pagherà 'r nostro regazzo». Solemn were the celebrations of Holy Saturday: sacred representations took place in the Middle Ages at the Colosseum through the work of the Compagnia del Gonfalone (in the 15th-16th centuries the Passione of G. Dati was performed several times on that occasion); today the ceremonies of Holy Saturday take place with peculiar solemnity in the basilicas of St. John and St. Peter, where the ritual blessing of the baptismal font is made to coincide with a baptism, of an adult in St. John's and of a child in St. Peter's. When the bells were untied, it was the custom of former times (called divozione de li bbotti) to pile up along the walls pots and used terracotta vessels, which were then made to fly into the air with firecrackers. On that day the chimney sweeps came down to Rome, for the cleaning of the walls, with special tools called «scacciaragni»: all rites of renewal. A comic-carnivalesque ceremony, called cornomània (v.), which from the 9th century persisted until the time of Gregory VII, was celebrated at the Lateran and was followed by the blessing of the houses: the date and elements reveal the propitiatory character of the feast.

From the times of Salvator Rosa, it seems, until 1893, on April 21 of each year the artists revived the carnival, gathering near the grottoes of Cervara, on the Via Prenestina, renewing banquets, mockeries, processions and masquerades: a painting by Pinelli depicts this singular little Roman carnival of the artists. Calendimaggio was and still is celebrated with the greasy pole, very widespread moreover throughout Italy as the last remnant of the contests of the "king of May," and until a century ago with "er ballo de li guitti," that is, of the penniless: each young man chose a bride, and the various couples presented themselves in Piazza S. Marco, before the statue of Madama Lucrezia, adorned for the occasion with onions, garlic, multicolored ribbons and carrots; the marriage was celebrated, as if before the mayor and the curate, and afterwards the dance began that provoked laughter... even from Madama Lucrezia!

On the night of the Ascension, popular tradition holds that Jesus descends to change into milk the watery humor of the ears of wheat, and the Madonna to bless the fresh egg of the day placed by the devout outside the windows in a small basket, which then becomes an effective amulet against lightning and illnesses. On June 13, in honor of St. Anthony of Padua, the triumph of strawberries was celebrated with a procession of strawberry sellers that set out from Campo dei Fiori: the procession was opened by a strawberry seller carrying on a pole a large basket, symbol of the triumph, trimmed all around with little baskets of silver paper full of strawberries, and on top a small statue of St. Anthony; the other strawberry sellers followed, with dancing step and to the sound of tambourines, dressed in their best, singing refrains in honor of the Saint and of the strawberries. On the evening of St. John there takes place the parade of carts, and the custom of going to eat snails in the taverns is still alive: the most frequented one time was the tavern of the Witches, whose name goes back to the belief that on this night, in the stretch between S. Giovanni and S. Croce in Gerusalemme, the witches can be seen if one puts one's chin inside the fork formed by branches of a laurel tree (Belli, no. 1905).

One of the most characteristic processions of medieval Rome was the nocturnal procession of August 15, in which representatives of every kind of worker took part: the acheropite image of Christ was carried on the shoulders of 12 men from the chapel of S. Lorenzo in Laterano to S. M. Maggiore, passing under arches of leaves and flowers. In Piazza Navona, on the day of Ferragosto and every Saturday and Sunday of the month, according to a tradition that lasted with some interruptions from 1652 to 1865, the lake was made: the spectacle was enlivened by the tossing of coins, the passing of carriages amid splashes and shouts of merriment, the falling of horses, the music of the firemen's band and the cries of the watermelon sellers, "curete pompieri, che vva a fuoco."

Picturesque were the ottobrate at Testaccio (the prints by Pinelli that depict them are among the most beautiful for the history of popular custom), enlivened by contests, songs and dances: with great frenzy to the sound of castanets and tambourines the saltarello was danced, a very famous popular courtship dance. One of the Roman traditions of the Christmas cycle is that of attending on the night between December 23 and 24 the so-called "cotto," that is, the wholesale fish market that was once held in the fish market of S. Teodoro and today at the Mercati generali. The tradition of the presepio is also alive: famous is that of Aracoeli, whose Child is a precious sculpture in olive wood entirely covered with gems. Particularly Roman is the tradition of throwing pots and other used earthenware utensils out the window at New Year's as an act of expulsion of the old and of renewal. Traditional and popular is the depiction of the Befana, as it appears in the canvases of Pinelli and in the sonnets of Belli; even today on the evening of the vigil the very crowded toy fair takes place in Piazza Navona, which was once held in Piazza S. Eustachio. The day of St. Anthony Abbot (January 17) is dedicated to the blessing of animals: adorned with ribbons and flowers, horses, donkeys, dogs, cats, hens are brought before the church of S. Eusebio where they receive the blessing of the parish priest: one time the ceremony, described by Goethe and by Müller, took place before the church proper of St. Anthony near Piazza S. M. Maggiore. Then carnival opens, the typical festival of the beginning of the year.

No less rich is the musical-poetic heritage of the people of Rome, including in it, naturally, alongside the songs created in loco, those imported and adapted to local taste and dialect, which reveal the work of creation-elaboration proper to the people. Already around 1787 Goethe gathered from the living voice of the common people of Rome in his Italian Journey some songs that must have been more in fashion in those years than truly traditional, recalled the song of Marbrucche (= Malborough), and finally observed that the most usual song for the common people of Rome was constituted by the stornello. The stornello (called by the common people "aritornello," which however is not to be confused with the ritornello, as Blessig believed) is in fact the most used form of lyric-monostrophic song in Rome and in all of Lazio. Popular love poetry also takes shape in the form of the strambotto, called sonnet (with the meter now of the Sicilian octave or that of the Tuscan rispetto), which nevertheless has an older tradition. The comic and burlesque genre flourishes: characteristic are the tarantellas, long compositions in couplets of octonarii, with a fixed opening formula ("Tarantella de li dèi | Vò cantiare, amici miei"), which originally must have been accompanied by dancing. Religious poetry offers prayers, orations and even epic poems on hagiographic legends. An important sector of Roman folk poetry is constituted finally by the epic-lyric songs: La donna lombarda, La bella fantasia, Cecilia, Il pellegrino di R., Il marinaro che va per acqua, and others still have found in R. a favorable citizenship. Many legends of saints and adventurous songs, from that of Lionbruno to the stories of Genoveffa, Pia dei Tolomei, Francesca da Rimini, from that of Orlando at Roncisvalle to the "dolorosa istoria del prode Cecco e della sua Rosina," were sung through the streets of R. or in the taverns by the cantastorie (the names are still preserved of Mancinelli, declaimer of satirical poems against Duke Valentino; Mastro Andrea dipintore, friend of the Aretino; and of the last century who does not remember the names of Spadoni, Pepazzo, Tarantoni, Calzaroni and that, best known of all, of sor Capanna?): a print by Pinelli represents one of these cantastorie while he accompanies his verses to the sound of the guitar and with a long stick illustrates the scenes on a large poster, as was customarily seen, a century ago, on Sunday mornings in piazza Barberini. Of the inspiration of these poets of the people some trace still remains in the signboard inscriptions of the taverns, such as, for example: "Se volete un bon goccetto | er più bono che ce sia, | che ve mette drento ar petto 'na gran voja d'allegria, | solo all'Arco de' Ginnasi | resterete persuasi," and elsewhere "Solo qui da Mozzarella vino bono e robba bella!". And inside, the drinking of wine was enlivened by the game of the passatella, in which is perhaps preserved the ancient custom of the King of the banquet and, according to Pola, the type of youthful and bacchic Associations. Another typical figure of the world of the taverns, alongside the folk singer, is "er carettiere a vino," who today has lost, even in custom, his ancient prestige, so well summed up in Roman verses by Zanazzo (n. 919, p. 243).

But the old R., with its festivals, its customs, its poets and its songs, is disappearing more and more: only a few districts, such as Trastevere and Monti, preserve a little of the ancient color (among the liveliest is always, for example, the "festa de' noantri" in Trastevere, with dances and sporting competitions), and in some corner of R. (as at Villa Borghese) children and adults still crowd around the little puppet theaters, onto whose stages a great part of the cantastorie repertoire has taken refuge: famous among the puppets of former times was Ghetanaccio with his character Rugantino.

The tendency of the Roman people to biting satire had its most genuine expression, from the late Middle Ages onward, in the "pasquinate," of which the most famous from the 16th century to the Napoleonic era have been collected by P. Fornari.

V. TOPOGRAPHY.

I. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

The first meeting places of the Christian communities were in private houses, as is attested in the Acts of the Apostles (12:12; 19:9; 20:6-9) and in the letters of St. Paul (Rom. 16:23; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 1:2), who declares that in Rome his co-workers in Christ, Aquila and Prisca, placed their house at the disposal of the faithful (Rom. 16:3, 5). But the medieval legend cannot be accepted which identifies the house of Prisca with the place where the church of St. Prisca now stands on the Aventine, because the excavations have shown that it is built above a Mithraeum of the end of the 2nd century A.D., and there is no trace of an earlier house (A. Ferrua, Il mitreo sotto la chiesa di S. Prisca, in Bull. della Commis. archeol. municip. di R., 68 [1940], pp. 59-96).

The origin of the Christian community of Rome is traced back to those Israelites who, having come from Rome to Jerusalem for the feasts of Pentecost, were witnesses of the descent of the Holy Spirit and heard the discourse of Peter. Peter had also converted Roman soldiers, that is, at Caesarea the centurion Cornelius of the Italian cohort and his household. The first nucleus of the Christian community of Rome would therefore date from the time of Tiberius, and then developed under his successors Caligula and Claudius. Eusebius of Caesarea places in the second year of Claudius (Jan. 42-43 A.D.) the coming of St. Peter to Rome, both in the chronological table of his Chronicon and in his Ecclesiastical History (II, 17); indeed he adds that the philosopher Philo would have entered into relations with St. Peter in Rome; but the latter was in Rome in 39-40 A.D. The same notice is read in the Historiae adversus paganos of P. Orosius, written in Africa between the years 417-418, at the suggestion of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (PL 31, 1072-73). St. Jerome too has St. Peter come to Rome in the second year of Claudius (De viris ill., 1), but such a dating cannot be demonstrated. Around the year 49, however, Claudius was forced to expel from Rome «the Jews who were in continual agitation on account of Chrestus» (Suetonius, Claudius, 25). The Roman historian Tacitus reports that the people called them chrestianos («quos vulgus chrestianos appellabat»; Annales, XV, 44). Still at the end of the 2nd century Tertullian reproached the pagans for pronouncing «chrestiani» instead of «christiani» (Apologeticum, 3). That Christian ideas had already penetrated the Roman milieu at that time is documented by Thallus, in a fragment of Julius Africanus preserved by the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus (Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Müller, III, Paris 1850, p. 519). But there is a confirmation of the expulsion of Christians from Rome under the empire of Claudius also in Act. 18:2, where it is said that the two Christian spouses Aquila and Priscilla were forced to abandon Rome «because Claudius had by his edict expelled from Rome all the Israelites» and had thus met at Corinth with the apostle Paul. But the decree cannot have had a very rigorous execution, because Cassius Dio shows that its application was limited to the prohibition of holding meetings; the same historian then observes that the Israelites «although they were the object of repressive measures, never ceased to prosper greatly, so much so as to end by conquering the free exercise of their rites» (XXXVII, 17). Another proof that the exile of the Israelites was of short duration is given by the fact that around 58 Aquila and Prisca were again in Rome (Rom. 16:3-5).

St. Paul, writing around 58 to the Romans, declares that he had long desired to go and visit the Christian community of Rome «ex multis iam praecedentibus annis» (ibid. 15:23); it was already well established and flourishing, since Paul declares to the Roman brethren «fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo» (ibid. 1:9). He calls the brethren of Rome «beloved of God and saints» and hopes soon to come and visit them to be consoled with them «by the common faith both of you and of me, and to revive the memories». In that letter he names as many as 24 persons of this community whom he had already known, either at Corinth or in Asia, such as Aquila and Priscilla, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Herodion, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus and his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and two groups, one at the house of Aristobulus, grandson of Herod, the other at that of Narcissus, the famous freedman of Claudius (ibid. 16:3-16).

It is known that when St. Paul came to Rome the brethren of this community went to meet him on the Appian Way as far as the Forum of Appius and Tres Tabernae (Act. 28:15) between Cisterna and Terracina (cf. A. Harnack - Th. Mommsen, in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akad. der Wissenschaft., 1895, pp. 491-503). It is not known where he chose his lodging; it is certain that, three days after his arrival, he summoned the notables of the Jewish colony and had a long conversation with them. He then remained for fully two years in this rented house, where he willingly received and instructed all who came to him (Act. 28:16-30). Then, writing from Rome to the Christians of Philippi in Macedonia, Paul sends them the greetings of the faithful of Rome, especially of those belonging to the imperial household (4:22). Finally, from the second letter to Timothy we learn four other names of members of the Christian community of Rome, namely Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia (4:19-21). From all these names one gains an idea of the ethnic composition of the first Christian community, in which, if most of the names are not of Roman origin, there is also no lack of those that betray an origin rather from the «Ecclesia ex gentibus» than from that «ex circumcisione».

Of great importance is the testimony of Tacitus concerning the Roman protomartyrs, victims of the Neronian persecution. He speaks of a «multitudo ingens». No other topographical memory has remained of their holocaust except that of the Neronian gardens in the Vatican; no trace of liturgical commemoration, and that of the 979 on the Aurelia in the Martyrologium hieronymianum on June 29 remains a mere hypothesis. Besides the founders of the Roman Church, Peter and Paul, victims of the same persecution, Pope Clement alludes to the many others and especially women, who gave a wonderful example of their faith amid the most pitiless tortures (Ep. I ad Corinthios: PG 1, 217-21). St. Justin, writing his Apology at Rome in 155, does not specify the place of the liturgical gatherings, which he says are held on the day of the sun (Sunday; ch. 67), and adds that the deacons, after the assembly, carry the Holy Species to the absent (ch. 61).

Between 163-67, more probably in 165, the same Justin together with the disciples Charito, Euelpistus, «servus Caesaris», Hierax, Paeon and Liberianus were condemned to beheading by the prefect of Rome Junius Rusticus; the latter asks where the Christians assemble, and Justin answers evasively (Acta s. Justini et sociorum, II, 5-7; P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, Note agiografiche [*Studi e testi*, 8], Rome 1902, pp. 25-36).

At the beginning of the 3rd century, around the year 205, a flood ruined at Edessa the «temple of the Christians» (Chronicon Edessenum, ed. I. Guidi, in Corpus scriptorum christian. orient. Chronica minora, 3rd series, IV, Paris 1903). From the historian Lampridius it is learned that under Alexander Severus (222-35) a dispute arose in Rome over the possession of a plot of land between a group of innkeepers (popinarii) and the Christian community; the Emperor preferred that a Christian religious building should rise on that place (Hist. Augusta, Alexander Severus, 49).

Hippolytus, around the year 204, in his Commentary on Daniel, writes that just as the two elders entered Susanna's garden, so the Jews entered the house where the faithful were gathered to hunt out Christians and drag them before the tribunals (F. Dölger, Unserer Taube Haus. Die Lage des christlichen Kultbaues nach Tertullian, in Antike und Christentum, 2 [1930], pp. 41-56). At Dura Europos (v.), in Mesopotamia, in the middle of the 3rd century a private house was transformed into a Christian church with its baptistery; at the same time, in Carthage, St. Cyprian indicated that the young man who had confessed his faith in R. was well worthy to ascend the pulpit, that is, where the Holy Scriptures were read, in a place that Tertullian had already called "the house of our dove" (Contra Valentinianum, 3). With even stronger reason one must suppose that in the middle of the 3rd century the Christian community of R., organized during the period of peace experienced from 236 to 250 by Pope Fabian, had its places of worship; indeed, to this Pope the Liberian Catalogue assigns the formation of the seven ecclesiastical regions, each entrusted to one of the seven deacons, so much so that the emperor

Decius, according to Cyprian, would have preferred a rival in the Empire rather than the bishop in R. (Ep., 55, 9). But, just as the exact boundaries of each of the fourteen Augustan regions are unknown, so it is quite difficult to determine the boundaries of the seven ecclesiastical districts established by the said Pope. Pope Cornelius (251-53) in his letter to Bishop Fabius of Antioch indicates the composition of the Roman clergy in his day; it comprised 46 presbyters, 7 deacons and as many subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 among exorcists, lectors and ostiarii, that is, altogether the clergy that assisted him in the ministry reached the number of 154 persons. It is not known how the presbyters were distributed.

The emperor Aurelian in 272 established that the house of the church, occupied in Antioch by Paul of Samosata, be returned to those who would be designated by the bishops of Italy and of the city of R. The same Emperor, writing to the senators who had shown themselves not ready to open the Sibylline books, was amazed that they had hesitated so long, as if they were gathered almost "in christianorum ecclesia" and not in a temple of the gods (Hist. Augusta; Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Aureliani, 20).

Under Diocletian in the East, besides Lactantius as witness to the burning of the Christian church of Nicomedia, Eusebius relates that he saw with his own eyes the houses of prayer being destroyed, the Holy Scriptures burned in the public squares (Martyr. Palestin., 1). But in 311 Galerius granted that Christians might again build houses for gathering, provided they did nothing against the discipline: indeed they were to pray for the Emperor (Eusebius, op. cit., VIII, 17, 9-10).

To this time the Basilica Apostolorum on the Appian Way seems to date, on account of its banded masonry, of the same type as that of the nearby circus of Maxentius and mausoleum of his son Romulus.

St. Augustine in a conference held in 411 at Carthage spoke of an ancient document in which it was read that Pope Miltiades (d. in Jan. 314) had sent deacons bearing the letters of the emperor Maxentius and of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of R., "ut ea recipient quae, tempore persecutionis ablata, memoratus imperator christianis iusserat reddi... Melchiales Stratonem diaconum ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica cum aliis misit" (Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, XVIII, 34-35; PL 43, 645-46). In the norms sanctioned by Constantine regarding the restitution of property to Christians it is specifically declared that all the places in which they "antea convenire consuerunt" must be restored at once; and all must be handed back "corpori christianorum." And it is added that the Christians had not only these places of assembly, but also others belonging "ad ius corporis eorum id est ecclesiarum non hominum singulorum": these too must be restored without any ambiguity or delay "eisdem christianis id est corpori et conventiculis eorum" (Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 48: CSEL, 27, pp. 231-32; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., X: PG 20, 884).

At the same time one must lament the destruction of the archives of the Church of R., which it is not known where they were kept; Pope Damasus built a new building for them in region IX (Circus Flaminius), near the theater of Pompey and near the "stabulia factionis prasinae."

In the Constantinian age Optatus of Milevis indicates in R. "quadraginta et quod excurrit basilicas" (De schismate Donatistarum, II, 4: PL 11, 954). The laterculus of Polemius Silvius of the year 449 limits itself to indicating "religiosa aedificia cum innumeris cellolis martyrum consecratis" (MGH. Auctores antiquiss., IX; Chronica minora, I, p. 545). Around 550 Zacharias in his ecclesiastical history of R. in Syriac points out in R. "ecclesiae Apostolorum beatorum, ecclesiae catholicae XXIV" which could be the tituli (the Latin version is by I. Guidi, in Bull. della Commiss. archeol. com. di R., 12 [1884], p. 228).

The frequency of tituli in certain regions shows that the centers of the Christian community were more numerous in those zones. At the top of the Quirinal near the Alta Semita and not far from one another were situated the "titulus Gai," also called "ad duas domos iuxta Diocletianas" (Martyr. Hieronymianum, p. 434) and the titulus of Cyriacus, also indicated "iuxta Diocletianas" (ibid., p. 189). The zone must have been very populous; near the Servian agger there was a fruit shop and a Jewish "proseucha" (C. Frey, Corpus inscript. Iudaicarum, I, Vatican City 1936, p. 391). In the valley between the Esquiline and the Viminal was situated the titulus of Pudens (v.), not far away on the Esquiline, near the Macellum of Livia, the titulus of Praxedes, on the Oppian the titulus of Equitius. These three tituli were also on the edge of one of the most populous and densely inhabited quarters of the city: the Subura, where the Jews were numerous and formed the synagogue of the "Suburenses" (C. Frey, op. cit., I, pp. LXXXIII-LXXXIV). In the northern zone of the Caelian stood the tituli of Clement, near the Mint, of Nicomedes (perhaps Sts. Peter and Marcellinus), of Matthew, while in the lower part stood the titulus of Aemiliana (Sts. Quattro Coronati) and on the brow of the Caelian the titulus of Byzans. In Trastevere the oldest titulus is that of Callixtus, the Pope who was martyred in 223; then those of Cecilia, of whose martyrdom there is no certain date, and of Chrysogonus.

As regards the development of the Christian communities within the city and of its liturgical centers, a valuable indication is provided by the number of cemeteries on the various consular roads, corresponding to just as many urban Christian centers; on the Flaminia there is, in the time of Pope Julius (336-52), the cemetery basilica of St. Valentine; the adjoining cemetery has yielded an inscription of 318, and later another will show that it served the faithful of the "titulus" of Lucina; on the Salaria vetus the cemetery of Bassilla with the tombs of the martyr of the same name, of St. Hermes and of Sts. Protus and Hyacinth; later documents on the same road place a group called "ad S. Ioannem, ad septem palumbas" or "ad clivum cucumeris", not identified, and the group of Pamphilus (v.), which the excavations have made it possible to date back to the 2nd half of the 3rd century. On the Salaria nova are the four cemeteries of Maximus with the martyr Silanus, of Thraso with the martyr Saturninus, of the Jordani and of Priscilla. On the Tiburtina there are three cemeteries of the 3rd century: that of Hippolytus, which will later be connected with the tituli of Praxedes and of Pudens; the one called of Novatian with inscriptions of 266 and 270; the great cemetery of St. Lawrence, where epigraphs of the tituli of Clement and of Nicomedes were found; numerous, therefore, must have been the Christian population in the zone from the Esquiline to the Subura.

In the cemetery "inter duas lauros" on the Labicana, from the end of the 3rd century, were buried faithful belonging to the tituli of Eusebius and of Matthew, that is, of the zone between the present Piazza Vittorio Emanuele and the Vie Giusti and Alfieri; there is then on the Prenestina the cemetery of Castulus; on the Via Latina the groups of Gordian, Epimachus, Tertullinus, Apronianus; on the Appia the group of Praetextatus for the faithful of the Caelian around the Lateran, with epigraphs of a "Quintus Lactearius qui fuit de domu Lateranis nobili", of the families Annia, Insteia, Postumia, etc.; the one "in catacumbas" for the faithful in imperial service on the Palatine, who later had the "titulus Bizantis" on the Caelian; the one of Callistus, under the direct dependence of the deacon administrator of the community from the beginning of the 3rd century; numerous on the Ardeatina: the cemetery called of Domitilla for the faithful of the region of the public pool (Via Nova and Baths of Caracalla) and where the "titulus" called de fasciola arose; the cemetery of Balbina with the mausoleum of Pope Mark; the one where Damasus made the tomb for his mother, his sister and himself; the one at the tomb of the martyrs Mark and Marcellinus; the faithful of the Aventine (titulus of Prisca and of Sabina) had the ceme teries on the Ostiense (Commodilla, St. Paul, Tecla). Trastevere had cemeteries on the Portuense (Pontian "ad ursum pileatum"), three nuclei on the Aurelia (Pancratius, Processus and Martinianus, Callistus, later called Calepodius) and on the Cornelia at the Vatican.

II. SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERANO AND THE PATRIARCHIUM

The Constantinian basilica of the Savior of the Lateran is Constantinian; the indication in the biography of Sylvester (Lib. Pont., I, p. 124) has been confirmed by the Constantinian foundations found beneath the central nave of the present Basilica during the renewal of the pavement (cf. E. Josi, Scoperte nella Basilica Costantiniana al Laterano, in Riv. arch. crist., 11 [1934], pp. 335-58; A. M. Colini - I. Gismondi, Storia e topografia del Celio nell'antichità in Atti della Pont. Accad. rom. di archeol., 3rd series, 7 [1944], pp. 364-380). The said nave had thirty Numidian columns which had all already been replaced by the time of Martin V in 1425, with masonry piers, and only four remained when Borromini made the careful survey of the Basilica, which is today preserved in the Albertina Library in Vienna, before undertaking the radical transformation under Innocent X. The minor naves were divided by 42 columns of green marble, some of which were used in the 17th century for the niches with the Apostles, others were brought by F. Borromini to S. Agnese in the Circus Agonalis, which he rebuilt under Innocent X.

Gregory the Great in 591 called the Constantinian Basilica of the Lateran "golden" (Registr., II, 1, ed. P. Ewald -

L. M. Hartmann, in MGH, Epistolae, I, p. 101). It was in fact faced, not only on the lower parts of the walls but also in the arch soffits, with slabs of yellow Numidian marble, of which masses of fragments have been found, and some still adhering to the bedding of the arches. Septimius Severus, in building his castra nova equitum singularium, that is, the new barracks for his bodyguard, demolished a group of private dwellings and filled in their lower floors in order to obtain the level surface on which to erect the new foundations. The excavations of 1934-38 brought to light the remains of these dwellings with paintings; but other remains had been discovered in 1877 in the foundations for the new Lateran apse under Leo XIII (E. Stevenson, Scoperte di antichi edifici al Laterano, in Annali dell'Istituto di corrispondenza archeol., 1877, p. 132 ff.). One of the rooms of the barracks still had in situ a column with an inverted capital on which two dedications were inscribed, one for the health of the emperors dated 1 January A.D. 197, and the other of 203, on the return from an expedition. The room served as the schola of the College of the Equites Singulares. Remains of the Severan barracks had already been found during the works for the construction of the Corsini chapel under the pontificate of Clement XII (1730-40), and remains have also been found 66 m north of the perimeter of the Basilica, in the courtyard of the Palazzo Lateranense. In the Middle Ages the square to the north of the patriarchium continued to bear the designation in campo, which also passed to the church of S. Gregorio. From excavations carried out in 1655 near the baptistery the fresco representing the goddess Roma came to light again, later passing into the Barberini collection (hence called Roma Barberini) and now in the Museum of Palazzo Venezia (Wilpert, Mosaiken, I, pp. 130 ff. and pl. 125). The excavations carried out beneath the pavement of the central nave of the present Basilica by order of Pope Pius XI from 1934 to 1938 brought to light the continuous Constantinian foundations, with equidistant travertine plinths to support the columns and two pulvini, in one of which the springing of two arches still remains, which absolutely confirm the description given of it by Onofrio Panvinio, when seven of the thirty columns of Numidian marble of the nave were still standing. Panvinio's description is reproduced in Ph. Lauer, Le palais du Latran, Paris 1911, pp. 354 ff. The apse was restored by Leo the Great after the earthquake of 443; a few years earlier, between 429-30, it had received mosaic decorations offered by the consul Flavius Felix and his wife Padusia, as appears from the inscription preserved in the Lorsch sylloge (G. B. De Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae, II, 1, Rome 1888, pp. 149, 306-307). The apse mosaic was redone under Nicholas IV (1291) by two Franciscan artists, Fra Giacomo Torriti and Fra Giacomo di Camerino. At present in the apse there stands out at the top the divine hand of the Eternal over the image of the Savior; below, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove bathes with its rays the jeweled cross on the mount from which the four rivers flow where stags and lambs drink; to the right of the Cross are the Madonna, St. Peter, St. Paul; to the left Sts. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, St. Andrew; behind, between the figures of the Madonna and of the Forerunner, are the two Franciscan artists who in 1291 redid the mosaic, Fra Giacomo Torriti and Fra Giacomo da Camerino. The mosaic cycles of the Old and New Testament adorned the central nave and are cited by the legates of Adrian I at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) in favor of the veneration of images. Destroyed by the earthquake of 896, the cycles were redone in painting under Sergius III (904-11); they were replaced by the present Baroque stuccoes in the Borrominian remodeling (1644-55). In 1595 Flaminio Vacca redid the transept of the Basilica by order of Clement VIII, bringing to light a series of "quite large niches" belonging to the "castra nova Severiana" of the "equites singulares." A Roman road with paving running east-west appeared during the restoration of the papal altar under Pius IX in 1855. Of the facade of the Constantinian Basilica there is also a description in Panvinio. The medieval inscription of the facade "Dogmate papali..." was used as material in the baptistery, where fragments were found in the explorations carried out there by the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology in 1924.

The primitive Baptistery was fitted into a thermal hall, and its remains have been identified beneath the present one, the work of Sixtus III; it is of the octagonal type with a pronaos and with eight porphyry columns supporting the architrave on which was inscribed that poem of such profound doctrine and elevation of form which F. X. Dölger has held to have been dictated by the deacon Leo, later the successor of Sixtus III (Die Inschrift im Baptisterium S. Giovanni in Fonte an der Lateranischen Basilika aus der Zeit Xystus III. (432-40) und die Symbolik des Taufbrunnens bei Leo dem Grossem, in Antike und Christentum, 3 [1930], pp. 252-57). The structures of the baptistery of Sixtus III and those preceding it and the subsequent vicissitudes were studied by G. B. Giovenale, Il Battistero lateranense nelle recenti indagini della Pontificia Commissione di archeologia sacra, Rome 1929. Pope Hilarius had two oratories built on the eastern and western sides of the Baptistery, decorated with precious marbles and mosaics, with silver altars and bronze doors; one was dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, at whose tomb he had been saved at Ephesus (in the inscription on the architrave one reads: Liberatori suo beato Ioanni Evangelistae, Hilarus episcopus Famulus XPI); the other oratory was dedicated to St. John the Baptist (on the bronze door one still reads: in honorem beati Ioannis Baptistae Hilarus episcopus Dei famulus offert). The same Pope erected to the northwest of the Baptistery a third oratory splendidly adorned with precious marbles, columns and mosaics in honor of the Holy Cross (Lib. Pont., I, p. 243); it was demolished by Sixtus V, but drawings of it survive by F. G. Martini, Lafrery, Sansovino, Peruzzi, Sangallo, Ciacconio, and the descriptions of O. Panvinio and P. Ugonio. Pope John IV (640-42) built near the oratory of St. John the Evangelist the portico and the oratory in honor of St. Venantius (Lib. Pont., I, p. 334), where he deposited the relics that the abbot Martin had brought from Dalmatia. The mosaics of the apse and of the front wall still remain. In the conch of the apse, in the upper part, is the Savior between two angels; in the lower zone, in the center, is the Blessed Virgin between the apostles Peter and Paul, then the two Sts. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist; St. Venantius, St. Domnio and John IV. On the two front walls flanking the apse are Paulinianus, Telius, Antiochianus, Gaianus, Anastasius, Asterius, Septimus, Maurus. Stephen III too had been in service at the patriarchium from his youth (Lib. Pont., I, p. 471). Adrian I received Charlemagne at the Lateran (Lib. Pont., I, p. 498), where every day under the portico was given food to a hundred poor people (ibid., p. 520). Leo III had been a pupil of the patriarchium; he embellished and restored the Basilica (ibid., pp. 1, 2, 8, 25, 27); he erected two triclinia in the patriarchium and decorated them with mosaics (ibid., II, pp. 3, 10, 14, 25); in one of them he received Charlemagne on 30 Nov. of the year 800. In the apse conch the Savior was depicted, among the Apostles; at the end, on one side the Lord handing the keys to St. Sylvester and the labarum to Constantine, on the other St. Peter offering the pallium to Leo III. The Pope furthermore offered the cypress area situated in the chapel of St. Lawrence, which served to store the most precious reliquaries, with the inscription Leo indignus Dei famulus tertius episcopus fecit. Pupils of the patriarchium were also the popes Stephen IV and Paschal I (Lib. Pont., II, pp. 49, 52); the latter restored the monastery of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and offered the celebrated reliquary in gilded silver with a scene of the Resurrection; Gregory IV erected near the oratory of St. Lawrence a habitaculum and restored the eastern part of the Palace (Lib. Pont., II, p. 76). Leo IV continued the restoration work in the patriarchium, which is called « Romanum palatium » (Lib. Pont., II, pp. 134, 139). Nicholas I added to it the Basilica Nicolaitana (ibid., II, p. 172), finished by Adrian II (ibid., II, p. 176), who received Lothair II at the Lateran; under Stephen VI (896-99) the city suffered from a terrible earthquake that enormously damaged the Basilica, which was restored by Sergius III (904-11), and beneath the apse mosaic a tetrastich was placed that compared this aula Dei to Sinai. The work of Sergius III was continued by John X, who was killed there in 928 and buried near the entrance to the portico of the Basilica. John XII erected the oratory of St. Thomas, in which he was depicted. John XV canonized, in the Palace, Ulrich (v.), bishop of Augsburg, on 31 Jan. 993. Benedict VIII received Henry II at the Lateran. In the time of Stephen IX St. Peter Damian, bishop of Ostia, pointed to the Lateran Basilica as the mother and head of all the churches of the universe, to which the faithful flocked from all parts (Epist., 2, 1: PL 144, 253 ff.). The Lateran was truly the center of ecclesiastical life in the Middle Ages with its patriarchium, where in the ample basilical halls, in the administrative offices for the Curia, in the archives, in the porticoes, in the hospices, in the oratories, and especially in the private chapel of the Pontiff containing the most distinguished relics (whence the name Sancta Sanctorum) the activity of the Holy See unfolded for almost a millennium. Alexander II had notable restorations carried out in the Basilica. In 1079 Countess Matilda arrived there; the emperor Henry IV occupied the patriarchium with the antipope Clement III, but Gregory VII returned there with the help of Robert Guiscard (1084). Urban II received Anselm of Canterbury there in 1098. Callistus II erected there the chapel of St. Nicholas, a monument of the Concordat of Worms; works were carried out by Innocent II, who also enriched the Treasury of the Basilica (Lib. Pont., II, p. 384); Lucius II donated to the Chapter the church of St. John ante portam Latinam and the hospital near the Lateran; Anastasius IV transformed the ancient atrium of the Baptistery into the chapel of Sts. Rufina and Secunda. Adrian IV restored the Palace. Alexander III had the description of the Lateran made by John the Deacon. Martin the Pole recalls the works carried out at the Palace by Clement III; to him are owed the mosaics that decorated the external portico and the fresco with the episode of Ananias and Sapphira that is still preserved. From Celestine III are the bronze doors still existing, executed in 1196 by Umbert and Peter of Piacenza. Innocent III covered with silver plates the image of the Acheropita (v.); he received St. Francis and St. Dominic at the Lateran. Restorations carried out by the popes Innocent II (1130-43), Celestine III (1191-98), Gregory IX (1227-41), Nicholas III (1277-80), Boniface VIII (1298-1303) are also mentioned, the latter of whom from the loggia of the Patriarchium promulgated the first jubilee of 1300, of which memory remains in Giotto's fresco in the side nave of the present Basilica. The Basilica suffered greatly from the departure of the popes for Avignon and from the fires of 1308 and 1361; nevertheless Clement V (1305-14) and Benedict XII (1334-42) had restorations carried out there. Urban V renewed it and transported into the tabernacle placed on the papal altar the relics of the heads of the Princes of the Apostles until then venerated in the pope's private chapel in the Patriarchium. Other restorations were carried out by Martin V, by Eugene IV, by Alexander VI. In 1426 Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello decorated the central nave with frescoes that were destroyed in the Borrominian transformation. Innocent X transformed, on a design by F. Borromini, the Lateran Basilica into five naves divided by pillars; Leo XIII, having demolished the ancient apse, erected the choir in its present form. In the Archbasilica of the Lateran were buried the popes Leo V, Sergius III, John X and XI, Agapetus II, John XII and XIII, Sylvester II, John XVII, Sergius IV, Alexander II, Paschal II, Callixtus II, Honorius II, Celestine II, Anastasius IV, Alexander III, Clement III, Innocent V, Martin V, Clement XII; Innocent III was translated there by Leo XIII, who is likewise laid to rest there. For the service of the Basilica the monasteries erected around it and around the patriarchium provided. The foundation of the monastery dedicated to St. Stephen near the Lateran Baptistery is attributed to Pope Hilarius (461-68) (Lib. Pont., I, p. 245), enriched by Leo III ca. the year 806 and which L. Duchesne considers contiguous or identical to the oratory of S. Venanzio (ibid., II, pp. 22 and 43, n. 80). The monastery was renewed by Gregory III (731-41) with the obligation of the service in the basilica of the Savior "diurnis nocturnisque temporibus", as was done at St. Peter's in the Vatican (Lib. Pont., I, p. 419). Ca. 565 some monks of Montecassino, fleeing the Lombard devastation, took refuge near the Lateran, forming that monasterium Lateranense at whose head was for many years Valentinian, formerly abbot of Montecassino (St. Gregory, Dialog. Proemium). This monastery was later called that of S. Pancrazio (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontif., I, Berlin 1906, pp. 32-33). Pope Honorius I (625-638) founded the monastery of Sts. Andrew and Bartholomew (Lib. Pont., I, p. 419) rebuilt by Hadrian I (772-95) who willed that the choral service be performed simultaneously by the monks of this monastery and by the other of S. Pancrazio (Lib. Pont., I, p. 506). Under Leo III (795-816) there is record of a women's monastery near the Claudian aqueduct dedicated to the martyrs Sergius and Bacchus (ibid., II, p. 24). Paschal I (817-24) replaced them there with monks with the obligation of the psalmody "nocte dieque" in the basilica of the Savior (ibid., II, p. 58; P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 34). Alexander II called there the Regular Canons of S. Frediano of Lucca. The Basilica also had its schola cantorum endowed by St. Gregory the Great. The pueri "bene psallentes" were chosen from the various scholae and nourished in the Schola cantorum, whence they later became cubicularii (R. Casimiri, Cantantibus organis, Rome 1924, p. 460 ff.). Cardinal Bernard (d. in 1176), formerly prior of the Basilica and then cardinal of Porto, composed an ordo officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis (L. Fischer, Bernardi cardinalis et Lateranensis ecclesiae prioris Ordo ecclesiae Lateranensis, Munich 1916) in which is illustrated the task of the schola together with that of the Regular Canons Lateranensi charged with the service. In the Lateran Archive is preserved the text of an agreement stipulated in 1232 between the Regular Canons Lateranensi and the schola cantorum for the liturgical musical service. John the Deacon attributes the institution of the schola cantorum to Gregory the Great (sancti Gregorii Magni s/ta, II, 6: PL 75). The Liber diurnus calls it "orphanatrophium" (formula 97); in a letter of Paul I of 761-67 it is called scola cantorum (MGH, Epistolae, III, p. 553); in an act of 919 one reads scola cantorum qui appellatur orphanatrophium (L. Allodi-G. Levi, Regestum Sublacense, Rome 1885, p. 159, n. 112). Its oratory was S. Stephanus orphanatrophii, recalled in the Catalogue of Paris, while in that of Turin this church appears already destroyed (R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico d. Città di Roma, III, Rome 1946, p. 310). The properties of the schola cantorum, no longer functioning, after the fires of the Basilica in 1307 and in 1361 were granted by Urban V, with a bull of 13 June 1370, to the Chapter of the cathedral of Montefiascone (R. Casimiri, L'antica schola cantorum romana e la sua fine nel 1370, in Nel XVI centenario della dedicazione della Arcibasilica Lateranense del S.mo Salvatore, Rome 1924, pp. 56-59). Boniface VIII with a bull of 3 Sept. 1299 removed the Regular Canons and instituted fifteen secular canons. Eugene IV with a bull of 6 Febr. 1439 called there the Regular Canons of S. Maria di Frigionia near Lucca. Sixtus IV with a bull of 16 Apr. 1472 restored there the secular Canons. Near the Basilica the residence of the bishop of R. was soon established. From as early as 314 there is record that Pope Miltiades assembled the first Council against the Donatists in the domus Faustae in the Lateran. The oratory dedicated to St. Lawrence later bore the name of Sancta Sanctorum; it was the private Chapel of the pontiff, where only the Pope could celebrate on the altar that enclosed within the cypress area of Leo III the most distinguished relics of the Roman martyrs, the heads of the apostles Peter and Paul, of St. Lawrence, of St. Agnes, of St. Pancras, of St. Praxedes; furthermore relics of the Holy Cross, of the most famous sanctuaries of Palestine and the acheropita image (v.). The Lateran Patriarchium was devastated by Maurice and by Isaac (640). Pope Zachary restored the Patriarchium (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 432-38, n. 38); he often gave food to the poor (Lib. Pont., I, p. 435). Stephen II had been elevated in the venerabili cubiculo Lateranensi, where he was later elected (Lib. Pont., I, p. 443). Under the threat of the Lombard invasion, Stephen II carried in procession on his own shoulders the acheropita image from the Lateran to S. Maria Maggiore. Zachary (741-52) made the triclinium near the basilica of Pope Theodore in the Lateran Patriarchium restored by him, where he also decorated the oratory of St. Sylvester and the portico; there he built near the Treasury a tower with an upper triclinium adorned with representations of R. and of the world. In the Patriarchium the biographer of Pope Sergius I (687-701) recalls the oratory of St. Sylvester and the basilica of Pope Theodore, both in the area of the present Lateran Palace (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 333, 374-76).

The possessions of the popes at the Lateran after Avignon. After Avignon, the popes preferred to reside in the Vatican, generally limiting themselves to going to the Lateran for the solemn ceremony of possession, immediately after the coronation and sometimes for the feast of the Ascension. There is record of it from Martin V and of the opening of the Jubilee of 1425. Eugene IV (1431-47) carried out some restorations there and made a brief stay. Enea Silvio Piccolomini described the possession of Nicholas V (1447-55), who opened the Jubilee there on 24 Dec. 1449; Callixtus III came for the possession on 20 Apr. 1455; Pius II on 3 Sept. 1458; Paul II on 16 Sept. 1464; Sixtus IV on 25 Aug. 1471; Julius II resided there during the Fifth Lateran Council in 1512; a few days after the possession, Leo X stayed there in 1513. The sack of Rome also damaged the Patriarchium. Pope Sixtus V (1585), immediately after the possession, began the demolition work on the dilapidated Patriarchium on the side where the Councils were held (notice of R. 5 June 1585 in cod. Vat. Urb. 1053, p. 243). The architect of the new building was Domenico Fontana; it was already completed in 1589; but it occupied only part of the area of the new Patriarchium, and the oratory of St. Lawrence known as Sancta Sanctorum also remained detached from it. But Sixtus V himself stayed very little at the Lateran, and his successors preferred the Vatican and the Quirinal. Innocent IX (1591), after the possession, renewed in the Sala Sistina the ancient rite of the presbyterium, followed by Clement VIII in 1592 and by Paul V in 1605, who arranged for the residence in the Palace of the cardinal archpriest and of the canons. Urban VIII transformed the Palace partly into a large barracks for the militia, partly into a granary, partly into a lazaretto and a men's hospital. Innocent X (1644) received there the crippled and the sick; Innocent XII carried out new restorations there, transforming it into a hospice together with the Apostolic Hospice (bull Ad exercitium pietatis of 1692). Benedict XIII (1724-30) had planned to use it as the seat of conclaves, but then established there a workshop for unmarried girls, which remained also under Pius VI in 1776. Pius VII carried out works there to house the public archives, but then it was reduced to a barracks. After the solemn possession of Pius IX in 1846, the ceremony was resumed by Pope Pius XII on the day of the Ascension in 1939.

III. THE PATRIARCHAL BASILICAS

In the 12th century the basilicas of the Lateran, of St. Peter, of St. Paul, of St. Mary Major and of St. Lawrence each constituted a patriarchatus, and the buildings attached to them for habitation were called patriarchia; indeed O. Panvinio writes: «palatiaque conspicua illes adiuncta patriarchia appellarunt». Moreover, to commemorate these five Basilicas the following distich had been formed: «Paulus, Virgo, Petrus, Laurentius atque Iohanes / Patriarchatus nomen in Urbe tenent». At the high altar of the patriarchal Basilicas only the pope or one who receives from him a special mandatum may celebrate. The palaces then attached to the individual Patriarchal basilicas, besides that of the Lateran used as the dwelling of the Pontiff and for the offices of the administration and of the Curia, served respectively for the patriarchs of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch and of Jerusalem, in the event of their presence in R.

The four patriarchal Basilicas (v. BASILICA), where the Holy Doors were instituted for gaining the indulgences during the Jubilee, are: St. John Lateran, St. Peter (v. VATICAN) St. Paul (v.) and St. Mary Major. The seven churches are: St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Sebastian, St. John, St. Cross, St. Lawrence (v.) and St. Mary Major in the topographical order in which the most visit of them is made (G. Severano, Memorie sacre delle sette chiese di R., Rome 1630).

IV. THE SURNAMES OF MEDIEVAL CHURCHES

In the Middle Ages many churches took surnames derived from their topographical location: de flumine, such as S. Lorenzo, S. Lucia, S. Maria (from their proximity to the Tiber); or de insula, such as S. Bartolomeo or S. Benedetto; trans Tiberim, such as S. Abbaciro, S. Agata, S. Cecilia, SS. Cosma e Damiano; de Aventino, such as S. Maria; in Caelio, such as S. Stefano; in Capitolio, such as S. Maria; de Ianiculo, such as S. Angelo; de Palatio, such as S. Cesareo; ad duas domos, such as S. Susanna.

Other churches took their names from monuments or ancient streets, such as S. Angelo, S. Giacomo, S. Giorgio de Augusta (the Augusteum); in clivo Scauri, such as S. Gregorio, the Most Holy Trinity; de Coliseo, such as S. Giacomo, S. Marina, S. Nicola, the SS. Quaranta; de columna (column of Antoninus), such as S. Andrea and S. Lucia, S. Nicola (from the column of Trajan); in foro (of Augustus), such as S. Maria; in gallina alba, such as S. Sisto; in o de horrea, such as S. Giacomo, S. Pietro; in Laterano, such as S. Giovanni, S. Pancrazio; in macello (of Livia), such as S. Vito; in Martio, such as S. Gregorio al Laterano; in o de Merulana, such as S. Bartolomeo, S. Matteo, S. Severino; in mica aurea, such as the SS. Cosma e Damiano, S. Giovanni; in Minerva, such as S. Maria; in Orphea, such as S. Lucia; or iuxta Orfea, such as the SS. Silvestro e Martino ai Monti; de o in Pallacina, such as S. Andrea, S. Lorenzo; de Palladio (corrupted into Pallara), such as S. Maria; in Panisperna, such as S. Lorenzo; in Pinci, such as S. Felice; de Porta Appia, such as S. Apollinare and S. Cesareo; de Porta Pla-

ROME: Casino Borghese (1605-13), now the Museo and Galleria Borghese. Hall of Aeneas and Anchises with decorations of the 17th-18th century - Rome.

minea, such as S. Leonardo; ante Portam Latinam, such as S. Giovanni; de Porta Septimiana, such as S. Giovanni and S. Silvestro; in prasino, such as S. Lorenzo; in publico, such as S. Maria; de septem solis, such as S. Leone and S. Lucia; de in o supra Suburam, such as S. Agata, S. Andrea, S. Barbara, S. Bartolomeo, S. Salvatore, S. Scolastica; in caput Suburae, such as S. Lucia; iuxta templum Agrippae, such as S. Eustachio; de Thermis, S. Ciriaco (baths of Diocletian), S. Giacomo, S. Salvatore, S. Maria (baths of Nero), S. Silvestro (baths of Trajan); in tribus fatis at the forum, such as the SS. Cosma e Damiano, S. Adriano, S. Martina; in Velabro, such as S. Giorgio; in Via Lata, such as S. Maria; in Via Sacra, such as the SS. Cosma e Damiano, the SS. Pietro e Paolo. Other churches, on the other hand, took their surname from medieval designations or localities, such as de agulia, for S. Stefano; de agone, such as S. Agnese and S. Nicola; de apothecis obscuris, such as S. Lucia; de arca Noe, such as S. Maria; de arcu aureo, such as S. Andrea and S. Maria; iuxta arcum Basilii, such as the SS. Sergio e Bacco; de arcu de Trasi, such as S. Salvatore; de ascesa, such as S. Biagio and S. Lorenzo; ad asinum frictum, such as the SS. Cosma e Damiano; de balneo Miccine, such as S. Salvatore and S. Valentino; de biberatica, such as S. Andrea, S. Lorenzo, S. Salvatore and S. Silvestro; de Bordonia, such as S. Salvatore; de caballo or de caballis or de equo, such as S. Agata, S. Andrea, S. Salvatore, S. Saturnino, S. Stefano; de calcarario, or de calcarariis, such as S. Lucia and S. Salvatore; de Camiliano, such as S. Ciriaco, S. Salvatore; in campitello, such as S. Maria; in campo Carlei, such as S. Maria; in campo a domo Gregorii, such as S. Maria; de campo Senensi, such as S. Austerio; Turriciano, such as S. Giovanni; in Cannapara, such as S. Maria; de capite molarum, such as S. Tommaso; in caput portici, such as S. Maria; de capta secuta, such as S. Biagio and S. Lucia; in carcere, such as S. Nicola; in castello aureo, such as S. Lorenzo; de castro S. Angeli, such as S. Angelo and S. Tommaso; in crypta agonis, such as S. Maria and S. Nicola; ad coltes iacentes, such as S. Agata; de crypta pinta, such as S. Maria; in curte domnae Micine, such as S. Maria; de curte Praefecti, such as S. Maria; a curte Astaldi, such as S. Salvatore; de curtibus or de curte, such as S. Biagio, S. Giovanni, S. Lorenzo, S. Nicola, S. Stefano; de curtina, such as S. Gregorio and S. Martino; de equo marmoreo, such as S. Agata, S. Andrea, S. Stefano; de forma or in formis, such as S. Daniele, S. Nicola, S. Tommaso; in foro piscium, such as S. Angelo; in fossa or fovea, such as S. Biagio, S. Cecilia, S. Maria; de fractis, such as S. Andrea; de furca, such as S. Nicola; iuxta gradatas, such as S. Lorenzo; de inferno, such as S. Maria; inter duos hortos, such as S. Silvestro; de lacu, such as S. Giacomo; de macello, such as S. Maria and S. Nicola; de Maiurenta, such as S. Maria; de marmorata, such as S. Anastasio, S. Anna, S. Geminiano, S. Nicola; in massa Iuliana, such as S. Andrea and S. Scolastica; de mercato, such as S. Biagio, S. Giovanni; de militiis, such as S. Abbaciro; de molellis, such as S. Salvatore; de monte, such as S. Nicola; montis Balneanapolis, such as S. Maria; in monte aureo, such as S. Giorgio and S. Pietro (in montorio); de monte Faffo, such as S. Cecilia; de monte Granato, such as the SS. Cosma e Damiano; de monte Johannis Ronzonis, such as S. Maria; de monte de Maximo, such as S. Martino; de monte Saccorum, such as S. Giustino; de monte Tito, such as S. Martino; in monticellis, such as S. Maria; de oliveto, such as S. Nicola; palatii Caruli, such as S. Sergio; in palatiolo, such as S. Maria; ad palmata, such as S. Apollinare; de penna, such as S. Biagio; de pila, such as S. Stefano and S. Martino; in pennilis, such as S. Lorenzo, S. Stefano; de piscina, such as S. Andrea, S. Benedetto, S. Lorenzo, S. Stefano; de ponte, such as S. Simeone, S. Stefano, S. Orso; de pede pontis, such as S. Salvatore; de ponte Iudeorum, such as S. Gregorio; de quattuor portarum, such as S. Lucia; de mesu porticu, such as S. Andrea; in porticu maiore, such as S. Lorenzo; de posterula, such as S. Biagio, S. Cecilia, S. Maria, S. Marina, S. Martino, S. Silvestro; de Pretecarolis, such as S. Pantaleone; de puteo Probae, such as S. Anastasio; in ripa Graeca, such as S. Geminiano; in Satro, such as S. Barbara; de schola Graeca, such as S. Maria; de scorticlaris, such as S. Benedetto, S. Biagio; in silice, such as S. Lucia, S. Stefano; ad taurellum, such as S. Lorenzo and S. Marco; de Turrione, such as S. Salvatore; de Tufollata, such as S. Maria; in Transpadina, such as S. Maria; de trullo, such as S. Stefano; in turri, such as S. Agata and S. Cesareo; in turribus, such as S. Maria; de turre pertondata, such as S. Benedetto; in vallicella, such as S. Maria; ad velum aureum, such as S. Giorgio; de via papae, such as S. Sebastiano; de viculo, such as S. Andrea; de vinris, such as S. Tommaso; in vivariolo, such as the SS. Quaranta; de unda, such as S. Salvatore and S. Andrea. Many churches took their names from founders or from families, such as S. Leonardo de Albis; S. Lorenzo, S. Nicola, S. Martino de Arcionibus; S. Maria de Astariis; S. Andrea, S. Stefano cata Barbara; S. Salvatore de Baroncinis; S. Lorenzo de Bascis; S. Maria domnae Bertae; S. Maria a domo Johannis Bovis per Bobonis; S. Maria in Caterina; S. Nicola de domo curte Cincii Gregorii; S. Tommaso de Cinciis; S. Salvatore de divitiis; S. Stefano cata Galla patricia; S. Lorenzo de Gavellutis; S. Andrea Johannis ancillae Dei; S. Salvatore de Maximinis; S. Nicola de Mellinis; S. Maria de Monterone; S. Giacomo de Morattis; S. Lorenzo de Muttis; S. Cecilia de Pantaleis; S. Nicola de Portis; S. Angelo a domo Egidii de Poco; S. Nicola de Praefectis; S. Stefano Rapignans; S. Salvatore de Rogeriis; S. Lorenzo dominae Rosae; S. Andrea Milonis Saraceni; S. Nicola de Tofis; S. Stefano Vagandae.

Still other churches received their appellation from the relics they contained, such as S. Giovanni and S. Silvestro de capite; S. Lorenzo ad craticulam; S. Agapito, S. Maria, S. Pietro ad vincula.

Many churches belonged to scholae or nations: S. Maria schola Saxonum, later S. Maria in Saxia; S. Salvatore scholae Francorum, S. Michele schola Frisonum, S. Giustino schola Langobardorum (for the scholae, v. VATICANO); S. Stefano de Ungariis, S. Cesario, S. Gregorio de Graecis; S. Salvatore, S. ma Trinità Scottorum; S. Gregorio, S. Giacomo de Armenis; S. Andrea, S. Tommaso de Hispanis. Hospices too gave rise to the name of certain churches, such as S. Lucia in xenodochio Aniciorum; S. Maria in xenodochio Firmis; S. Abbarico in xenodochio Valeriorum; S. Stefano de orphanotrophio or de schola cantoris; S. Nicola de hospitali.

Not a few other churches took their surnames from the guilds, such as S. Andrea de aquarizariis; S. Benedetto de caccabariis; S. Nicola de calcarariis; S. Maria de cambiatoribus; S. Biagio de circlaris; S. Maria de ferrariis; S. Nicola de forbitoris; S. Andrea de Junariis; S. Andrea de marmorariis; S. Lorenzo de mondezariis; S. Andrea de mortarariis; S. Stefano de vaccinariis. Some churches derived their name from ecclesiastical places, such as S. Nicola de capella papae; S. Benedetto de clausura; S. Agata in diaconia; S. Maria in episcopio; S. Agata, S. Maria in monasterio.

For the deaconries v. the relevant entry.

V. BASILICAS AND CHURCHES ACCORDING TO THE ERA OF THEIR FOUNDATION

Nella biografia di S. Silvestro tra le fondazioni costantiniane, oltre la basilica Costantiniana del Laterano, viene indicata quella « in Palatio Sessoniano », trasformazione di un'aula antica a metà del sec. IV in basilica cristiana che dalla lista delle donazioni è collegata con la dinastia Costantiniana (R. Krautheimer, Corpus Basilicarum christianorum Romae, Città del Vaticano 1937, pp. 165-94). Il titolo di Equizio è indicato nelle sottoscrizioni del Sinodo del 499; si ha invece titulus S. Silvestri in un frammento detto Laurenziano di un catalogo di papi dell'inizio del sec. VI (Lib. Pont., I, p. 46; R. Vielliard, Les origines du titre de St-Martin aux Monts, Roma 1931). Eusebio è il nome del « conditor tituli », nel Martirologio geronimiano, e un'iscrizione in suo onore si lesse ancora da P. Ugonio (Stationi, ecc., Roma 1588, f. 259). La chiesa fu restaurata dai papi Zaccaria (Lib. Pont., I, p. 435), Adriano I (ibid., p. 508); ebbe doni da Leone III (ibid., II, pp. 11 e 21), da Gregorio IV (ibid., p. 76) è da Niccolò I (ibid., p. 154). Fu riconsacrata da Gregorio IX (V. Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese di R., X, Roma 1877, p. 407); poi da Niccolò IV (E. Müntz, Les arts à la cour des Papes, I, Parigi 1878, p. 143). L'attuale fu ricostruita tra il 1711-50. MARCO (336) fondò la basilica « iuxta Pallacinas » (Lib. Pont., I, p. 202) che porta ancora il suo titolo. GIULIO I (337-52), a testimonianza del Catalogo, detto Liberiano, eresse in R. « basilica » Iuliam quae est regione VII iuxta forum divi Traiani » (MGH, Auct. antiquis., IX, Chronica minora, Berlino 1892, p. 78; cf. R. Krautheimer, op. cit., p. 79). DAMASO (366-84) fondò la basilica presso il teatro di Pompeo e gli « stabula factionis prasinae » (Lib. pont., I, pp. 212; G. B. De Rossi, Inscript. christ., II, 1, Roma 1888, p. 134). Al tempo di SIRICIO (385-98) viene eretta la basilica Pudentiana; vengono compiuti lavori in quella di S. Clemente (A. Petrignani, La basilica di S. Pudentiana in R., Roma 1934). Il titulus Vestinae venne fondato da INNOCENZO I (401-17) R. Vielliard, Saint Vital, in Riv. di arch. crist., 12 [1935], pp. 103-18).

St. Sabina, founded by the presbyter Peter of Illyria in the time of CELESTINE I (422-32), as attested by the mosaic inscription on the interior of the entrance wall and by the Lib. Pont. (I, p. 235), which records it as completed under Sixtus III (432-40), is a title in the Synod of 499; the epitaph of a "presbyter Basilius tituli Sabinae" is in St. Paul Outside the Walls (A. Silvagni, Inscriptiones Christ., new series, II, Rome 1935, no. 5154). Restored and embellished by Leo III (795-816) (Lib. Pont. II, p. 20), and by Eugene II (824-27) (ibid., p. 69). Honorius III granted it to the Order of Friars Preachers. It was modified and damaged in 1559 and 1585. It was restored to its original state on the initiative of Fr. M. Gillet when in 1936 he decided to bring back there the General Curia of his Order, entrusting the direction of the works to Fr. M. D. Darsy, who has given a first clear account of them (DACL. XV, t. coll. 218-38). Pope SIMPLICIUS (468-83) erected a basilica to the martyr Bibiana, near the "palatium Licinianum" (Lib. Pont., I, p. 240; see also E. Donckel, Studien über den Kultus der hl. Bibiana, in Röm. Quartalschr., 43 [1935]; id., Der Kultus der hl. Bibiana in Rom., in Riv. di arch. christ., 15 [1937]), and also St. Andrew in Cutobarbara on the Esquilinen; a Goth named Valila adapted to Christian church use the basilica erected by the consul Junius Bassus in the 4th century. The apse mosaic represented Jesus Christ among the Apostles (G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. chr., II, 1, Rome 1888, p. 436; Lib. Pont., I, p. 249; G. Lugli and T. Ashby, La basilica di Giunio Basso, in Riv. di arch. crist., 8 [1932], pp. 221-55; R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 64-65). St. Stephen "in Caelio Monte" was also founded by Pope Simplicius (Lib. Pont., I, p. 249), decorated by John I (523-26) and by Felix IV (526-30) (G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. christ., II, 1, p. 152, nos. 29, 32). Pope Theodore (642-49) transferred there the bodies of the martyrs Primus and Felicianus (Lib. Pont., I, p. 332). Renewed by Hadrian I (772-95) (ibid., p. 510), it received gifts from Leo III (795-816) (ibid., II, pp. 20-31), Gregory IV (ibid., II, p. 76) and Leo IV (ibid., II, p. 119). It became a presbyteral title after the year 1000. Innocent II restored it (ibid., II, p. 384). Gregory XIII in 1573 granted it to the Hungarian College (R. Krautheimer, S. Stefano rotondo a R. e la chiesa del S. Sepolcro a Gerusalemme, in Riv. di arch. crist., 12 [1935], pp. 51-102; P. F. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I, Berlin 1906, p. 42; E. Mâle, La mosaïque de S. Stefano Rotondo à Rome, in Scritti in onore di Bartolomeo Nogara, Vatican City 1937, pp. 237-52). SYMMACHUS (498-514) erected the oratory of Sts. Cosmas and Damian near S. Maria, built from the foundations the basilica of Sts. Sylvester and Martin ai Monti, and made a stairway behind the apse of Sts. John and Paul (Lib. Pont., I, p. 262). Under Symmachus there was the Synod of 499, in which the presbyters of the various titles subscribed. The list of 499 makes known the following tituli: of Byzans, of Pammachius, of Aemiliana, of Clement, of the Apostles, of Equitius, of Praxedes (inscription of 491 in Bull. arch. crist., 4th series, 1 [1882], p. 65), of Eusebius, of Pudens, of Vestina, of Gaius, of Cyriacus, of Marcellus, of Lucina, of Damasus or of St. Lawrence, of Mark, of Anastasia, Fasciola, Crescentiana, Tigrida, Matthew, Romanus, Sabina, Prisca, Julius, Cecilia, Chrysogonus. The titulus Aemilianiae of 499 has been identified with that of the Sts. Quattro Coronati of the Synod of 595 (A. Muñoz, Il restauro della chiesa e del chiostro dei SS. Quattro Coronati, Rome 1914). The titulus Anastasiae appears in 499. In the first stage S. Anastasia had a single nave with a transept and a semicircular apse decorated by Damasus (G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. Chr., II, 1, pp. 24 and 150); at a second stage the two side aisles were added; the third belongs to the restoration of Leo III (795-816). The new facade is from 1634-40, the last great restoration from 1721-1722 (R. Krautheimer, S. Anastasia, in Corpus, cit., pp. 43-63). The titulus Byzantis has been held to be the same as that of Pammachius, which is not proven, and has been identified with that of Sts. John and Paul of 595 (J. P. Kirsch, Die römischen Titelkirchen, Paderborn 1918, pp. 26-33). The titulus Callisti has been identified with the "titulus Iuli et Callisti" of 595, that is, with S. Maria in Trastevere (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., p. 104 ff.). The title of Cecilia in Trastevere becomes titulus S. Caeciliae in the Synod of 595 (bibl. in R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 95-112). S. Ciriaco in Thermis was erected on public land and certainly not before the 4th century; it stood toward the southwest pavilion of the Ministry of Finance (R. Krautheimer, Corpus cit., pp. 115-17). The titulus Clementi was ancient at the time of St. Jerome, who writes that "nominis eius (Clementis) memoriam usque hodie Romae extructa ecclesia custodit" (De viris ill., 15); on the "dominicum Clementis" v. G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. arch. crist., 1863, p. 25, and 1874, p. 159; for the rest R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 118-36.

The titulus Crescentianae has been identified with S. Sisto, dating from 595 (J. P. Kirsch, cit., p. 111 ff.). S. Crisogono appears among the "tituli" in 499; it is "titulus S. Chrisogoni" in 595 (bibl. in R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 144-64).

The Titulus Fasciolae has its oldest inscription in an epigraph of the year 377 (G. B. De Rossi, Inscript. christ., I, Rome 1857-61, no. 262; Cinnamus, Opus lector de Fasciolae; J. B. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 90-94). The titulus Gai becomes that of St. Susanna in the Synod of 595; it is called "ad duas domos iuxta Diocletianas" in the Geronymian Martyrology under 11 August (feast of St. Susanna). In the Synod of 499 Benedict and Severus signed as priests of the "titulus Gai". It is indicated as "iuxta S. Quiriacum" in the biography of Sergius I (687-701), who was its titular priest, restored it and enriched it (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 371, 375; G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. arch. crist., 2nd series, 1 [1870], pp. 89-112; L. Duchesne, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 36 [1916], p. 33 ff.). The titulus Lucinae, with St. Lawrence in Lucina (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 80-84). The titulus Marcelli becomes "S. Marcelli" in the Synod of 595 (G. Albarelli, Il titolo di S. Marcelli in Via Lata e la scoperta di un antico battistero, in N. Bull. di arch. crist., 19 [1913], pp. 109-29; J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 77-80). The titulus Marci becomes in 595 "S. Marci" (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 87-90; A. Ferrua, La basilica di S. Marco, in Civ. Catt., 1948, III, pp. 503-13). The titulus Matthaei (Kl. Henze, S. Matteo in Merulana, in Miscellanea Ehrle, II [Studi e testi, 38], Rome 1924, pp. 404-14; plan in S. Du Pérac-Lafrery, 1577; G. B. Nolli, 1748, plate 15, no. 28), was reconsecrated on 25 March 1110 by Paschal II; the altar was restored by the priest Anastasius (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., cit., I, p. 39). The titulus Nicomedis with Sts. Marcellinus and Peter in Via Merulana in the Synod of 595 (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 54-58). The titulus Priscae already appears in an epitaph of 491; the present church stands above a mithraeum (A. Ferrua, Il mitreo sotto la chiesa di S. Prisca, in Bull. arch. com. di Roma, 68 [1940], pp. 59-86. The titulus Sabinae is certainly earlier than the priest Peter who built the Basilica (today St. Sabina) in the time of Pope Celestine (422-32), otherwise he would have been the "conditor tituli" and this would have taken his name (v. SABINA, saint). The titulus Tigridae of 499 has been identified with the St. Balbina of 595 (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 94-96). The title of St. Balbina appears for the first time in the Synod of 595, where two priests signed; an epigraphic fragment of the same century also recalls it: TT. SCE Ra (G. B. De Rossi, Roma sotterr., III, Rome 1877, p. 515. For the bibliography v. R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 84 ff.).

FELIX IV (526-30) erected the basilica of Sts. Cosmas and Damian near the "templum urbis Romae" (bibl. in R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 137-43). GREGORY THE GREAT (590-604) dedicated to the martyr Agatha the church of the Goths situated in the Suburra, already erected by Ricimer between 459 and 470 (Lib. Pont., I, p. 312; Dialoghi, III, 30; Registr. epist., in MGH. Epist., I, Leipzig 1891, p. 253). St. Sabina is also connected to this Pope: John the Deacon (Vita s. Gregorii, I, 9: PL 75, 66) wrote that St. Silvia, mother of St. Gregory,

(phot. B. N. Marconi)

ROME. - The portico of the church of S. Gioacchino, which was built on the occasion of the jubilee of Leo XIII (1898). Design by the architects R. Inganni and Lorenzo M. de Rossi.

he dwelt in the place called Cella Nova, a designation that recurs in the biography of Stephen III (768-72), Adrian I (772-95), Leo III (795-816) and Gregory IV (P. F. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, Berlin 1906, p. 118; G. B. Cannizzaro, in Boll. d'Arte, 9 [1915], pp. 129-35). After the Latin monks there were the Greeks. In the church there are frescoes of the 6th-7th centuries (P. Styger, Die Malereien in der Basilica auf dem kleinen Aventin in Rom, in Röm. Quartalschrift, 28 [1914], p. 53 ff.; Wilpert, Monichen, pls. 169-71; A. Steinhuber, Geschichte des Collegium German.-Hungaricum in Rom, I, 2nd ed., Freiburg im Br. 1906, p. 113; G. Lestocquoy, Notes sur l'Eglise de St-Sabas, in Riv. arch. crist., 6 [1929], pp. 213-47). The building was rebuilt by the Cluniac monks, to whom Lucius II assigned the monastery with a bull of 11 January 1145. It passed to the Cistercians in 1503; with Gregory XIII in 1573 it was united to that of S. Apollinare for the foundation of the Collegio Germanico Ungarico; since 1932 it has been a parish entrusted to the Jesuits.

BONIFACE IV (608-15) obtained from the emperor Phocas the transformation of the Pantheon into a church dedicated to S. Maria «ad Martyres» (Lib. Pont., I, p. 317). HONORIUS I (625-38) rebuilt the church of the SS. Quattro Coronati. He transformed the curia of the Senate into the church of S. Adriano, later a deaconry (Lib. Pont., I, p. 324; M. Dattoli, Appunti per la storia di S. Adriano nell'età moderna, in Archivio della soc. rom. di st. patria, 43 [1920], pp. 323-53). JOHN III (640-642) erected near the Lateran Baptistery the church in honor of the martyrs Venantius, Anastasius, Maurus, etc. (Lib. Pont., I, p. 330). LEO II (628-83) built the church of S. Paolo near S. Bibiana (ibid., p. 360), and the church of S. Sebastiano and S. Giorgio «in velum aureum», today S. Giorgio in Velabro. It is indicated in the biography of pope Zachary as a deaconry. The same pope Leo II restored S. Lorenzo in Lucina (ibid., p. 363). BENEDICT II (684-85) restored the church of S. Maria ad martyres and that of S. Lorenzo in Lucina (ibid., p. 363). SERGIUS I (687-701) made the ambo and the ciborium in SS. Cosma e Damiano, where he repaired the dome of the vestibule; he placed a marble ciborium in S. Susanna and restored the basilica of S. Eufemia at the vico Patricio (ibid., pp. 375-76). Pope JOHN VII (705-707) renovated S. Maria Antiqua (ibid., p. 385). SISINNIUS (708) restored the walls of the city (ibid., p. 388), a work continued by his successor Gregory II (715-31) (ibid., p. 396). GREGORY II (715-31) renewed the hospice for the aged behind S. Maria Maggiore and founded there a monastery that took its name from the nearby oratory of the SS. Cosma e Damiano (ibid., p. 397), restored the church of S. Croce in Gerusalemme, erecting there the marble ambo; he transformed his mother's house into the monastery of S. Agata (R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 13, n. 4). At that time the Tiber overflowed, invading the area from the Ponte Milvio to the present Piazza S. Pietro and, on the other bank, reaching as far as the basilica of S. Marco (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 399 and 411, note 14). S. Eustachio is mentioned the first time in 715-31, when Gregory II founded the "xenodochium in platana" (ibid., pp. 440, 456, n. 5; R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 216).

GREGORY III (731-41) placed in the oratory of the Presepe in St. Mary Major, which he restored, a golden image of the Madonna with the Savior; he restored and embellished the church of St. Chrysogonus, establishing there the monastery of Sts. Stephen, Lawrence and Chrysogonus; he restored the monasteries near the Lateran Basilica and the basilica of St. Mary ad martyres; he transformed the oratory of St. Mary in Aquirro into a basilica; he renewed the church of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter near the Lateran; he restored the city walls (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 418-20). HADRIAN I (772-95) restored St. Prisca, St. Clement, St. Pudentiana; he transformed the "statio annonae" into St. Mary in Cosmedin (ibid., p. 404 ff.); he rebuilt St. John before the Latin Gate, a church therefore of earlier date built in honor of the Evangelist who would there have suffered martyrdom in boiling oil (ibid., p. 508); rebuilt again in 1191 by Celestine III (P. Styger, La decorazione a fresco del XII sec. della chiesa di S. Giovanni ante Portam Latinam, in Studi romani, 2 [1914], pp. 260-328; R. Krautheimer, An Oriental Basilica in Roma, in American journal of archaeology, 11 [1936], p. 485 ff.). PASCHAL I (817-24) rebuilt St. Cecilia, St. Praxedes, St. Mary in Domnica.

St. Alexius on the Aventine: originally the monastery was dedicated to the martyr Boniface, and its basilica is listed in the itinerary de locis among the urban churches (R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di R., II, Rome 1942, p. 130). In the time of Leo III (795-816) it is noted among the deaconries (Lib. Pont., II, p. 39, n. 42). Pope Benedict VII in 977 granted the buildings to Sergius, Greek metropolitan; then the cult of St. Alexius was introduced there and the monastery also took the name of Blachernae, like that of Constantinople. St. Caesarius "in Palatio", a Roman building on the Palatine transformed into a church, mentioned for the first time in the 9th century (Ch. Hülsen, Die Kirchen des heiligen Caesarius in Rom, in Miscellanea Ehrle, cit., II, p. 377 ff.; R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 113).

LEO III (795-816) built the quadriportico at the "basilica Apostolorum" in Via Lata (Lib. Pont., II, p. 28); around the year 806 he offered rich gifts to all the churches, oratories, chapels, monasteries and hospices of the city (v. CATALOGHI). An oratory of St. Barbara martyr "in Subura" is mentioned only under STEPHEN IV (816-17) and never elsewhere (Lib. Pont., II, p. 50). LEO IV (847-55) renewed the Sts. Four Crowned Martyrs, built St. Mary Nova on the Via Sacra, restored and offered gifts to many churches (ibid., p. 112 ff.). NICHOLAS I (858-67) adorned St. Mary Nova. PASCHAL II rebuilt the basilicas of St. Clement and of the Sts. Four Crowned Martyrs, dedicated St. Hadrian in the Forum and the church of St. Mary in Monticelli (ibid., p. 305). CALLISTUS II (1119-1124) rebuilt, after the Diet of Worms, the chapel of St. Nicholas, destroyed in 1733 for the new facade of the Lateran Basilica (ibid., pp. 378-79; G. B. De Rossi, Dell'immagine di Urbano II papa e delle altre antiche pitture nell'oratorio di S. Nicola entro il Palazzo Lateranense, Rome 1881); and he restored St. Mary in Cosmedin. LUCIUS II in 1144-45 renewed and embellished Holy Cross in Jerusalem (Lib. Pont., II, p. 385). HADRIAN IV (1154-59) restored Sts. John and Paul and St. John at the Latin Gate, rebuilt and dedicated in 1191 by Pope Celestine III. ALEXANDER III (1161) transformed St. Mary Nova, which was restored by HONORIUS III (1216-1227). Under BONIFACE VIII (1298-1303) Cardinal Caetani had the tabernacle and the paschal candlestick executed in St. Mary in Cosmedin.

VI. THE MARIAN CHURCHES

1. ST. MARY MAJOR. - The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Liberius (352-56) the construction of the basilica "nomini suo iuxta macellum Libiae" (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 208-209); Ammianus Marcellinus, ca. 390 (Rerum Gestorum libri, 27, 3, 13), St. Jerome in his Chronicon and Rufinus (in the version of Eusebius' Hist. eccl., in CB, IX, II, p. 1017) recall the Basilica Sicinii where a tumultuous massacre took place at the hands of Ursinus, the rival of Damasus (PL 27, 694); the Jewish writer Isaac, ca. 370, reporting the same massacre, says that the people were gathered in the basilica of Liberius (E. Caspar, Kleinere Beiträge zur älteren Papstgeschichte, 5. Der Prozess des Papstes Damasus und die römische-bischöfliche Gerichtsarbeit, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Neue Folge, 47 [1928, x], p. 184).

Pope Sixtus III "fecit basilicum sanctae Mariae quae ab antiquis Liberi cognominabatur, iuxta macellum Libiae" (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 232, 235). His name is still in the triumphal arch: "Xystus episcopus Plebi Dei", and a metrical inscription in the interior, above the entrance, began: "Virgo Maria tibi Xystus nova tecta dicavi" (G. B. De Rossi, Inscript. christ., II, Rome 1888, pp. 71, n. 42; 98, n. 6; 139, n. 28). The triumphal arch is the glorification of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin; the mosaics represent: the Annunciation, the dream of Joseph, the adoration of the Magi, the presentation in the Temple, the arrival of Jesus at the house of Aphrodisius, the massacre of the Innocents; in the center is the divine throne with the "insignia Christi", between the two acclaiming Princes of the Apostles. In the mosaics of the nave there are 28 scenes from the Old Testament referring to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Joshua. The Hieronymian Martyrology assigns the dedication of the Basilica to August 5: dedicatio S. Mariae. In the 6th century a Flavia Xanthippe made a foundation, and a 9th-century copy of that document calls it the basilica "Sanctae Dei Genitricis, q(uae) a(ppellatur) ad Praesepe", a title that already appears in the biography of Pope Theodore (642-49, Lib. Pont., I, p. 331; H. Grisar, S. Maria ad Praesepe, in Analecta Romana, I, Rome 1899, p. 577; id., S. Maria ad Praesepe, la Betlemme di Roma, in Civ. Catt., 1895, IV, pp. 467 ff.; id., Origine dei presepii in Roma, ibid., 1908, IV, pp. 702 ff.). In the itinerary de locis it is called Sca Maria Major (G. B. De Rossi, Roma sotterr., I, Rome 1864, p. 143); in the biographies of Adrian I and Paschal I the designation ad Praesepe returns (Lib. Pont., I, p. 500; II, pp. 60, 67). But the same Pope Adrian, in a letter to Charlemagne, recalling the work of Sixtus III for the Basilica, calls it "S. Dei genitricis Mariae cognomento Maioris quae et ad praesepe dicitur". In 1169 John the Deacon still describes the decoration of the apse (PL 194, 1557), which would be demolished in the time of Pope Nicholas IV (1288-92), who built a new transept and a new apse. In the apse mosaic executed in the time of Pope Nicholas IV by Cardinal G. Colonna, through the work of the Franciscan Giacomo Torriti, is represented the coronation of the Madonna and around it Cardinal Colonna, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, St. Anthony, Pope Nicholas IV, St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Francis. Below, between the windows, the dormitio of the Blessed Virgin, the Nativity scene, the Annunciation, St. Jerome, the Epiphany, the Presentation and St. Matthias. At the end of the 13th century Filippo Rusuti decorated the facade in mosaic, today behind that of Benedict XIV. At the top is the Savior between four angels and the symbols of the four Evangelists, below the Blessed Virgin, St. Paul, St. James, St. Jerome, on the other side St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Matthias. In the lower zone, Gaddi depicted the visions of the Madonna to Pope Liberius and to the patrician John, the patrician reporting the vision to the Pope; then the miracle of the snow and Pope Liberius with the clergy and the patrician John while tracing the plan of the Basilica in the snow. Around 1450 Cardinal G. d'Estouteville carried out new works in the Basilica (J. Marx, Quatre Documents relatifs à Guillaume d'Estouteville, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 35 [1915], p. 51 ff.). The two Borgia popes, Callixtus III (1455-58) and Alexander VI (1492-1503), renewed the ceiling, partly covering the mosaics of the triumphal arch. O. Panvinio describes the state of the Basilica before 1568, in which the verses of Sixtus III in the interior above the entrance could still be distinguished (Le sette chiese di R., Rome 1570, p. 300). Cardinal D. Pinelli in 1593 placed stucco decorations between the pillars and restored the mosaics; Sixtus V and Paul V, for the construction of the chapels of the Most Holy Sacrament and of the Madonna, removed columns and destroyed mosaic mirrors; Benedict XIV in 1750 carried out repairs to the roof, cleaned the mosaics and reduced the columns to equal dimensions; he made the new baldachin at the high altar, the facade and the arrangement behind the apse and rebuilt the Palace, which had been built by Nicholas V. The Confessione opened before the high altar was commissioned by Pope Pius IX, who is represented kneeling in front of it (F. M. Fabi Montani, La confessione della Basilica Liberiana, Rome 1867). In 1931 Pope Pius XI, on the centenary of the Council of Ephesus, restored the triumphal arch to its ancient form and brought the transept back to light. Further restorations have been carried out under the care of the reigning Pontiff. In the Basilica were buried the popes Honorius III (1216-27), Nicholas IV (1288-92), St. Pius V (1566-72); Sixtus V (1585-90); Clement VIII (1592-1605); Paul V (1605-21); Clement IX (1670-76). On the Grotto of Bethlehem reproduced in the Basilica, cf. G. Biasiotti, La riproduzione della grotta di Betlem nella basilica di S. Maria Maggiore, in Dissertazioni della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch., 2nd series, 15 [1921], pp. 95-110; on the so-called relics of the cradle: G. Cozza Luzzi and G. Lais, Le memorie Liberiane dell'infanzia di N. S. Gesù Cristo, Rome 1894; H. Grisar, La culla del divin Bambino, in Civ. Catt., 1895, 1, p. 209 ff. Around St. Mary Major were the following monasteries for the service of the Basilica: the oratory of Sts. Cosmas and Damian called ad S. Mariam Majorem or ad praesepe, is mentioned for the first time in the biography of Pope Symmachus ([498-514] Lib. Pont., 1); there was the Geocomium post absidam S. Genitricis ad praesepe, founded under Gregory II (715-31), later converted into a monastery and enriched with gifts by Leo III (795-816); it was destroyed under Sixtus V; S. Andrea in assaio or in Exaiolo, mentioned in 998-99 in the charters of St. Praxedes, by a bull of Benedict VII of Feb. 8, 1024; it became a filial church as attested by the bulls of Celestine III of Jan. 4, 1192 and of Innocent IV of March 19, 1244; there the hospital de Piscina or piscinula was built, which remained until the 15th century. S. Adriano, mentioned as a monastery in the biography of Leo III, was destroyed under Nicholas V for the construction of the Palace annexed to the Basilica. S. Andrea in massa Juliana. It was at the top of the clivus Suburanus near S. Vito. It is mentioned in the biography of Leo III (795-816) and in the charters of St. Praxedes of 998-99 there is talk of an archipresbiter of that monastery, which returns several times in the Regesto Sublacense (years 1005, 1015, 1051). It seems abandoned after the 13th century and replaced by S. Andrea de fractis, founded in 1270 by Cardinal Ottobono, archpriest of St. Mary Major. It is mentioned in bulls of Nicholas IV of Jan. 27, 1290 and of Benedict XI of Jan. 9, 1304; Eugene IV in 1433 united it to St. Paul Outside the Walls, while the properties went to the Liberian Chapter (L. Duchesne, Les monastères desservants de Ste Marie Majeure in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 27 [1897], pp. 479-91).

2. The minor Marian churches according to the ancient catalogues

Rome also holds the primacy for the greatest number of churches dedicated to the Mother of God, from the earliest centuries of the Middle Ages. Indeed, the following Marian churches are counted up to the 16th century.

ST. MARY OF THE ANGELS, begun by Pius IV in 1561 in the Baths of Diocletian. ST. MARY OF THE SOUL: mentioned in the Catalogue of 1492, it was completed under Alexander VI; today it is the national church of the Germans (J. Schmidlin, Geschichte der deutschen Nationalkirche S. Maria dell'Anima, Freiburg im Br. 1906). ST. MARY ANTIQUA AT THE ROMAN FORUM: adapted into a previous Roman building, with frescoes from the end of the 5th century and following, embellished especially by John I [705-707] H. Grisar, S. Maria Antiqua, in Civ. Catt., 16th series, 1896, vi, p. 458 ff.; 1901, i, p. 228 ff.; 1901, iv, p. 491 ff.; G. Wilpert, S. Maria Antiqua, in L'Arte, 13 [1910], pp. 1-20; 81-107; id., Mosaiken, II, passim, and IV, pls. 133-35; 142-46; 151-66, 1-3; 167-68; 177,4, 87; 192-201; 215,2,5; W. De Grüneisen, Ste Marie Antique, Rome 1911; E. Tea, La basilica di S. Maria Antiqua, Milan 1937). ST. MARY "DE ARCU AUREO": a church east of the Forum of Nerva (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese di R. nel medioevo, Rome 1927, p. 312). ST. MARY ANNUNZIATA OF THE ROMAN COLLEGE: erected by Vittoria della Tolfa, niece of Paul IV, it had its entrance on via S. Ignazio; it is mentioned in the Catalogue of the Spaniard. It was demolished between 1649-54 for the new church of St. Ignatius. ST. MARY ANNUNZIATA of LA NUNZIATELLA: located at the third mile of the Via Ardeatina; an inscription existing there is from the time of Honorius III and bears the date 12 Aug. 1220. ST. MARY "DE AQUARICARIS" is mentioned in the list of Cencio Camerario; it must have been near Piazza Navona (Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., p. 310). ST. MARY "IN AQUIRO": still existing in the Piazza degli Orfani, it is mentioned for the first time in the biography of Gregory III as S. Maria a Cyro (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 419, 424, n. 24; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I, Berlin 1906, p. 85). ST. MARY "DE ARCHA NOE" (L. Duchesne, S. Maria in Foro, S. Maria in Macello, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 35 [1905], p. 153). ST. MARY "DE ARMENIS": mentioned in a document of the Archive of St. Peter of 13 Apr. 1325 (Bullarium Vatic., II, p. 34). Cardinal Ehrle located it at the south-eastern corner of the Constantinian Basilica (F. Ehrle, Ricerche su alcune antiche chiese del Borgo di S. Pietro, in Dissertaz. della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch., 2nd series, 11 [1907], p. 32). ST. MARY "DE ARCONIBUS": it is mentioned in the bull of John XII of 8 March 962. ST. MARY "DE ASTARIS": a name derived from the Astalli family; a document of 9 May 1337 mentions one of its priests; it was demolished for the construction of the church of the Gesù (P. Tacchi Venturi, in Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, 21 [1989], p. 314). ST. MARY "DE AVENTINO", today S. Maria del Priorato; annexed to it was the Benedictine monastery founded by Alberic in 989, which was among the twenty Roman abbeys (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, pp. 116-17). ST. MARY "DE CACABARIS": from the cacabi or cauldrons; the bull of Urban II of 1186 mentions it among the dependencies of S. Lorenzo in Damaso. ST. MARY "DE CACCHABELIS": west of the Caelian; it is mentioned in the Catalogue of Turin and in the bull of Honorius III of 25 Feb. 1217 (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., p. 316). ST. MARY "DE CAMBIATORIBUS": in the area between Piazza delle Carrette, via S. Pietro in Vincoli and via del Colosseo. It is mentioned as S. Maria "in candiatore" in a bull of Adrian IV of 18 March 1116 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 14, n. 24; p. 48, n. 3). ST. MARY "DE CANNELLA": at the time of Paschal II (1099-1118) it was dependent on the church of S. Marcello. The name derives from the conduits of the Aqua Virgo; it was on the street between the Corso and the Quirinal and was demolished by Paul V (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 76; id., Römischen Analekten. S. Maria de cannella, in Quellen und Forschungen aus italienisch. Archiven und Bibliotheken, 14 [1911], pp. 27-32). ST. MARY IN CAMPITELLI: it existed on the piazza of the same name in the 13th century, but with its façade facing the tower of the Melangolo; it is marked on the map of L. Bufalini of 1551 and of S. Du Pérac-Lafery of 1577; the present building is from 1661. It is a deaconry.

(C. Cecchelli, S. Maria in Portico, Roma s. d.). S. MARIA IN CAMPO CARLEI, detta più tardi « Spoglia Christi » o « in campo Carleo prope Forum Nervae », appare nel Liber anniversariorum del Salvatore, e sotto il nome del Salvatore è segnata nella pianta di Roma di L. Bufalini del 1551; fu demolita nel 1684 (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., p. 319). S. MARIA IN CAMPO A DOMO GREGORI: è nel Catalogo di Cencio già senza clero; non si è identificata. S. MARIA « DE CANNAPARA »: ad occidente del Foro Romano; appare nei Cataloghi del secc. XII-XIV: è indicata nelle piante di Roma di L. Bufalini e anche in quelle di Nolli del 1748. S. MARIA « IN CAPITOLLO »: V. ARACOLLI, in Enc. Catt., I, coll. 1751-53. S. MARIA IN CAPELLA: appare nel Catalogo di Torino, una lapide attesta che fu dedicata nel 1090; nel 1540 fu data alla compagnia dei fabbricanti di « cuppelle » o barletti (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., pp. 322-23). S. MARIA « IN CAPUT PORTICI »: ad ovest del portico di S. Pietro in Vaticano, è ricordata quale diaconia nelle biografie di Stefano II [1752-57] Lib. Pont., I, p. 456, n. 6) e di Adriano I [1772-95] ibid., p. 520, n. 80; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 150). S. MARIA « DE CASTRO S. PAULI »: è ricordata nel Catalogo di Torino; si trovava dentro il « Castrum S. Pauli » creato dal papa Giovanni VIII (880-82); era abbandonata nel 1300. S. MARIA « IN CATERINA »: è la chiesa oggi detta S. Caterina della Rota; è menzionata nel Mirabilia e nella bolla di Urbano III del 1186, dove è indicata tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso (C. Cecchelli, Note su chiese e case romane specialmente del medioevo, in Bull. della Commissione archeol. munic. di R., 65 [1937], pp. 240-42). S. MARIA « CELLA FARFAE » o « DE THERMIS »: si trovava dove è ora S. Luigi dei Francesi, appartenere alla « abbazia di Farfae » è ricordata per la prima volta nel Regesto Farfense in un documento del 998: « ecclesia S. Mariae sita Romae regione nona in thermis Alexandrinis » (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 326-27). S. MARIA « DE CURTE IN CAMPITELLO »: è ora nell'interno del monastero di Tor de' Specchi; è ricordata fin dal tempo di Bonifacio VIII; fu parrocchia fino a tutto il sec. XV, venne poi incorporata nelle costruzioni delle monache di « Tor de' Specchi; è detta anche dell'Annunziata o di S. Francesca Romana (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 329). S. MARIA « DE CONCEPTIONE »: nel Catalogo di S. Pio V è indicata tra Monte Citorio e S. Biagio di Monte Citorio. S. MARIA « DE CURTE PRAEFECTI »: è citata nella bolla di Urbano III del 1186; non identificata. S. MARIA « DE CONSECATIONE »: chiesa consacrata presso quella della Grazie il 3 nov. 1472; ricordata nei Cataloghi del 1492 e dello Spagnolo. S. MARIA IN COSMEDIN: diaconia eretta da Adriano I [1772-95] Lib. Pont., I, p. 507; G. B. Giovenale, La basilica di S. Maria in Cosmedin, Roma 1927). S. MARIA « DE CRYPTA PINCTA »: era tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso nella bolla di Urbano III del 1186; si trovava dove è oggi la Piazza omonima; il cognome deriva dei sotterranei delle costruzioni della cava del Teatro di Pompeo (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., pp. 328-29). S. MARIA « IN CURTE DOMNE MICINE »: tra la parte occidentale del Campidoglio e Piazza Montanara. Domna Miccina appartenne ad una famiglia romana del sec. XI o XII: la chiesa è ricordata nell'Anonimo Magliabeccchiano ed è scomparsa nel sec. XV. (R. Lanciani, in Bull. della Commissione archeol. munic. di R., 45 [1917], p. 186). S. MARIA « DE EPISCOPIO »: sul versante occidentale dell'Aventino; chiesa ricordata nel Cataloghi di Torino e di N. Signorili, il primo la indica già senza porte e senza servizio. Scomparata dal sec. XV (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 322, n. 41). S. MARIA « DOMNAE BERTAE »: presso l'antica Via di Porta Leone; la chiesa è ricordata in un documento del 1238 (L. Schiaparelli, in Arch. Soc. rom. di st. patria, 25 [1902], p. 29); nella prima metà del sec. XVII ne restavano le vestigia. S. MARIA « DOMNAE ROSAE »: eretta tra le rovine del Circo Flaminio, vi fu annesso un monastero ricordato nella bolla di Celestino III del 4 ott. 1192. Fu una delle venti abbazie e detta S. Maria « in Castro aureo »; in suo luogo il card. D. Cesi eresse nel 1564 l'attuale S. Caterina dei Funari (G. Marchetti Longhi, in Memorie dei Lincei, 5ª serie, 16 [1923], p. 668 sgg.). S. MARIA « IN DOMINICA » o DELLA NAVICELLA (da un'antica nave votiva marmorea in the square in front of it). A deaconry already mentioned in the biography of Leo III (795-816; Lib. Pont., II, pp. 9, 14, 16, 19). S. MARIA « DOMO IOHANNIS BOVIS O BOBONIS ».

S. MARIA « IN FALCONE »: perhaps below Monte Mario, near Villa Madama; mentioned in a document of April 12, 1483 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 168 n. 16; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 332-33). S. MARIA « DE FERRARIUS »: a church near the Colosseum, which disappeared in the 15th century. It appears in a document of 1205 and in the bull of Innocent IV of March 18, 1254 (G. Gatti, in Bull. della Commissione archeol. com. di R., 23 [1895], p. 124 ff.). S. MARIA « DE FLUMINE »: it was near Monte Cenci; the bull of Urban III of 1186 places it among the dependent churches of S. Lorenzo in Damaso. It was deconsecrated on February 1, 1573 (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 333-35). S. MARIA « IN FORMOSA »: disappeared; it was also among the dependent churches of S. Lorenzo in Damaso (ibid., p. 335). S. MARIA « IN FORO »: where the forum of Augustus was (ibid.). S. MARIA « DE FOVEA »: today S. Giovanni Decollato; the church was given by Innocent VIII with a bull of August 23, 1490 to the company of the Misericordia dei Fiorentini (ibid., pp. 335-36). S. MARIA « DE GRADELLIS »: near S. Maria in Cosmedin. From the Catalog of 1492 onward it is called S. Maria Egiziaca (ibid., pp. 336-38). S. MARIA « DE GUINIZO »: on the western slope of the Capitoline. Already mentioned in the Catalog of Turin (ibid., pp. 338-339). S. MARIA « DE INFERNO »: built in the 14th century above S. Maria Antiqua. Demolished at the beginning of the 1900s (ibid., pp. 339-400). S. MARIA « INTER DUO » or « DUAS »: between two ancient Roman roads near the Colosseum (ibid., p. 340). S. MARIA « IN IULIA »: church and monastery already mentioned in the biographies of Leo III; a dependent church of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, it was later called S. Anna de' Funari or de' Falegnami and demolished in 1887 (ibid., pp. 240-41). S. MARIA LAURETANA: at the Forum of Trajan, today della Madonna di Loreto. Founded by the Compagnia dei Fornari in 1507; it is in the Catalogs of 1555, of Pius IV and of St. Pius V. S. MARIA « DE LUTARA »: oratory and monastery mentioned in the biography of Leo III (Lib. Pont., II, p. 45, n. 103). Not identified (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 341).

S. MARIA « DE MACELLO »: toward Piazza Montanara (ibid., pp. 341-42). S. MARIA ET S. BLASII: perhaps it is the same as S. Benedetto in Thermis (ibid., p. 378). S. MA-

RIA MAGGIORE: v. above. S. MARIA « IN MAURENTA »: near Piazza Navona; it appears for the first time in the Catalog of Cennio Camerario, already without clergy; it disappeared in the 16th century (ibid., pp. 342-43). S. MARIA « DE MANU »: on the slopes of the Palatine, toward the Circus Maximus. It appears in a document of December 20, 1215, later called S. Maria dei Cerchi (ibid., pp. 343-44). S. MARIA « DE MAXIMA »: church or monastery, today S. Ambrogio della Massima. Already in the biography of Leo III (ibid., pp. 344-45). S. MARIA « AD MARTYRES » or ROTUNDA or S. MARIA DELLA ROTONDA: the Pantheon transformed by Boniface IV (Lib. Pont., I, p. 363; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontif., I, p. 99). S. MARIA « MEDIANAE »: an oratory mentioned in the biography of Leo III (795-816; Lib. Pont., II, p. 42, n. 70) was near the portico of the basilica of S. Pietro in Vaticano (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 345). S. MARIA « DE METRIO »: near the arch of Constantine, at the beginning of the Sacra Via; the bull of Alexander IV of April 9, 1256 indicates that the church was already in existence, whose remains are a little beyond the « meta sudante » toward the height of the Palatine (ibid., pp. 345-46). S. MARIA « IN MINERVA » or « SUPRA MINERVAM »: it is already in the itinerary of Einsiedeln. Passed from the Senate and the Roman people to the Friars Preachers, confirmed with a bull of John XXI of November 3, 1276 (J. Berthier, L'église de la Minerve à Rome, Rome 1910; R. Spinelli, S. Maria sopra Minerva, ibid. 1924). S. MARIA DEI MIRACOLI: near the Tiber. At the beginning of the 16th century it was a chapel dedicated to the Madonna in the arches of the Aurelian Walls near Piazza del Popolo. The Archconfraternity of S. Giacomo degli Incurabili erected an oratory in 1525 to place there the image that was transferred to the current church in Piazza del Popolo in 1664. S. MARIA « IN MONASTERO »: it is mentioned in a placitum of Benedict VII of 1014 (Regestum Farfense, III, p. 199, n. 492). It was in front of S. Pietro in Vincoli; demolished in the 16th century (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 347-48). S. MARIA « IN MONASTERIO MICHAELIS »: it is already in the biography of Leo III; it was near the SS. Quattro Coronati (ibid., p. 348). S. MARIA « DE MONTERONE »: it appears among the dependent churches of S. Lorenzo in Damaso in the bull of Urban III of 1186; the name comes from the Monteroni family, from Siena, who founded it as a hospice for pilgrims (ibid., pp. 348-49). S. MARIA « IN MONTICELLIS »: it belongs to the Arenula region; it was consecrated by Paschal II (1099-1118; Lib. Pont., II, p. 305), and then by Innocent II on May 6, 1143 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 96; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 350-51). S. MARIA « IN MONTICELLO » or « DE MONTE IOHANNIS RONZONIS »: it appears in the bull of Alexander III of February 21, 1178 then in that of Urban III of 1186 among the dependent churches of S. Lorenzo in Damaso. It was also called « S. Maria de monte Giordano ». Deconsecrated at the beginning of the 20th century (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 350-51). S. MARIA « MONTIS BALNEANAPOLIS »: on the western slope of the Quirinal. Mentioned in the Catalog of 1555 near the church of S. Agata al Quirinale. It was on the site of the current SS. Domenico e Sisto (ibid., p. 351). S. MARIA « MONTIS SERRATI »: it arose in the 16th century on the site of a Catalan hospital with a chapel of S. Nicola. The church appears in the Catalogs of lo Spagnolo of 1555 and of St. Pius V. S. MARIA NOVA: a deaconry founded by Leo IV among the ruins of the temple of Venus and Rome. Rebuilt by Honorius III and in 1615 (P. Lugano, S. Maria Nova, Rome n.d.; P. Fedele, Il Tabularium S. Mariae Novae in Arch. Soc. rom. st. patria, 23 [1900], p. 171 ff.; A. Frandi, Vicende edilizie della basilica di S. Maria Nova, in Rendiconti della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch., 13 [1938], p. 197 ff.)

S. MARIA « DE OBLATIONARIO »: a chapel that appears in a privilege of Paschal II. Honorius II, Innocent II with an adjacent cemetery for pilgrims between the Porta Asinaria (S. Giovanni) and the basilica of S. Croce; perhaps later called « de Spazolaria » (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 32; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 352). S. MARIA « DE OLIVA »: it seems it was in Trastevere where S. Apollonia is now; annexed to it was a female monastery of S. Francesco; mentioned in the Catalog of St. Pius V. S. MARIA DELL'ORTO: erected in 1488 in Trastevere near S. Cecilia. There the Compagnia di S. Maria dell'Orto was instituted on 8 September 1492. It appears in the Catalogues of 1555, of Pius IV and of St. Pius V. S. MARIA DELLA PACE: founded under Sixtus IV with the title of S. Maria della Virtù, where the church of S. Andrea degli Acquari stood. S. MARIA IN PALAZZOLO: on that slope of the Janiculum facing the Vatican. A church that disappeared in the 15th century; it appears subject to S. Pietro in Vaticano from the 11th century (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 352-353). S. MARIA « IN PALLAZA »: a church on the Palatine facing the Arch of Constantine, with a monastery of the 10th century. It belonged to the monastery of Montecassino. The name comes from the Palladium. It contains frescoes of the end of the 10th century and of the end of the 12th century, edited by G. Wilpert, Mosaiken, pls. 224-25. It is also called S. Sebastiano; in 1630 it passed into the patronage of the Barberini (P. Fedele, in Archivio Soc. rom. di st. patria, 26 [1903], pp. 343-80; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 353-55). S. MARIA « IN PARVI »: it is recorded in an inscription of 1088. It seems to have been west of the Via Appia (ibid., pp. 355-56). S. MARIA « IN PEREGRINO ». It stood near S. Angelo in Pescheria. It is in the Catalogue of Paris and of N. Signorili. Disappeared (ibid., p. 356). S. MARIA « IN PETROCHIO »: it stood between the corner of the Via della Bocca della Verità and the Via dei Cerchi. It is in the Catalogue of Cencio Camerario. In 1614 it was granted to the Compagnia degli Scarpinelli and dedicated to St. Anianus (ibid., pp. 356-57). S. MARIA « AD PINEAM »: in Trastevere, v. S. Maria in Cappella. S. MARIA DELLA PIETA: with a hospital for poor foreigners and for the mentally ill: the Anonimo Spagnolo calls it « xenodochium insanorum ». In the 17th century it was granted to the Compagnia dei Bergamaschi, who built the present church in Piazza Colonna. S. MARIA « DE POPULO »: it is recorded in 1265 by an inscription. Rebuilt under Sixtus IV (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 86; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 358; E. Lavagnino, S. Maria del Popolo, Rome 1923). S. MARIA « DE PORTA »: attested in the Catalogue of Paris and in that of Turin, which places it in the Nomentan zone; but already without clergy. It no longer appears in 1492 (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 359). S. MARIA « DE PORTICU »: a tradition attributes to the noble Galla, daughter of Symmachus, the erection of a Marian sanctuary in her own palace. The name « porticus » comes from the « porticus Gallatorum ». In 1650 Pope Alexander VII had the image of the Madonna venerated there transferred to S. Maria in Campitelli, called from then on S. Maria « in Porticu in Campitelli » (P. Ferraroni, S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome n.d.). It was consecrated by Gregory VII on 8 July 1073 (G. B. De Rossi, Inscript. christ., II, 1, Rome 1888, p. 436; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 110; L. Pasquali, S. Maria in Portico nella storia di R. dal sec. VI al XX, Rome 1902; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 359-60). S. MARIA « DE POSTERULA »: almost opposite the Albergo dell'Orso, demolished at the end of the 19th century. It was also called S. Maria « ad Flumen ». It already appears in the Catalogue of Cencio Camerario (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 360-61). S. MARIA « DE PUBLICO »: it stands near S. Carlo a Catinari; listed in the bull of Urban III in 1186 among the dependent churches of S. Lorenzo in Damaso. It is also called « de Publico » in Publicolis (ibid., p. 361). S. MARIA « PURITATIS »: of the College of the caudatari of the cardinals, founded under Clement VII in the Borgo Nuovo. It is recorded in the Catalogue of St. Pius V. S. MARIA « DE PUTEO PROBAE » or « IN CAMPO »: between S. Vitale and S. Agata alla Suburra. A hospital for the Albanians was annexed to it. It already appears in the Catalogue of Paris; it was already in ruins in the Catalogue of St. Pius V (ibid., p. 362).

ST. MARY "REGINA COELI": it was in St. Peter's Square, mentioned in the Catalogue of 1492 and in that of Pius IV. ST. MARY DELLO RIPOSO: on the Via Aurelia. ST. MARY ROTONDA: v. S. Maria "ad Martyres". ST. MARY "IN SAXIA", today S. Spirito in Saxia. Founded in 727 by King Ina; rebuilt by Leo IV (Lib. Pont., II, p. 128). By a bull of Innocent III of 13 March 1198 it became a filial church of St. Peter's in the Vatican (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, pp. 145-51; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 363-64). ST. MARY "DE SCALA": with an attached monastery, today S. Maria della Scala, erected in 1592. ST. MARY "SECUNDICERII": it is cited in the Catalogue of Cencio Camerario and in the biography of Gelasius II (Lib. Pont., II, pp. 315 and 347). It was near the Ponte Rotto. ST. MARY "AD S. SILVESTRI": it is mentioned in una bolla di Giovanni XII dell'8 marzo 962; era davanti all'ingresso del monastero di S. Silvestro in Capite. S. MARIA « IN SYNODOCHIO »: è lo Xenodochium di Belisario presso l'acqua Vergine (oggi S. Maria in Trivio) (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 365-66). S. MARIA « DE SPATULARIA »: presso S. Croce in Gerusalemme, con annesso monastero, demolita da Sisto IV per erigervi la cappella detta S. Maria del Soccorso o del Buon Aiuto (ibid., pp. 366-67). S. MARIA « IN TEMPULO » o « DE TEMPORE »: da Tempulus, monaco greco secondo la leggenda. Il monastero è nella biografia di Leone III. Era presso S. Sisto vecchio (ibid., pp. 367-68). S. MARIA « IN TOFELLATO » o « IN TOFELLA »: nel rione Ripa, era già in rovina sotto s. Pio V (ibid., pp. 368-70). S. MARIA « IN TRASPADINA » o « IN HADRIANO »: diaconia fondata da Adriano I presso l'ingresso al mausoleo di Adriano, demolita da Pio IV nel 1564. L'attuale chiesa di S. Maria in Transpontina invece è del 1566 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 154; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 370-71). S. MARIA TRANSTIBERINI: v. sopra. S. MARIA « IN TUBRE »: era in Trastevere presso il porto di Ripa Grande, denominata così da una torre di Leone IV (ibid., p. 372). S. MARIA « IN TURRI » o « IN TURRIBUS », era tra i due campanili della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano (v.).

ST. MARY "IN VALLICELLA": it already exists at the time of Eugene III (1145-53). In 1575 St. Philip Neri began the construction of the Chiesa Nuova (E. Strong, La Chiesa Nuova, Rome 1923). ST. MARY "IN VIA": it appears in a deed, of 1042, of St. Mary in Via Lata; the name derives from a street that led from the Flaminia to the arch of the Acqua Vergine (C. Cecchelli, S. Maria in Via, Rome n.d.). ST. MARY "IN VIA LATA": a deaconry enriched by Leo III in 806. Eugene IV, with a bull of 19 March 1433, united to it the monastery of Sts. Ciriacus and Nicholas (L. Cavazzi, La diaconia di S. Maria in Via Lata e il monastero di S. Ciriaco, Rome 1908; L. Hartmann - M. Merores, Ecclesiae S. Mariae in Via Lata Tabularium, Vienna 1896-1923). ST. MARY "VIAE PONTIFICALIS REGIONE COLUMNAE": mentioned in the Catalogue of 1555. ST. MARY "DE VIRGARIIS": a small church on St. Peter's Square around the place where the obelisk now stands; it already appears in a bull of Leo IX of 1053 (L. Schiaparelli, Le carte antiche dell'Archivio capitolare di S. Pietro, in Archivio Soc. rom. di st. patria, 24 [1901], p. 472). ST. MARY "DE VIRGINIBUS": an oratory near the alley by the Colonnade and the Corridoio del Borgo, mentioned in a document of 13 Apr. 1345 of the Archive of St. Peter, with an adjoining monastery of canonesses. It disappeared in the 15th century (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 377-78). ST. MARY "IN XENODOCHIO FIRMIS": an oratory mentioned in the biography of Leo III near that of Belisarius (Lib. Pont., II, p. 46, n. 108).

VII. THE CEMETERIAL BASILICAS

The first notice of basilicas erected over the tombs of the Roman martyrs is found in the biography of Sylvester, in which those over the tombs of St. Peter (v.), St. Paul (v.), St. Lawrence (v.), St. Agnes (v.), and Sts. Marcellinus and Peter (v.) are indicated as Constantinian constructions. ST. SYLVESTER was buried in Priscilla, on the Salaria, on 31 December 335, as the Depositio episcoporum and his biography attest (Lib. Pont., I, p. 187). His tomb will later be indicated in the "ecclesia" or "basilica S. Silvestri" erected over the tomb of the martyrs Felix and Philip, indicated in the same cemetery by the Depositio martyrum (R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di R., Rome 1942, pp. 77, 144). But of the cemeterial basilica called "Apostolorum" on the Appian Way at the locality "in catacumbas," although there is no written documentation of its foundation, its antiquity is demonstrated by its structure, of the same type as that of the nearby Circus of Maxentius and mausoleum.

POPE MARK (336) erected a basilica in the "cymiterium Balbinae Via Ardeatina" where he was buried (Lib. Pont., I, p. 202). JULIUS built three cemeterial basilicas, recorded in the Liberian Catalogue: the first "in Via Portuense miliario III," which G. B. De Rossi identified with the basilica of St. Felix; the second is the basilica "in Via Flaminia, miliario II quae appellatur Valentini"; the third on the Via Aurelia at the third milestone near the tomb of Pope Callistus (MGH, Script. Antiquiss., I, Berlin 1892, p. 76):

"in Via Aurelia miliario III ad Callistum," that is, where he was buried, as the Depositio episcoporum confirms: "Iuli in Via Aurelia, miliario III in Callisti" (ibid., p. 70; the same notice is also reported in Lib. Pont., I, p. 206); Liberius (352-66) adorned with marble slabs the tomb of St. Agnes (Lib. Pont., I, p. 208). DAMASUS (366-84) adorned with verses the marble slab "in catacumbas" where the relics of the apostles Peter and Paul had been deposited. Moreover his biography attests that he "multa corpora sanctorum martyrum requisivit et invenit, quorum etiam versibus declaravit" (ibid., p. 212). Indeed Damasus brought into cult and embellished the tombs of the martyrs Marcellinus and Peter, of whose martyrdom the executioner himself had narrated the details to him while he was a puer (A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana, Vatican City 1942, n. 28). Damasus points out to the faithful the example of the two soldier martyrs Nereus and Achilleus (ibid., n. 8); he entrusts to the priest Verus the adorning of the tomb of the martyrs Felix and Adauctus, in whose honor he composes an epigram (ibid., n. 7). In the area of the ancient cemeterial basilica on the Portuense, G. B. De Rossi discovered in 1868 a fragment of a marble architrave where in Philocalian letters is the dedication in honor of the martyrs "(Fau)stino, Viatrici," which De Rossi himself completed as "sanctis martyribus Simplicio Faustino, Viatrici et Rufo Damasus episcopus fecit" (ibid., n. 6). Damasus is the first to make known the episode of the martyrdom of the deacon or acolyte Tarsicius, protomartyr of the Eucharist, in the epigram placed on his tomb in Callistus (ibid., n. 15); through the work of Damasus "quaeritur, inventus colitur" the body of the martyr Eutychius, of whom "expressit Damasus meritum venerare sepulchrum" (ibid., n. 21).

Fragments of a poem discovered in Praetextatus, not transcribed by the epigraphic syllogae, but composed by Damasus ("Damasus episcopus fecit. Furius Dionysius Filocalus scribsit"; ibid., n. 26) with explicit reference to the castra and in armis, are attributed to the soldier martyr Quirinus, who is remembered in a later dedicatory inscription found in the same cemetery (R. Kanzler, Relazione ufficiale degli scavi eseguiti dalla Pont. Comm. di archeol. sacra nelle catacombe romane [1907-19], in N. Bull. arch. crist., 15 [1909], p. 1210, pl. 1, 1) and whom the Martyrologium Hieronymianum attests as venerated in Praetextatus, where likewise the Acta ss. Alexandri Eventi et Theoduli, which style him "tribunus," place his tomb (BHL, n. 266).

Damasus places a poem on the tomb of the martyr Tiburtius, buried in the cemetery "inter duas lauros" (A. Ferrua, op. cit., n. 31), depicted together with the other local martyrs Marcellinus, Peter and Gorgonius in a fresco in the same cemetery (Wilpert, Pitture, pl. 252). Nothing is known of the time when the small basilica over his tomb was built, of which the ruins remain (O. Marucchi, La cripta storica dei ss. Pietro e Marcellino, in N. Bull. arch. crist., 4 [1898], pp. 181 and 183). Damasus embellishes the tomb of the martyrs Protus and Hyacinthus by carrying out works, as the poem placed there attests (A. Ferrua, op. cit., pp. 190-93); he also carries out works at the tombs of Pope Cornelius on the Appian Way (ibid., pp. 136-37) and of the martyr Januarius in Praetextatus, where he places a large dedicatory inscription in prose (ibid., pp. 151-52). He placed a poem on the tomb of the martyr Saturninus of Carthage, buried in Traso (ibid., pp. 188-90), but it is not known when the small basilica in his honor was erected, burned and restored later, whose ruins were still visible at the time of A. Bosio and whose name had been corrupted into that of St. Citronina. Damasus also placed a dedicatory inscription in Philocalian characters on the tomb of the martyrs Abdon and Sennen, indicated, deposited sub duo, "ad Ursum pileatum" by the Depositio martyrum. The basilica in their honor, it is not known when built, came to light again in 1917 (F. Fornari, in Notizie degli scavi, 1917, p. 283).

Under Pope SIRICIUS (385-98) the basilica of St. Paul (v.) with five naves was built; works were done near the tombs of the martyrs Felix and Adauctus in Commodilla (v.) and at that of Pope Cornelius (A. Ferrua, op. cit., p. 138). ANASTASIUS (399-401) is indicated as buried in "cymiterio suo" at the locality "ad Ursum pileatum" on the Via Portuense (Lib. Pont., I, p. 218); the itineraries of the 7th century indicate his tomb as distinct from that of the martyrs and of his successor Innocent. The expression "in cymiterio suo" already occurs in the Liber Pontificalis in the biography of Pope Zephyrinus (199-217), where it must have the same meaning. Pope INNOCENT I placed under the jurisdiction of the priests of the title of Vestina, which he established, the basilica of St. Agnes (Lib. Pont., I, p. 222). Innocent I (401-17) was also buried "ad Ursum Pileatum" (ibid., p. 222) and the "Notitia ecclesiarum" indicates that one entered his mausoleum by leaving the church of Sts. Abdon and Sennen (R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, Cod. top. cit., II, p. 92). BONIFACE I (418-22) had an oratory built over the tomb of the martyr Felicitas, adorning her tomb and that of the martyr Silanus, the latter already known from the Depositio martyrum as buried in the cemetery of Maximus (Lib. Pont., I, p. 227). SIXTUS III (432-40) adorned the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul and of the martyr Lawrence; he established a monastery "in catacumbas," the first of which there is mention, and placed an inscription in the cemetery of Callistus, commemorating the martyrs deposited there (Lib. Pont., I, p. 234).

LEO THE GREAT (440-61) renovated the central nave of the basilica of St. Paul (v.) and restored that of St. Peter (v.) following the earthquake of 443. He built a basilica on the tomb of Pope Cornelius on the Via Appia and founded a monastery near the basilica of St. Peter ([v.], Lib. Pont., I, pp. 238-39). In his time Annia Demetrias erected on the Via Latina a basilica in honor of the protomartyr Stephen (L. Fortunati, Relazione generale degli scavi e scoperte fatte lungo la Via Latina, Rome 1859). Pope HILARUS (461-68) established a monastery near St. Lawrence outside the Walls and built a bath there for pilgrims (Lib. Pont., I, p. 245). SIMPLICIUS (468-83) erected a basilica to St. Stephen near that of St. Lawrence outside the Walls; he decreed that the priests of the first ecclesiastical region should minister the sacraments at St. Paul, those of the third at St. Lawrence, and those of the sixth and seventh at St. Peter, at the great cemetery basilicas (ibid., p. 249). FELIX III (483-92) built the basilica of St. Agapitus near the basilica of St. Lawrence outside the Walls (ibid., p. 252). ANASTASIUS II (496-98) covered the confessio of the martyr Lawrence with silver (ibid., p. 258). Pope SYMMACHUS (498-514) built the oratory of St. Andrew near the basilica of St. Peter, where he also erected the oratory of the Holy Cross and carried out other works. He erected the basilica of St. Agatha on the Via Aurelia. On the tomb of St. Pancras he likewise built a basilica; he renovated the apse of St. Paul and that of St. Agnes, restored that of St. Felicity and the cemetery of the Giordani, or the basilica erected over the tombs of the martyrs Vitalis and Alexander and Martial (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 262-63).

GIOVANNI I (523-26) rebuilt the basilica of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, that of Sts. Felix and Adauctus and, probably over the cemetery of Priscilla, the Basilica where St. Silvester was buried (ibid., p. 276). Under FELIX IV (26-30) the aforementioned basilica of St. Saturninus burned down and was rebuilt at the Pope's expense (ibid., p. 279). Under SILVERIUS (536) there occurred the great destruction of the cemetery basilicas and of the tombs of the martyrs: « ecclesias et corpora martyrum sanctorum exterminatae sunt a Gothis » (ibid., p. 291); his successor VIGILIUS (537-55) strove to restore them, as is attested by a poem preserved in the syllogae and by some surviving fragments (G. B. De Rossi, Inscrip. christ., II, 1, Rome 1888, pp. 84-87, 116, 135). Pope GIOVANNI III (561-74) went to live near the sanctuary on the left of the Via Appia where the martyrs Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus had been laid, and there he also performed consecrations of bishops (Lib. Pont., I, p. 306). Pope PELAGIUS II (579-90) covered the confessio of St. Peter (v.) with marble slabs, built the basilica over the tomb of the martyr Hermes (R. Krautheimer, in Corpus Basil. Christianarum. Vatican City 1936, pp. 195-208), and erected the basilica with a double order of columns in St. Lawrence (v.) at the Verano (Lib. Pont., I, p. 309).

GREGORY THE GREAT carried out works in the basilicas of St. Peter (v.) and St. Paul (ibid., p. 312). BONIFACE V (619-25) completed and consecrated the cemetery church of St. Nicomedes on the Nomentana (ibid., p. 325; Martyr. Hieronymianum, p. 291). Pope HONORIUS I (625-38) built the basilica over the tomb of St. Agnes on the Nomentana, with the double row of columns, like that of St. Lawrence, decorating the apse with the mosaic that still survives; the church of St. Apollinaris called "ad palmata" near St. Peter's in the Vatican; the church over the tomb of St. Cyriacus at the seventh mile of the Portuense; he restored the cemetery or the church of the martyrs Marcellinus and Peter on the Labicana; he rebuilt the basilica of St. Pancras on the Via Aurelia; he covered the basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican with the bronze tiles of the temple of Rome (Lib. Pont., I, p. 323). Pope SEVERINUS (640) repaired the mosaic of the apse of the basilica of St. Peter (v.). Pope THEODORE (642-49) is the first, according to the Liber Pontificalis, to carry out translations of the bodies of martyrs; he transported to St. Stephen's on the Caelian the bodies of the martyrs Primus and Felicianus deposited "ad arcos Nomentanos" at the fifteenth mile of the Nomentana (ibid., p. 332). To him is also attributed the restoration of the basilica of St. Valentine on the Flaminia which the Notitia ecclesiarum attributes to Honorius (R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, Cod. top., cit., II, p. 333). Pope Theodore built and adorned an oratory in honor of the martyr Euplus. ADEODATUS (672-76) restored and dedicated the basilica of St. Peter situated on the Via Portuense near the "pons Meruli," whose traces were destroyed in 1858 for the construction of the Rome-Pisa railway line (A. Pellegrini, Cenni storici intorno ad una basilica di S. Pietro in Campo di Merlo, Rome 1860). LEO II (682-83) transferred from the cemetery of Generosa the relics of the martyrs Simplicius, Faustinus and Beatrice, depositing them in a church which he dedicated to St. Paul situated near St. Bibiana (Lib. Pont., I, p. 360). BENEDICT II (648-85) restored the basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, and erected a ciborium over the altar of the basilica of St. Valentine on the Flaminia (ibid., p. 363).

Il papa SERGIO I (687-701) restaurò la basilica di S. Pietro, specie il musaico della facciata, la basilica di S. Paolo e i suoi annessi (ibid., p. 376). GIOVANNI VI (701-705) fece l'ambone nell'oratorio di S. Andrea presso S. Pietro in Vaticano e donò stoffe per l'altare di S. Paolo (ibid., p. 383). GIOVANNI VII (705-707) restaurò la basilica di Eugenia sulla Via Latina, e sull'Ardeatina quella contenente i sepolcri dei martiri Marco e Marcellino e l'altra con la tomba di papa Damaso (ibid., p. 385); eresse l'oratorio della B. Vergine nella basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano (ibid., p. 385). GREGORIO II (715-31) restaurò i tetti delle basiliche di S. Lorenzo e di S. Paolo di cui rinnovò i monasteri (ibid., p. 397). GREGORIO III (731-41)

embellished the basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican; restored the basilicas of St. Callistus and of Sts. Processus and Martinianus, and the mausoleum of Pope Mark; established a yearly station at the basilica of St. Petronilla; restored the roof of the buildings in the cemetery of Praetextatus (ibid., p. 419-20). Pope ZACHARY (741-52), at the fifth mile of the Via Tiburtina, where he established a "domusculta," enlarged and decorated the oratory of St. Cecilia and built an oratory to St. Abba Cyrus, where he deposited many sacred relics (ibid., p. 434). Pope STEPHEN II (752-57) built two hospices near St. Peter's, placing them under the local deaconries of St. Mary and St. Sylvester (ibid., p. 441). At that time Aistulf carried off many bodies of saints from the cemeteries (ibid., p. 451) and restored the burial building of St. Soter. Pope PAUL I (757-67) transferred to Rome from the cemeteries many bodies of martyrs and deposited not a few of them in the monastery of Sts. Stephen and Sylvester, which he had founded in his own house. He transported to the mausoleum adjacent to the oratory of St. Andrew in the Vatican the body of the martyr Petronilla; likewise near St. Peter's he erected an oratory to the Madonna next to that of St. Leo (ibid., pp. 464-65).

Pope ADRIAN I (772-95) is the restorer of almost all the cemetery buildings, beginning with the basilicas of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Lawrence, St. Pancras, St. Valentine, St. Tiburtius, and of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, where he also built the stairway for descending directly to their tomb; of St. Januarius near the Porta di S. Lorenzo (Tiburtina), of Sts. Abdon and Sennen, of St. Agapitus and of St. Stephen near S. Lorenzo, of St. Sebastian, of St. Eugenia, of Sts. Gordian and Epimachus; of Sts. Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus and of St. Zeno in Praetextatus, of St. Felicity, of St. Saturninus, of Sts. Alexander, Vitalis and Martial at the Giordani, of St. Sylvester on the Salaria, of St. Agnes, of St. Emerentiana, of St. Hippolytus; in many of these basilicas he offered liturgical furnishings and precious fabrics (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 499-500, 504-12). LEO III (795-816) continued the work with rich donations and precious fabrics to almost all the sacred buildings of Rome, oratories, chapels, monasteries. His restorations are recorded at St. Peter's in the Vatican, at the basilica of Felix and Adauctus, of St. Menna, of St. Sixtus, of St. Cornelius and of St. Zoticus on the Labicana (Lib. Pont., II, pp. 1-33). Pope PASCHAL I (817-24) sought out in the cemeteries many bodies of saints and transferred them to the urban churches, especially to those he had rebuilt, such as St. Cecilia and St. Praxedes. Particularly recorded are the translations of the bodies of Sts. Processus and Martinian to St. Peter's, of St. Zeno to St. Praxedes, of Sts. Cecilia, Valerian, Tiburtius, Maximus and of the popes Urban and Lucius, whose relics he placed beneath the altar of the title of St. Cecilia (ibid., pp. 54-56). GREGORY IV (827-44) restored the basilica of St. Saturninus on the Salaria; he transferred into the basilica of St. Peter the body of St. Gregory the Great into a chapel he had built, in which he deposited the relics of the martyrs Sebastian, Gorgonius and Tiburtius (M. Andrieu, La chapelle de St Grégoire dans l'ancienne Basilique Vaticane, in Riv. di arch. crist., 13 [1936], pp. 61-99); he offered gifts to the basilicas of St. Peter, of St. Paul, of St. Lawrence, of St. Pancras, of St. Valentine (Lib. Pont., II, p. 74-88).

SERGIO II (844-47) erected a basilica in honor of St. Romanus near the Via Salaria, mentioned only in his biography (ibid., p. 92). The Pope transferred many bodies of martyrs to the titular church of Sts. Sylvester and Martin, which he had renovated (ibid., pp. 93-94). Under his pontificate the basilicas of the apostles Peter and Paul "funditus depraedatae sunt" by the Saracens (ibid., p. 106). Pope LEO IV (847-885) sought to repair such great calamity with rich and continual gifts and with precious fabrics. He instituted the celebration of the octave of the Assumption of Mary Most Holy in the basilica dedicated to her near St. Lawrence outside the Walls, where he restored the monastery of Sts. Stephen and Cassian, where he also placed Greek monks for the "laus perennis"; he made gifts to the basilicas of St. Lawrence, of St. Pancras and of St. Agatha; of St. Stephen on the Via Latina, of St. Rufina and of Sts. Cosmas and Damian at Silva Candida; in the basilica of the Sts. Four Crowned Martyrs on the Caelian, which he restored, he transferred the bodies of the Sts. Four Crowned Martyrs and a notable group of other bodies of martyrs (ibid., pp. 109-16, 119-22, 125, 127-29, 130, 132-34). BENEDICT III (855-58) adorned

RO

THE XIII REGIONES

Regio I. Marinum et Biberalicon

Regio II. Trinit et Vice Lariæ

Regio III. Calumnae et Sanctae Manæ et Aqueæ

Regio IV. Campi Manæ

Regio V. Partis et Scandiclorarium

Regio VI. Pavonis et S. Laurentii in Domœia

Regio VII. Annulus et Coccoborarium

Regio VIII. S. Eustache et Vineae Thiodemani

Regio IX. Pineae et S. Marci

Regio X. Campitelli (et S. Hadriani)

Regio XI. S. Angeli in Fara Piscium

Regio XII. Ripae et Marmoratae

Regio XIII. Transtiberum

the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, restored the mausoleum of Pope Mark (ibid., pp. 144-148). Pope NICHOLAS I (858-67) made rich gifts to the basilicas of St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Lawrence; he renewed the basilicas of St. Felix and of Sts. Abdon and Sennen on the Via Portuense, and that of St. Sebastian, restoring the monastery there (ibid., pp. 152-53, 161, 166). STEPHEN V (885-91) offered gifts to the basilica of St. Peter (ibid., p. 194). With this Pope of the late 9th century the records of works carried out in the cemetery basilicas come to an end.

VIII. THE ABBEYS

Peter Mallius (v.) drew up a list of 20 abbeys, namely S. Cesario "in palatio", S. Gregorio "in clivo Scauri", S. Maria "in Aventino", S. Alessio, S. Saba, called "cella nova", S. Pancrazio, SS. Cosma and Damiano "in vico aureo", S. Silvestro "inter duos hortos", S. Maria "in Capitolio", S. Basilio "iuxta Palatium Trajani imperatoris", S. Agata "quae est Subure monte", S. Lorenzo "in Panisperna", S. Tommaso "iuxta formam Claudiam", S. Biagio "de captu secuta", SS. Trinità "Scotorum", S. Valentino "in Via Flaminea", S. Anastasio "in Via Ostiensi", S. Maria "in Pallara", S. Maria "in monasterio iuxta S. Petrum ad vincula", S. Maria "in castro aureo" (cod. Vat. lat. 3627, f. 22 v); John the Deacon (v.) likewise counted 20, omitting however S. Anastasio and adding that of the SS. Prisca and Aquila (cod. Vat. Reg. 712, f. 89).

IX. THE ECCLESIASTICAL REGIONS AND THE RIONI

From epigraphic indications and from documents, G. B. De Rossi held that ecclesiastical region I comprised Augustan regions I, XII and XIII; ecclesiastical region II: Augustan regions II, VIII, X and XI; ecclesiastical region III: Augustan regions III and V; ecclesiastical region IV: Augustan regions IV and VI; ecclesiastical region V: Augustan regions VII and IX; ecclesiastical region VI: Augustan region IX and part of XIV; ecclesiastical region VII: the rest of Augustan region XIV (Roma sotterr., III, Rome 1877).

In the Liber Pontificalis the first ecclesiastical region is mentioned in the biographies of the popes Simplicius (468-83), Silverius (536-37), where a « Johannis subdiaconus regionarius regionis primae » is recorded, and Eugenius I (654-57), a native « regionis primae Aventinensis ».

The second ecclesiastical region occurs in the life of Pope Zachary (741-52), in which the deaconry of St. George « ad Velum aureum » is designated « regione secunda ».

Meanwhile the Augustan regions continue to be mentioned in the biographies of Anastasius II (496-98), who belonged to region V « Caput Tauri », that is, of the Esquiline, and of Benedict VI (973-74), indicated as « de regione VIII sub Capitolio », that is, of the area of the Roman Forum, etc. C. Re in his study Le Regioni di R. nel medioevo (v. art. cit. in bibl., p. 185 ff.) held that the Augustan regions continued to be indicated in documents down to the 11th century, promiscuously with the ecclesiastical regions. L. Duchesne maintained that from the middle of the 6th century, that is, after the Gothic invasion, the use of the Augustan regional division ceased, and that it was replaced by the ecclesiastical circumscription into seven regions; furthermore, that the 12 regions of the Middle Ages, from which the « rioni » derive, represent that grouping which took place under the Byzantine period for the formation of the Roman army and the military partition of the Roman population. Moreover, the system of the seven ecclesiastical regions would have remained in use until about the end of the 11th century, but with some variation in that latter period; finally, that the 12 regions have nothing to do from the topographical point of view either with the 14 Augustan regions or with the 7 ecclesiastical ones. In the time of Theodoric the Roman deacon John wrote that « septem regionibus ecclesiastica apud nos militia continetur » (Johannis diaconi epistola ad Senarium: PL 59, 405). The clergy and the people were grouped in the seven ecclesiastical regions, as the seven Crosses carried during the stational processions and the litanies indicate, Crosses then kept in S. Anastasia. Later appear the military insignia of the « milites draconarii » called banda, then bandora, whence the present bandiera.

At the arrival of Charlemagne in Rome the commanders of the Roman army are found « cum bandora » (Lib. Pont., I, p. 497). At the moment of the election of Gelasius II (1118) there is mention of « regiones XII Romanæ civitatis Transtiberini et Insulani » (ibid., p. 313).

The Ordo of Benedict the Roman (ca. 1140) in the solemn papal procession indicates the « milites draconarii portantes XII vexilla, quae bandora vocantur ».

The names of the rioni are already found in the 11th and 12th centuries; in the 14th century they are: 1) Montium et Biberatice; 2) Trivii et Vie Late; 3) Columne et S. Marie in Aquiro; 4) Campi Martii et S. Laurentii in Lucina; 5) Pontis et Scorticariorum; 6) S. Eustachii et Vinea Thedemarii; 7) Arenule et Caccabariorum; 8) Parionis et S. Laurentii in Damaso; 9) Pinee et s. Marci; 10) S. Angeli in Foro piscium; 11) Ripe et Marmorate; 12) Campitelli et S. Adriani.

BIBL. L. Duchesne, Les circonscriptions de Rome au moyen âge, in Revue des questions histor., 24 (1878), pp. 217-25; id., Les régions de Rome au moyen âge, in Mélanges d'archéol. et d'hist., 10 (1890), pp. 12-40; C. Re, Le regioni di R. nel medioevo, in Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, 7 (1889), p. 197 ff.

X. THE ANCIENT CATALOGUES OF THE CHURCHES

At the end of the Itinerary de locis sanctorum martyrum "qui sunt foris civitatis Romae", there is a paragraph with the indication "iste ecclesiae intus Romae habentur"; these are 21 stational basilicas within the city in which "per certa tempora publica statio geritur" (R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di R., II, Rome 1942, pp. 118-31). Leo III probably made, in the year 806, a series of donations to the churches of R., of which the biographer of the Liber Pontificalis transmitted the list that was examined by Ch. Hülsen (in Rendiconti della Pont. accad. rom. di archeol., 1 [1923], p. 107 ff.). The catalogue begins with the Lateran Basilica, followed by 11 churches sacred to the Most Holy Mary, then those dedicated to the Apostles, to St. John the Baptist, to the martyrs (nos. 13-27), then the "tituli" (nos. 28-48), the deaconries (49-64), the monasteries (65-113), three "xenodochia" (114-16) and a hospital.

The Itinerary known as that of Einsiedeln, from the end of the 8th century, contains the names of 66 churches (Ch. Hülsen, La pianta di R. dell'anonimo einsiedlense, in Dissertazioni della Pont. accad. rom. di arch., 2nd series, 9 [1907], pp. 377-424; R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, op. cit., II, pp. 155-207). Cencio Savelli, chamberlain of the Roman Church, later Honorius III (1216-27), inserted into his Liber censuum (v.) two official lists of the churches of R.: the first for the "presbiterium" granted to the 315 Roman churches on Low Monday, the second on the occasion of the "litania maior" on 25 April, lists 62 churches (Liber censuum, ed. P. Fabre-L. Duchesne, I, Paris 1889-1910, pp. 300-309; R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, op. cit., II, pp. 224-70; on the character of the two lists v. L. Duchesne, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 25 [1905], p. 153 ff.). The English cleric Giraldus Cambrensis was in R. in the years 1199-1200 and 1202-1203 in the time of Innocent III and of Cencio Camerario. Around 1220 he wrote a Speculum ecclesiae in which he inserted a list of 386 churches, arranged by titular saints (322) plus another 64, although in his final summary he counted 395 between urban and suburban churches (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese di R., Florence 1927, pp. vii-vii and 18-19). From the abbey of St. Victor there passed to the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal in Paris a codex (no. 526) with a catalogue of 381 churches of R., identified and edited by P. Fabre (Un Nouveau catalogue des églises de Rome, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 7 [1887], pp. 435-57), which was dated to the time of Gregory X (1272-76); the date, however, was moved back by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. 19-25) to around 1230. It is reproduced in R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti (op. cit., III, Rome 1946, pp. 271-290). Many churches are also remembered in the Ordines of Benedictus Canonicus, of Albinus and of Cencio Camerario (ed. L. Duchesne, in Liber censuum de l'Église romaine, II, Paris 1905, p. 141 ff. and also R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, op. cit., III, p. 210 ff.). The «Fraternitas Romana» was instituted to watch over worship, in the churches, in processions, over ecclesiastical funerals and over the distributions of gratuities (presbyterium, etc.); for the supervision of the clergy, to settle any controversy between the churches, etc. These were divided into three parts which were named: the first of the XII Apostles, the second of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, the third of St. Thomas «in capite molarum» or «de Cinciis»: St. Thomas of the Cenci which Urban III in 1186 had placed among the dependencies of St. Lawrence in Damaso. An inscription preserved at Sts. Cosmas and Damian gives the constitutive act of the «Fraternitas» which took place in 984.

The codex lat. A. 381 of the National Library of Turin offers the most precious and complete catalogue of the churches of R. because it provides the names of 408 among Roman churches, monasteries and hospitals, accompanied by the number of personnel assigned to them; and with a summary. It is dated to around the year 1320. The data are drawn from the «Fraternitas urbis Romae»; at the beginning thirteen civil regions are remembered, already then called rioni, but the division into three parts of the «Fraternitas» is followed; that is: SS. Apostoli, Sts. Cosmas and Damian and St. Thomas. The first exact edition was given by G. Falco, Il catalogo di Torino delle chiese, degli ospedali, dei monasteri di R. nel sec. XIV, in Archivio della Società rom. di st. patria, 32 (1909), pp. 411-25; then by Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese di R., cit., pp. VIII-X and 26-43.

Nicola Signorili, secretary of the Roman Senate under Martin V (1417-31) in his book De iuribus et excellentiis urbis Romae reproduced a catalogue of 359 churches of R. arranged according to the three parts of the «Fraternitas», but with a varied arrangement (St. Thomas and therefore first St. John Lateran, then SS. Apostoli and Sts. Cosmas and Damian), followed by a list of the relics venerated in the principal sanctuaries. Some churches are missing in other documents. The edition by Ch. Hülsen is good, op. cit., pp. x-xi and 43-49. A copy of the catalogue of N. Signorili with notes and additions by P. Ugonio is found in the Biblioteca Cisneriana of Pesaro. Indications of churches are also found in the Libri anniversariorum compiled by the individual Companies and Confraternities from the 15th century for the celebration of anniversary Masses in the various churches of the city, such as the Liber anniversariorum of the Most Holy Savior «ad Sancta Sanctorum» of 1461 edited by P. Egidi, in Archivio della Soc. rom. di st. patria, 31 [1908], p. 169 ff.; that of St. Mary, «in Porticu» of 1470-1500, also published by P. Egidi in Necrologio della provincia romana, I, Rome 1908, pp. 544-57; that of the Compagnia del Gonfalone (in two codices now in the Vatican Archives, the first of 1470, the second of 1490); that of St. Mary in Aracoeli of 1489. In these Libri more than 200 churches are remembered, listed by Ch. Hülsen (Le chiese, cit., pp. xii-xiii, pp. 53-68, 546).

A list of churches, chapels and monasteries compiled under Sixtus IV in 1481 was published incomplete by M. Armellini, drawn from the Vatican Archives (Cronichetta mensuale, 3rd series, 2 [1883], pp. 173-76) and in part by Ch. Hülsen (Le chiese, cit., pp. xiv and 546-48). Onofrio Panvinio (v.) transcribed a catalogue of churches drawn up in 1492 (cod. Vat. lat. 6780, pp. 14-18) edited by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. xiv-xv, pp. 69-79 and 548-49); the said list, divided by the 13 regions, comprises 295 churches and contains topographical references and references to the religious Orders to which the service in certain churches and hospitals was entrusted at the time of Panvinio himself.

The Epigrammata antiquae Urbis of I. Mazzocchi (1521) contain inscriptions transcribed from 203 churches of R. (list published by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. 549-56). Hülsen has furthermore published a catalogue of 1555 drawn up on that of Panvinio with variants by F. Martinelli, A. Massarelli. It is in alphabetical order and comprises 231 churches (op. cit., pp. xv-xvi, 879-87). Pope Pius IV in 1561 issued a «Tassa delle chiese e beneficii di R. per la soventione delli poveri alias mendicanti». The list in alphabetical order enumerates 269 between churches (246) and chapels (23; Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xvi-xix, 87-95; the value and the tax imposed on each church is added at pp. 557-65). The same author has emphasized how the said document can serve as a basis for the lists of churches drawn up for the taxes of Clement VIII of 1594 and 1601; of Paul V of 1620 and of Urban VIII in 1623 and has given their variants (op. cit., pp. 565-78). For the general sacred visitation of the Roman churches called in 1566 by Pope St. Pius V a catalogue was drawn up of the «churches of all the rioni of R.» with the indication of 321 between churches and monasteries, both male and female, and of their condition (Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xix, 95-106). An anonymous Spaniard compiled around 1570 in R. a list of 287 Roman churches and a collection of inscriptions contained in them, preserved in the cod. Chigiano Vaticano (no. I, V, 167; edited by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xx, 106-14). Francesco Dal Sodo, canon of St. Mary in Cosmedin, drew up between 1575-83 a catalogue of 297 Roman churches (Cod. Vallicelli, G. 33) edited by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. xx-xxi-xxix-xxxi, 114-23). There exist moreover, scattered in the various libraries of Europe, very many manuscript guides compiled for the pilgrims who visited the Roman sanctuaries in the 14th-15th centuries, in which the first part is generally a summary of the Mirabilia (v.), while the second gives the list of relics and indulgences. Ch. Hülsen has examined not a few examples of them (op. cit., pp. xxi-xxv, 137-56). In the redactions of some of these of the 15th century, as in the first printed books, the number of churches is exaggerated to the point that one reads there: « Sunt Rome mille quingentae quinque capelle que tamen pro magna parte et quasi pro maiore parte sunt destructe ». For the printed editions of the said guides from the end of the fifteenth century to the first decades of the following century v. again Ch. Hülsen, Mirabilia Romae. Ein römisches Pilgerbuch des 15. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1925). G. B. Pauliani in his De Iobileo et indulgentiis libri tres (Rome 1550, pp. 220-51) gives a list of 102 churches divided into 4 parts, that is the Lateran Church, St. Peter's, St. Mary Major, St. Paul's.

From the 10th century onward some churches were established as branches of other major ones, such as St. John Lateran, which, by bulls of Leo IX of 1050, of Alexander II (1061-73), Anastasius IV (1154), Honorius III (1216) and Gregory IX (1228), had 10 branch churches (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I, Berlin 1906, p. 25 ff.); St. Peter's in the Vatican, by bulls of Leo IX (1055), Innocent II (1138), Adrian IV (1158) and Urban III (1186), had 11 branches in all (P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 139 ff.).

Nel sec. XIII con la bolla di Innocenzo III del 1205 le filiali di S. Pietro in Vaticano salirono a 22 (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 581-82). Invece scesero a 17 nel sec. XIV (F. Ehrle, Ricerche su alcune chiese del Borgo, in Dissertazioni della Pont. accad. rom. di arch., 2ª serie, 10 [1910], p. 40 sgg.); S. Paolo fuori le mura con bolle di Gregorio VII (1073-85), di Anacleto II (1130) e di Onorio III (1218) ebbe 7 filiali (P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, pp. 166-68); S. Maria Maggiore con bolla di Celestino III (1192) ebbe 4 filiali (id., op. cit., p. 56); S. Maria in Trastevere con bolla di Callisto II (1123) ebbe 9 filiali (id., op. cit., p. 129); S. Marcello ebbe 19 filiali (O. Pancioli, Tesori nascosti dell'alma città di R., Roma 1625, p. 362); SS. Apostoli ebbe 7 filiali (F. Martinelli, R. ex ethnica sacra, Roma 1603, p. 70; P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 71); S. Anastasia ebbe 10 filiali (G. M. Crescimbeni, Storia di S. Anastasia, Roma 1722, p. 55); S. Lorenzo in Damaso con bolla di Urbano III (1186) ebbe 65 filiali (A. Fonseca, De basilica S. Laurentii in Damaso, Fano 1745, p. 249 sgg.; P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 94); S. Crisogono con bolla di Callisto II (1121) ebbe 4 filiali (P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 126); S. Silvestro in capite con bolle di Agapito II (955) e di Giovanni XII (962) ebbe 12 filiali (id., op. cit., I, p. 83); S. Eustachio con bolla di Gregorio V (998) e di Alessandro III (1173) ebbe 6 filiali (id., op. cit., I, pp. 96-97). L'elenco delle chiese filiali sopra ricordate è stato pubblicato da Ch. Hülsen (Le chiese, cit., pp. 129-37 e 581-82).

Enrico Josi

VI. CULTURAL INSTITUTES.

La storia dell'insegnamento superiore in R. nell'età cristiana ricorda in particolare le seguenti istituzioni culturali:

I. THE SCHOOL OF JUSTIN

Having converted to Christianity (ca. 130) and settled in Rome, Justin opened a school there, availing himself of the prestige and authority that came to him from his profession and from the "philosopher's cloak" (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 11, 8; St. Jerome, De vir. ill., 23). It was the first Christian διδασκαλεῖον of which there is mention in the 2nd century (cf. the apostolic constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus of Pius XI: AAS, 23 [1931], p. 242). Among its disciples was Tatian, and among its most stubborn adversaries the Cynic Crescens, from whose rivalry it suffered greatly. The location of the school was known, and is indicated by the Acts of his martyrdom (ch. 3); but the relevant text, corrupt, does not permit a secure reading (P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, Note agiografiche [Studi e testi, 8], Rome 1902, pp. 27-28 and p. 34, lines 15-16; id., in Nuovo boll. di arch. crist., 10 [1904], p. 6, note). One may think of the Tiburtine quarter (the fragment of the Digest, XXXII, 35, 3 clarifies but does not resolve the question) as, more probably, of Region I (Porta Capena).

A hearth of Christian philosophical science, the διδασκαλεῖον of Justin was a true school of theology (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., I, 28, 1: PG 7, 690): not catechesis, nor simple lectures or sermons, but an in-depth teaching of a higher grade; and it is probable that he had collaborators. Their "philosophical" teaching, considered only as a means of disposing cultivated minds toward the faith, was imparted without a special mandate from the hierarchy; therefore under their personal responsibility as Christian philosophers, and not as doctors of the Church or its catechists. It cannot be asserted that the death of the martyr Apologist also marked the end of the διδασκαλεῖον: it is likely, on the contrary, that it continued under the direction of others; and it is possible that Tatian, before falling into heresy, took up the succession of his master (cf. Irenaeus, ibid.), and that he was then replaced by his disciple Rhodon (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 13).

This type of teaching must have continued until the 3rd century, since it also appears in this form in the case of Clement of Alexandria and of Hippolytus of Rome. The latter deserved to be honored by his disciples and admirers with a statue (now preserved in the Lateran Museum) that represents him as a philosopher in the act of teaching, seated on a chair on which the list of his works is engraved (v. reproduction at the entry IPPOLITO ROMANO; cf. Marrou, Storia dell'educazione, cited in bibl., p. 427). It may be that one of the masters was also Gaius (or Caius [v.]), but this cannot be asserted with certainty.

II. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL

As the capital of the Empire, Rome held primacy over all the other cultural centers of the West. It is to Vespasian that credit is due for having recognized a social function in the schools of the rhetors in the City. To the exemptions of teachers from municipal obligations (munera), he added the benefit of a state economic provision, assigning them a salary from the public treasury (e fisco: Suetonius, Vesp., 18; cf. St. Jerome, Chron. a. 2103 ab Abr. [89 A.D.], regarding Quintilian: PL 27, 599). Hadrian, according to Aurelius Victor (De Caes., 14), had the idea of gathering higher education into a great Athenaeum ("ludum ingenuarum artium, quod Athenaeum vocant"; cf. S. B. Platner-Th. Ashby, Topogr. Diction. of anc. Rome, Oxford 1929, p. 56). Alexander Severus founded in Rome new schools of rhetoric, medicine, mechanics, and architecture, fixing suitable salaries for the professors and special pensions for poor pupils: the first idea of "scholarships" (cf. Lampridius, Alex. Sev., 44). The insidious law of Julian the Apostate (June 17, 362), which attributed to the Emperor the right to review, for the licentia docendi, all appointments of teachers made by the municipal curiae (Cod. Theod., XIII, 3, 5; cf. Cod. Iust., X, 53, 7), had the intended effect of driving Christian teachers away from the school (Julian, Epist., 42: ed. Bidez-Cumont, Paris 1922, pp. 69-75

[n. 61]), like the famous Marius Victorinus (St. Augustine, Conf., 8, 5). The injustice was repaired by the successors Valens and Valentinian I with the Constitution of 11 Jan. 364 (Cod. Theod., XIII, 3, 6). Valentinian also regulated, with the Constitution of 12 March 370 (Cod. Theod., XIV, 9, 1), the influx of students and their stay in R. (strict control by the prefect of the city; banquets and secret societies forbidden), thereby testifying to how flourishing the school of the City then was (the prefect also had to send each year to the Emperor a list of students who had distinguished themselves by their progress, so that the state administration could make use of them). His Edict of 8 May 372 then provided for the better functioning of the city's libraries (Cod. Theod., XIV, 9, 2). The emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, promulgating, on 27 Feb. 425, the Constitution de studiis liberalibus Urbis Romae et Constantinopolitanae (cf. the title of Cod. Theod., XIV, 9 and of Cod. Iust., XI, 19 [18]), while founding the university school of Constantinople, strengthened that of Rome, to which they thus conferred the privilegium studii, now regarding higher education as a State monopoly. The schoolrooms (atria, auditoria) were arranged around the imperial Forums of Trajan (schola fori Traiani) and of Augustus (in foro Martis), near the Capitoline and the great Bibliotheca Ulpia, and served also for public recitations (cf. Venantius Fortunatus, Carm., III, 18, 8; VII, 8, 26; Lampridius, Alex. Sev., 35; Capitolinus, Gord., 3). It seems to have been precisely this artistic and environmental arrangement of the Roman Athenaeum that inspired Theodosius II when erecting at Constantinople, the new R., the new center of studies, his auditorium Capitolii (Cod. Theod., XIV, 9, 3 and XV, 1, 53; cf. Marrou, La Vie intell. [v. bibl.], p. 107 ff.).

With the decline of the Empire the school of R. did not disappear entirely, for Theodoric, through the agency of his minister Cassiodorus (v.), maintained the ancient institutions and continued to honor R. as the "city of letters," "mother of eloquence and temple of all the virtues" (Cassiodorus, Variae, V, 22 and IV, 6), also exhorting foreigners to complete their cultural formation there (ibid., I, 39; IV, 6). His nephew and successor Athalaric ordered the Senate of R. to pay "exactly" the fees to the professors, "since it is a crime to discourage the educators of youth" (ibid., IX, 21). Justinian did likewise with the Pragmatica sanctio (cap. 22), promulgated on 14 Aug. 554 at the request of Pope Vigilius in order to remedy the many evils of the Gothic war (Novellae, app. VII: ed. Schoell-Kroll, Berlin 1928, p. 799).

With the Constitution Omnem (16 Dec. 533), prefaced to the Digest, the same Emperor, recognizing in the Empire only three official schools of law (those of the two capitals [regiae urbes] and that of Berytus), had also traced for R. its new program of legal studies, with 5 years of compulsory course (v. BERITO). But in the twilight of the ancient world the splendor of these schools also fades away.

III. THE LATERAN SCHOOL

Cassiodorus, who as minister at the Gothic Court and praetorian prefect had so greatly favored the public school of Rome, also worked out with Pope St. Agapetus (535-36) the plan of a great athenaeum for the theological sciences on the model of Alexandria and Nisibis. But, once the project had fallen through owing to the wickedness of the times, he, though far from Rome, wrote the Institutiones divinarum [et humanarum] litterarum almost as compensation for the failed Roman university (cf. proef.: PL 70, 1105 ff.). Without doubt the schools of Rome, like all medieval schools, drew great advantage from the work of Cassiodorus: yet it was the literary treasures of the City that contributed not a little to the formation of that famous cloistral Library which he gathered in his retreat at Vivarium.

St. Agapetus himself, seemingly with a view to the planned athenaeum (cf. Marrou, Autour de la bibl. [v. bibl.], p. 128), had succeeded in forming, in his paternal house on the clivus Scauri, a considerable library, of which the text of the dedicatory inscription remains (Lib. Pont., I, 288, n. 1). As his heir, St. Gregory the Great donated the Library to the monastery of S. Andrea ad clivum Scauri (Marrou, on the other hand, thinks he transferred it to the Lateran) and also partly realized his university plan by organizing, in the Lateran Patriarchium, the celebrated Schola cantorum, which he endowed with abundant revenues (praedia). With it he provided, as far as was then possible, for nourishing in the Church the cultivation of letters, «suffering nothing barbarous in his disciples and his ministers, for he wanted everything around him to be inspired by the Latin genius, and his court to become the temple of Wisdom, in which the seven Liberal Arts, like columns of precious marble, should form the most noble atrium of the Apostolic See» (John the Deacon, Vita s. Greg., II, 6 and 13: PL 75, 90 and 92; cf. Alcuin, Gram.: PL 101, 853 C).

The institution of St. Gregory thus became a literary and theological school (John the Deacon, loc. cit.), such as to be «the light of Rome and the example of the West» (Ozanam). Thus was realized that same luminous principle of his which was the informing idea of all medieval schools: «Liberales artes discendae sunt ut per instructionem illarum divina eloquia subtilius intelligantur» (In I Reg. expos., lib. V, cap. 3, n. 30: PL 79, 355 D).

(from H. I. Marrou, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., [8 (1931), p. 53])
ROME - Plan of the complex of the Library of Pope Agapetus. A) ancient buildings still extant; B) ancient buildings reconstructed; C) medieval and modern buildings. I) Basilica of Sts. John and Paul; II) Library of Agapetus; III) chapels of St. Barbara (or Triclinium); IV) St. Andrew; V) St. Silvia; VI) wall in "opus quadratum"; VII) church and monastery of St. Gregory; VIII) ancient underground chamber.

With the Schola cantorum the Schola lectorum merged (cf. G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. di arch. crist., 4th series, 2 [1883], p. 19), and within it was formed the elite of the Roman clergy, as is stated explicitly in the Liber Pontificalis for various Pontiffs (cf., e.g., for Sergius I and Sergius II: Lib. Pont., I, 371; II, 86).

The Schola also had a flourishing section at the Basilica of St. Peter (John the Deacon, op. cit., II, 6 [v. GIOVANNI ARCICANTORE]), and for both sections the major superior seems to have been a single one (primicerius or prior Scholae), named in the prologue of the Caena Cypriani (v.), a reworking by the same John the Deacon (MGH, Poët., IV, 870). At this time (9th century) the School of the Lateran was called Orphanotrophium, whose building, dilapidated, was rebuilt by Sergius II (844-47), who restored the Gregorian Institute after a period of decline (Lib. Pont., II, 92). Its pupils not only took part in the liturgical functions, but also in popular manifestations of a burlesque character (ludi romani communes [cf. Benedict the Canon, Liber pol.]). The Liber Hymnariorum, which survives in manuscript (cod. Vat. lat. 7172 and Paris. lat. 1092), appears to be a collection of the liturgical hymns owed to the Schola. Of its festive chants (Greek and Latin) the Landes Cormonianae are famous (v. CORNOMANIA), as well as certain student rhythms, published in 1900 by L. Traube and reported by K. Strecker, in MGH, Poëtae, IV, pp. 657-59 [in. 98-100]). Ludi were performed for the calends of January and for carnival; laudes for Lent and for the return of spring (cf. Benedict the Canon, Liber Polit., in P. Fabre - L. Duchesne, Liber Crissium, II, pp. 171-74; cf. I, pp. 109-13).

According to F. Novati [v. bibl.], Roman law cannot be excluded from the ratio studiorum of the Schola: indeed, from the 6th century onward, the Lateran School would have taken the place of the public school, until the moment when legal studies could revive, probably in the middle of the 9th century, through the work of Leo IV (847-55), restorer of cultural life in Rome. The papal court then became, also through the influence of the Carolingian revival, a center of theological, historical and literary studies, as is shown also by the names of Anastasius the Librarian and John Hymmonides (the Deacon), the principal historian of St. Gregory the Great. But the singular importance of the School is essentially liturgical, since it fulfilled, over the centuries, the specific mission of preserving and spreading Gregorian chant in Europe. Having reached, after varying fortunes, the 14th century, the "Avignon captivity" marked its end. Gregory XI restored the Apostolic See to Rome, but the Schola of the Patriarchium never rose again. In its place, under Sixtus IV, came the Sistine Chapel.

IV. The "STUDIUM CURIAE"

It is the palatine School founded by Innocent IV (1243-54) in the second year of his pontificate.

(There are still those who hold that it was founded, with the counsel and work of St. Dominic, by Honorius III (1216-27), for theology: Innocent IV would only have restored it, adding to it the faculty of law, with the bull Cum de diversis partibus, inserted by Boniface VIII into the Sexto Decretalium (V, 7, 2).

On the true origins of the School, Denifle shed light and, with fuller particulars, Father Raimondo Creytens. The former, in fact, examining the genuine text of the bull, preserved intact in cod. 72 of Grenoble (the one given by Boniface VIII in the Sexto has proved to be abbreviated: cf. Friedberg, II, 1083), and the Vita of the Pontiff written by his penitentiary Nicholas of Calvi (cf. L. Oliger, in Antonianum, 15 [1940], pp. 275-78), was able to establish that the institution of the Studium Romanae Curiae is due exclusively to Innocent IV.

To better understand the documents of the time and the course of events, it is necessary to distinguish the palatine School from the cathedral one.

1. Cathedral School

It is the school for the instruction of the clergy, decreed by the two ecumenical Councils, the Third Lateran (19 March 1179) and the Fourth Lateran (1215), which prescribe the school of grammar at every cathedral (episcopal) church, and the theological course in every ecclesiastical province, under the care and at the expense of the metropolitan church (cf. the Decretals of Greg. IX, lib. V, tit. 5, cc. 1 and 4: Friedberg, II, pp. 768-70). Therefore, as every metropolitan, so also the Pope, as bishop and metropolitan of Rome, was bound, by virtue of the conciliar canons, to have the humanistic teaching (grammatica) and the theological one (sacra pagina) imparted under the responsibility of the Lateran Chapter. In this cathedral school of the Lateran there taught, in the time of Innocent III (1198-1216), famous theologians, such as James of Vitry (v.) and, in 1206, Stephen Langton. It may be that, under Honorius III, St. Dominic of Guzmán also gave some teaching there.

Professors and students of theology who enjoyed a benefice were obliged to benefice residence: they could not therefore attend the centers of study. Honorius III removed this obstacle (bull Super speculum of 16 Nov. 1219: H. Denifle-E. Chatelain, Cartul. Univ. Paris., I, p. 90 ff.; cf. Decretals, V, 5, 5: Friedberg, II, p. 770); and the great innovation, destined to give a powerful impetus to all medieval university schools, benefited Rome itself as well.

2. Palatine School

In the constitution Cum de diversis partibus (H. Denifle, op. cit., p. 302) Innocent IV declares that he has already instituted in fact (procidimus), at the Apostolic See, a regular school (studium litterarum) with a twofold faculty, of theology and of law (in utroque iure, canonico et civili [Roman]). The reason for the constitution was that of extending to the pupils of the palatine School the same privileges that "the pupils of the Studia generalia" enjoyed (at Paris, Bologna, etc.) by virtue of the bull of Honorius III of 16 Nov. 1219 (cf. Potthast, n. 15128). It was issued in the second year of his pontificate (cf. Nicholas of Calvi, Vita Inn. IV, chap. 16: RIS, 1st ed., III, 1, p. 592 8), from Lyon, where the Pope had arrived on 2 Dec. 1244 for the imminent ecumenical Council (therefore before 28 June 1245, the beginning of the third year). As no other earlier document is known, this constitution is considered the "charter of foundation" of the Studium Romanae Curiae (as it would later be called): a Studium entirely independent of the Cathedral School of Rome, but in essential relation, instead, with the Pontifical Court (penes Sedem Apostolicam). A Studium, therefore, of the Palace, without fixed abode, but rather changing with the movements, then frequent, of the Court itself. From Lyon, in fact, under the same Innocent IV, it passed to Perugia, to Assisi, to Naples. This migratory character of its conferred on it a juridical aspect sui generis, which recalled indeed the Palatine School of the Carolingian court, but was entirely new in the Church. The Studium depended directly on the Pope, not as bishop of Rome, but as head of the universal Church. Its students: the clerics of the Curia and the numerous foreigners, who from every side converged "ad Sedem Apostolicam quasi matrem" (const. Cum de div. part.). These characteristics of its distinguished it from every other school, and created for it particular needs also for the assistance of students (whence the hospital of St. Anthony, "quod habetur in Curia Romana portatile": epist. Immensa, 9 Jan. 1253, from Perugia: E. Berger, Les Registres d'Innocent IV, n. 6257; cf. nn. 6916 and 7079).

The schools could have their seat in the same papal palace, as at the beginning; or in other premises, as at Avignon, where the courses were held in a building rented for this purpose. Originally the Studium did not have the status of a university that conferred the licentia ubique docendi. Although, as a center of studies, it was more important than the ordinary cathedral schools, it nevertheless seemed to resemble them in the simplicity of its organization: the task of the master of the Curia had many analogies with that of the "theologus" of a metropolitan church. But with the permanence of the Apostolic See at Avignon the Studium aspired to a profound renewal that allowed it the rank of a true university (Studium generale in the technical sense). Thus in the acts of the XV Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-12) the Studium Curiae appears among the major universities of the time. As therefore for Paris, Bologna, Salamanca and Oxford, the Council decreed also for it the new chairs of oriental languages, for the better biblical exegesis and with a view of the missionary apostolate (c. I, V, I in Clem.: Friedberg, II, 1179: Hefele-Leclercq, VI, 688 ff.); subsequently chairs of philosophical and medical sciences were also established. The Studium likewise had its own Statutes and its suitable university organization, so much so that in the pontifical documents of the 15th century it is called Universitas sacri palatii.

The Theological Faculty. When in 1244-45 Innocent IV founded the Studium in his Palace, he did not confer a special title on the professor of theology. Throughout the 13th century the latter is called indifferently regens, lector, magister in theologia, and is not part of the Pontifical Court. The holders of the chair or faculty, whose names the official documents have preserved for us for the 13th century, are the Dominican Bartholomew of Breganze (Vicenza) and his successor Thomas of St. Giles, archdeacon of Durham (cf. E. Berger, Les Reg. d'Innoc. IV, nos. 5547 and 6102). St. Albert the Great held extraordinary courses there (at Anagni [June-Nov. 1256], Rome [Dec. 1256-May 1257], Viterbo [May-Oct. 1257]), expounding the Gospel of St. John and the Pauline Epistles, and publicly disputing against the Averroist doctrine of the unity of the intellect (cf. P. Mandonnet, Albert le Grand, in DThC, I, col. 667; H. Ch. Scheeben, Albert der Grosse: Zur Chronol. [Quellen u. Forsch. zur Gesch. des Dominikanerord., 27], Vechta 1931, p. 46). It does not appear that St. Thomas Aquinas, during his stay in Italy (1259-68), gave regular courses there, as has been asserted by many; it is likely, however, that he held extraordinary lectures there, especially at Viterbo (1267-68), given also his familiarity with Clement IV (cf. A. Walz, Thomas d'Aquin, in DThC, XV, col. 624, and, for the stay at Orvieto [1261-63], id., in Memorie domenicane, 69 [1952], pp. 193-203): he was lector and head of the conventual school in the places where the Pontifical Curia was then also located (hence the convent was called Conventus Curiae, whence lectores Curiae or in Curia). In this same sense the famous Franciscans John Pecham (before 1279), Matthew of Acquasparta (before 1288), William de Falgario and John of Morrovalle (before 1296), Gentile of Montefiore (before 1300, later cardinal of the title of St. Martin ai Monti), William Gainsborough (around 1300) and Reginald of Assisi may have been professors in the Studium of the Sacred Palace: lectores in their Conventus Curiae. Later chroniclers, not considering the equivocal value of the expression, attributed to them the title of masters or lectors of the Sacred Palace. It is not improbable, however, that G. Pecham and M. of Acquasparta, like some others, were also true holders of the pontifical chair (no certain information exists on the matter).

There follows, with the election of Clement V, the transfer of the Curia and of the Studium to Avignon. In 1306 William of Peter Godin, a Dominican, is elected "lector," after whom the "Dominican" tradition becomes established, whereby the lector of theology is almost always chosen from the Order of Preachers. With the development of the Studium the "lector" becomes the true regent of the university Faculty of theology, and begins to appear among the officiales Curiae with the name, from 1343 onward, of Magister Sacri Palatii, with ever greater attributions, until, once actual teaching had ceased, he remains at the Apostolic See only as a dignitary of the Court, theologian of the Pope and member of the Pontifical Household (v. MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE).

The end of the Studium. The individual Faculties were independent; the camerlengo of the Pope, however, acted as chancellor of the University of the Curia. Once the Pontifical Court had definitively settled in Rome during the 15th century, the School of the Sacred Palace, as a center of studies around the Pope, lost its reason for being, since in Rome a University had already existed since the time of Boniface VIII. Impoverished in students and teachers, the Studium Curiae died out, almost gradually (no documents exist on the matter), at the beginning of the 16th century, before or at the start of the pontificate of Leo X (1513-21).

V. THE «STUDIUM URBIS»

The school of the Lateran had, in itself, a local character. Boniface VIII, in consideration of Rome as the "Urbs urbium," "communis patria" and "caput Orbis," decided to erect there a Studium generale. He thus founded the Romanum Studium, where, "perpetuis futuris temporibus," knowledge was to be cultivated in qualibet facultate, and, "ad universalem profectum," students were to be gathered "de diversis mundi partibus" (bull In supremae, issued from the Lateran on 20 Apr. 1303: Bull. Rom., IV, Turin 1859, pp. 166-68).

The Studium had its seat in the district of S. Eustachio. Enriched with all the university privileges, it immediately acquired notable importance, especially for the juridical sciences. The transfer of the Apostolic See to Avignon, however, had an ominous repercussion also on the new athenaeum, which, plagued by political agitations, was closed in 1370 and its building sold.

After various attempts, among them a transfer of the seat to Trastevere, with Eugene IV (1431-47), considered its second founder, the Studium took on new life: it regained its ancient seat and attained great prosperity. In 1456-57 Cardinal Domenico Capranica (v.) founded the university college called that of the "Sapienza Fermana" (Collegium pauperum scholarium Sapientiae Firmanae), with particular regard to the formation of the clergy. In the full flowering of humanism, Leo X (1513-21) carried out wise reforms. Following designs, it seems, by Michelangelo, he began the slow construction of the Palace which, brought to completion by Giacomo della Porta under Sixtus V, would be called "della Sapienza."

The Athenaeum, perhaps to distinguish itself from the Studium Curiae, soon took the name of Studium Urbis, worthy of the broad vision of its founder (it remains even today the proper name of the University of Rome). Toward the middle of the 16th century it bore that of Archigymnasium Urbis and of Sapientia: whence the biblical motto placed with its own coat of arms by Sixtus V on the facade of the Palace: Initium Sapientiae timor Domini.

In this same century, given the political vicissitudes, periods of decline and of recovery alternated; the primacy passed to the experimental sciences, and the School of medicine rose to great renown.

Sixtus V, formerly a teacher of theology and protector of the Sapienza, in the reorganization that he made of the Roman Curia, instituted (origin of today's S. Congr. of Seminaries and Universities of Studies) the Sacra Congregatio pro Universitate Studii Romani, with duties of supervision also over the great universities of Europe (const. Immensa, 22 Jan. 1588: Bull. Rom., VIII, Turin 1863, p. 992). Urban VIII (1623-44) appointed Borromini architect of the Studium, who left there so great a mark of his ingenious art, especially with the church of S. Ivo. Alexander VII (1655-67) endowed the University with a botanical garden and with his library, which, continually increased, is today one of the most important in the city (Bibliot. univ. Alessandrina). But after him, despite some illustrious names, the Athenaeum slowly declined, so much so that at the end of the century it was thought to cede the palace to the Scolopi for free popular schools. The energetic intervention of Cardinal G. B. Spinola and his reforms as archchancellor raised its fortunes again. Benedict XIV, formerly rector deputed, increased its prestige and with the bull Inter conspicuos (29 Aug. 1744) restored dignity to studies (Bull. Bened. XIV., I, Prato 1845, pp. 407-20).

The turmoil of the French Revolution also shook the Roman Athenaeum, which in 1800 was practically suppressed. The following year, however, it was reopened. But, after various decrees, the French government turned it into an "academy" attached to the Imperial University of Paris. Once the Napoleonic cyclone had passed and the pontifical government had been restored, the Athenaeum received a new structure from Leo XII with the constitution Quod divina Sapientia (Aug. 28, 1824), one of the most complete and organic laws on university reform (Bull. Rom. cont., VIII, Prato 1854, pp. 95-117). Pius IX renewed its astronomical observatory on the Capitoline Hill (today at Monte Mario), equipping it with the best instruments of the time.

With 1870 the new historical period of the Studium Urbis begins, by then become the Royal University of the Studies of Rome, placed on an equal footing with the others of the Kingdom (law of 12 May 1872, no. 821). The renewed provisions of the Italian State made it ever more adequate to the dignity of Rome as capital. By Royal Decree of 20 June 1935, no. 1071, the higher institutes of engineering (founded as a Scuola superiore by Pius VII with the motu proprio of 23 Oct. 1817), of architecture (established by Decree-Law of 31 Oct. 1919, no. 2592), of economic sciences (erected in 1906 by the Ministry of Agriculture and in 1928 placed under the authority of the Ministry of National Education), and that of teaching (established by Royal Decree of 16 Dec. 1878, together with that of Florence) were aggregated to it as faculties. On 31 Oct. 1935 the "University City" was inaugurated in the S. Lorenzo district. Pope Pius XII wished, with a munificent gesture, to donate to it the great Chapel, dedicated to Eternal Wisdom (brief Romanorum Pontificum, 22 March 1950: AAS, 42 [1950], p. 387 ff.; and Discorso agli universitari, 15 June 1952).

Numerous are the famous men who in every age have brought distinction to the Roman Athenaeum: illustrious teachers who made an effective contribution to letters and the sciences, such as Cino da Pistoia, Pomponio Leto, Lorenzo Valla, Nicolaus Copernicus, Andrea Cesalpino, Andrea Bacci, Bartolomeo Eustachio, Tommaso de Vio, Benedetto Castelli, G. M. Lancisi, M. Malpighi, L. Marracci, G. V. Gravina, A. Nibby, G. Baccelli, L. Pigorini, R. Lanciani, I. Alibrandi, and very many others.

Per vastità di organizzazione, ricchezza di Istituti scientifici, molteplicità d'insegnamenti, valore e numero dei professori (ca. un migliaio: ordinari, incaricati liberi docenti), nonché per la provenienza e l'affluenza degli alunni, anche stranieri, lo Studium Urbis è oggi giustamente considerato come l'Università nazionale d'Italia.

Per gli atenei ecclesiastici v.: ISTITUTI DI STUDI SUPERIORI.

BIM.: I. - G. Bardy, Les Ecoles Romaines au IIe siècle, in Rev. d'hist. eccl., 28 (1932), pp. 508-22; Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, I, 2ª ed., pp. 435-58, specialmente 438-40; H. Leclercq, Rome (Histoire, n. XXI), in DACL, XIV, coll. 2556-59; A. Casamassa, Gli apologisti greci, Roma 1944, pp. 49-55; H. I. Marrou, Storia dell'educaz. nell'antichità, trad. it., ivi 1950, pp. 426-29. II. - G. Tiraboschi, Stor. della letter. ital. (esamina lo stato degli studi nei singoli periodi storici: cf. indice); F. Ozanam, La civilisation chrét. chez les Francs, cap. 9, in Oeuvres compl., IV, 2ª ed., Parigi 1855, pp. 390-97; E. Pottier, Educatio (Rome, n. III), in Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. des Antiquités, II, ivi 1892 pp. 489-90; P. Collinet, Hist. de l'Ecole de Droit de Beyrouth, ivi 1924, p. 325 (indice); St. d'Irsay, Hist. des Universités, I, ivi 1933, pp. 31 sgg. e 75 sgg.; H. Leclercq, Ecole, n. XIII, in DACL, IV, coll. 1762-69; H. I. Marrou, op. cit., pp. 375-410 e 455 sgg.; id., La vie intellectuelle au Forum de Trajan et au Forum d'Auguste, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 49 (1932), pp. 93-110; A. Pazzini, in Capitolium, 9 (1933), pp. 137-149. III. - F. Ozanam, Des Ecoles en Italie aux temps barbares, in Oeuvres compl., II, 2ª ed., Parigi 1865, pp. 382-85, e 392; id., La civilisation chrét., cap. 9 (ibid., IV), ivi 1855, pp. 308-401 e 452-54; E. Monaci, Per la storia della «Schola Cantorum» Lateranense, in Arch. della Soc. Rom. di stor. patria, 20 (1897), pp. 451-63; P. Batifol, Hist. du Bréviaire Rom., 3ª ed., Parigi 1911, pp. 61-67 (critica circa l'origine «gregoriana» della Schola); I. Schuster, Liber Sacramentorum, I, Torino 1923, pp. 63-68 (partecipazione della Schola alla liturgia papale); R. Casimiri, La «Schola Cantorum» del Patriarchio Lateranense nell'alto e basso Medio Evo, in Le Conferenze al Laterano, Roma 1920, e in Cantantibus organisis, raccolta di scritti dello stesso autore, ivi 1924, pp. 460-79; V. de Bartholomae, Le origini della poesia drammatica ital., Bologna 1924, pp. 189-200 (i canti della Schola); F. Novati, Le origini, Milano 1926, pp. 131-48 e 251-62 (cf. pp. 381-86); F. Ermini, I Canti latini degli alunni delle Scuole di R. nel Medio Evo, in Atti del I Congresso naz. di Studi Rom., I, Roma 1929, pp. 403-409; id., La Scuola in R. nel sec. VI, in Arch. Romanicum, 18 (1934), pp. 143-54; H. Grisar, R. alla fine del mondo antico, II, Roma 1930, pp. 60-61, 92-95; H. I. Marrou, Autour de la Bibliothèque du pape Agapit, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 48 (1931), pp. 124-69; id., Storia dell'Educ. (v. sopra), pp. 456-58; P. Brezzi, Roma e l'impero medievale, Bologna 1947, pp. 31, 400-505 e 555 sgg.; A. Viscardi, La cultura nell'Alto Medio Evo, n. 2 (Il Patriarchio Later.), in Quest. di stor. mediev., a cura di E. Rota, Milano 1952, pp. 535-41; L. Virgili, La Cappella Musicale Pont., in Roma nobilis, a cura di I. Cecchetti, Roma 1952, pp. 441-52. IV. - H. Deniffa, Die Entstehung des Universitätes des Mittelalters, Berlino 1885, pp. 301-10; M. Fournier, Hist. de la Science du droit en France, III, Parigi 1892, p. 717; F. Ehrle, L'Agostinismo, ecc., in Xenia Thomistica, III, Roma 1925, pp. 576-80; H. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2ª ed., a cura di Powicke-Emden, II, Oxford 1936, pp. 28-31; R. Creytens, Le «Studium Romanae Curiae» et le Maître du Sacré Palais, in Arch. Fratr. Praed., 12 (1942), pp. 5-83. - Sostengono la fondazione dello Studium Curiae da parte di Onorio III (teoria universalmente accolta dagli antichi autori domenicani, come pure da Renazzi e Carafa [v. n. sg.], che fanno di s. Domenico il primo maestro del S. Palazzo): I. Taurisano, L'insegnamento domenic., in Mem. domenic., 43 (1926), pp. 197-202 e 527-36; A. Zucchi, R. domenicana, III, Firenze 1941, pp. 66-86. Ma il p. R. Loenertz, Saint Dominique écrivain, ecc. (in Archiv. Fratrum Praed., 12 [1942], pp. 84-97; cf. p. 11, nota 14) ha dimostrato come l'argomento desunto dalla biografia di s. Domenico sia stripped of any historical value, since it derives from a gratuitous assertion by Galvagno della Fiamma, a Milanese Dominican writer between 1340 and 1344. V. - The classic works of J. Carafà, De Gymnasio Romano et de eius professoribus, Rome 1751, and of F. M. Renazzi, Storia dell'Universit. degli Studi di R., 4 vols., Rome 1803-1806, have the value of sources. In addition: H. Denifè, op. cit. [v. no. IV], pp. 310-17 (up to 1400); Monografie delle Università e degli Istituti superiori, edited by the Ministero della pubbl. intr., I, Rome 1911, pp. 329-403; A. Pazzini, Storia dell'insegnamento medico in R., Bologna 1935; N. Spano, L'Università di R., Rome 1935 (particularly useful for the modern period).

VI. L'ISTITUTO UNIVERSITARIO DI MAGISTERO « MARIA S.MA ASSUNTA ». - A Faculty of Teaching reserved for religious women. Promoted by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, the Institute was founded in 1939 by the Vicariate of Rome, by the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, and by the Sacred Congregation of Religious. By Royal Decree of 26 Oct. 1939, no. 1760, it was legally recognized and placed on a par with the State Faculties of Teaching, with the right to confer degrees in literary subjects, in pedagogy, in foreign languages and literatures, and the diploma of school supervision. To women graduates the Vicariate issues the diploma for the teaching of Religion.

The governance of the Institute belongs to the Board of Administration, to the director of the Institute, to the Steering Council and to the Council of Professors (Statute, art. 5). The president of the Board of Administration, appointed by the Cardinal Vicar, has the legal representation of the Institute; the director has its academic governance. The internal order and the services of secretariat, finance and custody are entrusted to the Union of St. Catherine of Siena of the Missionaries of the School.

Purpose of the Institute: to facilitate for religious women the perfecting of their culture, offering them the possibility of completing university studies in an environment particularly suited to their state, under the sure guidance of a worthy teaching body. The Institute further promotes any other initiative tending to advance the culture, sacred and profane, of the sisters, such as courses of conferences and study meetings.

The student population has been formed up to now by religious women belonging to over 150 congregations and to 10 different nationalities. The Institute publishes in the Annuario the most significant degree theses.

Annexed to the Magistero is the PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE "SEDES SAPIENTIAE", erected by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities on 8 June 1945, which proposes analogous aims. It was already functioning from 1940 as "Courses of culture for religious women", to whom it is reserved. It welcomes sisters of any nationality in order to prepare them for university studies and to adapt their culture to the commitments of the apostolate. About two hundred religious congregations have sent numerous students to the "Sedes Sapientiae" Institute, many of whom currently hold positions of teaching, education and social assistance, in Italy and in various countries of Europe, as well as of the other continents.

Igino Cecchetti

VII. VARIOUS CULTURAL INSTITUTES

Besides the University and the Seminaries, as well as those mentioned under other entries (v. ACCADEMIE; ARCADIA; COLLEGIO DI S. PIETRO IN MONTORIO; COLLEGIUM CULTORUM MARTYRUM; ISTITUTI DI STUDI SUPERIORI), the following are noteworthy (in parentheses is given the year of foundation and possibly some essential characteristic; the abbreviation B. indicates that the institute has a specialized library): a) ecclesiastical: besides the actual ecclesiastical colleges (v.) the following institutes are to be remembered: PONT. ISTITUTO ECCLESIAST. POLACCO (1910; B.); PONT. ISTITUTO ECCLESIAST. UNCHERESE (1940); ISTITUTO ECCLESIAST. MARIA IMMACOLATA (1902; B.); ISTITUTO S. GIOVANNI DAMASCENO (1940); besides more than 50 colleges of the various religious Orders. Among the educational institutes particular mention deserves the LICEO APOLLINARE, formerly the seat of the Seminario Romano, now an institute of classical instruction. b) Lay: α) international and foreign: ISTITUTO INTERN. DI AGRICOLTURA (1905; B. with a very rich collection of miscellanies and periodicals); ISTITUTO INTERNAZ. DI R. PER L'UNIFICAZIONE DEL DIRITTO PRIVATO (1924; B., with the collection of the Gazzette ufficiali of the whole world); ASSOCIAZ. INTERN. PER GLI STUDI MEDITERRANEI (1929); ISTITUTO INTERN. PER LA CINEMATOGRAFIA EDUCATIVA (1928; B.); AMERICAN ACADEMY (1912, from the merger of two schools founded in 1894; B., mainly for the study of archaeology and art history and with a rich collection of photographs); INSTITUT HISTORIQUE BELGE (1902; B.); ČESKOSLOVENSKÝ ÚSTAV HISTORICKÝ (Czechoslovak Historical Institute; 1921; B.); ACCADEMIA EGIZIANA DI BELLE ARTI (1929); ACCADEMIA DI FRANCIA (1648; B.); ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE DE ROME (1873; it edits the Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, la Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, and the edition of the Registri pontifici [v.]; B., with all the degree theses published in France); CENTRE D'ÉTUDES SUPÉRIEURES DE ROME (1932); FONDAZIONE PRIMOLI (1929; created with a bequest of Count G. Primoli for cultural relations between French and Italian students; B., with ca. 100 incunabula); DEUTSCHE AKADEMIE IN ROM (1910, reconstituted in 1928); DEUTSCHES ARCHAEOLOGISCHES INSTITUT IN ROM (1829; B., very rich, with a notable photographic collection); PREUSSISCHES HISTORISCHES INSTITUT (1888; it has published: Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken; a very important B., now deposited at the Vatican Library); ÖSTERREICHISCHES HISTORISCHES INSTITUT (1881; B.); ÖSTERREICHISCHES KULTURINSTITUT (1934); HISTORISCHES INSTITUT DER GÖRRES-GESELLSCHAFT (1888; its B. is merged with that of the Collegio Teutonico at S. Maria in Campo Santo); BRITISH ACADEMY OF ARTS (1822; B., Museum of plaster casts); BRITISH SCHOOL AT ROME (1901; B., it publishes the Papers of the British School at Rome); BRITISH AND AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY (1865; B. with some incunabula); NEDERLANDSCH HISTORISCH INSTITUT (1904; B. with a photo library); STACJA NAUKOWA POLSKIEJ AKADEMII UMIEJĘTNOŚCI (1926, but it goes back to a foundation of 1886; B.); INSTITUTO PORTUGUEZ EM ROMA (1913, but it is connected to a charitable institution established in 1363; B.); ȘCOALA ROMÂNĂ DIN ROMA (1922; it publishes the Ephemeris Daco-Romana and a Diplomatorium italicum; B.); SCANDINAVISK FORENING FOR KUNSTNERE OG VIDENSKABSDYRKERE (Scandinavian Circle of Art and Science; 1833; B.); SVENSKA INSTITUTET I ROM (1926; B.); ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA DE BELLAS ARTES EN ROMA (1874; B.); INSTITUTO HISPANO-AMERICANO DE CULTURA (1933); RÓMAI MAGYAR INTÉZET (1924, but it goes back to a foundation of 1893; B.); β) Italian: ACCADEMIA DI BELLE ARTI (1923: formerly Istituto superiore di belle arti [1874]; B.); CONSERVATORIO DI MUSICA DI S. CECILIA (detached in 1911 from the academy of the same name); ACCADEMIA FILARMONICA ROMANA (1821; B.); ACCADEMIA DI ARTE DRAMMATICA (1935; formerly Scuola di recitazione Eleonora Duse; B.); CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE (1923; B., it has annexed the Centro nazionale di documentazione scientifico-tecnica); ISTITUTO ITALIANO PER LA STORIA ANTICA (1935; B.); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI ARCHEOLOGIA E STORIA DELL'ARTE (1922; a very rich B., with its seat at Palazzo Venezia); ISTITUTO STORICO ITALIANO PER IL MEDIOEVO (1934; it arose, like the following, from the split of the Istituto storico italiano [1883]; it edits the Fonti per la storia d'Italia, the Regesta chartarum Italiae and the new edition of the RIS; it publishes a Bollettino that has also absorbed the Archivio muratoriano; B.); ISTITUTO STORICO ITALIANO PER L'ETÀ MODERNA E CONTEMPORANEA (1934; B.); ISTITUTO PER LA STORIA DEL RISORGIMENTO ITALIANO (1935: it derives from the Soc. naz. per la storia del risorgimento ital. [1906]; B.); ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI (1925; it promotes annual courses and congresses; it publishes a Storia di R. in several vols. and has a Latin dictionary in progress; B.); SOCIETÀ ROMANA DI STORIA PATRIA (1876; it publishes Miscellanee and an Archivio; B. connected with the Vallicelliana); SOCIETÀ FILOSOFICA ITALIANA (1901; it publishes the Archivio di filosofia); ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE PER GLI STUDI PEDAGOGICI (1888; it publishes the Rivista pedagogica); CIRCOLO FILOSOFICO DI STUDI TOMISTICI (1928); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI NUMISMATICA (1912); ASSOCIAZIONE ARCHEOLOGICA ROMANA (1902; B.); SOCIETÀ MAGNA GRECIA (1920); SOCIETÀ FILOLOGICA ROMANA (1901; with B. at the Chiesa Nuova); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI STUDI GERMANICI (1932; it also includes a Scandinavian section; B.); ISTITUTO PER L'ORIENTE (1921); ISTITUTO ITALIANO PER IL MEDIO ED ESTREMO ORIENTE (1933; B.); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE (1923); ISTITUTO DI STUDI LEGISLATIVI (1925: it promotes various publications); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DEGLI ATTUARI (1928; it continues a foundation of 1897); ISTITUTO CENTRALE DI STATISTICA (1926; B.); ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI URBANISTICA (1930); SOCIETÀ GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA (1867; it publishes a Bollettino; B.); SOCIETÀ GEOLOGICA ITALIANA (1881; B.); SOCIETÀ ROMANA DI ANTROPOLOGIA (1893); OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO E METEOROLOGICO (1827; in 1924 it incorporated the Observatory of the Collegio Romano); UFFICIO CENTRALE DI METEOROLOGIA E GEOFISICA (1876; B.); SOCIETÀ SISMOLOGICA ITALIANA (1895); SOCIETÀ ITALIANA PER IL PROGRESSO DELLE SCIENZE (1907; B.); ACCADEMIA MEDICA (1875); SOCIETÀ NAZIONALE DANTE ALIGHIERI (1889); CASA DI DANTE (1914); ISTITUTO DELL'ENCICLOPEDIA ITALIANA (1925; B.); ISTITUTO DI PATOLOGIA DEL LIBRO (1938; B.); moreover various medical societies, some foundations (among which the "Marco Besso" [1918; B.] is notable), and other minor ones.

VIII. ARCHIVES

It is not possible to give in summary a comprehensive picture of the archives of Rome with the consistency of their holdings: for fuller information cf. the bibliography indicated below, which is, moreover, not sufficient to reconstruct the state of the Roman archival holdings. a) Ecclesiastical: ARCHIVE OF THE VICARIATE (1902; to it the parish archives and those of certain charitable institutions of Rome also flow); CAPITULAR ARCHIVE OF ST. JOHN LATERAN; ARCHIVE OF THE COLLEGE OF THE ORPHANS OF S. MARIA IN AQUIRO; the various archives of the houses and general procuratorships of the religious Orders (among which notable are those of the Dominicans, of the Franciscan Minors, of the Lateran Regular Canons, etc.). The archives of the ancient monasteries passed for the most part to the State Archive following the law of 19 June 1873; some tut-

However, in whole or in part, they have remained in situ; among the most notable from a historical point of view are those of S. Francesca Romana, S. Prassede, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Lorenzo in Panisperna, S. Sabina, etc. b) Lay archives: CENTRAL ARCHIVE (formerly Archive of the Kingdom: 1871, it comprises the records of the various government departments no longer kept at their own premises); STATE ARCHIVE OF ROME (1870: it comprises very many collections, including those of the suppressed monasteries, the papers of the various offices of the papal government that in 1870 were not in the Vatican, etc.); HISTORICAL CAPITOLINE ARCHIVE (it comprises the Secret Archive, the Urban Archive, the Orsini Archive and the Archive of the Protonotary of the Senator); NOTARIAL ARCHIVE (it preserves notarial deeds for a period after the cessation of activity of the individual notaries ranging from a minimum of fifty years to a maximum of one hundred). Among the private archives, those of the Borghese, Caetani, Chigi families, now at the Vatican Library, Colonna, Doria and Sforza-Cesarini are worthy of mention.

IX. LIBRARIES

Besides those already mentioned in the entry BIBLIOTECA (III and IV), those of the abbeys of S. Paolo fuori le mura and of S. Girolamo de Urbe, those of the ecclesiastical colleges (v.) and of the institutes of higher studies (v.), the following are worthy of mention (the first figure in parentheses indicates the date of foundation; the size is to be understood as approximate): BIBL. DEL CONSIGLIO DI STATO (1831 [Turin]; 50,000 vols.); BIBL. DELLA CORTE DEI CONTI (1862 [Turin]; 20,000 vols.); BIBL. DELL'AVVOCATURA GENERALE DELLO STATO (1876; 15,000 vols.); BIBL. ROMANA (municipal; 30,000 vols.); BIBL. LANCISIANA (1711; 341 manuscripts, 40,000 vols., 80 incunabula); BIBL. CANCELLI (of the psychiatric hospital of S. Maria della Pietà; 1863; 6,000 vols.); BIBL. ROMANA SARTI (donated to the Municipality by A. Sarti in 1877 and entrusted to the Accademia di S. Luca; 18,000 vols.); BIBL. ROMANA (attached to the Archivio storico capitolino; specialized in works on Roman subjects; 40,000 vols.); BIBL. HERTZIANA (1913; specialized in the history of art and Germanic culture; 40,000 vols. and 20,000 photographs); BIBL. DELLA KEATS-SHELLEY MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION (1908; 7,000 vols.); LIBRARY FOR AMERICAN STUDIES IN ITALY (1920; 20,000 vols.); BIBL. DEL BRITISH COUNCIL (1946; 8,000 vols.); BIBL. BERTINI-FRASSONI (of a heraldic character; 10,000 vols., 25,000 pamphlets); BIBL. G. FORTUNATO, of southern studies (1923; 15,000 vols.); BIBL. TEATRALE DELLA SOC. DEGLI AUTORI ED EDITORI (25,000 vols.); BIBL. MISCIATTELLI (some manuscripts and incunabula; 20,000 vols.); BIBL. MILITARE CENTRALE (1891; 150,000 between vols. and pamphlets).

X. MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES

Of the artistic and antiquarian collections of Rome, the principal ones are recalled here, with the date in which the collection was formed and a few essential characteristics given in parentheses (the abbreviation C indicates that the museum depends on the municipal administration): CAPITOLINE MUSEUMS (late 15th century; C: they comprise the Capitoline Museum of Sculpture, with Greco-Roman monuments; the Palazzo dei Conservatori, with sculptures, inscriptions, bronzes, terracottas; the Capitoline Picture Gallery, with Italian paintings predominantly of the 16th and 17th centuries; the Museum of Ancient Art, with sculptures, inscriptions, urns); NATIONAL ROMAN MUSEUM AT THE BATHS OF DIOCLETIAN (1889; it comprises monuments of Greco-Roman, early Christian and barbarian art and a rich coin collection); MUNICIPAL ANTIQUARIUM (1894; C: it collects inscriptions and archaeological material from the excavations of Rome); BARRACCO MUSEUM (1905; C: it comprises Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Christian sculptures); NATIONAL MUSEUM OF VILLA GIULIA (1889; it contains Etruscan monuments and those of the ancient Italic civilizations); LUIGI PIGORINI PREHISTORIC-ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM (1875, formed from the original nucleus of the ancient Kircherian Museum, many pieces of which were divided among other collections); MUSEUM OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND MUSEUM OF ROME (1927; C: the first documents the civilization of Rome in the provinces, the second the life of Rome from the Middle Ages to modern times); BORGHESE MUSEUM AND GALLERY (17th century: it comprises some monuments of ancient art, but is above all known for its sculptures and paintings of the Renaissance and post-Renaissance period); NATIONAL GALLERY OF ANCIENT ART (17th century, donated to the State by the Corsini in 1883: it comprises paintings from the Renaissance to the 18th century); NATIONAL GALLERY OF MODERN ART (1883; it comprises paintings of the 19th-20th centuries); GALLERY OF THE ACADEMY OF ST. LUKE (1874; it comprises predominantly paintings of the Renaissance and the Baroque era); MUSEUM OF PALAZZO VENEZIA (1921; it contains paintings and furnishings of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance); DORIA-PAMPHILI GALLERY (mid-17th century; it comprises paintings of the 16th-17th centuries); COLONNA GALLERY (1820; there are paintings from the 15th century onward, but especially of the 17th-18th centuries); PALLAVICINI GALLERY (17th century, it comprises predominantly paintings of the Renaissance); BARBERINI GALLERY (17th century, reorganized in 1892; the best paintings are of the 16th-17th centuries); SPADA GALLERY (17th century, sold to the State in 1926; it has notable paintings of the 17th century); MUSEUM OF VILLA ALBANI (18th century; it contains monuments and paintings of various periods, but is known above all for its Greco-Roman sculptures); TORLONIA MUSEUM (19th century; it preserves predominantly Greco-Roman monuments and the Etruscan paintings of the François tomb); MUSEUM OF CASTEL S. ANGELO (1900: it comprises sculptures, furniture, weapons of various provenance); NAPOLEONIC MUSEUM (1927; C). It will also be useful to recall the PLASTER CAST MUSEUM at the Institute of Archaeology and History of Ancient Art of the University, the ANTIQUARIUM of the Roman Forum, the ANTIQUARIUM of the tomb of Cecilia Metella, the TASSO MUSEUM, the TENERANI GALLERY; the COLONIAL MUSEUM; the MUSEUM OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE; the COPERNICAN MUSEUM; the INDUSTRIAL ART MUSEUM, the CENTRAL MUSEUM OF THE RISORGIMENTO and the HISTORICAL MUSEUMS of weapons and military corps (Bersaglieri, Carabinieri, Grenadiers, Engineers).

As a complement to the particular bibliographical indications, for everything concerning Rome (antiquities, history, monuments, customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) the following repertories are to be consulted: L. Cicognara, Catalogo ragionato dei libri d'arte e d'antichità posseduti dal conte Cicognara, II, Pisa 1821, pp. 166-226 (the Cicognara Library passed in 1824 to the Vatican); G. Amati, Bibliografia romana, I, Roma 1880; Ceccarina [G. Ceccarelli], Saggio di bibliografia romana, I-VI, Roma 1946-52 (annual repertories of works on Rome from 21 Apr. 1945 to 20 Apr. 1951).

Alessandro Pratesi

XI. INSTITUTE OF STUDIES FOR SACRED ART (BEATO ANGELICO)

Founded in R. toward the end of 1932 on the initiative of the Dominicans of S. Maria sopra Minerva and of certain personalities in the artistic field, with the chief purpose of imparting to artists, and to all among the clergy and laity who take an interest in Christian art, lessons in sacred subjects relating to art, of assisting them in their artistic activity and of preparing them for the various duties they may have in diocesan commissions for sacred art, in the courses to be held in seminaries and in every work connected with the protection and the increase of the religious artistic patrimony.

The courses are biennial and include: aesthetics, liturgy, iconography, hagiography, history of religion in relation to art, history of sacred art, techniques of painting, of sculpture, of architecture. The courses begin as a rule in Nov. and end in May: the lessons are held in the evening.

Various conferences, unpublished reports by Italian and foreign scholars, refresher weeks complete each year the already vast program. Urban and extra-urban excursions provide immediate contact with the world of art. At the end of the biennium the following are issued: a diploma, to those who pass the examinations in all subjects; a certificate, to those who pass the test in a single subject; a certificate of attendance to the simple auditor who has shown himself worthy of it. The Institute has lent its collaboration to international and national congresses of art criticism, of architecture, of sacred art and liturgical pastoral care (Paris, Versailles, Florence, Perugia, Vicenza); to the international exhibitions of missionary art and sacred art (1950). From the Blessed Angelico arose the primitive nucleus of the Unione cattolica artisti italiani. The social activity among artists is carried on in agreement with the similar institutions of

R., Florence, Milan (Messa degli artisti, Chiostro Nuovo, Angelicum, etc.). The Institute has a specialized library of sacred art (open in the afternoon), in the process of formation, which offers scholars serious possibilities of study; it has published the courses of the lessons, at first in essays (1933-40), later in monographs: Astori, Petruzzellis, Cordovani, Ciappi, etc. In 1949 it began a cinematographic effort for the promotion of art documentaries. Periodically the Institute offers its premises for personal and collective art exhibitions. Il Notiziario di arte, a monthly bulletin of artistic information, the spokesman of the Institute, collects all competition announcements, and reviews current events in the Italian artistic movement.

Tarcisio Piccari

VII. INSTITUTIONS OF CHARITABLE ASSISTANCE.

I. PONTIFICAL HOSPICE OF CATECHUMENS AND NEOPHYTES

An institute to prepare unbelievers of both sexes to become Christians, and where they could receive an adequate preparation, was devised by St. Ignatius of Loyola and approved by Paul III with the bull Cupientes of 21 March 1542 (cf. Bullarium Romanum, VI, Turin 1860, pp. 336-337). Annexed to the destroyed church of S. Venanzio de' Camerinesi, the Hospice was later favored by Julius III, by Pius V and by other pontiffs, and conversions received a strong impulse. To secure for the neophytes what was due to them against any overreaching on the part of their parents, obstinate in paganism or in Judaism, the popes often took care to have legal inventories drawn up; later Urban VIII, in order to offer the catechumens and neophytes more comfortable surroundings suited to the purpose, had the grand Palazzo annexed to the church of S. Maria dei Monti built, where the Hospice still has its seat. Suppressed in 1798, the Institute was soon reestablished and put into full activity, but in 1875 the Italian State confiscated its property; all that was obtained was that the price be converted into state securities. From its beginnings the Hospice stood under the immediate protection of the Roman pontiff, who had himself represented by three cardinals, in accordance with the bull Vice eius of 1 September 1577 of Gregory XIII (cf. Bullarium Romanum, VIII, Turin 1863, pp. 188-91). An apostolic visitation of three cardinals, appointed by the pope, is still today placed over the said Hospice.

II. PONTIFICAL HOSPICE FOR ALEPPINE MARONITE MONKS

In order to increase the Eastern missions, Clement XI erected in Rome in 1707, near SS. Peter and Marcellinus, a College-Hospice for the Aleppine Maronites, further granting them, by the constitution Supereminenti of 24 May 1718, a benefice founded in the aforementioned church (cf. Bullarium Maronitarum, Rome 1911, pp. 203-207). The rules of the Institute, prepared by Cardinal Niccolò Spinola, protector of the Maronites, were approved in 1732 by Clement XII with the brief In supremo of 14 July (op. cit., pp. 227-31) and subsequently modified by Benedict XIV, first in 1744, with the brief Iniunctum Nobis of 7 October, and then again in 1745 with the other brief Apostolatus officium of 8 November (op. cit., pp. 323-28). In them it was established that the students, once they had completed their course of studies, were to hold themselves ready for those missions to which the S. Congregation of Propaganda Fide would assign them. In 1753 the Hospice was transferred to S. Pietro in Vincoli, where it still resides.

III. PONTIFICAL POLISH HOSPICE OF S. STANISLAO

It was founded by Gregory XIII when, at the intercession of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, he donated to the Polish nation, by a constitution of 15 Oct. 1578, the church of the Most Holy Savior "for the purpose of Catholic worship and of charity for the subjects of Poland living in Rome." In 1748 the bishop pro tempore of Kraków was elected protector of the church and of the Hospice, to which new statutes were given by Bishop Andrzej Stanisław Kostka Załuski. After 1795, when Poland ceased to exist as a European power, the Hospice of St. Stanislaus found itself in conditions in which it could no longer function, until the Italian canon Giovanni Battista Piva intervened to revive its fortunes; through the good offices of the Russian ambassador Count Italinski, he obtained from Pius VII in 1818 the recognition of the ancient Gregorian foundation. Only in 1920, however, following the First World War, did the church and Hospice of St. Stanislaus return to Poland, a re-established independent nation. Today the church remains always in the hands of the Polish clergy.

IV. PONTIFICAL ORPHANAGE AND PATRONAGE OF VIGNA PIA

By a chirograph of 25 January 1855, Pius IX founded, on the outskirts of Rome, an institute for the shelter of orphaned and abandoned children, so that they might be given a Christian education and trained in agricultural work. By another chirograph of 30 December 1859 he joined to it a similar institute for the assistance and reform of minors discharged from prisons. The new institution, which came to be called that of Vigna Pia, from the name of one of the two estates ceded to it by the Pontiff, was entrusted to the care of the religious of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. They were succeeded in 1868 by the Brothers of Mercy, who retained its direction until the beginning of the 1914-18 war, when the Institute was turned into a military hospital. In 1921 Benedict XV authorized the reopening of the Orphanage, whose direction was assumed by the religious of the Congregation of the Holy Family. The agricultural Institute takes in about a hundred boys up to eighteen years of age.

V. PONTIFICAL ECCLESIASTICAL HOSPICE KNOWN AS THAT OF THE HUNDRED PRIESTS

Formerly the Sistine College of the hundred priests and twenty clerics, it was restored by Pius IX with the brief Christianae charitatis of 20 March 1855, to house there the old and infirm priests who had served the diocese of R. The Hospice is subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the cardinal vicar pro tempore, who entrusts its administration to a commission of twelve ecclesiastics, chosen from among the Roman secular clergy, one of whom is the president of the Hospice.

VI. HOSPITAL OF SANCYA SANCTORUM (St. John)

The first origin of the hospital of St. John goes back to a kind of "apostolic ambulance" that followed the Curia in its wanderings and to a fixed hospital, dedicated to St. Anthony "iuxta Lateranum," both run by the Antonians and whose first origins go back to 1209. In 1216 the hospital was enlarged by Card. Giovanni Colonna. However, such notices pertain more to the locality than to the institution. A more direct reference is the one concerning the Compagnia del S.mo Salvatore dei Raccomandati, which from as early as 1330 probably possessed a hospital, while the date 1348 appears more reliable for the possession that this Compagnia would have had of a hospital dedicated to St. Angelo, whose construction would have begun in 1303. At the end of the century, upon this title was superimposed that of the Compagnia, so that the hospital began to be called that of the S.mo Salvatore, a title which in 1450 begins to change, in turn, into that of St. John. New constructions begin from 1462, the year in which a "new ward" dedicated to the S.mo Salvatore was built, which was added to the old one, erected near the church of St. Andrew. Both were added to the original premises of the hospital of St. Angelo (catasto della Compagnia, 1462). During the pontificate of Urban VIII the old buildings were demolished and the present ones erected, with the addition of upper wards in 1686. In 1655 the northern side was completed (architect G. A. De Rossi) for the shelter of women, to which an overlying annex was added. In 1865 Pius IX established a maternity section, joining it to the obstetric clinic and transferring there the inmates of the hospital of St. Rocco. Around 1879 the average number of inmates was about 850, and it had, more or less, its present appearance.

VII. HOSPITAL OF S. SPIRITO

It stands in a locality dedicated to hospital buildings almost from the earliest ages of Christianity. Around 498 Pope Symmachus had built a hospital there which, enlarged by the following pontiffs, was later abandoned. The king of the Saxons, Ina, having abdicated the throne and withdrawn to Rome around 729, established there a Schola for his countrymen, which therefore took the appellation "Saxonum," and with it a hospital. The first origin of the modern one, however, goes back to Innocent III, who in the first years of his pontificate (ca. 1200) built a hospital and hospice for foundlings which he dedicated to St. Mary, and which took the surname "in Saxia" from the locality where it stood. When Guido da Montpellier, founder of the Hospitaller Order of the Holy Spirit, was called to direct this institution, the title changed to the latter. During the Avignon captivity it declined considerably, and it was only through the work of Sixtus IV that it began to flourish again, with the construction of a great and sumptuous ward which was called precisely the Sistina, bearing at its center a chapel to which Palladio contributed. Alexander VII, perpendicular to this one, had another built which took the name Alessandrina. Despite these enlargements, however, the hospital was insufficient, and it was to Benedict XIV's credit that a new ward was added, built on a design by Fuga, in continuation of the Sala Sistina toward the Ponte S. Angelo. This new ward took the name "Braccio nuovo" or "Sala Benedettina." To the same Pontiff was due the establishment, in the hospital, of an anatomical cabinet and theater, both later brought to great renown through the work of G. Flaiani. Facing the hospital, once again insufficient, Pius VI had a new building constructed with two superimposed wards, respectively for surgical and medical diseases. Once the medical and surgical clinics had been established by the will of Pius VII, the former was set up in S. Spirito with a department of eighteen beds and rooms for teaching. The medical clinic remained there until the Policlinico was built. The Sala Benedettina was demolished at the beginning of 1900 for the redevelopment of the area, while the opening of the Via della Conciliazione determined the demolition of the building erected by Pius VI, and a new part built on the Lungotevere provided the main entrance, after the ancient one in Borgo S. Spirito was closed. Joined to the hospital is the Palazzo del Commendatore, built by Gregory XIII, containing, besides richly frescoed halls, the famous Library established by G. Maria Lancisi.

VIII. HOSPITAL OF S. MARIA DELLA CONSOLAZIONE

From three small hospital institutions dedicated to St. Mary in Portico, St. Mary of the Graces, and St. Mary of the Consolation, there resulted, in the 16th century, a single hospital that bore the latter title and was built in 1470 for the miraculous rescue of an innocent man condemned to death. Small at first, it was enlarged by Sixtus IV, by Cesare Borgia and by his mother Vannozza. After the merger, the first expansions date to 1608 with the lengthening of one ward, at a right angle, to which Pius IX had another added. In the last century the hospital was officially reserved for trauma cases and the wounded. From the outset it was the seat of a flourishing school of surgery, honored by illustrious teachers. At present it has been largely demolished and has ceased to function as a hospital.

IX. HOSPITAL OF S. GIACOMO

It bore the attribute "in Augusta" because of its proximity to the mausoleum of Augustus, and, according to a plaque that still exists, it is said to have been founded in 1339 by the executors of the will of Cardinal Pietro Colonna. In fact, however, the first record of it dates from 1451, in a bull of Nicholas V, which states that it was entrusted to the confraternity of St. Mary del Popolo. It was reserved for the "incurables" through the work of Ettore Vernazza (1515) and was sanctified by the work of St. Cajetan of Thiene and St. Camillus de Lellis. Enlarged at that time and then in 1580, it received its definitive arrangement from Gregory XVI. The new building, which extends from Via di Ripetta to the Corso, was the work of the architect Pietro Camporesi, while the ground-floor rooms were arranged by Gaetano Morichini, brother of the cardinal.

X. HOSPITAL OF THE FATEBENEFRATELLI

It stands on the Tiber Island, rich in medical memories since classical antiquity. The hospital of the Order was founded by Fr. Soriano at Piazza di Pietra in 1581, and in 1584 it moved to the Tiber Island, into a building already occupied by the Confraternity of the Bolognese and refitted at the expense of the new owners. Subsequently it underwent modifications and enlargements, especially in the 18th century, with the construction of a new ward. Confiscated by the French state in 1811, it was returned to the Order three years later. In 1858 Francesco Amici left his estate so that two new halls might be opened, a work entrusted to the architect Azzurri. The works of the present restoration were begun in 1930, on a design by the architect Bazzani.

XI. POLYCLINIC

The original project was conceived in 1874 by G. Baccelli, but the idea began to take concrete form in 1884, though the laying of the first stone took place only in 1888. The construction could be said to be complete in 1902 and comprised seven buildings for the clinics, the Administration Building, the buildings for general services, a part of the infectious diseases wards and ten hospital pavilions. The Polyclinic arose with the idea of the university city and in fact housed the clinics and the institutes for the teaching of medicine. The original project underwent certain modifications that led it to its present arrangement.

XII. MENTAL HOSPITAL

The first hospice for the insane arose in R. in a house located where today the sacristy of the church of S. Bartolomeo in Piazza Colonna stands. In that house, belonging to the Bruno brothers, Spaniards, pilgrims were first received, through the work of the owners and of the priest Ferdinando Ruiz, and afterward the insane. This occurred around 1548. In 1564 the Confraternity of S. Maria della Pietà of the poor insane was approved. This hospice, called that of the Pazzarelli, in 1726 was transferred near the hospital of S. Spirito, on the Lungara, into a building designed by the architect Azzurri, which extended immediately after the arch of Sangallo on that street.

The building was constructed with the personal capital of Pius IX and was the seat of the first clinic of mental illnesses, which was transferred to the Policlinico in 1920-21. In 1909 the new mental hospital of S. Maria della Pietà at Monte Mario was founded, and it was inaugurated in 1914. The definitive closure of the hospital of the Lungara was resolved by the provincial administration in 1924.

Adalberto Pazzini

XIII. HOSPITAL OF THE BAMBINO GESÙ

It receives sick children with illnesses whose cure is considered possible, from birth up to 12 years of age.

Its origin is most gentle and moving: on 25 Feb. 1869, on the occasion of the birthday of the duchess Arabella Salviati, her children wished to buy a little bed and some linen for some sick child. The proposal was immediately accepted by the duke, and on 19 March 1869 four small patients were taken in to a modest room adjoining the orphanage of Via delle Zoccolette. Very soon the number of the sick began to increase, so that it became necessary to abandon the old building, and through the help of the Municipality of R. and of the Provincial Council a large part of the ancient convent of S. Onofrio al Gianicolo was granted, which little by little was transformed into a true hospital. From 1922, by a bull of Pius XI, it became the possession of the Holy See.

At present the hospital is under the supervision of the cardinal vicar, governed by a board of administration appointed by the Holy See.

Altogether it can accommodate about 540 children. It possesses a magnificent seaside colony at S. Marinella, about 70 km. from R., donated at the time by Queen Elena, capable of receiving 150 patients, all coming from the hospital. There it mainly receives children suffering from bone lesions of tubercular origin, who benefit greatly from the stay by the sea.

Tommaso Teodonio

VIII. VICARIATE.

It is the particular Curia for the diocese of R.

During his absence from R., or when special circumstances demanded it, the Roman Pontiff entrusted the spiritual care of the city of R. to a special appointee, usually a bishop; at other times, as at the beginning of the 16th century, he entrusted particular duties to a prelate of his confidence or to a special commission. Little by little these occasional provisions acquired greater stability and definiteness of duties, also because of the growth of the population and the need for constant reform in the clergy and the people, so much so that on 18 Nov. 1558 Paul IV established that the vicariate of R. should always be entrusted to a cardinal. He even today assumes the office of vicar general for the diocese with ordinary jurisdiction that does not cease with the death of the Pontiff and that was later also better determined by particular pontifical constitutions, up to the Etsi nos of the blessed Pius X of 1 Jan. 1912. By virtue of this, today the vicariate is composed of four offices: 1. Divine worship and apostolic visitation: for the supervision of churches, chapels, oratories, and all that is devoted to divine worship: sacred functions, relics, images, fulfillment of pious legacies, constructions, restorations, ornaments, etc. for the decorum of the sacred temples.

To the first office are also annexed: the Commission for Divine Worship, with a secretary; the Catechetical Commission, with a president (vicegerent), a vice-president, a secretary and fourteen consultors; the Commission for Sacred Archaeology, instituted by Pius IX on 6 Jan. 1862 and reorganized by motu proprio and regulation of Pius XI on 11 Dec. 1925, with a president, who is the cardinal vicar himself, a vice-president, a secretary, an inspector (v. COMMISSIONI PONTIFICIE).

Annexed to the first office are also the Commissions for Sacred Art and for Sacred Music, each with its own secretary.

2. Discipline of the clergy and of the Christian people: for the supervision of the clergy, of female religious institutes, colleges, orphanages, pious associations, of schools and social works.

Of the said office are also part: a) the apostolic examiners of the clergy; b) the delegate for hospitals, clinics and charitable institutes;
c) The secretariat for monasteries and female religious institutes. The first and second offices are presided over by a secretary.

3. The third office, presided over by the official, is composed of two sections: one for administrative affairs, whose competence embraces all that concerns baptisms, confirmations and the valid and licit celebration of marriages, the other for judicial affairs.

The judicial acts section is, in practice, the ecclesiastical Tribunal of the diocese of R.

Following the motu proprio Qua cura of 8 Dec. 1938 and the subsequent instruction of the S. Congreg. of the Sacraments, of 6 Aug. 1940, the Tribunal of the Vicariate became a tribunal of first instance for cases of nullity of marriage for the entire ecclesiastical region of Latium, and of second instance for the same cases for the ecclesiastical regions of Campania and Sardinia.

The third office is composed of the official, four vice-officials, three promoters of justice and defenders of the bond, a chancellor, three vice-chancellors, two notaries, a substitute for administrative acts and other minor employees. The pro-synodal judges depend on it.

4. The fourth office is responsible for economic administration and is presided over by the economist.

After the reorganization of Bl. Pius X, there continued to exist the office of the vicegerent, which had come to be constituted for the suffragan bishop, as he was commonly called, who was deputed occasionally as temporary coadjutor of the cardinal vicar. He too acquired a stability and continuity ever better defined, especially in the sacred functions for which the episcopal character is required. Clement XII, with the constitution Apostolatus officium of 4 Oct. 1732, entrusted to the vicegerent all the faculties of the cardinal vicar, whenever the latter should be lacking during a vacant see or should be shut up in conclave. Now he forms a single tribunal with that of the vicar and attends to the governance of the Roman diocese according to the particular duties entrusted to him. He is invested with the archiepiscopal dignity and the title of abbot of St. Lawrence outside the Walls.

The three patriarchal basilicas of the Lateran, the Vatican and the Esquiline, which are governed by their respective cardinal archpriests, are not withdrawn, as regards the discipline of their clergy, from the supervision of the cardinal vicar. Thus the jurisdiction that the cardinal titulars had over the churches and the clergy of their title is now in fact much reduced, also because those churches are either parochial or are served by a much reduced clergy.

The Vatican City, although forming part of the diocese of R., has its own religious administration, which is provided for, as vicar general of His Holiness, by the sacristan pro tempore of the Holy Apostolic Palaces, who is always a bishop.

For the work of the Preservation of the faith and provision of new churches in R., v. the relevant entry.

Virgilio Caselli

IX. SANCTUARY OF THE DIVINO AMORE

The sanctuary of the Madonna del Divino Amore rises on the site of the medieval castle known as Castel di Leva (a corruption of Castrum Leonis), at the 12th kilometer of the Via Ardeatina.

The castle was built by the Savelli around 1285 on a plot of land purchased from the church of St. Sabina; in 1400 it changed owners several times and the fortress fell into ruin. In the second half of the 1500s the land surrounding the ruins of the Castle belonged to Msgr. Cosimo Giustini, who, on dying, left it in the ownership of the Conservatorio di S. Caterina della Rosa ai Funari and the Casa degli Orfani. By a notarial instrument of 1633 the whole plot remained the property of the said Conservatorio. Of the ancient Castle only a few ruins of the tower remained, and it was on one of these that an unknown painter of the Roman school of the 14th century had painted a Madonna seated with the Child and two angels. It is not a work of particular artistic merit, except for the very expressive face of the Madonna. The fresco remained exposed to the weather on the tower, venerated only by the few shepherds of the surrounding malarial zone until 1740, when the event occurred that marked the fundamental turning point in the history of the Divino Amore. A pilgrim, whose name is not known, on his way to Rome, lost his way right near Castel di Leva; attacked by a pack of enraged shepherd dogs, he invoked the help of the Madonna, whose image he could make out on the ruined tower. Immediately the dogs, calmed, left him and the pilgrim remained unharmed. The event made a deep impression and was the beginning of a great devotion on the part of the inhabitants of Rome and of Latium toward this image of the Madonna, a devotion that has gone on increasing down to our own days. In 1745, detached from the wall of the tower, it was brought into the little church built nearby, on the top of the small hill, and consecrated by Cardinal Rezzonico, later Clement XIII. The image was crowned on May 13, 1883 and again, the crowns having been removed, on May 13, 1933. On Dec. 30, 1930 the few buildings that had arisen on the site of Castel di Leva and the small surrounding territory became the property of the Vicariate of Rome, which sent there a priest with the permanent office of Rector of the Sanctuary, later (Dec. 8, 1932) erected as a parish of the diocese of Rome.

A singular devotion toward the Roman sanctuary of the Madonna del Divino Amore is cherished by the holy father Pius XII, who willed that the Roman people should have recourse to her in the spring of 1944, when the war was drawing near the Eternal City. For the preservation obtained, the construction of a new Sanctuary was then promised in place of the 18th-century one, by now dilapidated and inadequate to the needs of the movement of pilgrims. The project has been defined in its details and its imminent execution is now awaited. Pius XII has blessed its first stone, later placed in situ by the cardinal vicar C. Micara.

The Madonna del Divino Amore takes her name from the Holy Spirit, the subsistent love of the Father and of the Son, who has made of Mary Most Holy the masterpiece of Creation. The titular feast coincides with the day of Pentecost; the official period of pilgrimages runs from Easter Monday to the end of October.

Near the Sanctuary a female religious institute has arisen: the Daughters of the Madonna del Divino Amore; a girls' orphanage has been opened, a pre-seminary for poor vocations and other works of social and charitable assistance.

Pierluigi Pietra

FOLKLORE

On the day following Pentecost a pilgrimage to the Madonna del Divino Amore takes place. It is attended chiefly by the faithful of the popular classes and especially by women. In the last century the pilgrimage had a pronounced folkloristic character. The groups set out from R. at dawn, from the customary gathering places, such as Piazza Margana, Piazza Montanara or S. Maria in Trastevere. The outing was made in vehicles of every kind, even in coaches drawn by as many as six teams of horses. Once they arrived at the place, after having heard Holy Mass and witnessed the scenes of devotion of the faithful who had obtained from the Madonna the grace they had invoked, the «Madonnare» scattered over the surrounding meadows to have breakfast, all festively adorned with fresh roses or even with tremolanti (flowers or artificial roses, whose stem, made of fine steel wire, trembled at the slightest movement). The groups then climbed back into their carriages and went to Albano, to make the «parata» along the main street of that town in Latium. From there they returned to R., not without a few stops at the taverns along the Via Appia as far as Porta S. Giovanni, where the parting glass was drunk. All R. in celebration went out to meet the «Madonnare». The feast, which had a markedly springlike and cheerful character, broke up amid songs, stornelli and shouts. Now it has acquired a more strictly religious character, although the fervent participation of the people has never diminished: indeed, in recent years, because of the particular graces that the Roman people acknowledge to the Madonna del Divino Amore as the savior of the city from the dangers of war, the popular cult of this Madonna has rapidly increased with various forms of devotion (offerings of candles and flowers before her images, ex-voto tablets, etc.). On the feast of the Divino Amore a short poem in ottava rima, in a popularizing tone, was published in 1924, by a certain Luigi di Francesco, a cowherd of the Rospigliosi household. The feast also inspired a graceful short poem in Roman sestine by Giggi Zanazzo. - See plates LX-LXXIV.

Paolo Toschi