ROMA

ROME. — Metropolis of the Roman world, capital of the Papal States and, from 3 Feb. 1871, of the Italian State (Law no. 33, art. 1), is the centre of Catholicism as the episcopal see of the Roman Pontiff.

OUTLINE
A) ROME IN ANTIQUITY AND THE IMPERIAL AGE
I. Name and geographical position (cols. 1095-96)
II. Archaeology (cols. 1096-1110)
III. Political and constitutional history (cols. 1110-25)
IV. Roman religion (cols. 1125-33)
V. Ancient Roman literature (cols. 1133-37)

B) CHRISTIAN ROME TO THE PRESENT DAY
I. Civil and ecclesiastical history (cols. 1137-77)
II. Christian Latin literature (cols. 1177-89)
III. Art (cols. 1189-1204)
IV. Folklore (cols. 1204-1207)
V. Topography (cols. 1208-45)
VI. Cultural institutions (cols. 1245-61)
VII. Charitable institutions (cols. 1261-65)
VIII. Vicariate (cols. 1265-67)
IX. Sanctuaries of the Divine Love (cols. 1267-68)

A) ROME IN ANTIQUITY AND THE IMPERIAL AGE

I. NAME AND GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION

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, almost identified as the “city of the river.”

In the south-western zone of the Palatine, the area closest, through 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 Servian wall; the Ruminal fig-tree which stood near the Lupercal and was, by magical prestige, transferred by the augur Attus Navius to the Comitium; the goddess Rumina who had her sanctuary on the Palatine. The etymologies from the Greek ῥώμη = strength; from the Latin *rumana* = breast, for the two highest peaks of the Palatine, the Germalus and the Palatium; and from the Etruscan gens of the Ruma (W. Schulze, G. Herbig) must be discarded.

In Roman tradition Rome also had a name kept secret for fear that it might be known and magically evoked by an enemy to the city’s detriment. The secret concerned either the name of the city (Pliny, *Hist. nat.*, III, 65; Servius, *Aen.*, I, 277; Macrobius, *Sat.*, III, 8; Jo. Lydus, *De mens.*, IV, 73) or the tutelary deity of the same (Pliny, *Hist. nat.*, XXXVIII, 28; Plutarch, *Quaest. Rom.*, 65; Servius, *Aen.*, II, 351; Macrobius, *Sat.*, III, 8).

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

Set in an alluvial plain where the meanders of the Tiber and the volcanic spurs of the Sabatine and Alban hills—together with the Prenestine hills and the Tyrrhenian coast—enclose it on its outer edges, Rome rises at various points to heights ranging from 15 to 80 meters above sea level. From the primitive city on the Palatine to the present-day urban complex, the transformation over the centuries has been immense. If the great roads of communication belong to the Republican era, the city’s development was more rapid during the Empire; the 16th century saw the beginning of the great constructions of the Papal Rome, while only at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century did the great transformation begin that has almost entirely altered the appearance of Rome. From the 210,000 inhabitants of 1870, the population rose to 400,000 in 1900 and to over one and a half million in 1950 (1,599,894 in 1951). This enormous growth, which surpasses that of all other Italian cities, is due, in addition to high birth rates, to considerable immigration from every region of Italy. Ecclesiastically, the population of Rome is divided into 136 parishes, grouped into 16 prefectures. The climate, very pleasant, has an average of 7° in the coldest month (January) and 25° in the hottest (July). Within its territory lies the State of the Vatican City; in addition, all the dicasteries of the state administration, the government and ecclesiastical universities, the major banks, agencies, institutes, etc., are located here. Among the few industries, the most important are construction and printing. In recent decades, the traffic of its port (the river port of S. Paolo and the canal port of Fiumicino) has shown notable progress.

OUTLINE: I. Origins and regal age, – II. Republican age, – III. Augustan age, – IV. Imperial age.

I. ORIGINS AND THE REGAL AGE

Its foundation was fixed by Varro on 21 April in the year 753 B.C.; to this traditional date one must attribute a relative value and approximation, certainly somewhat later than the reality.

In Latium, already a sea gulf, filled during the course of the Tertiary Age by the volcanic eruptions of the Alban and Cimini mountains and by the alluvium of the Tiber, man appeared in the Quaternary Age when, having already emerged from the primitive stage of civilization of the Paleolithic, he had advanced to the Neolithic. The earliest inhabitants of Latium were the Mediterranean Ligurians, who adopted the rite of inhumation (2nd millennium B.C.).

The transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, as life in Latium became less precarious due to the cessation of volcanic activity on the Alban Hills, saw between the 10th and 9th centuries B.C. an incursion of peoples of northern origin, akin to the Terramare culture of the Po Valley, of Aryan stock, speaking an Indo-European language and practising cremation as a funerary rite. Attracted by the fertile and rewarding soil, they settled there and gave rise to the Latin people. This people, formed by the blending of the indigenous Mediterranean inhabitants with the new Aryan population—with the latter, being more advanced, predominating—assumed a stable character in Latium.

Towards the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century B.C., a more advanced phase of the Iron Age civilisation of Latium began, influenced by overseas contributions during the so-called Orientalising period. Meanwhile, a league of the various settlements inhabited by the Latins had been formed, the Alban League, headed by Alba Longa. According to Pliny (Nat. hist., III, 69, 70), the number of these confederated villages, which were situated in elevated places for the defence of flocks and herds from marauders, was 31.

It was at this time that Rome came into being. Near the wide bend formed by the Tiber, a little below the confluence of the Aniene and not far from the sea, villages arose on the tufa hills, carved by water erosion, rising above the surrounding marshy plain, isolated and easily defensible, almost inaccessible and covered with dense groves of oaks (mons Querquetulanus), beeches (Pagutul), and willows (Viminialis). The site was eminently strategic and suited to commercial traffic, frequented both by the Latins from the Alban Hills and by the Sabines of Mediterranean stock. These latter, descending from their mountains, traded by river with the Umbrians and, via the Via Salaria which they had traced, pushed as far as the mouth of the Tiber to obtain salt.

Archaeological finds, with the discovery of tombs and remains of dwellings, show that between the 10th and 8th centuries B.C. villages of huts (pagi or oppida) existed on the hills of Rome: Latin settlements on the Palatine (Germalus, Palatual, Velia), the Esquiline (Fagutul, Crispus, Oppius) and part of the Caelian (Querquetual or Sucusa), Sabine on the Capitoline, the Quirinal and the Viminal; the Aventine may perhaps have continued to be inhabited by Mediterranean Ligurians. On the village of the Germalus (Palatine), the Roma quadrata of the legendary founder Romulus, pottery of the 8th century B.C. has been identified. In the Forum necropolis, extending from the foot of the Esquiline towards the Capitoline, the oldest tombs date back to the 9th century, with ossuaries in the shape of dwellings (hut urns); its expansion continues until the 7th century. The Esquiline necropolis is more recent, not going beyond the 7th century; it contains more rudimentary objects and reveals no trace of eastern or Hellenic commerce.

After an initial union of the Palatine and Esquiline pagi into a single political centre, the seven villages in time formed their own federation (the Septimontium league) with a religious and political character for the protection of common interests. It flourished in the full 8th century, in which legend places the reigns of the Latin king Romulus (753–717 B.C.) and the Sabine king Numa Pompilius (717–673 B.C.). The myth of Romulus took shape in Rome, deriving the name Romulus from Rome itself; the legends of Aeneas, the twelve Alban kings, of Rhea Silvia and the Twins were imported into Rome by Greek historians of the 4th century B.C., after the conquest of Campania, by applying to Roman myths analogous Hellenic myths, among which that of Tyro, daughter of Salmoneus, violated by Neptune on the banks of the Enipeus, whose abandoned twins were given to a she-goat to suckle.

To the first two kings of Rome are attributed the institution of the Senate, the three tribes and the thirty curiae into which the new city was said to have been divided, the promulgation of laws, and the establishment of cults and priesthoods. The latent discord between the Septimontium union and Alba Longa ended with the subjugation and destruction of the latter and the transfer of its inhabitants to the Caelian hill; this is said to have occurred during the reign of the third king of Rome, Tullus Hostilius (672–641 B.C.), who is said to have given his name to the place of meeting of the Senate, the Curia Hostilia, in the Forum. The Septimontium federation, having become by its position, its industries and its commerce the most important state of the Latin League, took the place of Alba Longa as its head.

of public land; hence the Capitoline and Aventine, which belonged to the State, were excluded. The Capitoline was included in the original defensive wall, the Aventine only in the 4th century.

The last of Rome’s kings, Tarquin the Proud (532–509?), despite the efforts of historians to depict him as a model tyrant, appears as a noble promoter of grand public works in Rome, such as the definitive construction of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline, the arrangement of the Circus Maximus with fixed seating for spectators, and the improvement of the system for draining the low-lying areas of the city through extensive canalization that conveyed the spring waters and those flowing down from the hills to the Tiber, preventing them from flooding and stagnating in the plain and thus creating unhealthy conditions. These waters formed three hydrographic basins: the northern (Petronia amnis), which collected the waters of the Pincian and Quirinal hills; the central (Spinon), which collected those of the Esquiline and Viminal hills; and the southern (Nodinus), between the Palatine, Caelian, and Esquiline hills, which stagnated in the Velabrum Maius. The largest of these canalizations or sewers was the one in the central basin, hence called the Cloaca Maxima, which flowed beneath the depressions of the Subura, the Argiletum, the Forum, the Vicus Tuscus, and the Forum Boarium, emptying into the Tiber. Its remains belong to the reconstruction carried out between the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., in which the original Etruscan arch was replaced by an elliptical arch in squared stonework.

The expulsion of Tarquin the Proud (509 B.C.) marked Rome’s revolt against the attempt to make the monarchy absolute and hereditary; at the same time, Rome shook off the yoke of Etruscan domination, which was already in decline in Campania and Latium by the end of the 6th century B.C. With the defeat at Aricia (505 B.C.), Porsena’s attempt to reinforce that domination failed; with the Roman victory at Lake Regillus (497 B.C.), the other attempt by Tarquin the Proud and his allied cities of the Latin League to restore the monarchy and weaken Rome’s resurgent dominance in Latium also failed. Through the subjugation of neighboring cities, Rome set about fulfilling its mission as the unifier of the Italic peoples.

II. Republican Age

I. 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 the beginning of the 5th century B.C., Rome already constituted a homogeneous whole both from the ethnic and the architectural point of view. 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 notable work by the coroplast Vulca of Veii. The temple, just completed by Tarquin the Proud, was, according to tradition, dedicated by the suffect consul M. Horatius Pulvillus in the very year of the foundation of the republic (509 B.C.).

On the Capitoline there was also the shrine dedicated to Iuppiter Feretrius, to which the mythical founder of the city, Romulus, was said to have dedicated the spolia opima taken from the leader of the defeated Caeninenses; 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 the market, 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 shape 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 Tarquin the Proud, and again dedicated in 501 B.C. by the dictator L. Laetorius. In the middle was the Vulcanal. Proceeding further, to the left opened the platform of the Comitium and the Curia Hostilia, seat of the Senate. In the expanse of the Comitium, in front of the Curia, was the heroon or tomb of Romulus, discovered in 1899 by Giacomo Boni, later sealed with the black stone (lapis niger), which originally formed part of the great sepulchral area of the Forum. The entrance to the heroon was guarded by statues of two crouching lions; there was the very famous inscribed stone containing ritual norms. The curved outlines of the plinths of Etruscan type well suit monuments of the end of the 6th or the beginning 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 originated from Alba Longa, with the sacred hearth and the dwelling of the Vestal Virgins. Nearby were the fons Iuturnae and the new temple of the Dioscuri, vowed during the battle of Lake Regillus by the dictator Aulus Postumius (498 B.C.). The southern side of the Forum was occupied by shops of merchants later called veteres. 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 vicus Iugarius and the vicus Tuscus led to the Forum Boarium, the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus.

At the centre of the Palatine, at the intersection of the cardo and the decumanus, was the mundus, a circular pit into which, at the founding of the city, clods of earth and first-fruits from the motherland had been cast; on its edge stood the votive altar of the Roma quadrata. On the summit of the Gemalus stood the tugurium Faustuli or Casa Romuli, and on the slopes of the hill towards the Velabrum opened the Lupercal, the cave of Faunus Lupercus, seat of the ancient rite of the Lupercalia. There may have been placed the celebrated bronze statue of the she-wolf, the so-called Capitoline Wolf, a totemic symbol, a masterpiece of the late 6th century BC, of full Etruscan realism. Also on the Palatine were the altar of Evander or of Victory, and the temple of Iuppiter Stator, vowed, according to tradition, during the war against the Sabines. In the plain between the Palatine and the Aventine (Vallis Murcia) extended the Circus Maximus (m. 600 x 150); from its extremity there departed the road to Ostia (Via Ostiense) and that to the Alban hills and Latium (Via Latina). Near the prison of the Circus (S. Maria in Cosmedin) was erected by the victor of the battle of Lake Regillus (497 BC), Aulus Postumius, a temple with three cellae 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 Mater Matuta and of Fortuna Virilis, erected in the regal age. The Esquiline, formed by the distinct heights of the Cispius and the Oppius, was inhabited only in part. There extended the vast necropolis of the city, enlarged when that of the Forum ceased to be active. It consisted of rock-cut hypogea and large common pits (puticoli). To avert the dangers of the miasmas that spread there, a shrine to the goddess Mefitis had been dedicated on the Cispius. 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 subdivided into several heights by deep ravines. To the north was the collis Quirinalis proper (near Via delle Quattro Fontane), on which stood the Capitolium vetus, seat, like on the Capitol, of the triple cult of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, and the sanctuary of Quirinus, divinity of the Sabine town of Cures. To the south followed the collis Salutaris (Piazza del Quirinale), where later the templum Salutis was dedicated (302 BC); further south was the collis Sanqualis, which took its name from the most ancient temple of Sancus or Dius Fidius (near the church of S. Silvestro). The hill was traversed from south-east to north-west at a high level by a road (Alta Semita) which connected with the Via Nomentana leading to the Sabine country.

Part of the vast plain stretching northward from the hills (Campus Tiberinus) to the left of the Tiber, state-owned and consecrated to Mars (Campus Martius), was set aside for gymnastic exercises and military drills. Near the Capitoline Hill were the Saepia, vast enclosures used for the Curiate, tributary, and Centuriate assemblies and for voting in the election of magistrates. The area on the right bank of the Tiber, at the foot of the Gianicolo hill, connected to the city by the Pons Sublicius, was marshy and unhealthy; on the hill stood a pagus with an arch and fortifications. At the first mile of the Via Portuensis, which led to the salt pans at the mouth of the Tiber, there may already have been the ancient temple of Fors Fortuna. On the Mons Vaticanus, north of the Gianicolo, extensive beds of marble and excellent clay—much used in brickmaking and the allied arts—were found. River trade on the Tiber, both upstream and downstream of Rome, must already have been active in those remote times. The sacred river was only partially embanked and by rudimentary means.

2. 4th–3rd centuries B.C. — From the early years of the 4th century B.C., Rome’s monumental and architectural development became inseparable from its history. Camillus, in thanksgiving for the capture of Veii, dedicated the temple of Iuno Regina on the Aventine (396 B.C.), and to celebrate the peace between patricians and plebeians he erected the temple of Concordia at the foot of the Capitol on the Forum (366 B.C.); to him is also attributed the construction of the temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline (345 B.C.). Meanwhile, Rome had suffered the disaster of the Gallic invasion (390 B.C.), followed by sack and destructive fire. The date of the Gallic fire marks the close of the first period in the city’s architectural history. The disaster was due to Rome’s defenseless state; the harsh lesson prompted the rebuilding of the city’s defensive walls, which had become ineffective in the regal age. The new walls, of which substantial remains survive, are known as the Servian Walls. They began at the Tiber near the Forum Boarium (Porta Flumentana), climbed the Capitoline hill, and crossed the narrow gorge between it and the Quirinal (Porta Ratumena or Fontinalis), where communication with the Campus Martius was maintained. They then ascended to the Quirinal, encircling it (Portae Sanqualis, Salutaris, Quirinalis) as far as the intersection with the Via Salaria (Palazzo delle Finanze), where the rampart (agger) began, its retaining walls still impressively visible near Termini station (Porta Viminalis). The agger defended the Viminal and Esquiline hills and ended at Porta Esquilina (Arch of Gallieno). There the wall system resumed, descending into the valley between the Esquiline and the Caelian (Porta Caelimontana, Via SS. Quattro), and running along the valley between the Caelian and the Aventine (Porta Capena); it then enclosed the latter hill (Portae Naveia and Raudusculana) before rejoining the Tiber near its source at Porta Flumentana. Magnificent remains of this final stretch survive near the Clivo di S. Balbina and in Via di Porta S. Paolo (13 m high with 25 courses of squared tufa blocks).

Rome was rebuilt quickly, but irregularly. Private citizens were allowed to build wherever and however they could; public land was seized without regard. The houses of the wealthy were rebuilt in imperfect brickwork, those of the poor in sun-dried bricks and mortar. Until the 1st century B.C., the city’s expansion was unregulated; as the population grew, so did the number of buildings and houses, and the urban perimeter extended beyond the defensive walls. During the Second Samnite War (326–304 B.C.), in 312 B.C. the first aqueduct (Aqua Appia) was constructed under the direction of the censors Appius Claudius and C. Plautius, drawing water from the Via Collatina (Casale della Rustica). Until then, Romans had drawn water from the Tiber, scant springs, and wells. The same censors began construction of the Via Appia, following a path that led out of Porta Capena toward Capua.

During the Third Samnite War, Rome saw the erection of the temple of Bellona in the Campus Martius, vowed by Appius Claudius after 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.). From this period date the peperino sarcophagus of L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, conqueror of the Samnites at Sentinum (295 B.C.), and the funerary elogium of his son L. Cornelius Scipio, conqueror of Corsica, mentioning his dedication of the temple of Tempestates outside Porta Capena (295 B.C.). Both monuments formed part of the hypogeum of the Scipios, located between the Via Appia and Via Latina on the ancestral estate of the illustrious gens Cornelia. Largely funded by the rich spoils of the war against Pyrrhus (280–275 B.C.), the censors Manius Curius Dentatus and L. Papirius Cursor (272 B.C.) brought a second aqueduct to Rome, the Anio Vetus, drawing its waters from the Anio along the Via Valeria (S. Cosimato).

Monumental commemorations of the First Punic War (263–241 BC) were the rostral column of C. Duilius in the Forum and the temple of Spes in the Forum Olitorium, vowed by M. Atilius Calatinus. In 242 BC the censor C. Aurelius Cotta built, along the route 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 Aventine granary on the Tiber, at the foot of the Aventine. In 233 BC the censor C. Flaminius, already victor over the Cisalpine Gauls, laid out the via Flaminia from Rome to Ariminum. Shortly afterwards (221 BC) C. Flaminius erected on the Campus Martius a second great circus (Circus Flaminius), intended for the plebeian games. A reminder of the Second Punic War (218–202 BC) was the temple of Venus Erycina on the Capitol, vowed by Q. Fabius Maximus after the battle of Trasimene.

3. 3rd and 2nd centuries BC — By the close of the 3rd century BC, Rome, now mistress of Italy, was preparing for world conquest. During the Macedonian Wars (214–168 BC), with the influx of wealth, building activity in Rome intensified, producing finer and more commodious structures. The old temples, largely of timber with terracotta ornament, gave way to mixed Etrusco-Hellenistic stone temples, mostly pseudo-peripteral: typical examples are the little Ionic temple of Fortuna Virilis, the temples in the Forum Olitorium of Juno (197 BC) and that of Pietas, vowed by Manius Acilius Glabrio after the battle of Thermopylae (182 BC). Beside this type of sacred edifice the Italic round form was still preserved, as in the temple group at Largo Argentina. It was precisely in the Campus Martius, near the Circus Flaminius, that numerous temples were erected in this period; among them the temple of the Lares Permarini, vowed by L. Aemilius Regillus after a naval battle against the praefects of Antiochus (190 BC), and the temple of Hercules Musarum, in memory of the victory of M. Fulvius Nobilior over the Aetolians (189 BC). Meanwhile on the Palatine a new great temple arose to house the sacred black stone of the Magna Mater or Cybele, brought from Pessinus (191 BC). It was the first temple in Rome with large peperino columns and a broad approach stairway. The censors M. Fulvius Nobilior and M. Aemilius Lepidus (179 BC) were responsible for the construction of a bridge over the Tiber (pons Aemilius), not far from the ancient pons Sublicius, as well as for the Na-

Valia, a station for ships on the left bank of the Tiber, between the Forum Boarium and the Porta Trigemina. The same families founded in the Forum the Basilica Fulvia Aemilia, modeled after the Hellenistic basilica, a three-aisled building with apses, a covered meeting place for commercial transactions, also serving as a tribunal. Already in 184 BC, M. Porcius Cato had erected the Basilica Porcia west of the Curia Hostilia. Q. Caecilius Metellus, after his Macedonian triumph (148 BC), entrusted the architect Hermodorus of Salamis with the construction of a temple in the Campus Martius dedicated to Jupiter, which, according to Velleius Paterculus, was the first marble temple seen in Rome, and it was surrounded by porticoes in which the temple of Juno (S. Maria in Portico) was already included, dedicated in the year 175 BC by M. Aemilius Lepidus.

After the capture and destruction of Corinth (146 BC), a true embellishment of the city began. Architecture was taking on that direction which, according to Strabo, made Rome superior to Hellenic cities even at that time. New districts arose outside the city of Marius, rendering it worthless. The building boom took place especially in the Campus Martius towards the Tiber, where commercial activity was greater, outside the Porta Capena and in Trastevere. In the year 144 BC, 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 drawn from the springs of Monte Autore, near Agosta. In the year 125 BC, the Tepula water was brought to Rome, from the springs near Casal Morena, west of the Via Latina. The end of the 2nd century BC saw the restoration of the Temple of Castor in the Forum, carried out by L. Caecilius Metellus (117 BC), the construction of the Pons Fabricius, providing access to the Tiber Island, begun by the curator viarum L. Fabricius, the reconstruction of the Temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal by Papirius Cursor (113 BC), and the erection of the Porticus Minucia, near the Forum Holitorium, for the sale of grain (112 BC). In the year 101 BC, the section within the walls was built, by decree of the Senate, by Q. Lutatius Catulus, works of enlargement and restoration of the Tabularium, on the slope of the Capitoline facing the Forum, a building intended for the archives of the city.

From the 4th to the 1st century B.C. – The disastrous rivalries between Marius and Sulla brought armed legions into the sacred precincts of Rome; the city was given over to sack and fire, and the Capitol with its venerable temples was burned (82 B.C.). Sulla himself began the restoration of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, having some columns brought from Athens from the Temple of Olympian Zeus. The reconstruction work was completed under Q. Lutatius Catulus, who was granted the extraordinary title of curator restituendi Capitolii.

During the First Triumvirate a new bridge was built over the Tiber by the urban prefect L. Cestius (pons Cestius). In 56 B.C., through the munificence of the great Pompey, Rome had in the Campus Martius its first theater built of solid material (opus caementicium faced with marble); the curve of its auditorium is still indicated by the semicircular shape of the Palazzo già Righetti, which stands on the theater’s foundations in Via di Grotta Pinta. The steps of the auditorium formed two broad staircases leading up to the Temple of Venus Genetrix. Behind the stage stretched vast porticoes enclosing gardens and avenues (between the Via di Torre Argentina and the Via del Monte della Farina). In these porticoes were large apsidal halls, one of which, the Curia Pompeii, was the scene of Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 B.C.).

It was Julius Caesar who first conceived a grand expansion of the old city; in 45 B.C. he issued the decree de urbe augenda, intending to build in the Campus Martius, but death prevented him from carrying out this noble plan. Nevertheless, the great mansions and suburban villas began to be adorned with decorative sculpture and painting by free Greek and Oriental artists. A new center of civic life was created, the Forum of Caesar, which was added to the proper Forum, occupying part of the Comitium, with the Temple of Venus Genetrix at its center, vowed by Caesar after the battle of Pharsalus and dedicated after his triumph in 46 B.C. To the great statesman are also due the beginning of the construction of the Basilica Julia in the Forum and 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 bequeathed to the Roman people by will. At that time, in the western part of the Campus Martius, closer to the Tiber and still uninhabited, tombs were erected; Sulla was buried there, and in 44 B.C. the tombs of the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, who had died following the battle of Mutina, were built there. Part of Hirtius’ tomb came to light again in 1937 during consolidation work on the Palazzo della Cancelleria. In 29 B.C., after his celebrated triumph at Actium, Octavian dedicated in the Forum the Temple of Divus Julius on the site where Caesar had erected a new speaker’s platform, adorned with the rostra of enemy ships captured at Actium (rostra Divi Iulii), differently oriented from the preexisting speaker’s platform in the Comitium, which was adorned with the rostra of ships taken from the Antiates in 338 B.C.

The grand idea of G. Caesar to make R. a worthy metropolis of the Empire was taken up by his heir, Octavian. By establishing his residence on the Palatine, then inhabited by patricians and distinguished men, he 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 Palatine Libraries, Greek and Latin.

The transformation of R. began to take shape during the aedileship of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, the faithful friend and intelligent collaborator of the young prince (33 BC). That year saw the start of the massive reclamation works in the Campus Martius, which continued until 27 BC, when Agrippa laid the foundations of the Pantheon, dedicated to the gens Iulia and its deities Mars and Venus, and of his Baths, the first in R. of a sumptuous center for sport, intellectual life, and hygiene. To supply water, he brought to R. in 19 BC the new Aqua Virgo, whose springs were at the eighth mile of the Via Collatina (Salone). During his aedileship, Agrippa’s efforts were especially directed toward restoring the aqueducts and reviewing and expanding the sewers; he also built a new bridge over the Tiber, upstream of today’s Ponte Sisto (pons Agrippae). The reclamation extended to the unhealthy region of the Esquiline, whose vast necropolis was covered with a thick layer of earth and rubble; an elegant district soon arose there. Maecenas was among the first to lay out his famous horti there and to live in them.

Monumental and architectural development in the Campus Martius was impressive; it was soon filled with new constructions, except for an area left open to preserve the memory of the ancient military field. For this purpose, it was marked by boundary stones, one of which was recovered in Via del Seminario.

On the right side of the Via Flaminia (Via delle Murate, Via S. Claudio), a large tract of land opened to public use was adorned with porticoes named after Agrippa (Porticus Vipsania) and his sister Vipsania Pola (Porticus Polae); here, after the census of 8 BC (descriptio orbis), the great world map of the whole orb was displayed. On the left side of the Via Flaminia, Agrippa erected the Temple of Neptune (Poseidonium), at the center of a portico called the Portico of the Argonauts; of the temple, eleven Corinthian columns remain visible in Piazza di Pietra. Not far northward, Augustus later had constructed, under the direction of the mathematician Novius, a sundial (Piazza S. Lorenzo in Lucina), whose gnomon was the Egyptian obelisk brought from the sanctuary of Heliopolis, now standing reconstructed in Piazza Montecitorio.

11. The Augustan Age

In the closing decades of the 1st century BC, the works of transformation and embellishment of the city followed one another at an accelerated pace.

The Portico of Metellus was restored and embellished by the Lacedaemonian architects Batraco and Sauro and dedicated to Octavian’s sister, Ottavia (Porticus Octavia). At the same time (31 BC) the Circus Maximus, damaged by fire, was restored, and on its spina the Egyptian obelisk brought from Heliopolis was erected; it now stands in Piazza del Popolo. Next came the important construction of the mausoleum on the left side of the Via Flaminia, begun in the very year when Octavian received the title of Augustus (27 BC) and intended as a tomb for himself and the members of the gens Julia; with its circular tumulus form it continued the great Etruscan tradition.

Near the mausoleum, to celebrate Augustus’ safe return from Spain and Gaul and the peace of the world, the Ara Pacis Augustae was erected, a notable monument of Augustan Roman art characterized by composed realism (23 BC), dedicated in the year 9 BC. In 13 BC construction began on the Theatre of Marcellus, dedicated in 11 BC, and the Antro Theatre built by L. Cornelius Balbus, a friend of Augustus, was inaugurated (Palazzo Cenci).

Division of Rome into 14 regions. In 8 BC, following a general census, Augustus proceeded to reorganize Rome by dividing it into 14 regions.

The numerical subdivision began from the southern part of the city and proceeded in a circular fashion from south to east, then turned northwest and west.

La 1st region (Porta Capena) extended south of the Servian walls, from the Porta Naveia to the Porta Querquetulana along the urban stretch of the Via Appia and Via Latina; the 2nd (Coelimontium) included the Caelian Hill; the 3rd (Isis et Serapis) part of the Oppian, the Carinae, and the Subura; the 4th (Templum Pacis) the Vella and the remaining parts of the Subura and the Carinae; the 5th (Esquiliae) the Esquiline proper and the urban territory beyond the Servian wall; the 6th (Alta Semita) the Quirinal and the Viminal; the 7th (Via Lata) took its name from a wider stretch of the Via Flaminia and extended to the right of this road as far as the Quirinal; the 8th (Forum Romanum) included the Fora, the Capitoline, and part of the Velabrum; the 9th (Campus Martius) the part of the ancient Campus Martius extending to the left of the Via Flaminia as far as the Tiber. The 10th region (Palatium) included the Palatine; the 11th (Circus Maximus), the smallest of the Augustan regions, was formed by the surroundings of the Circus Maximus and part of the Velabrum. The 12th (Piscina publica) included the pseudo-Aventine and the area between the Via Appia and the present-day Via di Porta S. Paolo; the 13th (Aventinus) the Aventine; and the 14th (Trans Tiberim) the plain on the right bank of the Tiber as far as the Janiculan and Vatican hills. Not all of the above-named regions date from the Augustan age; some, such as those of the 3rd and 4th regions (Isis et Serapis and Templum Pacis), take their names from buildings constructed later; their original names are unknown. Each region was administered by a curator chosen by lot annually from among the praetors, aediles, and plebeian tribunes, and was subdivided into compita and vici. Each vicus was presided over by vicomagistri, who were entrusted with performing sacrifices on the compital altars in May and October in honor of the Genius of Augustus and the Lares.

The renewal of Rome also led to a transformation in its building. Alongside Hellenistic Pompeian-style domus, a new type of very tall rental housing (insulae) became widespread, with external balconies and windows closed by sheets of mica and selenite and by shutters; a form of dwelling that anticipated the modern one. In the absence of precise data, it is difficult to estimate the population of Rome, capital of the Empire; it may be supposed that at the height of its splendor it rose to over 1,000,000 inhabitants. The great reorganization of Rome was completed 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 zones of respect along the banks of the Tiber and the watercourses. Augustus also provided for a further enlargement of the Forum, made necessary by new needs; through expropriations and the demolition of old huts, the Forum of Augustus was created, enclosed by a wall designed to hide the humble houses on the slope of the

(Ist. Geb. let. naz.)
Quirinal; on 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

I. 1st Century of the Empire. — Under Tiberius (14–37) de Vonsi, besides the reconstruction of the temple of Concord, which was dedicated as the templum Concordiae Augustae, begun during the lifetime of Augustus, the enlargement of the imperial palace on the Palatine (domus Tiberiana) connected by a cryptoportico to the house said to be that of Livia, also believed to be his paternal home. Moreover, Tiberius had the Castra Praetoria built, the permanent quarters of the Praetorian cohorts.

His successor Caligola (37–41) further enlarged the imperial palace with imposing constructions, beneath which runs the clivus Victoriae. He also dedicated the temple of Augustus beneath the Palatine and began the construction of a circus (Gaianum), beyond the Tiber, near the Via Cornelia, completed by Nero, whose spina he adorned with the great obelisk that now stands at the center of St. Peter’s Square in the Vatican. He had also planned to erect 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 extended, reflecting the expansion of the empire’s borders, though remaining distant from the extreme limits of the inhabited area. Claudius restored the arches of the Aqua Virgo and completed the restoration of the Theatre of Pompey, begun by Tiberius after damage from a fire. A temple dedicated to his memory (templum Divi Claudii) was erected by Agrippina on the slope of the Caelian overlooking the Flavian Amphitheatre, destroyed by Nero and magnificently rebuilt by Vespasian.

The reign of Nero (54–68) marks another milestone in the architectural history of Rome. The capricious emperor, who was also a refined aesthete, first conceived the construction of a vast imperial residence, extending from the northern slopes of the Palatine, including the Velia, to the slopes of the Oppian; it was therefore called the domus transitoria, connecting the Palatine to the Esquiline. The famous fire, described by Tacitus (Ann. XV, 83), which raged from the night of July 10 to 19 in 64, devastated three regions of Rome and damaged the others, leaving only four unscathed; it did not spare the new Neronian construction, which was not yet complete. When work resumed, the grandiose idea was reduced and confined to a complex of buildings no longer connected to the Palatine but extending from the Velia to the Esquiline. The architects Severus and Celer directed the works, and the decoration was entrusted to the painter Fabullus. This new imperial residence, due to its lavish luxury, was called the domus aurea, but it had a fleeting existence. The great bronze statue of Nero with the radiate head,

The work of Zenodorus, which stood in the vestibule of the Domus Aurea, was removed and later re-erected by Hadrian near the Temple of Venus and Rome. The serious damage caused by the fire was soon repaired; the execution of the new urban plan brought symmetry and regularity to the reconstructions and a renewed artistic elegance. Care was taken to reduce the spread of fires as much as possible by isolating houses and eliminating shared walls.

Amid the tumult of a heterogeneous population exceeding a million, amid the desolation caused by the terrible fire and the feverish activity of rebuilding, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, moved about. The tragic siege of the Capitoline Hill 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 we owe the completion of Nero’s plan for the general reorganization of the city and the expansion of the pomerium. Based on the new census (73–74) and the mensura urbis, the new iconography of the city was delineated and displayed on an external part of the templum Urbis (SS. Cosma e Damiano), the city archive erected by Vespasian in the Forum Pacis, which he had created to commemorate the Jewish Peace (75–78).

On the Palatine, construction began on the grand Flavian Palace, and on the site of Nero’s artificial lake in the Domus Aurea work commenced on the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum), inaugurated by Titus in the year 80. A triumphal arch was erected for him at the summit of the Sacra Via, a type of monument purely of Roman artistic creation.

The reign of the mild Emperor Titus (79–81) was marred by another severe fire (80) that raged on the Capitoline, near the Circus Maximus, and in much of the ninth region. Where Nero’s gardens had once stood, Titus erected magnificent structures, a triumph of arches, vaults, and superb painted decoration.

Domitian, besides repairing the damage from the fire of the year 80, is responsible for a further expansion of the imperial palace on the Palatine and the construction of the Stadium (Piazza Navona) and the Odeum (Monte Giordano) in the ninth region.

Nerva (96–98) further enlarged the Fora with the creation of the Forum Transitorium, dominated by the Temple of Minerva.

Sec. II of the Empire. — Thus we arrive at the building activity of Trajan (98–117), the great Emperor whose reign marks the apex of Roman power and the unification of the Empire. The Forum Transitorium of Nerva gives access to the new imposing Forum Traiani, which completes the extension of the Fora, dominated by the Column of Trajan (112–114), and presents examples of historical sculpture in which, with effective 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 Lake Bracciano to Rome to supply Trastevere. His successor Hadrian (117–38), a refined connoisseur of art, had the Pantheon rebuilt, giving that distinguished monument its round form. His architect Apollodorus of Damascus erected on the Velabrum the temple of Venus and Rome with two opposite apses. The Templum Divi Traiani was erected at the end of the Forum of Trajan, the Poseidon (Piazza di Pietra) was rebuilt and took the name of Hadrianum, and the massive bulk of the Mausoleum of Hadrian (130) was raised, to which the Pons Aelius (Ponte S. Angelo) gives access. With Antoninus Pius (138–61) political stability is matched by a lull in 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 Marcus Aurelius. In honour of this Emperor (161–80) the Antonine Column was erected to narrate his campaigns against the Quadi and the Marcomanni, in which an attempt to imitate Trajanic models is evident. Despite the accentuation of artistic decline, the technical skill of Roman portraiture still stands out in the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, which was erected and remained, until its transfer to the Capitol, on the Caelian, near the Emperor’s birthplace, close to the Domus of the Laterani. Marcus Aurelius and his son and colleague in the Empire, Commodus (180–92), oversaw the revision and extension of the customs city of Rome in line with the ever-growing expansion of the inhabited area. Rome suffered another fire under Commodus (191), with damage to the buildings of the Forum and the Palatine.

3. Sec. III of the Empire. — The reign of Septimius Severus (192–211), which marked the beginning of decline and the assumption by the Emperor of full legislative and administrative power, was beneficial for Rome. The city was compensated for the damage caused by the fire of Commodus 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 aqueducts, and a new edition of the Forma Urbis was produced to replace the one made under Vespasian, which was affixed to the rear side of the Templum Urbis. Notable constructions include a new imperial residence on the eastern side of the Palatine, which had as its façade on the Via Appia the multi-storey structure known as the Septizodium; the restoration of the Pantheon (202), the reconstruction of the Atrium Vestae and the House of the Vestal Virgins in the Forum, and the erection of the Arch of the Argentarii (near S. Giorgio in Velabro [204]). In honour of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, who was associated with the Empire, the Senate and People of Rome erected in the Forum a three-arched arch commemorating their victories over the Parthians (203). Rome received the appellation of *urbs sacra domum nostrorum*. The construction of the magnificent Baths of Caracalla in Region XII was begun under Septimius Severus (206), but it was especially Caracalla who gave them his name; Elagabalus and Alexander Severus oversaw their completion (235). In the year 212, Caracalla supplied new water to the Aqua Marcia aqueduct; through a separate channel, it reached to supply the various services of the new baths. To Alexander Severus (222–235) is owed the expansion of the Baths of Nero in Region IX, which took the title of Thermae Alexandrinae, and the bringing of the Aqua Alexandrina to Rome to supply them. The valiant Emperor Aurelian (270–275) 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 undefended; much of its inhabited area extended beyond the venerable, but now useless, walls. In response to this emergency, Aurelian decided to surround the city with a strong defensive circuit that met strategic needs. The urgency demanded speed of construction and the incorporation of existing structures (e.g., the Horti Aciliani on the Pincio, the wall of the Castra Praetoria, arcades of aqueducts, the Amphitheatrum Castrense, tombs, etc.), all for an extension of about 12 miles. A separate stretch of walls ran along the Tiber from the Via Flaminia to the Pons Aelius; part of Trastevere was enclosed within a triangular section of walls with its apex on the Janiculum (Porta S. Pancrazio). The main gates of the new circuit were named after the consular roads that led out of them. This imposing undertaking, begun by Aurelian in 271, was completed by Probus (276–282). During the brief reign of Carinus, a fire damaged much of central Rome (284).

4. 4th Century of the Empire. — With Diocletian (284-305) the Emperor was no longer merely the general of the armies, but 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 Diocletian’s reform and, though with a decadent character, rediscovered 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, to whom they were dedicated, and they were inaugurated by Constantius Chlorus in the year 305. In those years, the Theatre of Pompey and the Isaeum underwent extensive restorations. Maxentius (306-12), while Rome was no longer the center of the Empire, still understood its greatness and wished to adorn it with another monument, beginning the construction of a new Basilica in the Forum, which was later called the Basilica of Constantine, since that Emperor completed II. Also by Maxentius are the great Circus on the Via Appia and the small heroon or temple dedicated to the memory of his very young son Romulus (vestibule of the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian). In the year 312, the triumphal arch near the Colosseum was erected in honor of Constantine, victor over Maxentius; its decorations, partly taken from a similar monument of Trajanic classical art and partly from contemporary decadent art, seem to summarize and conclude the glorious cycle of Roman art and to inaugurate Christian art. Constantine had his baths built 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 Orsmida (356) and granted the city the obelisk that Constantine had intended for Constantinople and which had remained in Alexandria; it was erected, near the one placed by Augustus, on the spina of the Circus Maximus (Lateran obelisk). Among the last flickers of pagan life, mention should be made of the erection near the Forum of the Portico of the Consenting Gods, with shrines dedicated to the twelve major deities of the pagan Olympus, arranged by the City Prefect Vettius Agorius Praetextatus. Notable in this period is the reconstruction of the Pons Aurelius, originally built by Caracalla, carried out by the Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian (370). Between the years 379 and 383, porticoes were extended across the region beyond the Tiber (Porticus Maximae), ending near the Pons Aelius (Ponte S. Angelo), where a triumphal arch was erected in honor of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius.

5. Sec. V dell'Impero. - Nell'a.a. 403, per la minaccia incombente di invasioni barbariche, gli imperatori Arcadio ed Onorio fecero restaurare e rafforzare le mura di Aureliano. R. non fu più la residenza imperiale, che venne fissata in Ravenna, città numismatica. Effimero ripudio fu per R. la celebrazione del trionfo di Onorio sui Goti (405); essa vide per l'ultima volta ludi cruenti nel Colosseo con il sacrificio del monaco Telemaco. Foschi giorni quelli dell'entrata dell'esercito di Alarico, del saccheggio e dell'incendio gotico (410). Onorio (423) e sua moglia Maria ebbero il loro mausoleo presso la Basilica del Vaticano che accolse anche la salma di Valentiniano III. Ulteriori danni arrecò alla città il saccheggio dei Vandali di Genserico (455). Si giunge alla caduta dell'Impero di Occidente con la deposizione di Romolo Augusto da parte di Odoacre (476). Ultimo raggio della cadente gloria di R. fu il soggiorno nell'Urbe, durato sei mesi, del Re degli Ostrogoti. Teodorico (500), ariano, che, conscio della grandezza della città eterna, ordinò la riparazione dei monumenti fatiscenti ed istituì funzionari per la protezione delle opere d'arte risparmiate dalle rapine e dalle devastazioni delle orde barbariche. Una nuova forza succede alla precedente, la Chiesa giovane e vigorosa fra le rovine del classicismo ne raccolse gli utili germi che fiorendo e fruttificando dovevano produrre la nuova civiltà cristiana.

Roma - Veduta aerea del Foro romano e del Palatino.

(fot. Enit)

Topographie, Vicenza 1930; I. A. Richmond, The City Wall of Imperial R., Oxford 1930; B. Wiggstron, Till fragan an templen på plazza Argentina, in Eranas, 38 (1930), p. 148 sgg.; G. Lughi, I monument. 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. Giovanale, Le porte del recinto di Aureliano e Probo, in Bull. Comm. di R., 1931, p. 9 sgg.; G. Saeflund, Le mura di R. repubblicana (Acta Instit. Rom. Regni Suecae, 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, Sintesi stor. e topografi. dello sviluppo del Campo Marzio nell'antica R., in Atti del V. Congr. Intern. di Arch. in Berlino, 1939, p. 498 sgg.; A. Pignoli, Hist. de R., Parigi 1939; P. Ducati, Come nacque R., Cremona 1939; R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, Codice topografi. della città di R., 3 voll., Roma 1940, 1942, 1946; M. Santangelo, Il Quirinale nell'antichità classica (Memorie della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., 3), 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 royaume de R., 1942; A. M. Colini, Stor. e topogr. del Cielo nell'antichità (Mem. della Pont. Accad. di Archéol., 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. Lughi, R. antica. Il centro monumentale, Roma 1946; R. Bloch, Les origines de R., Parigi 1946; L. Lughi, Fontes ad topographiam veteris Urbis Romae pertinentes, Roma 1952 (vol. I: l'opera conserta di 11 voll.).

Gioacchino Mancini

III. STORIA POLITICA E COSTITUZIONALE.

SOMMARIO:

I. L'epoca monarchica

II. Dalla monarchia alla repubblica

III. L'espansione nel Lazio e in Italia

IV. La lotta per il dominio del Mediterraneo

V. La costituzione repubblicana e la sua crisi

VI. Dai Gracchi a Cesare

VII. Ottaviano e la genesi del principato

VIII. Da Augusto ai Severi

IX. L'impero assoluto.

I. THE MONARCHICAL PERIOD

Rome was certainly governed, in the early centuries of its history, under a monarchical regime. At its head was a life-long ruler (rex) — whose existence is attested, in addition to constant tradition, by archaeological finds (the stele of the forum) and by the persistence, into the republican period, of offices (rex sacrorum) and institutions (interregnum) that were connected with it — namely, the assembly of the patres, heads of the political groups (gentes) that pre-existed the formation of the State, and that of the people (comitium). This latter assembly, composed of 30 curiae, which could be subdivided into the three tribes of the Ramnes, Tities and Luceres, had limited and essentially restricted competence, substantially to the field of private law.

To an initial phase, known as the Latin monarchy, there succeeded another, that of the last three kings, which, even from the names of the sovereigns, is shown 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. However, Etruscan domination was not without benefit for Rome; from the invaders the Romans learned the interpretation of signs offered by the deity (haruspicy), the art of construction (the arch) and, above all, military organization, which formed the basis of the exercitus centuriatus, whose institution Roman tradition traced back precisely to Servius Tullius. The period of Etruscan monarchy was therefore for the city on the Tiber an age of splendor and made it «the great Rome of the Tarquins» (Pasquali).

The early rex was surrounded by several priestly colleges (v. Auguri; Feziali; Pontefice Massimo), and had beside him assistants: the duoviri perdulionis and the quaestores parricidi, who aided him in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and the magister populi, who commanded the army.

II. From the monarchy to the republic

It was most probably through this assistant of the rex that the transition from monarchy to republic was effected. That this occurred gradually and not as the result of a revolution, half popular and half from the palace, is now unanimously admitted. There is less agreement, however, on the manner in which the change was made from a single and lifelong head to a collegial magistracy. Some (De Sanctis) believe that the rex was replaced by three magistrates (praetores, from praeire, the function of those who lead the army into battle), heads of the three tribes: in 367 B.C. two of these became the supreme magistrates, heads of the civitas, while the third retained the exercise of civil jurisdiction. Others (Arangio-Ruiz) think that from the beginning, and in conformity with what is found among other Italic peoples (e.g., the Oscans), there was a pair with unequal power, which would later have been transformed into a collegial pair. Still others (de Frantzis) believe that the rex was stripped of his military powers by the magister populi, who commanded the army by his delegation; he also thinks that the magister populi was for some time a single magistrate, assisted during the period of the monarchy, and that he then formed a collegial pair with the latter, when, in the first half of the 5th century B.C., due to increased military needs, the army ranks were duplicated with the establishment of two legions.

Alongside the two praetores, who from a certain moment onward assume the name of consules (colleagues), there are, as assistants, the quaestores. In cases of serious necessity (rei gerundae causa and seditionis sedandae causa), an extraordinary magistrate (dictator) is substituted for the supreme ordinary magistracy; all other magistrates are subject to him. In this figure is revived the ancient magister populi, with his unlimited power, against which neither intercessio (q.v.) nor provocatio can be opposed.

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

A first result of this struggle between patricians and plebeians, characterized by secessions or threats of secessions (Aventine, Sacred Mount) of the plebeians under the leadership of their chiefs (tribunes), was the establishment, for the years 451 and c. 450 BC, of two boards of decemvirs *legibus scribundis* who drew up the Law of the Twelve Tables (v.). It was only in 445 BC, however, with the *rogatio* Canuleia, that intermarriage (*conubium*) was granted to the plebeians: an open path to other claims. In the years following the legislative decemvirs, the *Fasti* record alternately consular pairs and boards of military tribunes with consular power, in varying numbers. To this latter magistracy, composed of the senior officers of the legions and to which recourse was probably had due to the increased military needs caused by the struggles for expansion, plebeians were also admitted. Finally, in 367 BC, with one of the Licinian-Sextian laws, it was established that one of the consulships should belong to the plebeians (in practice this occurred regularly only after 320 BC), while a new magistracy (*praetor urbanus*) was instituted, entrusted with the exercise of civil jurisdiction.

III. Expansion in Latium and Italy

The new state found itself having to face, immediately after its establishment, a series of wars with neighboring peoples; Roman annalists insist on these wars against the *adversi* and *anniversarii hostes*. First came the Etruscans, who, attempting a renewed offensive, had to achieve successes over the Romans, as can be inferred from the traditional account concerning Porsena, king of Clusium, who is said to have besieged Rome for a long time. Then began the work of expansion in Latium. Around 493 BC, Rome allied itself with the Latins through the Cassian Treaty (*foedus Cassianum*), to which soon adhered the Hernici, inhabitants of the Trerus valley to the southeast of Rome; this alliance was primarily directed against the threat of the Aequi, settled between Rieti and the Fucine basin, and the Volsci, who had advanced from the upper Liris valley into the Lepini mountains to threaten southern Latium between Terracina (Anxur) and Antium. By the end of the 5th century BC, these adversaries had been either pushed back or contained. Even in the north, after a hard struggle (in which occurred the episode, not entirely legendary, of the Fabii at the Cremera), the powerful Etruscan city of Veii was taken and destroyed (396 BC).

Once this grave trial had passed, in 390 BC Rome suffered a Celtic invasion that ended in its conquest and near total destruction. The consequences were severe, especially from a political standpoint, as they nullified Rome’s conquest activity up to the capture of Veii. Only in 338 BC did Rome succeed in uniting the Latins and the Hernici in an alliance, turning to face the Volsci and, later, Tarquinia, Caere, and Falerii. Having consolidated its power, Rome concluded two treaties: the first with the Samnites (354 BC) and the second with Carthage (348 BC). However, Rome’s growing strength and dominance provoked the Latins (340 BC), aided by the Campanians, to rise against II. The Romans emerged victorious but soon afterward clashed with the Samnites, who saw their path to the plain and the sea cut off by Rome. In 326 BC, Naples surrendered to Rome; but when, in 321 BC, the Romans attempted to advance from Campania into Samnium, their army was forced to surrender in the Caudine Forks. The war resumed in 316 BC, with an initial major success for the Samnites, followed two years later by a Roman defeat at Terracina. After a phase of Roman successes in the Liri Valley and Apulia, in 310 BC Rome found itself simultaneously threatened by the Samnites, Etruscan cities, the Aequi, and the Hernici. After a peace concluded in 304 BC, the struggle resumed in 298 BC against the Italic coalition stirred up by the Samnites. The Romans were victorious at Sentinum in Umbria, and, as a result of this and the blockade of Samnium, a definitive peace was reached in 290 BC.

Rome then turned its attention to subduing the populations to the north; victories over the Gallic and Etruscan tribes enabled the founding of colonies on the Adriatic coast. Almost simultaneously, however, the struggle resumed in the south. Some Greek cities of southern Italy had viewed the rise of Roman power with sympathy: in 282 BC, Thurii, threatened by the Lucanians, sought Rome’s aid. The liberated city welcomed a Roman garrison, much to Tarentum’s displeasure. An incident led to war with the latter, which had assumed a dominant position over the cities of Calabria and could count on military assistance from Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who sought to establish a Hellenistic kingdom in southern Italy. The Romans were defeated at Heraclea in 280 BC and at Asculum in Apulia in 279 BC; but after an unsuccessful campaign in Sicily and a battle of uncertain outcome near Beneventum, Pyrrhus left Italy. The effect of the war was the extension of Roman dominion in Magna Graecia: Tarentum surrendered, and in 270 BC Rhegium received a Roman garrison. Almost simultaneously, in the north, the Latin colony of Ariminum was founded (268 BC).

IV. THE STRUGGLE FOR DOMINION OVER THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome now found itself facing the power of Carthage; this latter had long established a commercial monopoly in the western Mediterranean and had seen its dominance over Sicily reaffirmed following the failures of Pyrrhus. 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, the Roman advance on Syracuse began, Hiero abandoned the Carthaginians, who lost Agrigento, their principal stronghold on the island, in 262. The Carthaginians were defeated at sea for the first time near Mylae in 260 and again in 257; as a result, the Romans decided to carry the struggle into Africa, where their first successes began.

After a great Roman naval victory at the Aegates Islands in 241 BC, the peace treaty stipulated among other things that Carthage evacuate Sicily. Thus Sicily became, in 227, the first Roman province, almost simultaneously with the establishment of Sardinia and Corsica as a province.

Rome immediately consolidated its position in northern Italy and the Adriatic. In 225 BC large Celtic tribes infiltrated Etruria but were defeated at Talamone; in 223 a Roman army crossed the Po; the Latin colonies of Piacenza and Cremona were founded and the military road, the Via Flaminia, was constructed from Rome to Rimini. At the same time, between 229 and 219, Rome swept the Adriatic clear of Illyrian pirates.

Meanwhile Carthage sought to compensate for the loss of power and prestige suffered in Sicily through conquests in Spain. Faced with 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 set at the Ebro. But to the south of this river lay Saguntum, a city allied to Rome since about 230. Internal strife in this city required Roman intervention in 220; the following year Hannibal Barca besieged Saguntum. From this arose the Second Punic War. Hannibal began his march toward Italy, encountering only light resistance before crossing the Alps. The Roman armies were successively defeated west of the Ticino, on the Trebia (218), and at Lake Trasimene (217); Hannibal, having entered southern Italy, established winter quarters in Apulia. The consuls for the year 216 confronted him with a large army on the Aufidus near Cannae, but once again the Carthaginians prevailed.

At the same time, Macedonia and Syracuse allied themselves with the Carthaginians; Philip V of Macedon sought to conquer Roman possessions in Illyria. Rome first succeeded in detaining him in Macedonia, then (210) arrayed the Aetolian League against him.

The war in Spain received fresh impetus from PUBBLIO CORNELIO SCIPIONE the Younger, who in 206 forced the Carthaginians to abandon the Iberian Peninsula.

In Italy too the fortunes of war were changing: Capua in 211 and Tarentum in 209 fell into Roman hands. In 207 the Carthaginian army led by Hasdrubal to aid his brother Hannibal was defeated at the Metaurus, and in 205 Hannibal left Italy to return to Africa, where Scipio carried the war (204). Having firmly established himself at Utica and secured the alliance of Massinissa, the Roman general conducted a successful campaign that culminated in victory over Hannibal at Zama (202). By the peace treaty Carthage surrendered all its possessions outside Africa, ceded Numidia to Massinissa, handed over its fleet and elephants, and undertook to pay a heavy indemnity and to wage no war without Rome’s consent. At the cost of a bitter struggle, Rome had triumphed over the only power capable of contesting her mastery of the Mediterranean; and she had achieved a vast political success, for—contrary to Hannibal’s expectations—she could rely on the substantial loyalty of her Italian allies.

The task now remained of consolidating these gains. After crushing the Celts, northern Italy was thoroughly organized by founding new colonies and constructing the Via Aemilia from Ariminum to Placentia, while Liguria was conquered and the eastern frontier secured by the foundation of the Latin colony of Aquileia (181) and, later, by the conquest of Italy.

The long struggle in Spain dragged on until the fall of Numantia (133 B.C.). At the same time the Third Punic War finally extinguished Carthaginian power. Carthage (146) was destroyed, and its territory (most of present-day Tunisia) became the province of Africa.

Rome’s dominion over the entire Mediterranean basin was achieved through a patient policy whose first phase, inaugurated in 201 B.C. by aid to Pergamum and Rhodes, continued with the war against Philip (200) and ended with Roman victory at Cynoscephalae (197) and the proclamation of Greek independence (Corinth, 196). This phase was followed by the war against Antiochus of Syria, who was first defeated in 191 at Thermopylae and again the next year at Magnesia ad Sipylum, and was compelled to accept the Peace of Apamea (188). The Third Macedonian War, against Perseus son of Philip, likewise ended in Roman victory at Pydna (168).

From this point onward Rome, which had hitherto confined itself to exerting influence in the East, altered its policy: Macedonia became a province, and Greece too was brought under Roman rule 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 which had extended its conquests to the entire Mediterranean basin was founded, at the height of the Republic, on three organs: the magistracy, the senate, and the assemblies. The magistracies had increased in number: alongside the consuls, there were not only the praetor urbanus established in 367, but also the censors (probably instituted by a lex Aemilia in 434 to conduct the census and later assuming the very high office of overseers of public morality), the quaestors, the aediles curules, and another praetor, established in 242 to administer justice between Romans and foreigners and among foreigners, and therefore called peregrinus. Alongside these patrician magistracies — inasmuch as they pertained to the entire State — (whose characteristic is to be collegial, unpaid, and temporary), there were others, called plebeian: the tribunate and the plebeian aedileship. The tribunes’ task was to defend the interests of the plebs; and to this end, intercessio (v.), by which they could block any act of a magistrate, the prensio, the power to arrest those who opposed their will, while enjoying personal inviolability (sacrosanctitas).

The principal magistrates of the Republic, those called to exercise military and governmental activities, were, like the ancient rex, invested with imperium, capable as generals of command, to which was connected the auspicium, the power to interpret the will of the gods.

In the advanced Republican period, the Senate was composed of patricians (patres) and plebeians (conscripti), through a selection first made by the consuls and later by the censors. It was this assembly, to which one gained access after holding magistracies, that constituted the true command center of the Republic, also due to the continuity of policy it could better ensure in comparison to the annual magistrates. It was responsible for directing foreign and financial policy; it assumed power (interregnum) when the supreme magistrates were lacking; and it exercised, finally, a power of ratification (auctoritas) over the deliberations of the popular assemblies.

These latter also increased in number: alongside the ancient comitia curiata, there arose, around the mid-3rd century BCE, the comitia centuriata, a military assembly of timocratic basis, composed, in its mature phase, of 193 centuries, divided into five classes according to census and arranged so as to ensure the predominance in voting of the wealthier classes.

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

In contrast to these assemblies, which gathered the entire people, there was one that was exclusive to the plebs (the *comitia plebis tributa*), which met under the presidency of the tribunes and whose resolutions (*plebiscita*) had force only for the plebs, until a *lex Hortensia* (287 BC) equated them with comitial laws (see PLEBISCITO).

This constitutional structure, in which the people were called upon to exercise political rights (albeit limited: Rome was never a democracy in the modern sense) directly and not through representatives, was nonetheless suited to a community confined, at most, to the limits of the Italian Peninsula. The conquest of the vast Mediterranean empire not only necessitated the organization of new territories according to schemes different from those used in Italy (federations, municipia, colonies), but also created the need for a strong central power capable of controlling not only the territories but also the magistrates appointed to govern them.

The form of organization employed in territories outside the Italian Peninsula was the province. A magistrate (who first bore the title of *praetor*, later of *proconsul* or *propraetor*, depending on the office previously held in the city) was placed in charge of the incorporated territory, which had become the property of the Roman people; he was assisted by ten legates of the Senate and a quaestor.

The Roman dominion had undergone enormous expansion; but it was precisely in this expansion, and in the profound changes it produced in the economy and in Roman life in general, that the primary cause of that complex series of phenomena known as the crisis of the Republic is to be found. The large influx of capital, goods, and slaves had profoundly altered the economic physiognomy of Italy. The abandonment of the fields, initially a consequence of the military operations carried out in the Peninsula, had continued because certain crops had become uneconomical and certain products (e.g., grain) reached Italian ports at prices far more advantageous than those prevailing inland. Thus arose a series of large landed estates, concentrated in the hands of the senatorial class, which was able to employ in this way the wealth accumulated during the wars, since commercial activity was forbidden to II. Instead, it was the equestrian class (ordo equester), which had progressively asserted itself and which also stood as a political force in contrast to the senatorial nobility, that devoted itself to this activity, practically under a monopoly. Beneath these privileged classes, the people, who had once exercised their political rights in the assemblies and were ready to rush to defend the Republic on the battlefield, had all but disappeared. With the disappearance of the citizen-soldier, the ancient army had been replaced by a professional one, composed of soldiers who enlisted for long periods, eager to share in the ample distributions of spoils and bound, by long service, more to their immediate commander than to the abstract and distant authority of the magistrates and the Senate. In Rome, the assemblies were left with little more than a mob 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 Rome, moreover, the discontent of the Italian allies began to gather, harshly tried by the war and too meagerly rewarded; and they had in vain sought the grant of Roman citizenship.

VI. FROM THE GRACCHI TO CAESAR

The first clear manifestation of the crisis of the Republic occurred in 133 BC, with the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. More than the individual proposals he made, what is of interest here is the fact that, for the first time, an attempt was made to assert the principle of popular sovereignty, understood not only in the sense that the will of the people should prevail over that of the organs of the civitas, but also in the sense that the people should confer upon magistrates a binding mandate and should therefore be able to revoke it when they deviated from the instructions received. To these revolutionary principles the Senate opposed others, equally at odds with the republican constitution; by attempting to resort to the senatus consultum ultimum, by ratifying the killing of Tiberius Gracchus declared hostis rei publicae, and above all by granting magistrates extraordinary powers, it anticipated the extraordinary magistracies through which the transition from the Republic to the Principate was to be effected.

The work of Tiberius was continued by his brother Gaius Gracchus, tribune in the years 123 and 122 BC; but even this tribunate, ending with Gaius’ death, only aggravated the situation that had followed Tiberius’ death.

Immediately after this, Rome had to face, in Africa, the threat posed by 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 Roman protection; the Romans, in 111 BC, began the war, which dragged on, with alternating fortunes, until 106 BC, when Gaius Marius, having defeated Jugurtha, managed to have him handed over by the King of Mauretania, to whom the Numidian sovereign had sought refuge.

Marius then turned to face the threat of the Cimbri and Teutones, who had, in 105 BC, defeated the Romans at Arausio (Orange). Having established himself in southern Gaul in 104 BC, he proceeded to reform the army and to teach it a new tactic; in 102 BC the Teutones were defeated near Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence) and the following year the Cimbri near Vercellae.

Marius had held the consulship uninterruptedly from 104 to 100 BC, and was now the recognized leader of the popular party. Two exponents of this party, L. Appuleius Saturninus and G. Servilius Glaucia, attempted, in 100–99 BC, to establish the predominance of the democratic party; but the disorders they provoked gave the Senate the opportunity for energetic repression. With the end of their attempt, the political position of Marius and that of the equestrian class, which had allied itself with the populares, declined.

But the need for reform was also recognized by the most enlightened members of the nobility: one of these, M. Livius Drusus, tribune in 91 BC, prepared a series of laws, which however met with strong opposition. Drusus, who had also presented himself as a defender of the interests of the Italic allies, was mysteriously killed. His death was the signal for the rebellion in Italy: the allies formed against Rome a veritable state, with magistrates and a senate, having its capital at Corfinium and called Italia, and with various armies prepared to march on Rome. After a year of fighting, in 90 BC, a *Lex Iulia* granted Roman citizenship to the Italic allies who laid down their arms; in 89 BC, a *Lex Plautia Papiria* extended it to all residents in Italy who applied to the praetor within 60 days.

A *Lex Iulia* granted Roman citizenship to the Italic allies who laid down their arms; in 89 BC, a *Lex Plautia Papiria* extended it to all residents in Italy who applied to the praetor within 60 days.

Soon after, the conflict between Marius and Sulla broke out, Sulla having become consul and designated to command the war against Mithridates and Pontus. When the Marian faction attempted to remove him from this command through a plebiscite, Sulla marched on Rome and occupied II. But, forced to leave to conduct the war, he left the city at the mercy of his adversaries: in 88 BC, Marius and L. Cornelius Cinna were appointed consuls without a popular election.

Meanwhile, Sulla conducted successful military operations in the East: having captured Athens in 86, he won two victories, at Chaeronea and near Chalcis; and, following negotiations with Mithridates, he quickly concluded peace with him. After reorganizing Asia, in the spring of 89, Sulla disembarked at Brundisium 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 returned to the capital. The repression against the democratic party was ruthless: the proscriptions cleared the political scene of Sulla’s opponents, 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 appointed dictator *legibus scribundis et reipublicae constituendae*, securing for himself a title and powers already entirely outside the republican constitution. The regime he established, described as *regnum* by the ancients and a "failed monarchy" by modern scholars (Carcopino), aimed to eliminate all political influence of the popular party and the equestrian class. The Senate was increased to 600 members, the number of quaestors to 20, and that of praetors to 8. The career path of magistrates and the method of appointing provincial governors were established. Holding the office of plebeian tribune disqualified one from further advancement in political careers. The number of permanent criminal courts (*quaestiones perpetuae*) was increased, with their members to be chosen from the senatorial order.

Once this work was completed, Sulla laid down his dictatorship in 79 and retired to Puteoli, where he died the following year. The structure he had laboriously erected was soon to face its first blows, harbingers of its definitive decline, at the hands of a man who had been one of his lieutenants: Gnaeus Pompey, who, as a very young man, had raised at his own expense and led to Sulla two legions, and from him had obtained, without being of senatorial age, the triumph and the cognomen *Magnus*. Pompey’s military abilities were immediately put to use in 77, when, as a private citizen, he was entrusted with conducting the war alongside the consul Quintus Lutatius Catulus against the rebellion that had broken out in Etruria, in the areas where Sulla had made large land grants to his veterans. Soon after, he was sent to Spain with proconsular *imperium* to confront Quintus Sertorius, an exponent of the democratic party who, having become governor of Hispania Citerior in 89 and later placing himself at the head of the partisans of Marius and the Lusitanian rebels, was by 77 master of Hispania Citerior. After a long campaign, Sertorius and his lieutenant Perperna were defeated (72 BC).

POMPEY returned to Italy at a delicate moment; in 74 the war against Mithridates had resumed and shortly afterward a great slave revolt, led by Spartacus, had broken out in Italy. This uprising, involving more than 40,000 men, was quelled only with great difficulty; Pompey himself crushed the last army of the slaves.

To secure the consulship without having held the lesser magistracies, he made an agreement with the popular party and the knights: and in consequence he was elected consul for the year 70 B.C., together with Crassus. The new consuls carried through some reforms contrary to SULLA’s policy, while the prestige of the Senate suffered a severe blow through the prosecution of Gaius Verres, the former governor of Sicily.

A further blow to the constitutional norms was to be dealt by Pompey a few years later. In 67 B.C., indeed, to clear the Mediterranean of pirates, a Lex Gabinia granted him, as a privatus cum imperio, command of the war, with the right to appoint legates, levy troops, command the fleet and dispose of the treasury. Thus there arose a figure of a commander with virtually unlimited powers. The success achieved by Pompey in the struggle against the pirates led to his being entrusted, by a Lex Manilia, with the command of the war against Mithridates and Tigranes; to the powers already granted him by the Lex Gabinia were added the governorship of the provinces of Cilicia, Bithynia and Asia. Between 66 and 62 B.C. he not only defeated Mithridates and made Tigranes a vassal of Rome, but completely reorganized the whole of the East: he put the provinces in order, founded various cities and created a series of vassal principalities. Syria was erected into a province, Palestine became a tributary state of Rome; the Greek cities of all these territories had their autonomy recognized and entered into direct relations with Rome.

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

Another figure was meanwhile emerging in the Roman political world: Gaius Julius Caesar. Of patrician origin, he pursued a policy in conformity with the popular party; he was impelled to this partly by a broader view of the situation that had come about in Rome, and partly by the immediate aim of counterbalancing the growing authority of Pompey.

Having come to an agreement with Crassus, Caesar probably favored in 66 B.C. the revolutionary schemes of Lucius Sergius Catilina. The conspiracy first miscarried in 65 B.C., but was reorganized in 63 B.C., the year of the consulship of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero forced Catiline to reveal himself and flee to the conspirators in Etruria, and had the rebels remaining in Rome 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 Brundisium: he celebrated his triumph the following year, but failed to obtain the distribution of lands to his veterans or the ratification of the organization he had given to the East. Thereby he came into conflict with the Senate, as Caesar had clearly foreseen. Caesar, who had been propraetor in Spain, where he had given proof of good ability and had at the time rebuilt his fortune, was elected consul for the year 59, together with M. Calpurnius Bibulus.

He made an agreement with Pompey and Crassus to exercise in their mutual interest and that of their allies the authority over the State in the years to come. He proposed a series of laws and, against senatorial opposition, had the arrangement given by Pompey to the East approved by the assemblies, while securing financial concessions for the contractors who supported Crassus.

As a result of these agreements, Caesar was assigned for five years the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, to which was later added that of Transalpine Gaul. This enabled the ambitious commander to build a solid base for his political influence by binding to himself the armies under his command: he extended Roman dominion from the Pyrenees and the Ocean to the Ardennes and the Vosges, repulsed the Helvetii and defeated Ariovistus on the Rhine, thus removing the German threat from Gallic territory.

In a meeting with Pompey and Crassus at Luca (56 BC), it was agreed that they would assume the consulship for the year 55 BC: for the following five-year period, Pompey was assigned the governorship of Spain, Crassus that of Syria, while Caesar was confirmed in command in Gaul. During this time, Caesar definitively settled Gaul after his victory over Vercingetorix. However, following Crassus’ death (53 BC), Pompey deemed the moment ripe to assume a more prominent role in the State: consul without a colleague in 52 BC, he prepared to support the senatorial policy militarily. Faced with this stance, Caesar sought to negotiate with the Senate for his appointment as consul for the following year (49 BC), upon the expiration of his provincial governorship. This contravened a constitutional norm, but Caesar demanded it chiefly to avoid a judgment on his conduct as governor. The Senate not only refused the appointment but also summoned Caesar. He crossed into Italy and crossed the Rubicon (January 49 BC), which marked the boundary of his governorship. Pompey abandoned Rome and Italy with the magistrates and the Senate to prepare in the East for the decisive battle. Caesar, having occupied Rome, went to Spain where he defeated Pompey’s lieutenants; and after briefly returning to the capital, he went to Macedonia to confront his rival, whom he defeated at Pharsalus (48 BC). Having moved on to Egypt, where Pompey, believing he would find refuge with the king, instead met his death, Caesar became embroiled in the dynastic struggle of the Ptolemaic family. Returning to Rome in the autumn of 47 BC, he was named dictator, but before he could devote himself to governance, he was compelled to confront the last remnants of the Pompeian party, which had reorganized in Africa, securing the alliance of Juba, king of Numidia. After defeating his adversaries at Thapsus and reducing Numidia to a province (46 BC), Caesar was now master of the State. As perpetual dictator, invested with the hereditary title of imperator, holder of the praefectura morum, and invested with tribunician inviolability, he conducted himself as a monarch in his acts of government. This was not, at that moment, the path to securing dominion over Rome and its Empire: and for this political error Caesar fell in 44 BC, a victim of a conspiracy.

VII. Octavian and the genesis of the principate. Octavian, Caesar’s nineteen-year-old grandnephew, initially seemed to adhere to the party of his uncle’s assassins, chiefly intent on consolidating his own position: he secured confirmation by the assemblies of his adoption by Caesar, obtained the consulship in August 43 BC, and managed to be granted an imperium superior to that of the consuls, the right to levy troops, and the task of defending the State against rivals Antony and Lepidus.

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

Having definitively defeated the senatorial party in the final battle of Philippi (November 42), Octavian and Antony agreed that Gallia Cisalpina should be reunited with Italy and administered by Lepidus; Gallia Transalpina was entrusted to Antony along with the eastern provinces; Octavian was assigned Spain and granted freedom of action in Italy and the Mediterranean; the African provinces were entrusted to Lepidus. In a subsequent distribution, Lepidus retained Africa, Octavian was given the West, while the East was entrusted to Antony, who was to wage war against the Parthians, while Octavian fought against Sextus Pompey.

The powers of the triumvirs were to expire, according to the lex Titia, on 31 December 38. Despite this, they continued to exercise exceptional power, and it was only in September or October 37 that Octavian and Antony met in Tarentum to decide on the prorogation of the triumvirate and set the new expiration date as 31 December 32. In 36, Octavian forced Lepidus to lay down his office, while securing by plebiscite the right to sit on the tribunician bench with the attached inviolability.

Public opinion meanwhile watched Antony’s conduct in Egypt with growing concern; popular indignation reached its peak when Octavian published the will that Antony had entrusted to the Vestal Virgins, from which it appeared that Antony intended to transfer the capital from Rome to Alexandria. Antony was thus, albeit legally, deposed from the triumvirate, and war was declared against Cleopatra.

Octavian, to whom command of this war was entrusted, adroitly strengthened his position by a sworn oath of loyalty sworn to him by Italy and several provinces (*coniuratio Italiae et provinciarum*: *Mon. Ancyr.*, 25); he defeated Antony on 2 September 31 at Actium, occupied Alexandria on 1 August 30, and deposed the Ptolemaic dynasty, replacing it in power. Returning to Rome, he celebrated, on 13–15 August 29, the triumph that marked the end of the civil wars.

He now set about a work that was not merely reconstruction but, through successive stages, the foundation of a new regime. In 28 Octavian assumed the consulship. Yet his personal position was far more exalted than that of his colleague in the supreme republican magistracy. He bore, in fact, as his *praenomen*, the title of *imperator*, which belonged to him as Caesar’s heir and which the Senate had confirmed to him in 29 BC.

Moreover, Octavian held the title of princeps Senatus, and through various grants had come into possession of almost all the powers and prerogatives of the plebeian tribunes, even though, as seems more likely, the tribunician power was granted to him in full only in 23 BC.

Finally, he was still invested with the extraordinary constituent power whose first source had been the lex Titia, as is evident not only from his acts but also from the terms in which the sources describe the renunciation he made in the Senate session of 13 January 27 BC.

He himself states (Mon. Ancyr. lat., VI, 13–16) that, by the consent of all and indeed of the entire people, he transferred the State (and thus the powers of the State) from his own authority to the jurisdiction of the Senate and People of Rome. He therefore relinquished (as confirmed by other sources) the constituent power and the overall command of the troops, while retaining all other powers, titles, and prerogatives.

In exchange for this renunciation he was granted the title of Augustus (meaning “one who is sacred by divine designation”), and a whole series of honors were bestowed upon him. To understand his position precisely, it is important to consider what he himself says about the period following the renunciation of 27 BC. He states (Mon. Ancyr. lat., VI, 31 ff.) that he was superior to all in auctoritas, without, however, having greater potestas than those who were his colleagues in the consulship between 27 and 23 BC. Now, the term auctoritas is widely used in Roman law, both public and private; the specific meaning it assumes in the case of Augustus denotes... the legally preeminent position of the man in whose person public power is inherent, in a manner entirely different from that in which it is attributed to the magistrates of the Republic; and it is linked to the new concept of the maiestas of the emperors, in which the religious element is emphasized (de Francisci).

This auctoritas was in turn concretized in the grant of powers. Augustus was indeed invested with a ten-year proconsular imperium, governing the provinces not yet pacified and commanding their troops; and he obtained the cura et tutela rei publicae universae, that is, in essence, the faculty to perform all those acts and take those measures he deemed beneficial for the welfare 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 was completed in 23 BC, when he resigned the consulship (and was never again to assume any republican title): in that year, in fact, he was granted the tribunicia potestas (in its fullness) for life and an imperium proconsulare (infinitum, i.e., not subject to the limit of the pomerium, and maius, as superior to that of any magistrate). Yet both powers were granted to him under the title of Augustus, by which he confirmed, as emperor, that he had been confirmed by the Senate in 29 BC.

Rome – The Ara Pacis Augustae, in its final reconstruction – Rome.

He was granted these powers separately from the respective republican offices.

With the foundation of the principate, a bureaucracy was created, a series of functions that gradually absorbed the prerogatives of the ancient magistracies. Some of these offices were preserved but assigned new functions within the new constitutional framework; however, they lost any direct force in the governance of the state. The comitia were summoned by Augustus to legislate and passed numerous and important laws (on electoral corruption, on public and private violence, on public and private trials, on the regulation of marriage, etc.); but their function was destined to wither as the authority of the princeps increased. The organ that instead saw an increase in its functions was the Senate (and this may explain Mommsen’s opinion, who defined the Augustan regime as a diarchy formed by the princeps and the Senate); it acquired broad competence in criminal jurisdiction and became capable of issuing legal norms: the senatus consulta indeed became sources of law. Even in this case, however, this increased competence was more apparent than real, since very often the senatus consultum was nothing more than the text of a proposal (oratio) by the princeps adopted by the assembly.

By virtue of his powers, the princeps then influenced both civil and criminal justice, both by judging in appeal and by entrusting his own officials with the right to judge without observing the rules of ordinary procedure (cognitio extra ordinem). Finally, he made his authority felt in jurisprudence as well, by granting to certain jurists the ius respondendi ex auctoritate principis. Moreover, he could directly manifest his will in the normative sphere through imperial constitutions, which, over time, would render every other source of law obsolete.

It can therefore be readily concluded that, at the end of this complex legal revolution, one finds oneself confronted with a new body, superimposed upon the republican constitution, which is formally preserved but destined to atrophy.

VIII. FROM AUGUSTUS TO THE SEVERANS

Tiberius (v.) succeeded Augustus; he had been adopted by his predecessor and had already, during Augustus’s lifetime, received a share of his powers (imperium proconsulare maius) to facilitate the transfer of authority. In the principate, in fact, there was no predetermined system for ensuring succession: this lack, which persisted through the centuries and for which various expedients were devised from time to time, was one of the causes of the crisis that culminated in the transition from the principate to absolute empire.

Deferring to the respective separate entries for this and the other emperors, it will suffice here to recall the essential lines of policy under them. Under Tiberius, the Germanic territory facing Mainz was occupied; CLAUDIUS, MATTHIAS (v.), expansion into Germany was further extended, while Mauretania, Thrace, southern Britain, Raetia, and Noricum were reduced to provinces. Under Nero (v.), the Kingdom of Pontus was transformed into a province and Armenia again became a tributary state of Rome. The revolt in Judaea was crushed with bloodshed and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian (v.), to whom is also owed the definitive conquest of Britain.

A decisive assertion of the princeps’s power occurred, after the brief reign of Titus (v.), under Domitian (v.). In domestic policy he followed the path of caesarism, while in foreign policy this emperor took the offensive along the entire Rhine and Danube frontier, as far as the Main. Domitian ended his reign tragically, Nerva (v.), a mild and prudent statesman who governed the Empire with liberal principles. Under him, laws were presented to the comitia for the last time.

Under Trajan (v.), the Empire reached its greatest territorial expansion. Under this emperor, the first provincial to ascend the throne, the political and economic balance of the Empire shifted definitively from Rome to the provinces. This is immediately evident under his successor Hadrian (v.), when, under simultaneous pressure on the eastern and western frontiers, the most recent conquests were abandoned and a return was made to Augustus’s essentially defensive policy, with the creation of a fortified limes.

However, this Emperor stands out as a figure of great importance in the history of the principate. This is precisely the significance of the Empire in contrast to Rome: he traversed its entire territory, lingering only briefly in the capital. To him, outwardly a tenacious traditionalist, we owe a series of innovations that definitively consolidated the structure of the principate, organizing the army and imperial bureaucracy, and regulating the sources of law. With Augustus, the creation of new organs and offices had indeed begun, alongside the republican ones. The princeps had established his own chancellery, divided into various sections according to the matters handled (a memoria, a libellis, ab epistolis, a cognitionibus); he had appointed his own officials to the provinces directly dependent on him and to the management of particularly delicate services. Thus arose various categories of officials: in addition to the legates (v. Legato), the praefecti (with military duties, such as the praefectus praetorio, administrative and jurisdictional ones like the praefectus urbis, and those with more limited competence, such as the praefecti vigilum and annonae; a special praefectus was also entrusted with the government of Egypt), the curatores, and the procuratores (v. procuratores). Hadrian reorganized the entire career of these officials, generally drawn from the equestrian order, and fixed their economic remuneration. In the legal field, Hadrian disciplined his responsibles; in an effort to assert ever more the influence of the princeps, he entrusted the jurist Salvio Giuliano with the definitive arrangement of the Edict (v.) of the praetor, thereby halting even the residual creative activity of the praetor.

Yet Hadrian had not succeeded in creating a system capable of automatically ensuring succession. He had named Caesar and invested Antoninus Pius (v.) with tribunician power, who ascended the throne in 138 and during whose long reign a new expansion of the Empire occurred. An interesting constitutional phenomenon occurred with his successors, Marcus Aurelius (v.) and Lucius Verus, who ruled together in the years 161–69. From the death of Antoninus Pius onward, Rome had to confront a twofold threat, in the West and in the East. The pressure of the Germanic peoples was practically unstoppable, and even all the activity of the successor Commodus (v.) was confined to perfecting and strengthening the system of the Hadrianic limes. With this Emperor, what may be called the “dynasty” of the Antonines comes to a close. It is characterized by a government concerned solely with preserving the situation inherited from previous emperors, a government inspired by mildness, although precisely in this period a hardening in the policy toward Christians was recorded.

At Commodus’s death there followed a severe crisis, which ended with the accession to the throne of Septimius Severus (v.). He completed that process of equalizing the eastern regions with the other parts of the Empire which had already begun in the time of Hadrian and which paved the way for the grant of citizenship to all who were within the Roman world, Caracalla (v.) in 212.

The age of the Severi, which ended with Elagabalus and Alexander Severus (v.), is that in which the predominance of the army over every other force of the State was asserted, even in the designation of the emperors. But it also witnessed 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 severe crisis begins. It is also in this epoch that some of the most serious persecutions against Christians took place. To save the State from a ruin that seemed imminent there was needed a strong personality: this was represented by Diocletian (v.). The energetic work which he carried out seemed to restore order to the Empire; but a great part of his reforms could not, given the objective conditions of the moment, endure. Nor was the tetrarchy able to ensure the succession, and the Empire once more had a single sovereign with his successor Constantine. While referring for the historical events to the relevant entry and to the East, it will suffice here to recall that to Diocletian and Constantine is due 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-like system, at whose summit stands the emperor, with beside him four great central officials, magister officiorum (v.), quaestor sacri palatii (v.) and, for financial functions, the comes sacrarum largitionum and the comes rerum privatarum.

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 divinity, he is also a god. It is probable that this conception of imperial power was influenced by Eastern institutions (especially Persian). But it is interesting to note how this conception, aimed above all at repelling the ever more dangerous influence and at counterbalancing the weight of the barbarian troops and their leaders, was shared by Diocletian as well as by Christian or Christianized emperors, although, of course, it rested on a different basis in view of the change in the cult of the Empire.

The affirmation of the absolute power of the emperor opens the final period of the constitutional history of Rome. This period, which witnessed the definitive political decline of Italy and of Rome, and the transfer of the capital to the East, is commonly regarded as one of crisis. Yet whoever considers how this epoch saw the realization of Roman-Christian unity and the establishment of a state that is the first example of a bureaucratic-political organization of a modern type must speak not of a crisis but of a colossal transformation, through which there was perpetuated not so much a concrete political order as, and more, the idea of the empire, which was then to continue in that of the “Sacred” Roman Empire.

For legal history: Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 5 vols. in 4 tomes, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1887 sqq.; 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. Also noted are some very recent studies on particular points: G. I. Luzatto, Le organizzazioni precizie e lo Stato, in Pubblicazioni 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 sqq.; P. de Francisci, La formazione della comunità politica romana primitiva, estr. da Ann. Triestini, 21 (1951), sez. 1; U. Coli, Regnum, Rome 1951.

**IV. RELIGION OF THE ROMANS.**

**SUMMARY:**

I. Sources and studies

II. Historical precedents

III. Foundation of R. and the first phase of Roman religion. -

IV. From the foundation of the Capitoline cult to the beginning of Hellenistic culture

V. From the first Hellenistic influences to the Augustan age

VI. The Empire

VII. Private cult.

I. Sources and studies

The historical study of Roman religion faces a fundamental and enduring difficulty: Roman literary culture forms only in contact with and modeled on Hellenistic culture, beginning from the 3rd century B.C. onward; apart from relatively few archaeological documents, all data on Roman religion thus come from an era in which the educated Roman classes that transmit them think in Hellenistic categories foreign to the mental frameworks that created the oldest Roman civilization. In the religious sphere, nearly all deities are considered identical to analogous Greek deities; their myths, iconographic types, and theological conceptions are uncritically applied to them. Only facts, mostly of a cultic nature, recorded by historians and antiquarians, can serve as a secure basis for the reconstruction work essential for the scholar of Roman religion.

Literary sources must therefore undergo rigorous critical scrutiny. Moreover, the great shipwreck of classical civilization has overwhelmed most of the literature that could have been useful for present purposes: the great classical poets and school texts, late compilations, have survived more easily than the relatively reliable antiquarian writings, such as the works of Varro or Verrius Flaccus, which were still based, at least in part, on priestly writings and direct observation of facts. Inscriptions, coins, and artistic monuments likewise come from Hellenized ages and environments, barely revealing here and there some genuine element of Roman religion.

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 only a small part remains, were drawn upon throughout the duration of Roman civilization. Later scholars, such as Gellius, Macrobius, the scholastics, and the Church Fathers (St. Augustine left a summary of Varro’s lost *Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum*) drew largely from him and from some other ancient scholars (such as the aforementioned Verrius Flaccus, whose learning survives, albeit reduced, in the glossary of Festus, which in turn was abridged by Paul the Deacon). Even the poets, such as Ovid in the *Fasti* (a poetic commentary on the Roman festal calendar), rely on this grammatical-antiquarian tradition, which moreover has preserved some fragments of ancient ritual formulae (e.g., of the *carmen saliare*), of cultic regulations, of annalistic notes, etc. Valuable too are the accounts of Greek authors (Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus), who are quick to highlight the specifically Roman elements of religion.

The epigraphic sources, inscriptions scattered throughout the Roman Empire, are published in Th. Mommsen’s *CIL*, supplemented by various epigraphic journals (*Ephemeris epigraphica*; *Année épigraphique*, etc.). Apart from the innu
**ROMANIA - Porta S. Sebastiano. Reconstructed in the 5th century by Emperor Honorius and restored in the 6th century by Narses - Rome.**

Noteworthy dedications that reveal the spread of individual cults, epithets, and functions of the deities, etc., have also been preserved epigraphically in direct cultural documents (the tables of the Arval Brethren, the ritual of the secular games, the calendars, etc.).

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

It is difficult to summarize in a few words the contributions of archaeology and, in particular, of excavations, but everyone understands that, beginning with the architectural layout of a temple down to a stamped brick that allows its chronological dating, from a symbolic relief on a sarcophagus to the minute furnishings of a tomb or the remains of a funeral sacrifice, everything can be important for the study of religion.

Studies on Roman religion thus begin in 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 during Humanism remained an undifferentiated concept, one must go as far as the beginning of the last century; but precisely then, especially under the influence of German Romanticism, a clear preference for Greek civilization and religion emerges, considered older, artistically and philosophically more refined than Roman religion, which, upon examination of the data, appears as a poor imitation. It was necessary for Niebuhr’s vigorously critical stance to initiate a scientific approach across the entire field of Roman studies. After the initial attempts at synthesis by Hartung, Klausen, or the detailed works of Ambrosch or Preuner, Roman religion finally secured its place alongside Greek religion, for example, in the diligent activity—though compromised by simplistic naturalism—of L. Preller. However, a new phase, more rigorously scientific, was soon to begin.

Only under the influence and stimulus of Theodor Mommsen did the so-called philological-historical school come into being. Alfred von Domaszewski and Georg Wissowa—this latter being the author of the still fundamental handbook on Roman religion and the re-editor of J. Marquardt’s important volume on Roman religious antiquities—were Mommsen’s direct pupils. The philological-historical school laid the scientific foundations for the study of Roman religion by meticulously verifying the consistency of the data and drawing from them all possible philological deductions; yet it was prejudiced by its strictly philological limitations and by the lack of historical-religious perspectives. A certain corrective came from the development of folkloristic studies (initiated in Germany by the Brothers Grimm and exploited for the classical field by Mannhardt), from the nascent ethnological interest (in England: W. Warde Fowler), and from the universal historical-religious interest (in France: the school of Salomon Reinach). Thus Roman religion entered the material of comparative religion (and left the limited horizon of Greco-Roman comparison represented by Preuner or, later, by Roscher), though this led to an acceptance 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 broadened: Roman religion could no longer be treated in isolation nor within the framework of generic comparison. The concrete historical unity in which it must be situated is the ancient Mediterranean civilization—from Asia Minor, through Greece, as far as Spain—and within this context one must reckon with the cultural legacy of the Indo-European-speaking peoples, of which the Italic tribes form a part. At present, the entire study of Roman religion is being reopened, partly thanks to the criticisms of F. Altheim’s school against the philological-historical synthesis, and partly through the new developments in “Indo-European” comparison (G. Dumézil) and ethnological comparison (H. J. Rose).

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, *Aeneas und die Penaten* (Hamburg 1839–40), represent a meeting between new scientific demands and the still lingering Romantic sensibility, albeit with a notable lack of critical sense. J. Ambrosch’s works *Studien und Andeutungen im Gebiete des altömischen Bodens und Cultus* (Breslau 1839) and *Über die Religionsbücher der Römer* (Bonn 1843) are still worth reading. At this point, a stricter scientific criterion enters the study of Roman religion, unfortunately accompanied by a growing spiritual aridity. L. Preller’s *Römische Mythologie* (3rd ed. edited by H. Jordan, Berlin 1881–83) is more an example of the latter than the former. The school of Th. Mommsen (who in his works on Roman history, law, inscriptions, and chronology also personally addressed religious topics) reveals its character in the work of J. Marquardt, which constitutes vol. 3 of the *mommseniana Römische Staatsverwaltung* (vol. 3, 2nd ed., edited by G. Wissowa, Leipzig 1885). The works in which W. Mannhardt developed his folkloristic theses are *Antike Wald- und Feldkulte* (Berlin 1877) and the posthumous *Mythologische Forschungen* (Strasbourg 1884). For more recent general literature V. BIBLICA.

II. THE PREVIOUS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Roman religion, like every other cultural product, is essentially determined by three basic factors: the cultural heritage of the people who created it, the influences of the environment in which it arose, and the specific historical moment of creation, thanks to which it constituted itself as a unique and organic unity. One can speak of a Roman religion only from the moment when Rome exists, and not for a logical quibble, but because Rome, constituted as a political unity, distinguishes itself immediately from its environment by a spiritual orientation not before the 8th century B.C., through the work of various peoples.

The Roman religion is characterized by a strong sense of the sacredness of the State, by the importance of cosmic recurrences, and, with a specifically Roman accent, by the existence of the State.

Since in Roman literature, which arises, as has been said, much later, many deities of the calendar recede into the background and, indeed, almost disappear (e.g., Fortuna, Volturnus, Furrina), and on the other hand it is precisely these deities that, according to antiquarian data, have their own flamen, one may deduce that even the original priestly organization dates back at least in part to the period 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 colleges: that of the pontiffs, which includes the rex sacrorum, the flamens, the Vestal Virgins, and the pontiffs proper; that of the augurs; that (certainly later than the calendar) of the duumvirs (later increased to fifteen), in charge of consulting the Sibylline Books; and that of the triumvirs epulonum. In addition, there are priestly sodalities that differ from the colleges perhaps by an activity linked to single occasions or recurrences. These are: the Fetiales, the Salii, the Luperci, the Arval Brethren, and the Titii. The spheres of competence of individual priests are well delimited. The rex sacrorum has specific functions, probably those that, even in the time of the calendar, were reserved for the king (cult of Janus). The pontiffs are the expert regulators of the sacred life of the State, the overseers of every cult, without specific relations to particular deities or to particular types of religious function. The flamens, on the other hand, are particular priests of individual deities—the three major flamens are those of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus—though this does not exclude their participation in the cults of other well-defined deities; the same applies to the Vestal Virgins. The augurs have the exclusive task of ascertaining the divine favor for the enterprises of the State and of

Based on the names of festivals, the priestly specialties, and more recent data, one can partially reconstruct the great variety of rites. The sacrifices themselves, which could be either bloody or bloodless, were very diverse: male victims were owed to male gods, female victims to goddesses; even the color of the victim depended on the nature of the deity (black victims to the Underworld gods); to Jupiter, on the Ides, a sheep was owed, to Janus a ram, to Mars a horse or the *suovetaurilia* (a sacrifice of a pig, a sheep, and a bull), etc. In addition to sacrifices, there are lustrations, purificatory rites. Some rites are connected with processions, others with dances (such as those of the Salii), others with races of men (the Luperci) or of horses (*equus october*), etc. The antiquity of other ritual forms, such as the *votum*, the *auspicium*, the *evocatio*, etc., is beyond doubt.

Sacred places are well defined: some deities must have their sanctuaries outside the pomerium, others within the city. In this first phase, it seems that stone-built temples were lacking: 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 above-characterized aspects of Roman religion were thus established in the period between the founding of the city and the beginning of the 5th century B.C. They represent the permanent foundation 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 had attained in Rome an organic and autonomous form, clearly distinct from all other religions of the surrounding environment and, a fortiori, of the world. This foundation would remain faithfully preserved in public worship throughout the duration of Romanity. It is not, however, a rigidly closed system, but merely a foundation, susceptible to organic expansions dictated by needs that arose in the course of history.

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

This political revolution places Rome in decisive contrast with its environment, compelling it to 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 demands. These two fundamental motifs, together with an extraordinary cultural development due both to a heightened self-awareness and to close contact with surrounding peoples and the broadening of historical horizons, determine the evolution of Roman religion between the 5th and 3rd centuries B.C. The new cults, which now find their place in well-constructed temples, rise to the level of classical Greek spirituality: the plastic divine figures of the Hellenic Olympus appear in Rome. Apollo, whose veneration is already a presupposition for the use of the Sibylline Books (introduced into Rome perhaps as early as

The regal period and kept in the Capitoline temple), obtained a temple in 431; Mercury still in 495. In the lectisternium of 399 B.C. the “twelve gods” of Greek cult appear. Meanwhile, the plebs delineates 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 goddesses Demeter, Dionysus, Persephone), as early as 494 B.C. The cult of Diana also took place, besides its aspect of “foreign” policy (it is a Latin federal cult under the aegis of Roman hegemony), it has a plebeian character. The struggle of the plebs in the religious field culminates in the conquest of the right to enter the public priesthoods, sanctioned by the lex Ogulnia (300 B.C.). As Rome extends its dominion, it naturally extends its religion as well: it welcomes, transforming them according to its own spirit, the cults of the subject peoples (Diana, in Rome, loses the slave-priest she has in the Arician valley; Juno Sospita the serpent cult connected with her at Lanuvium; Fortuna Primigenia the oracle which is her specialty at Praeneste, etc.). Moreover, great development is achieved by the cults that consecrate the fundamental ideals that must guide Rome in this period of its ascent: as in the archaic age the cult of Fides (whose great antiquity is shown, besides by tradition, by the participation of the three major flamens), now that of Spes (477?), Salus (302), Concordia (367)—with reference to the conflicts between patriciate and plebs—of Victoria (294), express the sacred sense that Rome confers on the cornerstones of its conduct.

V. FROM THE FIRST HELLENISTIC INFLUENCES TO THE AUGUSTAN AGE

In few national histories is there observed such a sudden break in cultural development as that which occurs in Rome at the first direct contact with the Hellenic world. And this is understandable: the Greeks at that period had already surpassed the peak of their maturity and displayed tendencies toward cultural and intellectual refinements. Rome, essentially archaic but with aspirations to superiority, sought to assimilate that higher cultural degree which impressed her in her adversaries. From one moment to the next (in the 3rd century B.C.: from the first wars with Magna Graecia) there arose the intellectual, literary, and artistic culture of Rome.

In the religious sphere the State controlled the accepted cults. Aesculapius was the first Greek divinity accepted by Rome itself (295 B.C.). But by now Greece was no longer the sole Greece: it was the Hellenistic world, saturated with Oriental influences. From this world there came to Rome, in 205 B.C., the Phrygian cult of Cybele, called in Rome Magna Mater Deum Idaea (with allusion to the Trojan origins of the Romans): characteristically, Roman religion received it only on condition of transforming it in accordance with its own ritual forms and of isolating those elements incompatible with these, entrusting them to Phrygian priests who did not figure in public worship.

In the 3rd century, and even during the Hannibalic wars, the continuity of public worship is demonstrated by a series of temple foundations dedicated to the most ancient deities: Consus, Pales, Tellus, Janus, Juturna, etc. But among private individuals, and precisely both in the intellectual class now wholly devoted, body and soul, to Hellenistic culture, and in the populace which had become extraordinarily mixed during the dizzying growth that had transformed a small city into a world power, there occurred a notable estrangement from archaic religion. The State, on its guard, fought cults incompatible with its religious policy: the sanguinary repression of the Bacchanalia (186 B.C.) constituted an energetic beginning of that series of measures which the State would take regarding every religious trend that, under the sign of individual salvation, led to neglect of the supreme public interest: thus it would arrive, through hostility toward Oriental cults, astrology, the Jews, up to the persecutions of the Christians.

In the 1st century B.C., the ruling classes themselves could hardly separate their public duties from their Hellenistic cultural formation. One aspect of the Hellenistic-Oriental religious world was the sacral conception of monarchy: precisely what AUGUSTUS had to overcome in order to establish his own spiritual line. The first great Roman leaders who operated on a world scale, such as Scipio Africanus, already showed themselves receptive to Hellenistic forms of monarchy, and their pretensions found full consensus among the mixed multitude. But this situation matured especially in the times of Sulla, Caesar, and Antony. Octavian’s victory over the latter at first appeared as a reaction of the Roman spirit against Hellenistic tendencies. Indeed, Augustus, who claimed to be only the first magistrate of the State and rejected (allowing it only in the provinces) the cult dedicated to his person, made notable efforts to restore Roman religion to its ancient forms. Neglect of these had reached extreme points: from 87 to 1 B.C., there was no flamen Dialis; for many deities, scholars knew only their names (Furrina, Angerona, etc.). Augustus restored 28 temples. Yet by now neither his sensibility nor that of the people was that of the ancient Roman. As pontifex maximus, Augustus also introduced bold reforms: he imposed his personal orientations on public religion (to the new cult of Mars Ultor he transferred the privileges of the Capitoline temple; he intensified the cult of Apollo; he merged his private cults, those of Vesta and the Penates, with those of the State, etc.). And around his figure there revived the ideology of Hellenistic monarchy, which with his successors would culminate in the imperial cult.

VI. THE EMPIRE

The imperial age brings to completion the process begun during the late Republic: a process in which Roman religion proper is transformed into the religion of the Hellenistic world dominated by Rome. It is not that the fundamental elements of Roman worship disappear: through its administrative and military organs, Rome imposes upon the world the respect for its gods, and particularly the Capitoline cult; on the other hand, the Italic people faithfully preserve the rites of domestic worship. But the general religious consciousness is definitively subjected to the influence of two new factors in religion: the imperial cult and the Oriental cults.

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

The Oriental cults (Isis, the Syrian Goddess, Jupiter Dolichenus and Heliopolitanus, Attis, Mithras: V. individual entries) increasingly win over the mixed masses of the Empire. But in them different nuances must be distinguished. The exotic deities could appear to the Romans as identical or similar to the deities of their own polytheism (Isis and Fortuna; the Ba'al of Doliche and Jupiter, etc.) and could be assimilated syncretistically to them: in this case they do not represent a substantial novelty in Roman religious life. Their fashion among intellectuals may deceive as to 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 Roman religion. Their most important form is the mystery cult, long opposed by the State: but when the Roman ruling classes become initiated into all the Oriental mysteries, this means two things: first, that the mysteries have already lost their original form and
ROME - The Capitoline trident with Jupiter at the center. Detail from the Arch of Trajan (114-117 AD) - Benevento.

well defined, to become all the same thing; second, that they now represent a common front, and precisely in Roman and pagan function, against the only true danger to Roman paganism: Christianity.

VII. PRIVATE CULT

In the proper sense of the term, it has no history. The difference between public and private cult lies in the fact that the latter is practised not by the State as such and its constituent elements, but by individuals and their private groupings (family, *gens*, associations), and is practised directly, without priestly mediation. Among the deities of Roman polytheism there are some that interest the State more than the individual (Janus, Vesta, Quirinus, etc.) and others the reverse (Silvanus); others again have their raison d’être only in the private sphere (deities of domestic cult: the individual *Genius*, the *Lares*, the *Penates* of the family, etc.; *v.* the relevant entries). The domestic and rural cults, in particular, retain their archaic forms throughout the duration of Roman paganism.

V. LATIN LITERATURE OF ANTIQUITY.

SUMMARY:

I. Archaic Age

II. Republican Age

III. Imperial Age.

At the dawn of the foundation of Rome, in the 8th–7th century B.C., the various Italic stocks in their different dialects had left no literary documents in the strict sense of the term. The numerous Faliscan-Oscan-Umbrian, Pelignian, Sabellian, etc., inscriptions so far recovered consist for the most part of sacred laws, dedicatory expressions, juridical formulae and cultic formulae (e.g., the *Tabulae Iguvinae*, Umbrian; the *Tabula Bantina*, of Agnone, of Capua, Oscan, etc.). Nor can the Faliscan inscription incised on a cup be regarded as the fruit of literary endeavour: *foied. uino. pipafo. cra. carefo* (today I shall drink wine, tomorrow I shall be without it: *Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum*, 8179, 80), even if this precept springs from a facile and contingent state of mind.

The Italic peoples, apart from the myths, prayers, chants, and mimetic forms handed down orally and through tradition, left a substratum that has always endured at the core of Roman mentality: clarity of thought, stern religiosity, and concrete expression of human feelings. Scanning the most ancient Latin inscriptions, one is struck by this reserve, by the grave *pietas* that permeates sacred epigraphs, laws, consular eulogies, and funerary steles. Especially from the latter, voices of wives, mothers, children, and slaves speak almost as if aware of the great mystery they have faced and serenely enumerate for the passerby the virtues they possessed in life; their phrases denote a conscious acceptance rather than a resigned abandonment. Likewise, ritual precepts, sacred laws, etc., conform to this inner sense of balance and practicality, to the affirmation of individuality which, even as it refined spiritually over the years, constitutes no small part of Latin literary expression.

I. ARCHAIC AGE

Traditionally the beginning of Roman literature is dated to the *Odysia* of Livius Andronicus (3rd century B.C.), yet this inception is not to be understood as the translation of Homer’s poem, but rather as the memory of the hymn which, in honour of *Iuno Regina*, Andronicus composed to be sung by twenty-seven maidens in expiation of certain prodigies then occurring. It is precisely the *carmen* of this *semigracchus*, which Livy (XXVII, 37) criticises for its rough composition, that worthily inaugurates the archaic age, steeped throughout in a spirit of heroism and reverent awe for the divine. The arduous work of conquest to amalgamate the fierce Italic peoples, the great epic of the Punic Wars, furnish noble subject-matter and worthy memory for the Roman, if C. Naevius be their interpreter. Naevius, who had already honourably served in the First Punic War, was the creator of a national drama with the *fabula praetexta* and his *Bellum Poenicum*, which takes its rise from the adventurous coming of Aeneas to Latium, and ideally connects the events to which the *carmina convivalia*, the *naeniae* in honour of ancestors, and the most ancient heroic and religious legends bear witness.

The *carmina convivalia*, by their very genre of poetry, constitute the forerunners of Roman epic and were sung in turn at banquets by the guests and well-born youths, to commemorate the praises and deeds of the great departed.

The archaic age is largely possessed of this devotion to history, another fundamental element of Latin spirituality. Naevius composed his poem in Saturnian metre, an ancient metre probably of a recitative nature (cf. G. Pasquali, *Preistoria della poesia romana*, Florence 1936), which Ennius, the *pater* of Latin poetry, replaced with the hexameter in unfolding the great canvas of his *Annales*.

Certain aspects of Ennius’ work bear witness to contact with Greco-Hellenistic culture. Much has been written and discussed on this encounter between Latin and Greek mentality, especially in the last century. Today one may more serenely conclude that, while the Greek world undoubtedly revealed to Latin literary experience broader forms of culture and facilitated a more advanced technique, the two spiritual strata often remain fully distinct, and the Greek element frequently has little or no hold upon the Latin mind. Plautus boldly contaminates Greek comedies and Latinises their metres, yet the scenes and situations are stamped with the Roman environment, even if his characters bear Greek names and the stage action unfolds in a city.

of Greece. Its countless numbers betray in some of his comedies (e.g., Casina) that repertoire of burlesque genre typically Italian which arose and drew at least from the rural environment: from the fescennine verses, the Atellanae, from all the anonymous obscene 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 common sense always regained the upper hand against any infatuation with the Greek, considering it as a foreign fashion. Lucilius in his satires smiled at this, taking aim at the Hellenizing praetor Albucius (Baehrens, 59); literary criticism, in accord with public taste, rose up against Terence’s theatre, finding in his comedies too obvious a 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 survey of studies in Paideia, 7 [1952], pp. 213-217), hindered the activity of the circle of the Scipios, reproached for its manners and as a promoter of new trends.

II. THE REPUBLICAN AGE

The Republican Age finds its significant exponents in the prose of Sallust and the poetry of Catullus. The historian recounts the experiences and the dark sides of a society of whose events he was a protagonist, and it is uncertain whether his pages still vibrate with resentment or nostalgia. Catullus expresses love in its purest form, with all its irrationalities, raptures, and melancholies. Lucretius’ De rerum natura, composed *patriai tempore iniquo* (v. 41), while seeking to free minds from the fear of the gods and at the same time explaining natural phenomena, is steeped in the religious horror of one who has attempted to lift the veils of the divine. Amidst such fervor, voices calling for a return to tradition rise here and there: in the mimes of Decimus Laberius, in the maxims of Publilius Syrus, and in the honest biographies of Cornelius Nepos.

Varro of Reate retreats into the *otium* of his prodigious philological activity, while his Menippean satires reveal him as a keen and caustic observer of the defects of contemporary society.

At the close of this age, Cicero examines what of the new political and literary experiences can be integrated into the continuity of Roman tradition or, if it deviates from it, must be rejected as ephemeral. In *De natura deorum*, he combats the doubts and demands that have arisen concerning the divine, concluding that there exists *aliquod numen* (II, 2) which, in its harmonious and ordering intelligence, governs the universe. The pages devoted to morality indicate that the *summum bonum* does not reside in temporary and bodily pleasure, but that the spiritual end is another: *ad altiora nati sumus* (De fin., II, 34). His ideas on the State seek to balance the rights of the people and the powers of the ruling class; the *vetus respublica* thus ordered becomes the object of his nostalgia and his hope for the future (Ch. Wirszubski, *Libertas as a political ideal at Rome*, Cambridge 1950, pp. 79-97).

This ideal, perhaps too cautiously preserved, served him as a lifeline to survive in the whirlpool of new times. The style of Caesar’s Commentaries, cold and detached notations of a great man of arms and a very high-ranking politician, marks the transition to the sparse and essential phrases of the Monumentum Ancyranum. However, the culture of the Augustan age, while approving—whether consciously or not—the new transformations that the princeps’ skilful and attentive work was creating in Roman society, seems to suffer from a barely concealed anxiety. If one looks closely, these poets and prose writers, beyond what echoes the formal reflection of external reality, all express a feeling of indefinable regret. It is the subtle melancholy that shines through some of Horace’s odes, more than a call to his beloved Greek lyric poets, when the poet introduces the inevitability of death in contrast to the joyful course of earthly days; in the ode to Leuconoe, for instance (I, 11). It is that tenuity which Tibullus invokes to support his frailty and his restless love: iam possim contentus vivere parvo (I, 1, 25). Propertius enriches elegy with a romantic tone by evoking the ancient ages of Rome and the desolate squalor of ruined cities. Livy’s prose lends an epic tone to Roman deeds, extolling the poetic fabulae that lie at the origin of its history. Ovid’s poetry stands in the Augustan age like a splash of colour with softly blurred contours; with the voluptuous mythological interpretation of the Metamorphoses, with the elegant and precious complacencies of the Amores and the Ars amandi. The Fasti depict Rome’s religious festivals in vivid little scenes (see the entry on Virgil).

III. IMPERIAL AGE

In the imperial age, writers from the various parts of the Latin world became interpreters of the growing demands of humanity and reflected reality in its diverse aspects. Seneca (v.) bear witness to this, seeking to justify life’s problems not in lofty metaphysical heights but by examining and weighing earthly anxieties. It is a rich and interesting experience, even if many pages of this moralist sometimes resemble the advice of a writer careful not to overcommit himself. The *De brevitate vitae*, however, possesses a tone and sincerity that is genuine. The *Satiricon* of Petronius—if this author belongs more to the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. rather than the Neronian age (cf. E. V. Marmorale, *La questione petroniana*, Bari 1948)—raises no questions; it is a tale that is both picaresque and refined, disconcerting and coarse. The satire of Juvenal may exaggerate, but it is the frank opinion of a bitter and honest spirit. The poetry of Persius remains too much under Stoic influence to rise to true poetry.

More affable, more insinuating, and more stylistically refined are the epigrams of Martial; elegant and rhetorical is the poetry of Statius. The events narrated by Tacitus (v.) do not so much aim to be a critique as to embrace in history a reality no less painful. The burning lust for power among Roman leaders, which forms the backdrop to Sallust’s *Jugurtha*, and the firm and dignified fighting of the Roman legions described by Livy, are replaced in the *Historiae* and *Annales* of Tacitus by the atrocious and wretched spectacle of civil wars and by figures of emperors, sinister in their grandeur. Tacitus accepts the principate as an inevitable political evolution, even though men have received its most corrupting lesson and *ruere in servitium* (Ann., I, 7, 1). In Quintilian, the laws of civil and literary education, upheld by morality and common sense, assume an honest and lasting vision. At the close of the Trajanic age, taste and culture turn toward erudite pursuits (one need only think of Fronto), toward little notes and philological and grammatical skirmishes; law is codified, and in history one delights in anecdotes and spicy gossip. A system inaugurated by Suetonius and continued, though not very successfully, by the *Scriptores historiae augustae*. The Christians have already appeared, bringing with them a *exitiabilis superstitio* (Tacitus, Ann., XV, 44) that could not be suppressed, confused by Suetonius with the Jews, who were constantly causing disturbances (*Claud.*, 25), casting a shadow of perplexity over the otherwise pleasantly impressionistic but somewhat superficial correspondence of Pliny the Younger (X, 96). Almost all authors of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. are examined with scholarly curiosity, few are read with true delight. It is precisely those who start from the observation of daily life, as Apuleius does with a skeptical eye in his *Metamorphoses*, who stand out.

Some minor voices are fresher and more sincere: the anonymous *Celeuma* or sailors’ chant and the *Pervigilium Veneris*. There is a return to practical observation of field cultivation with the *De re rustica* of Palladius; this thread, never broken in Latin literary tradition, which, starting from the ancient *Carmen Arvale* down to Virgil, is never divorced from a moral and religious concern.

A little poem in which one truly feels the fresh landscape described laughing is the *Mosella* of Decimus Magnus Ausonius; bombastic and agitated is the poetry of Claudian. Thus one has reached the threshold of the 4th century A.D., and from then on it is very difficult to sever how much of the Roman spirit still remains in literary forms.

The last authors who express the dying paganism are Aurelius Symmachus, nobly anchored to the past with his oration *For the Altar of Victory*, and Rutilius Namatianus, who in his *De reditu suo* gives vent to his hostility toward the tonsured monks inhabiting the island of Capraia (I, V. 439 ff.) and pities a friend leading 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, however, long since vanished, which had animated ancient literature.

B) ROMA CRISTIANA
FINO AI NOSTRI GIORNI.

I. STORIA CIVILE ED ECCLESIASTICA.

SOMMARIO: I. R. nella S. Scrittura. -

II. Storia antica

III. Da Gregorio Magno a Stefano III

IV. I secc. VIII-XII. - V. I secc. XIII-XV. - VI. Dal sec. XVI alla Rivoluzione Francese. -

VII. La Repubblica Romana (1798-99)

VIII. Dalla fine del sec. XVIII al 1849. - IX. Dalla Repubblica romana (1849) ai nostri giorni.

I. ROME IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

The Romans are perhaps referred to in Dan. 11:30; Rome or the Romans indirectly in 1 Macc. 1:11, 7:1, and directly in the account of the alliance sought (161 B.C.) by Judas Maccabeus to defend himself against Syrian aggression (1 Macc. 8:1-32; 2 Macc. 4:11), later renewed (in 144 B.C.) by Jonathan, his brother (1 Macc. 12:1-4.16). Rome mourned with the Jews at the death of Jonathan and reconfirmed its friendship with his brother Simon (1 Macc. 14:16-19.24.40; 15:15-24). But through its interventions in Palestine, Rome was slowly preparing the conquest of the region, which was accomplished by Pompey in 63 B.C.

In the time of Jesus, after the death of Herod and his son Archelaus, who had ruled over all the land of Israel, part of the country was entrusted to tetrarchs, and Judea was placed under the government of a Roman procurator (v. PALESTINE, I). Rome is not named in the Gospels, but its emperors are repeatedly mentioned (Lk. 2:1; 3:1; Mt. 22:17-21; Mk. 12:14-17; Lk. 20:22-25; 23:3; Jn. 19:12.15; etc.) along with their representatives: the legate of Syria (Lk. 2:2), the procurator of Judea, Pilate (Lk. 3:1; etc.). The danger of harsher servitude under Rome provided the Sanhedrin with a pretext for the death of Jesus (Jn. 11:48), as one who fomented those pseudo-messianic movements that from time to time shook Palestine; while the fear of losing Caesar’s favor led Pilate to condemn Jesus, and only by asserting Caesar’s exclusive sovereignty did the Jews overcome the procurator’s hesitation (Jn. 19:12-15).

Acts 18:2 CLAUDIUS, MATTHIAS (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 in Corinth. The journey to Rome was a constant aspiration of Paul’s for many years (Rom 1:13; 15:23), which grew more ardent at the end of his third missionary journey (Rom 15:19 ff.). On the night following his arrest in Jerusalem, Jesus appeared to Paul and assured him that he must bear witness to Him in Rome, just as he had done in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). St Luke emphasizes the humane treatment accorded by the Roman authorities to Paul as a prisoner in Jerusalem (the tribune Lysias), in Caesarea (the procurators Felix and Festus), and on the voyage to Rome (the centurion Julius). During his stay in Rome, Paul dwelt in a hired house, free to receive all who came to visit him and to preach (Acts 28:30 ff.). Very different, however, must have been the treatment accorded to St Paul during his second imprisonment, if Onesiphorus (v.) had to overcome many difficulties to find the Apostle (2 Tim 1:17), who was then abandoned (cf. 2 Tim 4:9–15) and awaited death (2 Tim 4:6 ff.; V. PAUL THE APOSTLE, I).

It is generally held that the “Babylon” of 1 Pet 5:13 refers to Rome, in accordance with a metaphor not infrequent in rabbinic usage (texts in H. L. Strack – P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Midrasch und Talmud*, III, Munich 1926, p. 816); hence the letter would have been written from Rome. In the “great Babylon,” whose splendor, corruption, cruel impiety toward the faithful of Jesus, and downfall are described in the Apocalypse (chs. 17–19), traditional exegesis likewise sees a portrayal of Rome.

Christian preaching must have reached Rome very early, but there is no precise information about the time or the manner in which it began there. Converted Jews, recent Eastern and Greek converts, brought by the most varied circumstances and from different countries, must have contributed to the formation in Rome of groups of believers which, around the year 58, provoked praise and concern on the part of St. Paul, as is evident from the letter he then sent to them.

When Paul approached Rome in 61 as a prisoner, the faithful went out to meet him at Forum Appii and Ad duas (Acts 28:15); but the sacred author does not dwell on their relations with him during that first stay. The circumstances that brought the Apostle St. Peter (q.v.) to Rome are instead unknown; he took charge 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 (q.V. PRIMACY).

Rome was immediately a center of Christian diffusion and hierarchical organization, first in the surrounding regions, then throughout Italy and neighboring countries, in Africa, and in the valleys of the Rhine and the Danube; this was a firmly held conviction 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 remain obscure, even though local legends have attempted to dispel the darkness. It is understandable, however, that in the intervals—sometimes quite long—between successive persecutions, the resumption of evangelization must have been rapid and ever more extensive. Yet even regarding the internal affairs and the direct external interventions of the Roman Church in the first two centuries of its existence, information is scant. Pope Clement (q.v.), at the end of the 1st century,
ROME - Exterior of the church of St Stephen the Round, consecrated by Pope Simplicius (468-82) - Rome.

intervened with a noble and energetic letter in the dissensions of the Church of Corinth; St Ignatius (v.) bishop of Antiochia writing to the brethren of R. praised their charity, entreating them not to deprive him of the glory of martyrdom by their intervention with influential persons; St Justin (v.) died a martyr at R. after having taught there and addressed his apologies to the Emperor; Hermas, brother of Pope Pius I, wrote his Shepherd there, which then gained great credit; Pope Anicetus received the visit of St Polycarp of Smyrna who came to discuss the paschal controversy and then Pope Victor successfully strove to impose the Roman usage in this matter throughout the East. To R. in this age flocked believers of quality from every quarter to find confirmation of the unity of the Church, such as Abercius and Hegesippus; heretics also came to have their doctrines approved there, such as Valentine, Theodotus, Marcion, Praxias, Cleomenes, but they were quickly unmasked.

The pagan reaction at R. was at times particularly fierce, for the imperial police had to be very vigilant in the execution of crimes and thus the community received a particularly bloody consecration of its privilege of being at the head of the new spiritual empire (v. PERSECUTIONS); yet the number and personality of the martyrs become clearer as the cult of their tombs progressed, even if it is not always possible to establish the time and manner of their execution and if the memory of only some could be perpetuated, especially in the early days of Christian propaganda. Many moreover must have been those who, without ever having been martyred, were drawn to R. to exercise their faith.

An important testimony to the efficacy of Christianity at Rome immediately after the persecution of Decius is found when, in 251, Pope Cornelius convened a synod of sixty bishops and, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, speaks of a numerous clergy and a well-organized charity (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 43). Even in the time of his predecessor Callistus, the burial system had been organized (cf. CIMITERI CRISTIANI) 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 occurred (cf.); after that of Pope Fabian (cf.), when the antipope Novatian arose (cf.); and after that of Sixtus II, due to the confiscation of 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 legacy of internal dissension, so that after the death of Pope Marcellinus (cf.) his successors Marcellus and Eusebius were exiled by the emperor Maxentius, and peace returned to the Roman Church only with the election of Pope Miltiades (311). Under him Constantine entered Rome in triumph, definitively securing the triumph of Christianity (313) and assigning to the Roman Church the domus Faustae in Lateran, which became the stable residence of the Pontiff until the entire 13th century. Indeed, it was here that in 313 the council of bishops was held to settle the issues that had arisen in the Church of Carthage concerning Bishop Caecilianus. The disturbances in Egypt over Meletius and the heated controversies caused by Arian propaganda, resolved at the Council of Nicaea (325), did not at first have serious repercussions at Rome during the pontificate of Pope Sylvester, when the Roman Church, thanks to the emperor’s constant favor, was adorned with grand 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 pagans.

The Arian party, strengthened by the growing favor of Emperor Constantius, went so far as to demand of Pope Julius (v.) a condemnation of St. Athanasius (340); the Pope resisted and sent his legates to the Council of Sardica (345) to restore peace between the opposing factions. Later, when Constantius, having become sole emperor after the divisions among the sons of Constantine, sought to press the West in favor of Arian tenets—vainly hoping thereby to restore spiritual unity to the empire—he met with stubborn resistance from Pope Liberius (v.), who was exiled by the emperor and replaced with the antipope Felix II. Felix could not hold out, and Liberius returned; but at his death (366) discord broke out anew in Rome when part of the clergy set up the antipope Ursicinus against the new pope, Damasus, leading to violent scenes and making life difficult for Damasus, who repeatedly had to resort to the imperial tribunal. Yet Damasus proved effective in convening councils, erecting titular churches, and reorganizing the cemeteries. Under him, St. Jerome succeeded in kindling among the aristocratic women of Rome a zeal for spiritual life that did not fade.

Nor should it be thought that paganism in Rome was entirely eradicated. Although Emperor Constantius had forbidden public cult and ordered the closing of temples, in Rome the matter had to be handled with great caution. After the brief interlude of Julian the Apostate (v.), Gratian renewed Constantius’s decrees, confiscated temple revenues, and forbade public distributions of alms; he also refused the title of pontifex maximus, which the emperor had borne since the time of Augustus, and in 382 ordered the altar and statue of Victory to be removed from the Senate chamber. A deputation of pagan senators led by Symmachus failed to obtain a reversal of this order or the preservation of ancient privileges. A literary controversy between Symmachus and St. Ambrose (later joined by Prudentius) made this episode famous. Yet the pagan senators sought to recover their position during the rebellion of 392 by reinstalling the statue of Victory in the Senate, reviving ancient rites, and imposing a solemn lustratio on the city, 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; temples were closed, the college of Vestal Virgins dispersed, and a few years later even the games of the Circus ceased. Yet the charge that Christianity was the cause of the empire’s ruin persisted; St. Augustine had to polemicize against this prejudice, which lingered among part of the aristocracy and in literary tradition.

With the death of Maxentius, Rome had in fact ceased to be the emperor’s capital. Not only had Constantine founded Constantinople as the metropolis of Roman peace. Under him Constantine entered Rome in triumph, definitively secured the triumph of Christianity (313), and assigned to the Roman Church the domus Fintinae in Laterano, which became

l'Oriente, but for the West cities had arisen to rival R. Trier (later Arles) and Milan. With the Visigothic invasion Ravenna became the true capital of what remained of the Western Empire. In 410 Alaric with his Visigoths entered R. and sacked it; Pope Innocent had vainly sought to dissuade Emperor Honorius from the disaster. Pope (v.) witnessed the tragic end of the Theodosian dynasty, and though he succeeded in 432 in driving Attila and his Huns from Italy, he saw in 455 Genseric and his Vandals, coming from Africa, seize R. and depart laden with spoils. The following decades marked the agony of the Empire, until a leader of the barbarian auxiliaries, Odoacer, proclaimed himself king (476) and brought it to an end, though without destroying its internal institutions. Odoacer himself fell in turn (489–91) beneath the blows of a new barbarian, Theodoric king of the Ostrogoths, who made himself master of Italy. R. meanwhile continued to govern itself with its Senate and its Prefect of the City, but was no longer arbiter of the world’s destinies, though it preserved the memories and majesty of its past. In the East one would gladly have dispensed even with its spiritual primacy, which could not be taken from it, in the presumption that the authority of the Empire was 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 invading barbarians, but only to perpetuate deeper divisions. At R. Byzantine dogmatism had made no headway; yet against barbarian domination a sense of legitimism toward the Empire had grown lively, regarded as the continuation of Romanitas; and this, though in varying phases, dominated the events of the following age. An expression of it was the disturbances aroused by the election of Pope Symmachus (v.) at the hands of the antipope Laurence, 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. BOETHIUS), until the Gothic wars came, devastating all Italy but especially R. Besieged by the Gothic king Vitiges for more than a year and subjected to the hardest trials, the city could hold out only through the skill and valor of Belisarius, the Byzantine general who had succeeded in occupying II. Meanwhile Pope Silverius (v.) was driven from R. and deprived of his see, which was given to Vigilius (537). When the fortunes of the Goths revived, R. was besieged a second time by the Goths, and this time it was Pope Vigilius who had to leave R., because Justinian wished him at Constantinople. The city fell into Totila’s hands by treachery on 17 Dec. 546, and with difficulty the deacon Pelagius, going out to meet him, succeeded in inducing the king to show clemency; but the population was forced to abandon the city, while part of its walls were destroyed. R. remained in Gothic hands until Narses restored it to the Byzantines in 552, after fresh fighting and fresh slaughter. This was one of the most critical moments in its history; it had also been left without a Pope, who died in Sicily in July 555; the following year Justinian sent as pontiff Pelagius (v.), who, though at first received with great distrust, finally succeeded in restoring order and confidence to the afflicted city.

The Lombard invasion of 568, which threw the Byzantine territories of Italy into turmoil, halted in the vicinity of Rome, where the ominous echoes of the new barbarians’ ravages reached. From Tuscany and the Sabine region they aimed to descend upon the city, which, however, they did not reach, thanks chiefly to the efforts of Pope Gregory I. From this point onward, with the steady decline of imperial authority, began the fortunes of Rome in the Middle Ages.

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

The Lombard invasion had deeply affected, between 569 and 589, the neighboring provinces of “Tuscia et Umbria” and “Campania”; Rome itself had repeatedly been in danger, and it faced the same peril once more at the beginning of the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604). It was saved, together with the surrounding territory, thanks to the bold, timely, and opportune initiatives of the great Pontiff, even on the military and political-diplomatic fronts in his dealings with Agilulf and with Ariulf, Duke of Spoleto. Thanks to him, the popes of the 7th century no longer had to face the same trials; yet the work of Gregory the Great marked a decisive moment in relations not only with the Lombards, but also with the Empire.

Even toward the middle of the 7th century, the official announcement throughout Italy of the election of a new pope solemnly declared that it was not the power of imperial arms but the power of God and of St. Peter, in the person of the Pontiff, His vicar, that restrained and calmed, at its approach, the ferocity of the barbarians. Moreover, Gregory the Great had always acted, in his diplomatic initiatives, as a loyal subject and in accordance with his personal assessment of the interests of the Empire in Italy; yet he did not hesitate to place himself
ROMA - Interior of the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin (8th century, with 12th-century transformation; recently restored) - Rome.

also in contrast with the Exarch Romanus and with Emperor Maurice, and to proclaim himself authorized to act on the political terrain by virtue of his supreme pastoral ministry as servant of God. The resistance opposed by the successors of Honorius I (d. 12 Oct. 638) to the "Exezech" of Heraclius, issued in favor of the Monothelite doctrines, provoked the first signs of an important, though troubled, historical period. When the imperial authorities in the peninsula attempted to break this resistance, they did not dare to engage openly in the struggle on the religious terrain, given the very different situation from the time of Gregory the Great, who advised the utmost caution. The armed forces were composed, for the most part, of elements recruited through the local levy system, while the officers came from the major families of landowners, and the regular army units stationed in the various territories formed in Byzantine Italy the military class of the local populations and took their names from the respective regions or cities. They were therefore united with the populations in their aversion to Monothelitism and in agreement with the Church of Rome in opposition to the "Exezech"; and this spiritual solidarity was particularly felt by the "exercitus Romanus" (the name appears now for the first time in the sources of the time).

The Exarch of Italy Isaac therefore resorted only to material motives. The Byzantine treasury usually sent the funds for the pay of the troops of Rome to the Pope, who held them on deposit in the Treasury of the Church in the Lateran Palace, from which the paymasters drew the necessary sums. These operations often took place with great delay, provoking strong discontent among the troops. The Exarch thought to exploit this and gave secret instructions to the highest-ranking officer of the exercitus Romanus, the charitarius Maurice, to accuse the recently deceased Pope Honorius I before the soldiers of having unlawfully retained in the Church Treasury the funds regularly sent by Heraclius. The soldiers stormed the Lateran, where Severinus, successor of Honorius I, had been installed, and after three days of resistance occupied the Palace. The charitarius had the Treasury sealed (end of 639 - beginning of 640); the Exarch, who had come from Ravenna, banished the leading members of the clergy as guilty of resistance to constituted authority, proceeded to inventory the Treasury, recovered what could be claimed by the imperial treasury, and sent it back to Byzantium. The true aim of this violence, masked by legal fiction, was to intimidate the Church of Rome to make it more pliable to the "Exezech"; but this maneuver

Vava that the Exarch knew he could not count on the unconditional obedience of the Roman troops if the matter concerned religion. Two years later the charitarius Maurice incited the troops under his command to rebel against the Exarch Isaac himself. He paid for his rebellion with his life, and his was an ephemeral movement due solely to personal ambitions, to which the Church of Rome remained entirely aloof; but it resulted that even in the Roman territory, as a result of the reforms introduced into Byzantine institutions starting from 584, with the establishment 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 at the Lateran Council, under Pope Martin I (Oct. 649), brought to a head the religious conflict between the Church of Rome and Byzantium. The spiritual solidarity with the Pope even of the armed forces proved so strong 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 the Pope, not only did not carry it out, but was induced to rebel against the Empire itself. For three years Olympius ruled as master over the Italian domains of Byzantium, until he died of illness in 652 in Sicily, where he had led the army to repel the first Arab insurrection on the island. For the first time in the history of Byzantine Italy a religious conflict had repercussions on the political situation. The event for the moment had no consequences; but in June 653 the Exarch Theodore Calliopas was able to arrest Martin I in the Basilica of St. John Lateran as a rebel, proclaim him, in the name of the Sovereign, an usurper of the papal see, have him conveyed as a prisoner to Byzantium; and Constans II was able to have the Pope tried and condemned for what had occurred, as a purely political crime, i.e., high treason. In July 663 Pope Vitalian (657-72), the clergy and the population of Rome welcomed the Emperor with the honors due to a legitimate sovereign when he came to visit the city. In 668 Vitalian gave moral and material support of the Church to Constantine IV, son of Constans II, after the latter had been assassinated in Syracuse and the guilty officer had had himself proclaimed emperor.

Religious peace was restored by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680–81, which condemned Monothelitism and its promoters and supporters at Constantinople; but whenever Byzantium seemed to threaten this peace, reactions in the imperial domains of the Italian peninsula were immediate, especially in Rome, assuming such a character that only the moderating action of the Popes could prevent them from spilling over into the political arena. Thus, on two occasions other dignitaries were sent to Rome by emperors with orders hostile to the Church; and the rebel troops, who had gathered to defend it from other parts of the imperial domains in the peninsula and even from Ravenna itself, wanted to put them to death, and they owed their lives to the personal intervention of the popes. Around 695, in the time of Emperor Justinian II, the protospatharios Zacharias was saved by Sergius I; and around 701, the exarch Theophylactus was saved by John VI. Meanwhile, reforms in Byzantine institutions had led to the organization of the territory of Rome into a duchy, with the seat of command on the Palatine; and the *exercitus Romanus* had been organized into a body capable of administrative and political functions, since the military class was now absorbing and replacing the old civilian aristocracy in a new military aristocracy. The first mention of a duchy for Rome occurs only around 712–13. But certainly the Duchy of Rome originated at roughly the same time as that of Naples, and the first duchy of Naples was appointed by Constans II in 661. The *exercitus Romanus* already by the mid-7th century appears as a distinct class alongside the clergy and the lay civil population in official documents concerning papal elections. Its new position in public life is already evident by the end of the 7th century, as during the pontificate of Benedict II (684–85) Emperor Constantine IV sent to Rome locks of hair from his sons Justinian and Heraclius, with a message addressed to the Pope, the clergy, and the *exercitus Romanus*.

The ceremony, in the customs of the time, symbolically conferred upon the two imperial princes the status of adopted sons of Rome, represented by its bishop, its clergy, and its armed forces. The influence of this military class made itself felt in the disputes over the election of the successor to 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 entrances 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 in the imperial army. At the death of Conon (21 Sept. 687), the military class again took part in the opposing factions, this time dividing itself between the supporters of Theodore, who had by then become archpriest, and the supporters of the archdeacon Paschal; and its leaders effectively contributed to securing the election of a third candidate, the priest Sergius, who was consecrated on 15 Dec. 687, after the exarch of Italy, John Platyn, who had come in person to Rome, had recognized the regularity of his election. However, more than the *virtus armorum* it was once again the *virtus S. Petri* that proved salutary for Rome when the Lombard threat returned, after a century, to loom over the city. Pope John VI (701–705) obtained that the duke of Benevento, Gisulf I, after having laid waste to Campania as far as the fifth mile from Rome along the Via Latina, should cease hostilities and withdraw. The Duchy of Rome then lost, beyond the Liri, Arpino and Arce, and on the Liri, Sora, which Gisulf I annexed to his domains. Nor did the problem of religious relations with Byzantium and their repercussions on the political situation long remain dormant.

In 712, when Pope Constantine I (708–715) reacted on the religious front to the attempt of Philippicus Bardanes to reaffirm Monothelitism, the laity reacted also on the political front. For the first time since Rome had been under Byzantine dominion, the populus Romanus set itself up to judge the legitimacy of an emperor, refusing to receive the icon of Philippicus Bardanes, to recognize as valid or to allow documents to be drawn up with his name, to accept coins bearing his effigy, or to allow the liturgical prayer for the reigning sovereign to be recited for him during Mass. These decisions were embodied in a decree, which must be presumed to have been issued by the only assembly whose continued existence is attested by the sources at least as late as the time of Gregory the Great in 603: the Senate. But the decisions had also received the support of the exercitus Romanus. Its commander, Christopher, the first duke of Rome whose name is known, was the champion of the great majority of the laity when, in 713, this body, by virtue of another decree logically consequent upon the previous one, resolved not to recognize as duke of Rome Peter, who had been promoted in Christopher’s place by Philippicus Bardanes.

The supporters of the new duke were met with arms when they attempted to force their way from the Via Sacra to the command post on the Palatine, and they escaped annihilation only thanks to the timely arrival at the scene of the priests, bearing the Gospel and the Cross, sent by the Pope to restore peace. A significant detail: the promotion carried out ad nomen heretici had not been recognized as zeal for the faith; those who sought to impose it were called defensores heretici Petri, and the party of Christopher was designated as pars Christiana. And the Romans consented to receive Peter as duke only after, following the overthrow of Philippicus Bardanes (June 713), his successor Anastasius II had sent to the Pope in Rome, through the exarch Scholasticus, a solemn profession of faith in conformity with the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Constantine I, no differently from Sergius I and from GIOVANNI

populations of the Duchy of Rome. All classes of the laity, from the aristocracy to the common people, attended the council presided over in St. Peter’s in November 731 by the successor of Gregory II, Gregory III (731–741). This council pronounced the excommunication against the adversaries of sacred images. On account of its steadfastness in the struggle against iconoclasm, the Duchy of Rome was stripped by the Isaurian [emperor] of the territories of Terracina and Gaeta, which were transferred to the Duchy of Naples, which remained loyal to the Emperor.

And when, in the last years of Gregory III, the Isaurian adopted more conciliatory intentions, and executed them through the patrician Stephen, then appointed duke of Rome, these—the Roman army and the Pope—collaborated against the ambitious designs of Liutprand, resolutely exploiting the traditional antagonism of the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento toward the kings of Pavia, to draw them into forming with Rome a political-military bloc capable of keeping those in check. In 738 Gregory III, as arbiter, declared that Gallese, which Duke Trasmond of Spoleto claimed as his domain, belonged to the Empire and to the body of the Roman army; and the non-aggression and mutual assistance pacts stipulated by the Church and the Roman people with the same duke and with Duke Godescale of Benevento, guaranteed by the Church, were the first signs of a political program in which the duke of Rome and the military class of the Roman Duchy stood in solidarity with the Pope and entrusted themselves to him as the most authoritative interpreter. The patrician Stephen and the Roman army, together with Gregory III, refused to submit to Liutprand’s demand that Trasmond be handed over when he took refuge in Rome in 739 to escape the king, who had invaded his domains; and they persisted in this refusal even when Liutprand had encamped beneath Rome’s walls. At that dire moment the Romans were in agreement with Gregory III in another audacious political move: sending a papal mission to Charles Martel, bearing secret documents that envisaged, in the event of the all-powerful Merovingian mayor’s intervention against Liutprand, the stipulation of a formal pact committing the Roman people to break away from the emperor and, by virtue of a senatus consultum proclaiming the end of Byzantine dominion, to place themselves under the protection of the Frankish prince. For the first time since Rome had been subject to Byzantium, its bishop, with the consent of its people, dared to promote and interpret a political design aimed at tearing it from the bonds of the Empire and inserting it within the direct sphere of the political interests of the Frankish kingdom; the Roman Duchy now intended to pursue its own independent policy, free from the emperor’s interests, and this course was inspired and directed by the Pope, oriented toward seeking in the Franks the most effective support in the gravest crises.

In August 739 Liutprand withdrew from Rome, though he left Blera, Orte, Bomarzo and Amelia garrisoned on the Roman Duchy’s side of the frontier. By agreement with Pope Gregory III, the patrician Stephen and the Romans renewed their pact with Transamund II, and in return for his promise to help them recover the four Tuscan towns lost to the Romans, they placed the Roman army at his disposal for the reconquest of his domains, which was swiftly completed by the end of 740. The driving force behind this political-military action to forestall a Liutprandan counter-offensive was Gregory III’s successor, Zachary (741–752), who reversed alliances by offering the king the cooperation of the Roman army against Transamund II for failing to keep his commitments to Rome, and by withdrawing support from the Beneventan duke Godescalc, even though he had shown sympathy for Rome during the crisis. At Terni in 742 Zachary met Liutprand, secured the return of Blera, Orte, Bomarzo and Amelia to the Roman Duchy, concluded 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 marked by the complex diplomacy of Zachary’s successor, Stephen II (752–757), in the face of Astolf, who between 750 and 751 had conquered Ravenna and thereby extinguished the last remnant of imperial rule in Italy, and now aimed at Rome. For two years the Pope induced the Lombard king to postpone a direct attack on Rome, undeterred by Astolf’s mounting pressure on the Roman Duchy, which culminated in the summer of 753 with the capture of Ceccano. At the same time Stephen II pressed the Eastern Emperor Constantine V to send troops and negotiated with Pippin, king of the Franks since 751, to interest him in the plight of Rome. From the Emperor he obtained not reinforcements but a mandate to go to Pavia and negotiate in his name with the Lombard king; from Pippin he received an official invitation to visit Francia and discuss what was to be done. Yet when on 14 October 753 the Pope set out, the question of Rome’s survival was no longer merely political and military but once more religious. Constantine V had reverted to iconoclast doctrines, and the Church of Rome naturally feared that a restoration of imperial authority over the whole of the exarchate of Ravenna might give the Emperor the chance—just as his father had done—to use the Roman senators to attack Rome.

But the populations of Ravenna and the adjacent territories, unlike those of the imperial duchies in southern Italy and Sicily, had stood by Gregory II and Gregory III, thereby earning the right to be regarded by the Popes—together with the populations of the Duchies of Ravenna and Perugia—as a flock more particularly entrusted by Christ to the care of St Peter; and for this reason the Popes, as vicars of St Peter, had a special duty to defend them. This spiritual factor had already moved Zacharias when in 743 at Pavia he wrested from Liutprand the restoration to the Empire of most of the latter’s recent conquests in the territories of Ravenna and Cesena. Now, however, Stephen II felt it his duty to rescue the Lord’s little sheep in the army of Ravenna not only from the Lombard wolf but also from the Byzantine wolf that had inherited the same role. During his sojourn in France in 754 he learned of the acceptance 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 directed his policy towards the scriptural conception of the Lord’s little sheep, in the sense that dominus of the populations of the Duchy of Rome and of the army should, so long as the special religious conditions in the East persisted, be regarded not as the emperor but as St Peter—and thus his vicar the Pope; and that Astolf should restore the territories he had conquered not to the Emperor but to the Church of Rome. Thus took shape the idea of a new political-religious system guided from Rome and its Church. The idea is reflected in the phrase ‘Sancta Dei Ecclesia rei publicae Romanorum’, which begins to appear in these years in the writings of the papal chancery and in Lateran circles. This political-religious system was to be realised by securing an autonomous position with respect to Byzantium, while remaining within the framework of the Empire, through the agency of the Pope with the support and protective action of Pippin, which would overcome the Lombard peril and create a safeguard against the Byzantine iconoclast danger. The Duchy of Rome would form the essential nucleus of the system, providing a valuable foundation through its administrative, ecclesiastical and lay institutions and its army, though with a de facto subordination of civil and military institutions—and even of the Duke of Rome himself—to the person of the Pope. The leading circles of the Roman laity, the very high officers and officials who, by rank and office, should have served the Emperor’s interests exclusively, undoubtedly adhered to these politico-religious ideas.

A contingent of the Roman military aristocracy stood beside the Pope when, in October–November 753, he negotiated with Aistulf at Pavia. He was not accompanied to Francia; yet all of Stephen II’s actions during his stay in the transalpine kingdom presuppose a series of prior understandings—even secret ones—with the Roman laity, and his own conviction that he was their authorized interpreter. Particularly significant in this regard is the conferral of the eminent dignity of *patricius Romanorum*, which Stephen II bestowed upon Pippin and his sons Charles and Carloman on the same occasion and during the same religious ceremony of their anointing as kings of the Franks in Saint-Denis in 754, perhaps on 28 July. Only the Senate of Rome could be considered competent to dispose, in competition with the Emperor, of the patrician dignity; therefore Stephen II must have acted by its delegation. Yet the Pope also acted as the vicar of Saint Peter, so that 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 which secular practice regarded as conjoined with that dignity within the ambit of the Empire. The acclaim with which the clergy and people of Rome welcomed Stephen II on his return in the summer of 755—“our shepherd and our salvation after God”—now hailed in the vicar of Saint Peter the shepherd even in temporal matters.

When Aistulf besieged Rome from January to March 756 and Stephen II was the animating force behind the resistance, two high-ranking officers of the Roman army were part of the papal mission that reached Francia by sea and carried the desperate appeal, put into the mouth of the Prince of the Apostles himself, that Pippin, his sons, and the Franks should save from the Lombards the Church of Rome and “the people of the Church of Rome” entrusted to him by God. After his return from Francia, Stephen II and his successors openly exercised temporal rule over Rome, over its duchy, over the duchy of Perugia, and over the parts of the Exarchate of Ravenna “restored” to Saint Peter in 756 by Aistulf and in 757 by Desiderius.

The transfer of these latter territories to the temporal government of the Popes was in a sense sanctioned by the *promissio* of Quierzy-sur-Oise in 754, by the *donatio* of the summer of 756, both granted by Pippin to Stephen II, and by the agreements concluded with Stephen II by Desiderius between January and March 757. For Rome and for the Roman and Perugian duchies, the new state of affairs instead resulted from acceptance by all classes of the laity and by local civil and military authorities of a situation already in existence. The papal administration had long been providing or overseeing the functioning of public services, since the offices of the lay administration, to which their care belonged, were paralyzed and disappearing owing to the growing scarcity of resources, a scarcity to which Byzantium’s neglect of its Italian possessions had condemned them.

formally a sworn oath of loyalty to St Peter. This certainly occurred with Stephen II in the parts of the army of Ravenna ceded to him by Aistulf and Desiderius. It is not certain whether or in what measure the Roman military aristocracy had urged Stephen II to admit them in some way to a share in the government, as may be inferred from the fact that the duke of Ravenna at the time, Eustace, was sent by him together with the priest Philip to administer Ravenna and the territories of the army restored to St Peter in the name of papal authority.

It is certain that during the pontificate of Paul I (757–67), brother of Stephen II but far less gifted politically, the high officials of the papal administration, the so-called primates or procres Ecclesiae or de clero, among whom the six general directors, the iudices de clero, stood out, led by the energetic primicerius of the notaries, Christopher, strove to make the government of Ravenna their monopoly. They were supported by families and relatives who shared their interests and formed an aristocracy that in this sense might be called ecclesiastical. They were opposed—this is certain—by at least some of the army officers, with whom the lay aristocracy, the so-called optimates or procres exercitus or de militia, identified; among these the iudices de militia stood out. It seems in fact that the military class was divided between supporters of friendly relations with the procres Ecclesiae, which included the duke of Ravenna at the time, Gregory, and those who advocated decisive action to curtail the political predominance of the procres Ecclesiae. The reaction was attempted by four brothers, Totonus, Passivus, Paschal and Constantine, of a family originally from Nepi, who at the death of Paul I (28 June 767) forcibly imposed the elevation to the Chair of St Peter of Constantine, spreading terror with bands of armed peasants drawn from the lands they owned in Tuscany. Duke Gregory was killed, and his place taken by Totonus; Christopher fled into Lombard territory together with his son Sergius, who was sacellarius of the Church.

The fortunes of Totone’s faction were short-lived. After barely a year, by the end of July 768, Sergio returned to Rome 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 was treacherously slain by the *charlaturius* Grazioso, Sergio was immediately joined by Christopher, who resumed power with an iron grip. The energetic primicerius, having restored harmony of sentiment so that Stephen III (768–72) might be acknowledged as the legitimate successor to Paul I, became the relentless accuser of Constantine at the council which the new Pope presided over in the Lateran in April 769. This council not only condemned the usurper but also regulated the procedure for papal elections, removing them from the violence of armed factions and preventing further dangerous interference by the laity. It restricted the active right to vote to the clergy and reserved the right to be elected solely to cardinal priests and deacons who had regularly ascended through every ecclesiastical grade. Once Christopher had consolidated his personal position—securing for his son the offices of secundicerius and nomenclator from Stephen III and giving a daughter in marriage to the officer who had killed Totone, Grazioso, whom he promoted to duke of Rome—he devoted all his energies to steering relations with Desiderius toward the combative policy pursued twenty years earlier against Aistulf by Stephen II. On this ground he clashed with new adversaries, led this time not by one of the *procres de militia* but by one of the very dignitaries of the papal court, the cubicularius Paul Afartà, whom Desiderius had artfully flattered in his greed and personal ambitions and who therefore advocated instead a policy of friendship with the King of Pavia.

The conflict grew more complicated and hastened to its climax as soon as Carloman, king of the Franks, gave his support to Christopher and Sergio. This induced Desiderius to hasten personally to the aid of his partisans. During Lent of 771 the Lombard king encamped beneath Rome and compelled Stephen III, alarmed by the excessive
ROMA - Tomb of Alfano who supervised the restorations of the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin (1119-24) - Rome, portico of the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin.

In contrast to the impoverishment of the resources available to lay authorities, the Church drew substantial means from its landed properties, the most extensive, productive and best-managed in the entire Duchy, and several located in places of great strategic and military importance, with inhabited centers organized as fortified strongholds along the borders, such as, to say nothing of others, Ceccano. Moreover, the diaconies (v.) were coming under Church control, extending their activity to the supply of foodstuffs for areas where they could not procure food themselves. Furthermore, the Popes, from Gregory II onwards, had become the driving force behind the political and military life of Rome; the spread of the conviction that only under their guidance could Rome be saved from the Lombards, from Byzantine fiscalism and iconoclasm, fully explains why everyone, not excluding the Duke of Rome himself, accepted the transfer of temporal government to the Vicar of St Peter. This acceptance, as far as can be surmised, was expressed

I confini del Ducato romano alla morte di Stefano II (757).

The Duchy of Rome arose from the union, within 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. To the north it bordered on Lombard Tuscany and on the imperial Duchy of Perugia; to the east on the Lombard duchies of Spoleto and Benevento; to the south on the Duchy of Benevento and on the imperial Duchy of Naples; to the west on the Tyrrhenian Sea. The course of the frontiers at the death of Stephen II, so far as can be gathered from the sources, may be outlined approximately as follows. The frontier with Lombard Tuscany began on the sea at the mouth of the Mignone stream, a little north of Civitavecchia; it ran to the southern shore of Lake Vico, leaving Blera in Roman territory; it skirted the lake to the south and east, Lake Vico lying in Lombard territory; east of the lake it followed the ridge of the Cimini Mountains, from which it descended northward to the Vezza stream, so that Soriano del Cimino and Bonarzo were in Roman territory and Bagnia in Lombard. From the confluence of the Vezza with the Tiber the frontier lay between the two imperial duchies of Rome and of Perugia, the latter including Amelia. From Amelia the frontier descended to the Nera River, separating the Roman Duchy from the Lombard Duchy of Spoleto, which included Terni, while Narni and Orte were in Roman territory. South of Orte the frontier coincided with the Tiber as far as the zone above Mentana, where it turned away to cross the Monti Cornicolani and reach the Aniene above Tivoli; it then ran along the southern slope of the Monti Simbruini and crossed the Monti Ernici to descend into the valley of the Liri, where the frontier with the Lombard Duchy of Benevento began. Thence it followed the course of the Liri to its confluence with the Sacco, whence it ran to the depression between the Monti Ausoni and the Monti Aurunci. After Fondi and before Terracina the frontier with the imperial Duchy of Naples began, leaving Terracina to Naples and reaching the sea in the zone contiguous to Monte Circeo.

---

Lista dei duchi di R. nel sec. VIII sino alla morte di Stefano III (772).

Christopher (c. 712–13); Peter (c. 713); Basil, Marinianus, Hilarius, Peter (all four in the time of Gregory II, 715–31); Theodore (c. 731–38); Stephen (from c. 738 to c. 741); Eustace (c. 757); Gregory (c. 767); Toto (767–68); Gratiosus (c. 768–72). The dates indicate the years to which, with a certain probability,
**ROME - Stellina of R., supported by a Crossbowman and a Pavisier (first half of the 14th century). Detail of the cippus of Agrippina the Elder, wife of Germanicus, originally in the Mausoleum of Augustus, later reused in the Middle Ages as a grain measure (rugiellata) on the Piazza del Campidoglio - Museums of Rome.**
**ROMA - I. (fot. Musei di Roma)**

**ROME - I. (photo: Museums of Rome)**

more fortunate attempts of this kind. The violent death of Pope John VIII (882); the atrocious violence of the “Cadaver Synod,” when the dead Pope Formosus was tried, deposed, and cast into the Tiber at the instigation of the dukes of Spoleto, who had been harmed by his policy in favor of Arnulf of Carinthia (897); double elections, sieges, and so many other turbid and obscure events are all manifestations of a laborious process of adjustment that, with the new century, was to lead to an enhancement of the noble forces, to the formation of a veritable seigneurial dynasty capable of firmly governing ecclesiastical and urban politics, imposing on the papacy members of its own family and making use of neighboring powers (Spoleto, Tuscany, the maritime republics of southern Italy) or distant ones (emperors, kings of Italy, great monasteries) to achieve its aims of enlarging its territorial possessions in the Sabina and other localities of the Roman countryside.

The first prominent figure is Theophylact, who was at once the papal vestararius and head of the city militia, related by marriage to Alberic of Spoleto, and who, in turn, had first Pope Sergius III and then John X as his protégés. Even Theophylact’s wife, Theodora, must have been a woman of energy and skill, though not so corrupt as some chroniclers have described her; indeed, against her, her daughters, and other Roman women of the time, infamous accusations were leveled, blindly copied by historians of all tendencies, so that the “pornocracy” of the 10th century has become one of the most abused commonplaces. Against this prejudice, it is necessary to react by demonstrating its absurdity and, on the contrary, seeking to understand the political attitudes, ideals, and achievements of those often tragic and enigmatic figures.

Under John X, a new and fortunate battle against the Arabs took place at the mouth of the Garigliano (August 915), but the Pope’s plan to free himself from the tutelage of the local aristocracy by relying on the kings of Italy failed, and in the city power was exercised by Marozia, Theophylact’s and Theodora’s daughter, with the titles of senatrix and patricia; yet when she wished to marry Hugh of Provence in violation of canon law and

Political factions, the Romans rose up under the leadership of her own son, Alberico (932); and for more than twenty years the Urbe lived gathered under the princeps et omnium Romanorum senator, who with wisdom and skill knew how to resist external assaults, come to terms with Byzantium, reform the monasteries, improve economic conditions and, in a word, concentrate all the city’s energies to good effect. Instead, her son, given the auspicious name of Ottaviano and raised to the papacy under the name of John XII, proved immoral and reckless; after having summoned Otto of Saxony to Rome and crowned him emperor (962), he allied himself with Otto’s enemies and ended up being overpowered, while in the city the anti-German reaction continued with the election of Benedict V against the imperial pope Leo VIII, but this was short-lived and in the second half of the 10th century German imperial influence successfully opposed the rule of local families, among which the Crescenzi were notable.

The crucial point of the struggle was marked by the uprising attempted against Otto III in 998 by a Crescenzo, who met a tragic end in Castel S. Angelo where he had shut himself in; the Emperor tried to win the Romans over to his side but with little success, and soon died, nor could the popes he had chosen, Bruno of Carinthia (Gregory V) and Gerbert of Aurillac (Silvester II), do much in the face of the return of the Crescenzi. From 1002 to 1012 the city remained tranquil under the patriciate of John of Crescenzio; then another great Roman family came to the fore, the Tusculani, who repeated the maneuver of occupying religious and civil offices by placing no fewer than three of their members on the papal throne in succession and dealing with the various emperors of the West and East. But around 1044, whether because of the disorders of Benedict IX, or the hostility of the Crescenzi and the marquises of Tuscany, or the pressure of the reforming clergy on Henry III of Franconia, the political system of the Tusculani collapsed; with the Synod of Sutri imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs began, legitimized, as far as the sovereign’s position vis-à-vis the citizens was concerned, by the conferral of the patriciate and the related right of principatus in papal elections.

The consequences of the great Gregorian reform movement and of the long Investiture Controversy on Roman civic life were of incalculable importance, for in the duel between popes and emperors the inhabitants of the Urbe profited, and not the old families but new nuclei such as the Pierleoni, who based their power on wealth, and the Frangipani of popular origin. At the same time, new political organisms were taking shape, and the communal expansion was directed along lines that would later remain constant for centuries. In turn, the Church, energetically breaking free from lay entanglements, became somewhat estranged from the city; the Curia was populated by people from afar, and the gaze of the pontiffs could extend to a far wider horizon than that, so limited, of the preceding period.

The resistance of the old elements was long and fierce, as shown by various bloody episodes that occurred under the pontificates of Alexander II and Gregory VII (such as the assault by Cencio at Christmas 1075); to these must be added the various sieges by Henry IV, who finally managed to enter the city, have himself crowned by his antipope Guibert, and occupy the Capitoline Hill. But the arrival of the Normans brought further horrors, and such sad vicissitudes recurred repeatedly under the successors of Gregory VII, with frequent flights of the popes, the appointment of antipopes, the sacking of noble houses, and visits by emperors now welcomed, now expelled. Only Callistus II, after concluding the Concordat of Worms (1122), was able to regain control of the city by decisively supporting the Pierleoni; instead, the Frangipani prevailed under his successor Honorius II, so much so that the clash between the two families seemed inevitable, and that duel became one of the recurring themes in 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 former, who had the support of St. Bernard and the Emperor, but from this bitter struggle, only apparently religious, there emerged, as in other Italian cities, the Commune of the people.

Great uncertainty surrounds the exact sequence of events that led to the establishment of the new institution, but it is certain that, dissatisfied 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 petty nobility of the city, and shortly afterward elected a patrician invested with full authority; the acts of the Chancellery were marked with a new era as a symbol of conscious pride and in memory of ancient, unforgotten glories. However, the pontiffs, after a brief disarray, soon overcame the new forces and, after forty years, managed to sign an agreement (Clement III, in 1188) by which the Senate was placed once more under ecclesiastical investiture, regal rights and usurped goods were renounced in exchange for an annual payment; the prefecture became little more than an honorary title, though civic magistrates retained civil jurisdiction, the regulation of weights, measures, duties, tolls, etc. Before this peace, there had been the violent conflict between Frederick Barbarossa and Alexander III, which had been useful to the Roman Commune in deriving advantage from both sides; yet in 1167 a terrible defeat of the city’s army at Monteporzio had been offset only by the pestilence that struck the imperial forces. The foreign policy of the Commune proved more successful, with an expansion of the territory under its control (from Radicofani to Ceprano) and commercial agreements with other cities, such as Genoa, to the advantage of local small-scale industries; nevertheless, Rome always lacked a robust middle class and effective economic autonomy, which would have allowed the recurrent aspirations for freedom to take firm root.

Il caso di Benedetto Carusomo, senatore unico nel 1191, è significativo; dopo aver cercato di sottrarre alcune provincie alla giurisdizione della Chiesa, venne cacciato, e poco dopo il grande Innocenzo III riuscì a far fare un altro passo avanti all'intromissione curiale negli affari comunali; anche l'ingresso dei nobili nel Senato, aumentato via via sempre più durante il secc. XIII, svuotò quell'istituzione di gran parte del suo significato. Invece nuova esca ai dissidi tra città e Chiesa venne dalla ripresa della lotta tra papi ed imperatore al tempo di Federico II, che fu largo di promesse e lusinghe con i Romani, senza però ottenere molto in concreto. Dapprima con Giovanni Poli, poi più efficacemente con Luca Savelli (1234), tutta la città insorse contro Gregorio IX, rivendicando diritti sulla Tuscia, imponendo oneri al clero, pretendendo libera elezione del Senato, ecc.; ma fu ancora una volta un fuoco di paglia perché R. non poteva vivere senza fare i conti con quel complesso d'interessi che erano legati con la Curia. Invece, scomparso l'energico Pontefice, si impose l'esponente di una nuova famiglia, il senatore Matteo Rosso Orsini, che per due anni durante la sede vacanza fece a suo arbitrio, ma riuscì a tener lontano Federico sottraendo la città ad un dominio che sarebbe stato ben più duro della blanda supremazia papale.

V. I. Secs. XIII-XV. — The history of the city of ROME during the 13th and 14th centuries (and, if one wishes, up to 1420) is essentially the story of the struggle of that Commune for autonomy, of the ever-renewed attempt by the Romans—more precisely by the popular class—to constitute themselves into a city-state, like all the other great Italian communes.

Yet particular difficulties stood in their way, making the medieval history of ROME quite different from that of any other city commune. First of all, the economic conditions were unfavorable to the formation of a solid and wealthy bourgeoisie, or rather a “popolo” in the technical sense of the time; the environmental conditions did not allow for the development of a flourishing artisan class, nor much less for any noteworthy export trade; the city’s geographical position was also unfortunate, being too distant from the great European trade routes. The main source of income for the Romans always remained the industry of foreigners, indissolubly connected with the presence of the Curia in the city: the influx of ecclesiastics coming ad limina and of pilgrims visiting basilicas and shrines. Therefore, it was of vital interest to ROME that the Pope and the Curia reside there. But it would not be fair to assess everything solely on the plane of simple economic convenience; the Romans are also proud to have the Pope as their bishop and sovereign, and they are attached to him, even if they often do not show it, and they are
ROME - Palazzo Venezia (1455-67) - Rome.

truly insensitive to the lofty ideal privilege of living in the holy city of Christendom.

However, it is probable that, mainly through hotel activity, a certain availability of capital was formed, which seems to have been quite substantial, especially between the mid-1200s and the first decades of the following century. Roman merchants and bankers were able to grant substantial loans to Italian and foreign personalities (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 in France, indeed, at least once, they are even accredited at the Papal Curia, a field usually reserved for Florentine bankers.

Roman life is 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 overcome, especially since they can always count on solid support within the Curia. Their fierce struggles for supremacy paralyze civic life; in the surroundings of Rome they block the expansion of the commune, not only that, but with their abuses and even outright robberies they make the roads unsafe or impassable, thus preventing the arrival of pilgrims and the supply of the city. For at least a century (from the mid-1200s) attempts were repeatedly made to suppress them with special anti-magnate laws, often severe, but without success; only with the formation of the popular militia of the banderesi and the improved situation, aided by the strengthening of papal power, did things improve. But in the 1400s the nobility once again brought very sad days to the city.

The most serious obstacle to normal communal life, however, is represented by the presence of the Pope. No other commune has to live with its own high lord as Rome does; cities dependent on the Empire fare infinitely better from this point of view. For Rome, practical autonomy is impossible, except for brief periods. But this is a rather complex problem. On the one hand, the Pope has been placed in a position of invincible power in terms of power relations (nor would Rome ever have been able to inflict a Legnano on him); on the other hand, Rome 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 is curiously oscillating between invitations and rejections, between slights and demonstrations of devotion. Overall, however, loyalty predominates.

Ma 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 great store by the flattery that now and then came from the Emperor. Not even in the time of Frederick II, when one might have imagined, in a damned hypothesis, the city’s detachment from the ecclesiastical state and its effective function as capital of the Empire. It was precisely then that the Romans, seeing that they could not be independent, chose to side with the Pope. In this connection, one must take into account a singular myth entirely Roman-municipal: the “imperial idea,” namely the conviction that, as in ancient (and mythicized) times, it still fell to the Roman people to confer the imperium, of which it was the repository—a claim that, in the mentality of the time, was far less strange than it may seem today. A Cola di Rienzo could indeed build much of his adventure upon it, and for this reason he was not treated as a madman by his fellow citizens. Such a pretension of “imperial” character, eminently rhetorical and cultural, such a “Capitoline complex” always retained its fascination, but it was never truly connected with or moved to action by the Romans. It is likely that it was cultivated only by a small circle of idealists and utopians of extreme anti-clerical tendency; in other words, of Roman “nationalists.”

During the period in question, the Roman people developed its communal constitution. But with notable differences from what may be called the “average type” of the Italian Commune. These differences had indeed begun from the very first moment, in 1144, when there did not form a typical aristocratic Commune, under consular rule, but rather the Senate took on a popular stamp. In any case, it is clear that R. entirely lacked the intermediate class, the lesser nobility, the secundi milites or valvassors, who elsewhere are the very soul of the early Commune. Correspondingly, the popolo’s Commune did not form in opposition to the Commune but as a new creation. In short, the entire life of the Roman Commune presents itself in its own distinctive manner.

It is never an easy life at any time; the city never truly manages to flourish, and in a hypothetical ranking of the importance of Italian communes, R. would occupy a very modest place. Even in terms of cultural life: although it cannot be said to be a crude or uncultured city, it is nevertheless undeniable that it was singularly lacking in talent; the only notable exception is the anonymous author of the life of Cola di Rienzo—but is he even a Roman? Another observation, valid for the entire period: unlike almost all other communes, R. does not seem to have truly known the struggle between factions, the partisan discord between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Naturally, even Roman sources speak of the two factions, and it is clear that here, as elsewhere, the two famous names are merely labels for local interest groups; but it appears certain that the phenomenon remained confined to the baronial world and did not, except sporadically and for a short time, involve the “people,” the true citizenry. It is proof of its good sense.

At the beginning of the 13th century, the life of R. is still overshadowed by the powerful personality of Innocent III and absorbed into the renewed political and state structure of the Church. However, it revives under the weak Pope Honorius III and especially by taking advantage of the open conflict between Frederick II and Gregory IX. From 1232 to 1235, a true great rebellion takes place, the most considerable effort for autonomy that R. had made since the “renovation of St. Paul.” Above all, the “conquest of the countryside” begins systematically, more precisely of the “district,” that is, jurisdiction over the surrounding territory, with the aim of improving the living conditions and security of the city. For a wide radius around R., special delegates demand oaths of loyalty and the payment of tribute from various centers (and often not even small ones, such as Viterbo, Anagni, etc.); within R. itself, ecclesiastics are subjected to civil jurisdiction and capitoline taxes, the free election of senators—heads of the civic regime—is demanded, as well as the issuance of its own coinage. There is enough here to provoke the protest of the Pope, against whom the incredible decision is taken that he should be considered “in perpetual exile” from R. if he does not pay a kind of contribution to the citizens. These are undoubtedly grave measures, certainly dictated by extreme “nationalists,” and it cannot be ruled out that a certain erotic tendency also reveals itself here.

1161

ROME

1162

At that time Roman autonomism received a long-lasting impetus, and it encouraged the formation of a new sense of “people.” Very favourable to these developments were the 22 months of sede vacante that followed, in 1242, upon the death of Gregory IX. During this period Matteo Rosso Orsini, as senator, committed acts of incredible arbitrariness, even terrorising the cardinals of the conclave. Precisely at this juncture, on the occasion of the signing of an anti-imperial treaty between Rome and Narni (the first time the Commune acted on an inter-communal level), the names of Roman bankers appear for the first time. It may be supposed that professional associations, the guilds of the arts and crafts, were then taking shape, and that consequently the Commune assumed an increasingly democratic and anti-noble (though not necessarily anti-papal) direction. In 1252 the “people” had grown so strong as to seize control of the civic regime; by analogy with what had occurred only two years earlier in Florence, we may speak also for Rome of the advent of the “first popolo,” the government of the guilds, the popular regime, which would remain, until the end of the fourteenth century, “the only great, living and fruitful line in the city’s history” (Falco). Great credit for this belongs to the vigorous personality of the senator Brancaleone degli Andalò. The people, who had summoned him from Bologna, had conferred upon him almost dictatorial powers, which the senator used with great wisdom and caution, above all to consolidate the new regime. Thus he introduced the captaincy of the people and reorganised the citizenry according to its productive categories (cohadunatio artium); the conquest of the surrounding district was vigorously pursued. Public order was secured and genuine anti-magnate legislation introduced. Under him civic autonomy reached the highest degree of efficiency and lasted for a long time; Pope Innocent IV (and later Alexander IV as well) had to resign himself to coming to terms with the Romans.

For although in 1258 the nobility regained the upper hand (yet for a long time there would be an alternation between it and the people in the Campidoglio), it is certain that Rome acquired a new importance, a new political weight, during the interregnum. This is proven by the fact that between 1261 and 1263 there was a veritable competition among kings and princes for the Roman senatorship: Alfonso of Castile, Manfredi, Richard of Cornwall, Charles of Anjou. Exceptional candidacies through which European high politics entered Rome. In 1263 the Angevin became senator, and for twenty years he would remain in relation with Rome. For thirteen years (in all, between 1263 and 1284, but with interruptions) he would indeed be the senator and the stern yet equitable administrator of the city, and Rome perhaps never knew a period of greater peace. A great pope, the Roman NICCOLÒ III ORSINI, in 1278 attempted to oust him from the Campidoglio by means of the constitution Fundamenta, which forbade the election of foreign senators or of regal dignity, but shortly afterward, with the complaisant support of the French MARTINO IV, Charles resumed control of Rome; only in 1284, as a remote consequence of the Sicilian Vespers, did the people drive him out.

NICCOLÒ III had shortly before renewed the juridical figure of the Pope-senator, being elected senator himself in 1278. We might say that from that point began for Rome the period of the lordship, the Pope being nothing other than a signore—that is, the true master of the Commune, albeit under the juridical fiction of the conferral of the principal city magistracies, conferred upon him in full form by the people. This occurred with the curious limitation that the senatorship was conferred upon him as a private person and not as Pontiff, and that at every new election the conferral had to be renewed. Subsequently all the popes would be de iure senators of Rome, as well as holders of all the other city magistracies, and would regularly delegate the office to a pair of vicar-senators, usually drawn from the nobility; yet there would be a revival of royal senatorship with ROBERTO D'ANGOÙ.

If with NICCOLÒ III the Orsini family had come to the fore (or rather had consolidated their power), with NICCOLÒ IV (1288–92) the Colonna would rapidly gain importance. From that time forward the two families would almost uninterruptedly have their senators in the Campidoglio and their cardinals in the Curia, and their contest for supremacy in the city would last for centuries.

For some time, the history of ROMA no longer records events of particular note. This is also because it is clearly overshadowed by the activity of the papacy, especially under the regal and magnanimous Boniface VIII, during whose pontificate a new family from Campagna, the Caetani, came to take its place among the Roman nobility. To this Pope ROMA owes many timely provisions, including the establishment 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 gain, which was not lacking, but rather for the extraordinary increase in importance and resonance that ROMA thereby gained throughout the world. It was the sanction, which only the Pope could give, of its position as an ecumenical city.

Soon after, however, the beginning of the Avignonese period dealt a severe blow to ROMA, which for 70 years, together with the Curia, also lost the economic advantages that came with II. It then became very clear that, without the Curia, the city could not survive, and that any attempt at autonomy was illusory. Not that such attempts were lacking, though they were driven 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 does not return, the Romans were told in 1305 to Clement V, they will create an emperor; likewise, in 1327, when the Bavarian is at the gates, the citizens let it be known to John XXII that, if he does not come, they will welcome the excommunicated pretender, because they do not wish to remain eternally “orphans of Pope and Emperor.”

There were two occasions particularly favorable to the development of autonomy, yet which left no lasting 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, since the candidate was 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 play. But perhaps this was the initiative of only a few individuals, among whom Sciarra Colonna certainly figured. Certainly, it served Louis the Bavarian’s purposes well. Then it seems that the Roman imperial claim fell entirely into oblivion.

After this truly sensational event, ROMA no longer offered any notable episodes. The consequences of the papacy’s absence grew ever more severe. Especially in the very grave internal upheavals of 1335–38, caused by the usual rivalry between the Orsini and Colonna families, but now so violent as to drag in the entire 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 ROMA in the Campidoglio. An act whose importance should not be underestimated and which was also understood by the Romans; certainly, it irrevocably bound the poet to ROMA and made him its most passionate defender in the polemic against Avignon.

Already in 1342 COLA DI RIENZO (q.v.) appears at the Papal Curia. One may judge his fantastic enterprise the most resolute and desperate attempt made by the people to establish communal autonomy. It is noteworthy, however, because Cola linked it with a vague program of Italian national revival, thus reinserting Rome into the Italian political world. After the failure of this mad and generous dream, which coincided with the second Jubilee (1350), Rome gradually renounced autonomy, though it was still attempted on occasion. A true assertion of civic power became ever more difficult, moreover, since a strong hand like that of Cardinal Albornoz governed and consolidated the States of the Church, prelude to the inevitable return of the Pope. A new development was the decline of the nobility. In 1358 it lost the senatorship, and the people, now in agreement with the Pope, organized itself into the “Felice Società dei balestrieri e pavestati” (commonly called that of the banderesi), a strong civic militia and bulwark of Rome, both against the barons and against the companies of adventure, the 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 it cannot be said that he was opposed. By now it was clear that for Rome there was no possibility other than submission. With the first, fleeting 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 came to an end. The final phase of the communal regime began.

The conditions of the city during the Great Schism of the West were tragic, and it was in a sense a struggle around Rome. Had the city wished it, this would have been another favorable moment for asserting autonomy, and indeed the regime of the banderesi was attempted; but the energetic and able Boniface IX, as he fortified the Capitol (which still bears his coat of arms), in 1393 imposed on the city very clear terms, by which he became its “true lord” (and the regime of the banderesi then ceased for a time); he was energetic also toward the barons, who had tried to take advantage of the situation, especially the fierce Onorato Caetani, but also the Colonnas. Unfortunately, he was succeeded by the weak Innocent VII, and the most chaotic period of the Schism ensued. Then the city fell under military occupation (Ladislao of Durazzo, 1408–10 and 1413–14; Braccio da Montone, 1417), and its conditions became dire: wolves descended to devour corpses in the Vatican cemetery.

In 1417 the election of Martin V Colonna brought a Roman Pope back to Rome (1420) and also restored a certain order. It may be said that at that time the medieval period came to a close for Rome, and with it the history of its Commune, which was entirely overshadowed by the presence of the Pope, now the true temporal prince. Then «democracy yielded power to the Pontiff, after having fulfilled its task of vigorously working towards the resolution of the age-old conflict between the two supreme powers, of strongly affirming the imperial consciousness and the universal value of Rome, of strengthening the city’s energies, of wearing down within its territory the communal and feudal particularism to the advantage of itself and of a Church State, levelled, unified, centralized» (Falco).

What follows, even in the 15th century, is, from the standpoint of the municipal history of Rome, only a progressive exhaustion of the stimuli of local “nationalism,” ever less clear, less self-aware, less “medieval,” because classical phantoms are superimposed upon II. A more concrete political reality speaks from the continuation of the baronial struggles, but these too are impoverished, for the barons are no longer the rulers of Rome, but merely quarrelsome courtiers. The people are now entirely outside public affairs, indifferent to them and aware only of isolated outbursts of fury. On 29 May 1434 the Romans rise up, create a revolutionary magistracy, the “Seven Governors of Liberty,” and resort to violence against the cardinals; the Pope, who is Eugenius IV, flees from Rome. The interesting point is that the city declares it will regulate itself according to the will of the Council of Basle. Yet it is an episode without consequences. The city is occupied for a brief time by Niccolò Fortebraccio in the name of Filippo Maria Visconti; then the stubborn resistance of Castel Sant’Angelo, which remains loyal to the Pope, and the resumption of factional strife between the Orsini and Colonna families induce the Romans, after about five months, to submit once more. Not entirely clear is a slightly later event: a valiant and hard prelate, the bishop later Cardinal Giovanni Vitelleschi, who in 1434 had retaken Rome on behalf of the Pope and then acted energetically in the environs of the city, seems to have wished in 1440 to seize power for himself; once again the loyalty of the castellan of Castel Sant’Angelo, Antonio del Rio, who arrested and had the cardinal put to death, saved the city for the Pope. Eugenius IV returned to Rome in 1443 and found it once more in wretched conditions: famous is the description left of it by Vespasiano da Bisticci. From that time Rome begins to revive: Nicholas V, the learned pope who placed his passion “in books and walls,” does much to cleanse and beautify II. In 1450 there is the new Jubilee, in 1452 the coronation of Frederick III, a final and lacklustre pageant. Immediately thereafter comes the attempt of Stefano Porcari (q.v.), truly without any connection to the authentic Roman milieu; in the same way must be judged the strange “conspiracy” of the Roman Academy, attributed to Pomponio Leto and Platina at the time of Paul II (1468), though it is also true that the trial produced no concrete proof of its existence.

By now the Renaissance was in full swing. The Vatican became an ever more magnificent and worldly court; ROME receded ever further into the shadows; above all, it no longer entertained impossible dreams of autonomy. From an administrative standpoint, it was content with what PAUL II granted it in 1469 when the statutes were revised: at the head of the city a senator and three conservators, in addition to a governor acting on behalf of the Pope; all offices and benefices reserved for citizens, and all revenues from the Capitoline estates and the subject localities (of which there were still a handful) earmarked solely for Roman needs. The city was also satisfied with the rapid building renewal undertaken by one Pope after another, especially under SIXTUS IV and Cardinal PIETRO RIARIO, the first of the great cardinals whose magnificence eclipsed baronial power. The latter still had its tragic heyday, particularly in the disturbances following the death of SIXTUS IV (1484), when the city was truly in a state of terror, and under INNOCENT VIII, when repercussions were felt from the conspiracy and war of the Neapolitan barons. One might say that in these episodes of chronicle the history of the Roman aristocracy also comes to a close—so often the city’s master in the Middle Ages, but now definitively humbled by the power of the Church, especially under ALEXANDER VI and later under JULIUS II.

PD. 542-72; P. Paschini, R. nel Rinascimento, Bologna 1940, pp. 477-88. Eugenio Dupré-Theseider

VI. FROM THE 16TH CENTURY TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

I. The early 1500s

During the 15th century the Curia had indeed gained ascendancy over the civic regime, but Rome, thanks to its acquired splendor, rose to a political importance that gradually led, through the work of the Popes, to the exercise of a guiding principle over the affairs of Italy.

The constant artistic, literary, and demographic progress added to the greater luster of this new phase in Roman life, despite the predominance, from the very beginning of the 16th century, of foreign domination in Italy and the religious schism in Europe. The threat posed by the descent of Charles VIII of France in 1498 toward Naples had a sensational episode in Rome as well, where Alexander VI, having taken refuge in Castel Sant’Angelo, was forced to receive that king and negotiate with him. Charles VIII passed through Rome again, almost as a fugitive because of the League that the Pope had formed against him behind his back. Then Julius II and Leo X restored to Rome the splendor that had suffered a setback under Alexander.

Roman society of the 1400s found its development in the 1500s; of the classes that composed it, the high baronial nobility, represented always by the Colonnas, the Orsinis, the Contis, and the Savellis, excluded from predominance in the affairs of the Urbe, wasted away in sterile jealousies that vented themselves in vulgar crimes stemming from individual arrogance. To maintain their prestige, its members were forced to take up the profession of condottieri: the Colonnas for the Empire, the Orsinis for Venice; the members of the other principal families continued to do the same.

In the Curia, Romans of various classes vied with foreigners, who had flocked in from everywhere, in attaining the highest offices, such as cardinals, nuncios, official governors, and prelates of various ranks. The foreign element, moreover, which was increasingly predominant in the Curia, did not conceal its intention of securing a permanent residence in Rome, where the multiplicity of business and the tangle of political interests offered the opportunity to establish solid economic positions and advance in careers. In the preceding age the relatives of the Popes had broadened their ambitions to the point of even aspiring to create principalities for themselves; now they aimed to amass fortunes and to excel by creating new civic dynasties in competition with those already in existence.

If political-national interests, more than religious ones, were in conflict at the moment of the election of individual
ROME — The Borgo corridor with the traces of the assault by the Landsknechts (1527).

Popes, by creating networks of influence and prolonging conclaves for this reason, face no lesser pressures whenever it comes to creating cardinals; the various Italian and foreign powers now claim to be amply represented in the Sacred College. Cardinals are indeed in a position to exert a manifold influence in the conduct of public affairs; they often surround themselves with true courts, where even bishops serve them, at the head of a retinue made up of ecclesiastics and laymen, among whom are even adventurers; hence family interests become entangled with political intrigues. Their preeminent position and their wealth lead them to build sumptuous palaces, following that tradition of false familial grandeur to which had conformed Pietro Barbo (Palazzo Venezia), Pietro and Raffaele Rario (Palazzi SS. Apostoli and della Cancelleria), Stefano Nardini (al Governo vecchio), and which was continued by Domenico della Rovere (Palazzo Penitenzieri), Adriano Castellesi, the Cesi (in Borgo), and in particular by Alessandro Farnese. The new nobility would not be outdone, and so too the Aldobrandini, Borghese, Barberini, Altieri, Pamphili, and even the Braschi, would do likewise. Some of them, replacing ancient suburban vineyards, would build luxurious villas in the immediate vicinity of the city or in the nearby Alban Hills. Cardinals were emulated in all this even by prelates of lower rank, according to their economic means, and by Roman families who, abandoning their primitive roughness, sought to follow the example of the most powerful, such as the Millini, Santa Croce, Della Valle, and de Cupis. The papal finances were provided for by bankers like the Medici, the Spannocchi, and Agostino Chigi; artists, contractors, artisans, and even singers, jugglers, and men of letters contributed to the splendor. A particular element in the Curia were the resident ambassadors and orators of the major powers of Italy and Europe, along with those sent for various or extraordinary circumstances, the solicitors in causes or affairs, and even persons of humble condition seeking to earn a livelihood, including Italians from different regions and not excluding Germans and Flemings. These foreigners gravitated toward the national churches, to which were attached hospitals for pilgrims, and the poorest would join with the Romans in pious associations for devotion, to obtain suffrages, or for burial.

It cannot be surprising that in such a society, in which many—too many—were celibate and those who were long, sometimes for a long time, distant from their families, morals left much to be desired, to the point of seeming to verge on depravity. Lavish festivals, banquets, hunts, luxury in clothing, furniture, silverware, works of art, and horses created an ostentation of worldliness without precedent; and this was a cause of scandal and invective that grew ever more furious. While it must be admitted that these reproaches were not entirely undeserved, it would nonetheless be unjust to suppose that in Rome all trace of true spiritual life had vanished. This spiritual life asserted itself in the manifold manifestations of piety and charity that the times suggested in response to the growing needs for remedies against mounting abuses, and which would lay the foundations for that reaction against worldly spirit that would be called the Catholic Reformation. Indeed, alongside new churches, there arose without interruption new charitable institutions: hospitals, orphanages, refuges for fallen or endangered women, confraternities, and religious houses with specific apostolic purposes. Even the Roman University was reorganized during the 16th century with a broader scope of studies and in more suitable premises. The Collegio Romano of St. Ignatius, founded in 1552, under Gregory XIII implemented the pedagogical experience of the Jesuit *Ratio studiorum*, extending it to a more rational method of instruction for the advancement of knowledge. Alongside the Roman Seminary (1564), the Pope established the German-Hungarian, English, Greek, Maronite, and Armenian Colleges; later, St. Joseph Calasanz founded free schools for the people.

Yet the dangers to Rome’s safety had not vanished. Alexander VI had taken steps to strengthen and secure Castel Sant’Angelo with new fortifications, including a tower at the bridgehead. Paul III, to counter a possible Turkish threat and render the city secure against any enemy incursion—for the Aurelian walls were utterly inadequate against modern siege engines—entrusted Antonio da Sangallo with the task of erecting new bastions: these arose on the Aventine, almost sheer above the Tiber; at the Porta Ardeatina; between the Vatican and the Janiculum behind Santo Spirito; and also the bastion of the Belvedere. Yet a fully comprehensive defensive system was impossible given the city’s vast expanse. What was still lacking was a well-organized urban militia, and the consequences of this deficiency were soon to be seen.

12. Roman Misfortunes

Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, acting in concert with the representatives of Charles V, entered Rome through the Porta San Giovanni in Laterano on 20 September 1526 with his troops, crossed the entire city, and assaulted the Vatican Palace, sacking it along with the Borgo and inflicting severe damage, while the Pope, defenseless, took refuge in the Castle. On 22 September, he was forced to come to terms with the assailants.

Worse was the following year when the imperial bands serving in Lombardy, unpaid, marched southward under the command of the Bourbon, terrorizing the whole of central Italy until they reached R., which attempted a hasty defence. On 6 May the Bourbon launched an assault from the direction of S. Spirito and there laid down his life; but the troops, overcoming all resistance, broke into Borgo, spread rapidly through the square and advanced toward the Castello where Clement VII had rushed with part of his court in the hope of making a stand. From there they moved toward Ponte Sisto, broke through the brave resistance of a few Romans and entered 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 lay at the mercy of the unbridled licence of the soldiery. The Pope, unsupported by his allies, on 6 June had to accept very onerous terms, remain confined in the Castello under enemy guard, give hostages and finally submit to a crushing treaty which, agreed on 31 October, was signed only on 15 November. On 8 December he left the Castello and took refuge in Orvieto; but the invaders did not quit R. until February 1528, after reducing it to complete ruin like the Christian lands; 30,000 citizens had died, four-fifths of the dwellings were “deserted,” so that “it seemed rather a desert than R.” Clement VII, who had gone to Viterbo on 19 June 1528, re-entered the city on 6 October and took prompt measures to repair the damage, so that R. soon recovered and returned to its former way of life. Yet although in Roman society and in the Curia, which formed a large part of it, there was still no visible move toward that reform which lay in everyone’s heart, the sack remained as a stern warning, thanks to which an ever more insistent call for reform was being repeated and was to be applied “in capite et in membris.”

A serious threat of war loomed over R. when Paul IV’s quarrels with Charles V and Philip of Spain, arising from the political intrigues of the Carafa, flared up. Hostilities opened on 10 October 1556, and the need was immediately felt to provide for defence by hurriedly fortifying various points of the city under the direction of Camillo Orsini; while in February 1557 the Pope opened a trial of folly against the Habsburg sovereigns. Since the duke of Alba, having taken Tivoli and then Ostia (18 November 1556), brought the war to the gates of R., a grave danger for the city seemed imminent, especially after the defeat suffered by the papal troops (27 July 1557) and the loss of Segni. But the defeat inflicted on the French at Saint-Quentin and the withdrawal of the troops of the duke of Guise, sent to aid Paul IV, led to the Peace of Cave on 8 September, obtained on good terms thanks to Venetian intervention.

A great tumult broke out instead in Rome at the death of Paul IV (18 Aug. 1559), when the Romans, mindful of the recent dangers and the damage caused them by the war and also spurred on by those who had felt the consequences of the recent reforms and the rigors of the Inquisition promoted by the Pope, attacked the prisons of the Inquisition itself, freeing its prisoners and burning its records; even the statue of the Pope in the Campidoglio was pulled down.

Less than twenty years later, the excesses of that large-scale organized brigandage which then kept the Papal State in turmoil had their repercussions in Rome, inasmuch as it found favor and impunity even within the city. Only the well-known energetic reaction of Sixtus V succeeded in stemming it, though without eradicating it completely.

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

13. From the 17th century to the Revolution

With the close of the 17th century, as a result of Italy’s subjugation to the political domination and supremacy of foreign powers—first France and Spain, then the Empire—Rome lost its role as a political center; the destinies of Europe were shaped in Madrid, Paris, and Vienna; and even spiritual authority, harshly assailed by Protestantism, was threatened by the new politico-religious currents arising within Catholic nations, until they culminated in anti-religious Enlightenment thought. Yet it seems that each of these powers sought to impose its influence on Rome with increasing insistence, in order to eliminate that of its rivals and derive those national advantages that the center of Catholicism could still offer. Everything was employed to guarantee this predominance: the splendor and privileges of their own representatives, the influence of loyal cardinals and prelates, canonists, theologians, and scholars; the blandishments or threats directed at the relatives and friends of the popes, and favor shown toward the interests of particular classes of people.

Moreover, Rome lacked the special guarantees offered by a dynastic tradition, and since the duration of individual pontificates was not long, there were frequent changes in political orientations and in the personnel of the Curia; thus, during the conclaves, the skill—often unscrupulous—of the diplomats had ample scope to promote or hinder candidacies as the case might be. No regard was paid to the protracted sede vacante periods, which had manifold repercussions on the public life of the city.

Serious incidents, which the governor of Rome was not always able to prevent or repress, were provoked by the exemptions that the envoys of the powers (especially the most important ones) never ceased to demand with ever greater scope for their residences. They claimed that within these everything was permitted to them. Thus, when Urban VIII on 22 November 1636 prohibited gambling in any place, the French envoy, Marshal de Coevuves, claimed that he was not bound to observe II. In addition to their palaces, the envoys demanded immunity also for the adjacent houses and streets; prisoners were not to be led past their dwellings; within them they claimed the right to execute justice against the guilty or those suspected of guilt. In 1662 the French Duke of Créqui, known as a troublemaker, exacerbated the citizens’ feelings by his arrogance; he wished to extend the so-called quarter freedom beyond the palace he inhabited and as far as his gaze could reach. A brawl between his men and the Corsican troops of the papal militia provoked the resentment of the latter, who rushed against the Palazzo Farnese, a fight broke out, and there were deaths. No avail were the apologies of the Pope; Louis XIV threatened war; the Chigi family and Alexander VII himself had to humble themselves by accepting the conditions imposed by the King; the Corsicans were banished and were not to be enrolled again in the papal guard; to perpetuate the memory of the event a pyramid with an infamous inscription was erected, which was removed only much later.

All this served only to increase abuses. Wrongdoers sought refuge in the homes and streets of the privileged quarter, while the Roman and foreign rabble found a hiding place there; Palazzo Farnese was open to them even at night, and bloody clashes resulted. To obtain protection from the envoy, refugees sometimes paid considerable sums, while suppliers raised the arms of their respective nations on their own houses and thus shared in the quarter’s immunity—for a fee paid to the envoy. Certificates were likewise issued for a fee, exempting those who obtained them, as members of an envoy’s retinue, from ordinary jurisdiction. Enjoying customs immunity, envoys made arrangements with commercial houses to receive goods without paying duties, later sharing the profits from resale with those houses. Innocent XI sought to put an end to these intolerable abuses, which continually threatened public tranquility. In 1677, the King of Spain declared himself ready to renounce such pretended rights, provided others did likewise. Meanwhile, orders were issued to remove the insignia, extending this measure even to cardinals who had begun to imitate diplomats. Venice yielded in 1679; Spain in 1682. At the death of the Duke of Este, the papal ambassador (1687), the Pope declared that he would not accept a successor unless the quarter was renounced. Louis XIV, however, immediately appointed the Marquis of Lavardin. On 16 November 1687, Lavardin entered Rome with a large retinue, against the Pope’s wishes; the Pope refused to receive him and treated him as excommunicated. When Lavardin presented himself at Christmas services in the church of S. Luigi dei Francesi, the Pope laid an interdict on the church. Lavardin persisted in his defiant conduct, even gaining the support of Christina of Sweden, who was then residing in Rome. This led to threats of armed intervention by Louis XIV and attempts at mediation, until Lavardin was recalled on 14 April 1689. The dispute was finally settled under Alexander VIII with the renunciation of the quarter.

Other episodes also occurred to demonstrate how heavily the interference of representatives—even 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 notorious took place under Clement XII, when, in defiance of every prohibition, the Spanish authorities dared to proceed with troop enlistments, creating something akin to forced conscription. The recruiters, aided by the worst local elements, lay in wait and, through every kind of deception, compelled young Romans into military service; others were waylaid at night and taken to be embarked at Ripa Grande. This provoked great excitement in Rome, which was kept alive even by those opposed to the Spanish, so that on 23 March 1738 Trastevere rose up; it freed the abducted youths and threatened the seat of the Spanish embassy, where some of these forced conscripts were being held. The Pope intervened, and despite the protests of Cardinal Acquaviva, the rioters were administered the sacrament and the recruiters were released with a prohibition against further enlistments. Yet these measures provoked a diplomatic controversy that could not be resolved immediately.

For the rest, public life in Rome unfolded with relative tranquility, despite notorious private vendettas and disputes over precedence. The theological controversies, at times quite heated among the clerical class, or that concerning the suppression of the Jesuits, which inflamed the representatives of the Bourbon courts, did not disturb its inner calm. Nor did the solemn religious celebrations—such as the Jubilee every twenty-five years, canonizations, papal elections, and academic sessions enlivened by music—interrupt its uniformity. Illustrious visitors from every land alternated with artists who sought unceasing inspiration in Rome, while scholarly researchers gathered to pursue their investigations into the past. Yet the new times were approaching, and none would have imagined them so dire.

He anxiously followed the course of events in Paris from 1789, both from the religious and the political standpoint. Bernis (v.), the King’s representative, was obliged to leave his post, while the envoys of the new government did not conceal their intention of provoking incidents to justify an intervention. The first important episode Bassville (v.). With the Napoleonic invasion of the Po Valley and the fall of the Venetian Republic through the invasion of the Legations (v.), the provocations grew fiercer, stoked by Giuseppe Bonaparte, who sought a pretext for intervention, until on 28 Dec. 1797, in a clash between Roman Jacobins and papal troops near the French embassy on the Lungara in Trastevere, General Duphot was killed. Thereupon the pretext was found. Rejecting every attempt at mediation, General Berthier advanced on Rome without meeting resistance and on 1 Feb. occupied Castel Sant’Angelo. Five days later, some “patriots,” under the protection of French soldiers, proclaimed the Roman Republic and the end of the temporal power in the Forum Boarium. Pius VI was forced to leave Rome (20 Feb.), taken to Tuscany, and the Sacred College was dispersed.

The Republic received a constitution modelled, with some adaptations and under classical denominations, on that of France in 1795. At the head of the executive power were five consuls; two assemblies, the Tribunate and the 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 remained under the strict control of the French.

The plundering exploitation of the State’s resources by agents of the Directory, monetary inflation and embezzlement worsened an already grave economic situation, which had been deteriorating in the final years of Pius VI’s pontificate, and compromised the vitality of the new institutions. These were supported by some elements of the bourgeoisie—especially the industrious sector—by a few aristocrats and by some ecclesiastics, while the majority of the population remained irreducibly opposed. The sullen resistance in which this popular opposition manifested itself often flared into open insurrection; the revolt of 25 Feb. 1798 was easily quelled, but the insurrection, despite bloody repression, spread into 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 advance beyond Rome and was repulsed within a few days, but had the result of turning the State into a new Vendée.

La difficoltà delle comunicazioni, l'abbandono delle coltivazioni, la chiusura del traffico marittimo per la guerra di corsa, provocarono una carestia che fu gravissima a R., rimasta in breve pressoché isolata. L'invase della Francia, il dissesto finanziario, i contrasti fra gli organi dello Stato e fra gli stessi fautori della Repubblica (ai giacobini radicali, irregolosi e dottrinari, si opponevano i moderati), l'impossibilità di risolvere il grave problema dei rapporti fra lo Stato e la Chiesa furono altri elementi a far sì che gli sforzi di creare una vita amministrativa e politica autonoma non avessero risultato. La nuova classe dirigente, sostituita alla Curia pontificia, dimostrò generosità ed entusiasmo, ma anche insufficienza al suo compito, e, in molti casi, corruzione. Ad un primo consolato provvisorio (Riganti, Pessuti, Angelucci, Costantini, Bassi, Bonelli) ne successe, con l'entrata in vigore della Costituzione, un secondo (Angelucci, Panazzi, Reppi, De Matthaeis, Ennio Quirino Visconti) che fu rovesciato dai Francesi (12-17 sett. 1798). L'ultimo consolato (Zaccaleoni, Brizzi, Rey, Pierelli, Callisti) vide sempre più ristretta la propria autorità, contrastata anche dalle assemblee legislative. I Francesi, dinanzi alla grave situazione militare creatasi con la seconda coalizione, sciolsero Parlamento e consolato, misero la Repubblica in stato d'assedio e governarono attraverso un Comitato provvisorio alle loro dirette dipendenze (luglio 1799).

Mentre la Repubblica si disfaceva all'interno, gli Austriaci premevano dal nord, e nel sud avanzava l'esercito napoletano. Il 30 sett. 1799 i Francesi capitolarono ed i Napoletani entrarono in R.; Ancona, assediata da terra e dal mare, resistette fino al 13 nov.

Vittorio F. Giuntella

VIII. FROM THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY TO 1849. In the following years, Rome (R.) experienced, without particular upheavals, the events that led to the reconstitution of the Papal State (v.), the arrival of Pius VII (1800), the new abolition of the State in 1808 through the actions of Napoleon, the deportation of Pius VII, and the proclamation of Rome as an imperial city. Bonaparte himself nurtured a great love for Rome and took pride in its restoration. He appointed de Tournon as prefect, who administered the city with prudence; and from 1810 onwards, a new era of urban development began for the city. Notable improvements were indeed made, such as the successful transformation initiated of the Pincian Hill (cf. I. Ranieri, Lavori a R. nell'epoca napoleonica. Il Palazzo di Venezia e il Pincio, in Civ. Catt., 1906, IV, pp. 129-49). However, the emperor failed to win the people’s sympathies; only a portion of the Roman nobility rallied around the new regime and did not hesitate to maneuver for positions and appointments at the imperial court (cf. L. Madelin, La Rome de Napoléon. La domination française à Rome de 1809 à 1814, Paris 1906, pp. 255-63, 382-87). Upon his triumphant return to Rome on 24 May 1814, Pius VII once again had cause to fear for his personal safety when, during the Hundred Days, Joachim Murat announced his arrival in the city. The Pope departed on 22 March 1815, but returned on 7 June following, after the defeat of Neapolitan forces at Tolentino (3-4 May 1815), and could finally turn his attention to promoting the city’s growth and the restoration of ancient monuments. Gregory XVI promoted excavations in the Forum; and under his initiative, three museums were opened: the Egyptian, the Etruscan, and the Lateran.

Yet restoring to Rome an incomparable splendor in artistic and religious terms could not constitute the essential task. Indeed, certain narrow but active segments of the population were stirred by a new spirit; they aimed to reform the structure of the Papal State, aligning it more closely with the liberal tendencies gaining ground in Europe, and oriented themselves toward a representative regime. Gregory XVI confined himself to broad reforms and provisions of a purely administrative nature. His successor, Pius IX, understood that refusing even constitutional adjustments would be dangerous and could jeopardize the existence of the temporal power. The publication of the usual amnesty decree, extended even to political exiles, aroused remarkable enthusiasm among the Romans and throughout Italy (16 July 1846; cf. A. Mercati, In margine alla amnistia concessa da Pio IX, in Aevum, 24 (1950), pp. 103-32). This was followed (on 1 and 3 October 1847) by the creation of a municipal council with the authority to elect nine magistrates, who would form a Senate and attend to the civic interests of Rome (Atti del Sommo Pontifice Pio IX, parte 2°, vol. I, Rome 1857, pp. 1-47, 151-90). The promulgation of the Fundamental Statute

For the temporary government of the States of the Church (18 March 1848), unfortunately granted in part under pressure from the streets, had important consequences for the city, since it now had to host a parliament whose members would be elected on the basis of about one deputy for every 30,000 inhabitants and by restricted suffrage (ibid., pp. 222-38). The attempt at a very mitigated and belatedly implemented constitutional regime contained neither the reactionaries nor the extremists. Among the latter, many of the political exiles who had returned to Rome began, consciously or not, to maintain a dangerous state of agitation. They discussed politics in the Corso or at the entrances to cafés, dramatically recounting the sufferings endured far from home and pointing out abuses, real or imagined, that were rife in the Papal States. The firm hand of Minister Pellegrino Rossi, backed by moderates and neo-Guelphs, only served to exacerbate and inflame the fury of the disorder’s supporters, enemies of the Pope and the Church, and to drive them to attempt his life. After Rossi was killed, the revolution broke out and Pius IX, besieged in the Quirinal Palace, was forced to seek safety and freedom in Mola di Gaeta (Formia; 25 Nov. 1848).

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 the imposition of the democratic ministry of Muzzarelli-Galletti (16 Nov.), Pius IX left Rome for Gaeta on the night of 24 Nov. On 27 Nov. he appointed a governing commission, presided over by Cardinal Castracane, and on 7 Dec. prorogued the parliamentary session; but the Chamber of Deputies, deeming these measures unconstitutional, entrusted the direction of the State to a provisional junta (11 Dec.).

When attempts to contact the Pontiff failed, radical solutions were adopted: the junta dissolved Parliament (26 Dec.) and called elections by direct and universal suffrage. Pius IX, who had protested against the creation of the State Junta (17 Dec.), imposed the greater excommunication on anyone who attacked the integrity of the State of the Church and on those who participated in the elections (1 Jan. 1849). The Constituent Assembly, elected on 21-22 Jan., thus proved to be overwhelmingly democratic in character; convening in Rome on 5 Feb., at dawn on 9 Feb. it declared the temporal power abolished (with a promise to guarantee the independence of the Pope’s spiritual authority) and proclaimed a republic.

The new State, governed by an executive committee (Armellini, Montecchi, Saliceti), confiscated ecclesiastical property (partly sold to reduce the public debt and partly assigned to foundations), reformed the school system, which until then had been subject to the jurisdiction of bishops; abolished all privileges of forum and the tribunal of the Holy Office; suppressed the annona and the grain 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—still severe even after the issuance of a forced loan—caused, through inflation, rising prices and the stagnation of productive and exchange activities. These circumstances (compounded by the political and military situation that soon developed) led to shortages of essential goods and a rise in unemployment, which worsened with the dismissal of employees loyal to the Pope.

The government, caught between pressing needs to defend itself against powerful internal and external adversaries and the demagogic agitation of extremist factions, had to intervene energetically to restore order in Ancona and other locations, where bloody violence had erupted against the clergy and the upper classes, who were mostly opposed to the new regime. Meanwhile, the plan for a religious reform—initially championed by the most ardent Mazzinians—foundered due to the opposition of the Constituent Assembly and the majority of republicans themselves. Instead, a conciliatory policy toward the Catholic masses was pursued.

Viewed by the dominant Roman political factions primarily as a solution to a local problem, the Republic took on a new significance and function as the first nucleus of national unity when Mazzini arrived in Rome (March 5) and volunteers flocked in from all parts of Italy. Mazzini’s influence became preponderant after the Piedmontese defeat at Novara, when a Triumvirate (Mazzini, Saffi, and Armellini), vested with broader powers, replaced the Executive Committee (March 29).

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 to safeguard the freedom of the magisterium and the rights of the Pope. Thus, the Spanish thesis (supporting the intervention of Italian powers alone) prevailed over the Piedmontese one, which aligned with the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 and maintained the pre-eminent international interest in preserving the Papal State. The appeal was favourably received by Louis Napoleon, eager for Catholic support and determined to counter Austrian influence in Italy. A corps of troops, commanded by General Oudinot, landed on 26 April at Civitavecchia, but, surprised beneath the walls of Rome by the unexpected resistance of volunteer and regular troops, was forced to retreat (30 April). On 9 May at Palestrina and on 9 June at Velletri something similar befell the Neapolitans. While the French were concluding an armistice with the Republic and attempting, through the mission of Ferdinand de Lesseps, a peaceful solution, Austria, freed from the burden of war in Lombardy, invaded the Romagna and the Marches, and the Spanish, with scant forces, infiltrated from the south into the Sabina.

The new political situation in France, determined in mid-May by the electoral victory of the conservatives, led to the intransigence of the Prince-President and the military, for whom the Roman expedition had become a matter of national prestige. In June, before the truce had expired, General Oudinot launched a surprise attack on Villa Pamphili, the focal point of the defence of the Janiculum, and succeeded in seizing Villa Corsini as well, repulsing the desperate counterattacks of the defenders. The struggle continued throughout June before the Gate of St Pancras, but, despite the heroism of the defenders, on 21 June the French managed to capture a stretch of the walls and thus bring the fire of their cannons directly upon the city. On 30 June, the Assembly, against the advice of Mazzini, decided to cease resistance, which was now unsustainable. 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 as its final act a Constitution, was dispersed.

The extremists, however, were not deterred and treacherously stabbed to death several moderates and many soldiers, while the military authority failed to carry out the secret orders received from Paris aimed at establishing a wisely liberal government and presenting the Holy See with a fait accompli. The government of the State and city was thus restored to the legitimate sovereign (15 June) and provisionally entrusted to a Commission of Cardinals, which removed all that had been extorted and imposed upon the Pope by the most violent innovators. Soon agitation and unrest spread anew among these factions (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 Apr. 1850), political outrages continued, and what was worse, in 1853 some of the most subversive conspirators even plotted against the life of the Supreme Pontiff, who, despite this, strove by ever-new and well-conceived administrative and social measures—including the introduction of telegraphs and railways—to adapt the Papal State and the city itself to the demands of the times, also through excellent urban works and embellishments. Thus a relative calm prevailed in Rome, though not always under welcome French bayonet protection; but after the cession of Venetia to Italy (10 Aug.–3 Sept. 1866), a speech by Victor Emmanuel II seemed fraught with menace: “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, Roma capitale del Papa, II, Rome 1906, p. 300).

Instead of intervening directly, the Italian government allowed Garibaldi’s troops to attack the Lazio and Rome for over a month, while the Cairoli brothers attempted to bring a convoy of arms down the Tiber for the revolutionaries, who were to spark an insurrection in the city. But the planned revolution was swiftly crushed, and Garibaldi suffered a bloody defeat at the hands of French papal troops on 3–4 November 1867 at Mentana (q.v.). The fall of the French Empire facilitated the Italian invasion. On 20 September 1870, some artillery pieces breached the walls of Rome between Porta Salaria and Porta Pia; after a fierce five-hour resistance along the entire Aurelian wall, the papal forces, by order of the Pope, ceased fire. At 3 p.m. a surrender was signed at Villa Albani, granting the garrison military honours, the occupation of the city, and—except for the area south of the bastions of S. Spirito, which included the Vatican and Castel S. Angelo and constituted the “Leonine City”—the withdrawal of Italian troops (cf. Archives diplomatiques, II, Paris 1874, p. 84). Cardinal Antonelli, however, “begged” General Cadorna (25 September 1870) to occupy even the territory excluded by the surrender, on account of the excesses committed by “malefactors” in the wake of the regular troops (ibid., p. 107). Thus, on 2 October, the annexation of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy was effected (ibid., pp. 110, 121, 123–31).

IX. ROME, CAPITAL OF ITALY

The history of Rome as capital of Italy begins with the plebiscite of 2 Oct. 1870, which saw only 46 “no” votes because the supporters of temporal power abstained from voting. The official results nonetheless legalized the military conquest of 20 Sept., and in 1871 the Italian government moved from Florence to Rome. Meanwhile urban works — discussed elsewhere — were begun to transform the small “second Rome” into a vast metropolis: a building fever that stagnated toward the end of the century in a severe crisis. Yet what characterized the first decades of Rome 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 transfer from St Peter’s to the Verano (1882) and in the inauguration, as a challenge to the papacy, of the Giordano Bruno monument in Campo de’ Fiori (1887). In apparent triumph, the freemason Nathan was mayor of the city for many years; yet this was answered by a revitalization of Catholic forces, which, besides taking timely and meritorious part in the city administration, proved more numerous than expected on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1900. Thus closed, together with the Holy Door, the last thirty years of the 19th century, which had seen the deaths, within days of one another, of Victor Emmanuel II and Pius IX, and their succession by Leo XIII and Humbert I respectively. The new king was perhaps more popular: hence Rome, though struck, like all Italy, by the disaster of Adowa (1896), greeted with enthusiasm the marriage of the Prince of Naples to Helen of Montenegro.

The new century brought a further easing of tensions, and the Roman people came to cherish with equal affection the sovereign who succeeded his father after the tragedy of Monza (29 July 1900) and the blessed Pius X, pope in 1903. Without ceasing to be Christian, Rome was becoming ever more Italian: so much so that the monument to Victor Emmanuel II (1911) increasingly came to be united in the hearts of the Romans with the Vatican dome. With sincere patriotism Rome throbbed for the Libyan campaign (1911–12) as for the war of 1915–18, which had its ideal beginning on the Capitol in the days of the so-called “radiant May.” Amid the moved consent of the Romans, Benedict XV — who had become pope in 1914 — carried out from the Vatican his admirable work of pacification and charity, while the two queens turned their palaces into military hospitals. New tremors of civic enthusiasm greeted the return of the sovereign after the armistice; of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, back from Versailles after the Wilsonian manifesto; and of the burial of the Unknown Soldier (4 Nov. 1921).

The postwar period, marked by fratricidal struggles, closed with the Fascist “March” of October 1922. The events did not surprise the Romans, who at the beginning of that same year had acclaimed Pius XI as he blessed the crowd from the outer loggia of St Peter’s for the first time since 1870. It must also be acknowledged, for historical objectivity, that cautious consent to Fascism was consolidated in 1929 with the signing of the Lateran Pacts. The conclusion of the unfortunate discord between Church and State, especially felt by the Romans who were its most direct witnesses, filled Rome with sincere satisfaction. Thus was born the Vatican City State, which in 1929 no one would have believed destined by Providence to ensure, a few years later, the very inviolability of Rome.

Yet the sad years were about to begin. The “occasional” gatherings in Piazza Venezia could no longer conceal Rome’s growing unease with a dictatorship that suppressed freedoms, pursued an imperialist policy, and offended Christian conscience through violence against Catholic Action, an alliance alien to the public spirit, and an ill-considered racial policy. And finally came the disastrous war, the tragic bombings of July and August 1943, which saw Pius XII bending in grief over the dead of the Tiburtino and the Prenestino.

Nestus was the spectre of hunger. Not even the dramatic fall of Fascism (25 July 1943) restored tranquillity: indeed, after the “forty-five days” of Badoglio there followed the proclaimed armistice, the abandonment of Rome 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—the gravest perhaps in its thousand-year history—Rome rallied around the Pope, awaiting from him salvation. Nor was filial hope disappointed, for Pius XII succeeded in curbing Hitler’s ferocity, in provisioning the city, in averting the deportation of able-bodied men, despite the double massacre of Via Rasella and the Fosse Ardeatine (March 1944), and finally in preventing the city from becoming a battlefield after the collapse of the German front at Cassino and Anzio. As by a miracle, Rome found herself free and safe on 4 June 1944, and the Romans hastened to St Peter’s to hail in the Pope the “defensor civitatis,” to whom alone the miracle was due.

Amid a renewed upsurge of political passions, a new order took shape. The referendum of 2 June 1946 followed, and in the subsequent political and administrative elections the Romans consistently cast their votes for parties sincerely democratic and guardians of Christian civilisation. These briefest of sketches of eighty years of Roman history can find no better close than the memory of the Jubilee of 1950, which must be numbered among the most fortunate 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 for Rome’s entry upon 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 Urbs, centre of Christendom and seat of the Vicar of Christ.

RENZO U. MONTINI

II. LATIN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

SUMMARY:

I. Literary Latinity: origins, fundamental characteristics up to the 6th century

II. Classical Latin literature, Christian Greek literature, and Christian Latin writers

III. Ancient Christian Latin literature

IV. Medieval

V. Modern.

I. LITERARY LATINITY: ORIGINS, FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS UP TO THE 6TH CENTURY — Since Christian Latin (v.) has already been discussed, it is now appropriate to examine how and when this Latin became literary. «Primis fidei temporibus» the Christian faith was entirely, or rather almost entirely, devoid of any literary concern. From the few clues that can be gathered and the hypotheses that can be advanced, it does not appear that there was any intention to create a new Latin in opposition to the common tongue; rather, there was only careful study to render Latin effective, clear, and faithful expression of the «new», using all legitimate and normal means, some of which were also employed by pagans to create that Latinity which, with an unhappy expression, was called «silver» Latinity.

In both works one seems to discern that spirit of conservation, so thoroughly Roman, which is present in all the crises of this language. At the end of the 2nd century and at the beginning of the 3rd, genuine literary concerns begin to emerge within Western Christianity, and the language, as the language of usage, which had reached its full development, is also affected. The writers, products of the school, found themselves at the crossroads between following the pagan exemplars—especially those designated as such by the school—and opening new paths: the first choice appeared fraught with grave dangers, the second was beset by difficulties and doubts. It is not the place here to touch upon the question of the priority of MINUCIUS or TERTULLIAN in the history of Christian Latin literature. What must be absolutely rejected is the notion of placing MINUCIUS later than the beginning of the 3rd century unless one wishes to give proof of one’s own critical incapacity. In any case, these signs point to the first party, TERTULLIAN to the other: as regards language and style, the former wished scholastically to be classical, like PLINY THE YOUNGER; in the language of TERTULLIAN there is much spoken Latin, much biblical Latin with its Greek and Hebrew loanwords, much scholastic Latin, and a fair amount of Silver Latin. It is clear that neither the ideal of the former nor that of the latter—both conceived at the twilight dawn of Christian Latin literature—was attainable. But the school intervened, and as regards language, the Latin of TERTULLIAN after about half a century was transformed into the Latin of CYPRIAN, in which the various elements are fused together.

Yet the school intervened again, and after less than a century and a half had elapsed since the appearance of the Octavius, it took up once more with LACTANTIUS (early 4th century) the ideal of MINUCIUS, with the evident conscious effort, in the formal sphere, to create a Latin with a Ciceronian flavour capable of expressing not only “coherence and ornament” but also, with precision, Christian ideology.

Lactantius, however, realized that his attempt was not achieving its goal, and that it could not do so because it was an insurmountable task even for one possessed of writing skills superior to his own; he changed course and produced the Latin of the De mortibus persecutorum, a work whose authorship some denied him, especially on linguistic grounds (J. G. P. Borleffs, An scripserit Lactantius libellum qui est de mortibus persecutorum, in Mnemosyne, 58 [1930], pp. 223–92).

Sometimes the school overreached, as must have happened in that Aquitanian school from which Hilary of Poitiers emerged, rich in culture which he later expanded in the East. Half a century after Lactantius, he believed that theological subjects (cf., e.g., *De Trinitate*) could be treated in a language and style governed by the precepts of Quintilian, then widely misunderstood by many teachers, and it was this work that Jerome carves in one of his epistles (58, 10). But Jerome was a pupil of Donatus; and the schools, like that of Donatus, produced the Latin of Ambrose, Prudentius, and Jerome himself.

The school (that of grammar and rhetoric in general) shaped the tone of Latin letters in the 4th century among pagans and Christians alike: among the latter in particular Christian literature showed more vigorous germs of life. As regards language, Christian writers aimed to create a form that would suit the content and give it clarity and splendor such as pagan writers had known and knew how to give to their works—something quite different from pouring Christian thought into the language of Cicero. They did not pour the Christian idea into the language of Sallust, Virgil, and the like; such was the effort of Ambrose, Prudentius, and Jerome, crowned with success.

The Latin of these writers had been shaped, unconsciously, by pagan teachers and, consciously, by Christian ones; then, through a combination of causes, the school began to decline. The work of Donatus petered out toward the end of the 4th century, but perhaps in the brief schooling measures of Julian the Apostate there also entered the dominant thought in the mind of this Emperor, who was also a scholar, to defend classical letters: in reality these measures disturbed the school in East and West alike, and through them the Christian school was deprived of teachers like Marius Victorinus. It was the time when Christian thought rose to the loftiest heights to which it was carried by the towering mind of Augustine, who, around 400, of the African grammar schools in which he had been instructed, thought what we read in chapters 16 and 17 of Book I of the *Confessions*, and of the language in which it was to be
ROME — The Capitoline Hill in Michelangelo’s arrangement (1550 and completed in the 17th century).

He expressed the Christian thought that he conceived and outlined in the following twenty years 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, as in Tertullian, ring out as a revolt against Roman paganism, but rather opened to Latin the paths of the future. Superficial is the judgment that claims Augustine’s Latinity to be opposed to Jerome’s: Augustine knew classical Latin, knew the Latin of Christian writers, and from both he took whatever seemed suitable to express with clarity, precision, and efficacy *quae intellecta sunt... ut intelligenter, ut libenter, ut obedienter audiantur* (cf. *Doct. Christ.*, IV, 15). When he found such Latin insufficient, he drew from the living speech, or rather, he drew inspiration from Holy Scripture, shaping his Latin with untrammeled freedom. And the language that arose from this was truly Catholic, that is, without limits of space or time.

At the present state of studies on the language of Christian Latin writers of the 5th and 6th centuries—studies which cannot be said to have reached completion, since secure editions of individual writers are indispensable for them—it must be considered that the Augustinian doctrine concerning language spread quickly and rather widely, albeit to varying degrees in different regions; widely, for example, in Gaul, very sparsely in Spain; in none of the lands where it arrived was it understood in its entirety. The mediocre teachers of the time, at best, could only strive to free themselves from classical form, whether in vocabulary or grammar, in prosody or in metrics, from the thought of Augustine on this matter; more than one of them remained perplexed, while another failed to free himself from “the mere property of the Latin tongue.” Thus in Gaul, alongside Salvian of Marseilles (d. c. 480), in whom Augustinian influences are evident, there are the linguistic confusions of Apollinaris Sidonius (c. 430–c. 482) and the attempts of Vitus (5th–6th centuries) to imitate classical form, especially in poetry. In Africa, the Latin of Victor of Vita, Dracontius, and Fulgentius, when closely examined, attests to the conditions of those schools (when Fulgentius, born in 468 at Telepte in Byzacena, left Africa for the first time he was over thirty), in which the literary doctrines of Augustine had penetrated tumultuously. A comparative study of the Latin of Italian writers of the 5th and 6th centuries (Sedulius, Leo the Great, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Arator, Venantius Fortunatus) and of their Latin, freely blending that of the classical writers of various centuries, would be most interesting. More modestly, Venantius Fortunatus sought to write Latin that, pleasing to the ears of the Germanic barbarians, might penetrate their hearts with the sweetness of the Muses, and he did not shrink from barbarisms. But at the threshold of the 6th century Gregory I (540–604) solemnly proclaimed with Augustine: “I consider it most unworthy to restrict the words of the heavenly oracle under the rules of Donatus” (Ep., V, 53). This meant that, as the Empire of Rome became an ideal empire through Christianity, adequate means were required to convey the throb of the heart and the thought of the mind of those who formed this ideal empire. Donatus was no longer sufficient.

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

The literary problem presented itself to Christian writers as far more complex than the linguistic one: its solution necessarily implied constant and profound study of the classics, the dangers and pitfalls of which they had to fear, especially for the education of the young (Tertullian, *De anima*, 39; Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, 23, 1; cf. Basil, *Ips. cox. vico vico*).

The attitude of Christians in the Greek world toward this problem differed from that of the Latins. In the Greek world, Christian literature arose when Greek genius, now weary after nine centuries of effort to create that pagan tradition, lacked the strength to attempt new ventures. Thus the new literature was formally channeled into the groove of tradition with only rare and superficial touches, while its content, constrained by the exigencies of the times, was predominantly theological and philosophical.

In the Greek world, therefore, the problem of the relationship that this literature should have with the classical tradition was not even precisely addressed, and only justifications for the study of the classics were sought—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 Latin culture, still vigorous, was straining toward the “new” amid deep spiritual travail. Hence artistic, even “rhetorical” intentions prevailed in it, if the adjective is given the meaning it had at the time. Indeed, in Christian Latin literature, the intention to renew literature itself—even repeatedly—with a revolutionary spirit soon became evident (cf. Tertullian, Arnobius,

expressed the Christian thought that he outlined in the following twenty years 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,

Commodian). In JUSTIN it is evident the absolute literary indifference, in MINUCIUS there is an attempt to renew Ciceronian art; in TATIAN there is manifest slovenliness, in TERTULLIAN a continual striving to open new paths to letters. It followed that the Christian Latin writers confronted and resolved, in the only way possible, the problem of their relationship with pagan writers of all centuries. And it was proclaimed that the study of the classics served to transform the ancient—not in the light of ethics, except for rare exceptions—but in the light of art, into the “new.” Thus is explained how, toward the close of the 4th century, BASIL, who had nonetheless been a famous rhetoric teacher in Caesarea, in his Address to Young Men could name the great Greek poets without adding to their names even an adjective expressing an aesthetic judgment, whereas JEROME, a few years later, in his Letter to Magnus, Orator of the City of Rome, found occasion to do so by citing Cyprian, Aristides, Minucius, etc. And at the beginning of the following century, AUGUSTINE set to work on his De doctrina christiana (completed in 426), that is, the most considered treatise on rhetoric in Christian literature. Of these two, the first was the most authoritative representative of the trend that sought to renew classical literature in Christian writing but with a certain moderation, while the other pointed out and carried out renewal with the greatest—but well-considered—freedom. And in fact, the Greeks continued in Christian literature almost all the genres of that prose—some more than those cultivated by the Latins (e.g., drama: cf. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Χριστός, παῖς χρόνων)—and produced a literature certainly interesting in many respects, but which from an artistic standpoint sent forth nothing but setting rays. Whereas the Christian Latin literature, renewing that prose which was gradually fading, sent forth rays of dawn: one need only think of the eloquence and poetry of AMBROSE; of the commentaries and epistolary writings of JEROME; of the poetry of PRUDENTIUS; of most of the writings of AUGUSTINE. And if it entered into competition with the Greeks, it surpassed them: this is attested, among other things, by the Homilies and the Hexaemeron of AMBROSE. And it created the soliloquy of AUGUSTINE. When JULIAN, applying the measures of which we have spoken, allowed VICTORINUS to leave the chair in Rome and showed himself willing to maintain PROHAERESIUS in that of the Athenæum in Athens, he demonstrated that he understood that the danger to classical letters, which he cherished, was graver in the West than in the East; but he did not—and could not—understand that it was the Christian literature of the West that had hitherto ensured and would continue to ensure for the future all that of Roman thought, literary art, and language destined to live on through the centuries.

la sua attività si svolse a cavaliere delle due età, prima sotto Diocleziano, che lo chiamò a Nicomedia ad insegnare l'eloquenza latina, e poi sotto Costantino, che lo volle precettore del figlio Crispo a Treviri (ca. 317), ma anche perché in questo scrittore l'interesse polemico si combina, preludendo a uno degli aspetti caratteristici del periodo aureo, con l'intento di esposizione sistematica. Con Lattanzio, nell'Hoedoporicon, perduo, e nel De vero phoenice, di cui non sembra si possa negargli la paternità, fa la sua prima comparsa la poesia latina cristiana di sicura datazione. All'età Laudes Domini (v.), un garbato poemetto composto nella Gallia. Con qualche probabilità si collocano nella seconda metà del sec. III, o sul principio del seguente, altre composizioni poetiche, quali lo pseudo-tertulliane Carmen adversus Marcionem, le Instructiones Commodiano (v.), scritti didattici e polemici di carattere popolare nella lingua e nel metro, che interpreta secondo un libero criterio accentuativo il ritmo dell'esame metro classico.

Martyrs worthy of mention for their work are also VITTORINO of Pettau, martyred in 304. It is also fitting to recall the hagiographic literature, which in this period makes its first appearance (to speak only of works elaborated in a literary manner) with the Passion of SS. Perpetua and Felicity (202–203), perhaps due to Tertullian, and the Life and Passion of St. Cyprian, written shortly after his martyrdom by his deacon Pontius.

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

After the great figures, the lesser ones must also be named: Pope St. Damasus (v.), known for his metrical epitaphs of the martyrs, C. Marius Victorinus (v.), Firmicus Maternus (v.), Cagliari (v.), Fortunatianus (v.) and Chromatius (v.) of Aquileia, Vercelli (v.), Brescia (v.), VERONICA (v.), Optatus of Milevis (v.), Barcelona (v.), Elvira (v.), Bologna (v.), 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.).

The third period: from 430 to 636. — The vigorous creative impulse has waned. In poetry, oratory, theological controversy, and dogmatic and moral treatises, a tradition has been established by the leading figures, both in that pragmatic literature which documents the actions of statesmen and theologians and in the more properly artistic forms, first and foremost in poetry. By analogy in literary expressions, including some writers who worked at the end of the previous period, one notes the metrical paraphrases of the Old and New Testaments by Cyprianus Gallus, C. Marius Victor, Sedulius, and Hilary, at the end of the 5th century; in the following century this genre was still cultivated by Avitus of Vienne and Arator. A note of sincere poetry is found in some poems by the African Dracontius (d. 496); rhetorical artifice dominates the prose and verse compositions of Ennodius (see), bishop of Pavia from 513 to 521. Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530–607) displays a facile vein but little originality of thought and superficial sentiment. Lyric, hagiography, and didactic themes provide material for the verses of Orientius, Paulinus of Pella, Paulinus of Périgueux, and Sidonius Apollinaris. Pastoral oratory is represented with dignity by St. Maximus of Turin (see), Peter Chrysologus (see), St. Leo the Great (see), whose characteristic feature is the ample periodic structure marked by Roman solemnity in the clausulae, which also appears in his doctrinal letters; by St. Caesarius of Arles (470–542; see), who also authored theological and ascetic works. In his homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels, St. Gregory the Great (see), pope from 590 to 604, takes up many Augustinian motifs of thought and form, reworking them with keen practical sense and simplicity of expression not devoid of composed decorum.

The controversy and theological speculation of this period focused 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 Hermiana (v.). The extreme theses of the Augustinian doctrine of Grace, resolutely defended by St. Prosper of Aquitaine (v.), both during the lifetime of the master and after his death, met with lively opposition from John Cassian (v.), known especially as a successful writer on asceticism and as a champion, from his monastery in Marseilles, of monastic life, Lérins (v.), founded by Eucherius of Lyons and illustrated, among others, by St. Vincent (v.), Arnobius the Younger (v.), Faustus, Riez (v.), and Salvian of Marseilles (v.), in which theological and ascetic interests expanded into a passionate meditation on the history of his own time in the *De gubernatione Dei*. History, and especially biography, made considerable progress: mention may be 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; Tours (v.), the historian of the Franks who also left a wide mark in hagiographical literature.

A special place is deservedly held by Severinus Boethius, Cassiodorus (v.), and Isidore of Seville (v.). Boethius (ca. 480–524; v.), who represented and upheld before Theodoric the cause of Romanitas with a dignity that cost him his life, gathered the legacy of ancient philosophy and culture and transmitted it to the Middle Ages through translations, commentaries, and treatises; he speculated on the Trinity and the Incarnation, and composed in prison the *De consolatione philosophiae*, in which problems of thought are re-examined, as in Plato and Augustine, in full humanity and presented, through the alternation of prose and verse, with a nobility worthy of the best classical tradition. Cassiodorus (490–c. 583), withdrawing in the full maturity of his years from public life, devoted himself to a life of moderate asceticism in the monastery of Vivarium in Calabria, which, through his initiative, became a center of intense cultural activity. A notable interest in ancient culture was also shown by Martin, bishop of Braga (v. ca. 515–79), in his moral treatises largely drawn from philosophers and in other more original works. But he was greatly surpassed by another Spaniard, Isidore, bishop of Seville (v. ca. 570–636). With these men, who strove to educate the new barbarian world in the light of classical antiquity and Christianity, the interests, methods, and spirit of medieval culture clearly began to take shape, in which the seeds sown during the early centuries of Christian literature would in due time flourish abundantly.

rie della letter. Iat. in genere hanno un'importanza capitale anche per la letter. Iat. cristiana: M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gesch. der röm. Lit., in Handb. der Altertumswissenschaft, la letter. crist., curata da G. Krüger, è nelle parti 3°, 63° ed., Monaco 1922 e 4°, 1° ed., 1914. Di modesta mole, ma notevole per la parte che fa agli scrittori cristiani, A. G. Amatucci, La lett. di Roma imperiale, Bologna 1947.

IV. MEDIEVAL

I. From the Fall of the Empire to the Carolingian Renaissance

The fall of the Roman Empire with Romulus Augustulus, the subsequent Ostrogothic and Lombard kingdoms, and the various wars with their consequent ruin that devastated Italy threatened to bring about the decline of Christian culture along with whatever of the ancient patrimony of the Roman world it had broadly absorbed. Amid all these ruins, it was of unquestionable benefit that the example of Cassiodorus did not remain solitary but found fertile ground in the Benedictines and especially in St Gregory the Great, poet, monk, and pope, who succeeded in reviving the Church in Italy and 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, which was used especially in the liturgy and worship and consequently also in religious writings, oratory, law, and the sciences. Already among the first companions of St Benedict was the poet Marcus of Monte Cassino, who composed in distichs the life of the founder; and St Gregory the Great, while not sharing Boethius’s enthusiasm for ancient writers, nevertheless proved himself not at all mediocre in the art of style and composed most beautiful hymns that were introduced into the liturgy.

In North Africa, the Vandals destroyed everything; nor did the Byzantine conquest succeed in repairing the damage. At that time flourished the grammarian Flavius Cresconius Corippus, author of the Johannidos seu de bellis Libycis libri VIII, rich in fine narrative; Verecundus, bishop of Bizance, author of a short poem De poenitentia, with exact metre but lacking true poetry; Fulgentius Ferrandus of Carthage with various canonical writings. With this, Latin literature disappeared from Africa. In Visigothic Spain, on the other hand, letters flourished beautifully; even several kings composed little poems, distichs, and inscriptions: Sisebut, Chintila, Recceswinth, Wamba. Great merit in the classical instruction of the Visigoths was due to the great bishops of the time: Severus of Cartagena, Taio and Braulio of Saragossa, Ildefonsus and Julian of Toledo, Fructuosus of Braga, Eugenius II of Toledo with his poem Hexaemeron, who mastered various kinds of verse; and above all Isidore of Seville (v.).

In Gaul, amid the numerous political upheavals, the Church maintained steadfast the unity and Latin culture, in which were distinguished Gregory of Tours (v. : Historia Francorum); Venantius Fortunatus with his ca. 250 Christian poems in content but clothed in the garments and forms of ancient mythology; his hymns on the Cross were introduced into the liturgy.

Secondo tradition, Latin literature found refuge in Ireland through the work of St. Patrick (v.); his disciple Secundinus celebrated his deeds in 23 trochaic strophes. From Ireland came the monk Columba, who founded the monastery of Iona, a center of culture and influence throughout Caledonia; Abbot Adamnan left a poetic life of him, containing passages of exquisite poetry, to which he added *De situ Terrae Sanctae*, drawn from the accounts of Arculf, a bishop of Gaul who had been shipwrecked there. The English, however, include: 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 diffusion, and author of prose and short poems, among them *Symposius*, a collection of 100 riddles to stimulate the minds of beginners, and *De laudibus virginum*, a survey of men and women commendable for their virginity. Similarly, a center of cult
ROME — View of R. from the roof of the Palazzo della Cancelleria, drawing by Stefano Du Péra (1567). Property of Th. Ashby.

The abbey of Wearmouth in Northumbria flourished with its founder, BISARCIO (v.), who enriched it with numerous codices brought back from five journeys to Rome; Ceolfrid (v.), likewise a collector of codices, to whom we owe the celebrated “Amiatine Bible”; and the Venerable Bede, whose numerous works span nearly every field of knowledge of his time. In the first half of the 7th century, Ireland sent missionaries to Germany, who, with the faith, also spread Latin culture in the many convents established there. Columbanus, author of letters and short poems, with his pupil St Gall, and above all St Boniface, author of letters, poems, and a refined collection of riddles—little enigmatic though they are—yet finely delineating the ten principal virtues and the ten principal vices. With him, the nuns Eadburga and Lioba corresponded in verse letters.

14. Carolingian Age

It can rightly be called a literary renaissance, for letters flourished magnificently 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. At Aachen, his residence, there gathered 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 manuscripts, Joseph the Scot, famous for his acrostic figures; among the Franks, Angilbert and Einhard (v.), biographer of the Emperor; the guiding spirit of this entire circle was Alcuin (v.) of York. But Aachen failed to become, as was hoped, an ideal centre comparable to Rome, and even before Charles’s death many of his champions had dispersed from various quarters, and letters, after their promising springtime, returned to gather again within the circle of monasteries, since laymen took little interest in them. At Fulda, among others, distinguished himself Rabanus Maurus (v.), the “praeceptor Germaniae,” for his zeal in schools and instruction. At Reichenau, Walafrid Strabo stood out, who with De visionibus Wettini foreshadows the Divine Comedy and with the Hortulus produced a didactic poem with very graceful and cultured touches; Ermoldus Nigellus, with his 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 were made with interlinear versions and glossaries, there distinguished themselves: Notker Balbulus, of great musical gifts, who originated the Sequences, which spread rapidly and were imitated by many; Tuotilo, who did the same for the Introits with the Tropes; Raptor and the five Ekkehards, the first of whom was ordered to render some Germanic sagas into Latin verse and thus produced the heroic poem Waltherius manu fortis; later purified of the many barbarisms that had remained (“Haec, quicumque legis stridenti ignosce cicada”) by the last Ekkehard, the V. The poem tells of Waltherius’s flight from the court of Attila and his manifold adventures. Slightly later is another adventure poem, of unknown authorship, the *Roudlieb*, the story of the young knight Ruod, who, forced to leave his homeland, spends two years in exile amid adventures of arms and love.

An animal epic appears with the *Ecbasis cuiusdam captivi* (1175 hexameters), of unknown author, but in the manner of Virgil; it is the work of a monk who, under the guise of various animals, describes his apostasy, his wanderings, and finally his return to the fold. Of the same genre, but shorter (344 distichs), is the *Ysengrimus* (the author, an ardent admirer of Ovid, is unknown and dates from the early 12th century), which recounts two adventures: the illness of a lion and the pilgrimage of a chamois. To this poem may be linked the more extensive reworking by Master Nivard (mid-12th century), the *Reinhardus Vulpes*. Particular mention should be made of the nun Hrotsvit (v.) of Gandersheim, who, besides various poetic works of hagiographical subject matter, also turned her hand to adapting Terence’s plays, substituting their risqué material with more wholesome loves, treated at times with ingenuous boldness.

3. *Toward the Renaissance* (9th–13th centuries). — In this period the new literatures of Europe’s emerging peoples were taking shape, and lay writers began to cultivate them with care and even talent, while Latin continued to be the language of the Church, of law, of diplomacy, and also of the universities—above all, a very rich historical production, though of uneven literary value. Given the sheer abundance, a detailed list is impossible (the works themselves, published in the *MGH*, *RIS*, *Acta SS.*, *PL*, and other similar collections, are far from exhaustive), so it will be best to outline the various literary genres in broad strokes, especially since the best national literary histories, alongside works written in the vernacular, usually also treat those composed in Latin.

Therefore, in the field of historical production, the *Vitae sanctorum* occupy an important place at this time, especially those relating to churches, monasteries, shrines, and pilgrimage destinations (Luitger, Aelthried, 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, Agnellus for Ravenna, etc.), and the events of lesser peoples, their rulers, and various conquests (Echembert for the Lombards at Benevento, Liutprand for the history of his times, Widukind for the Saxons, Hermannus Contractus, Master Adam, Anastasius the Librarian, George Syncellus, Oderic Vitalis, Flodoard, Otto of Freising, William of Tyre, etc.). Here, too, histories mingled with legends found fertile ground, as did the naive credulity of many hagiographers, and the zeal for edification, so that in the various collections of legends by James of Varazze, Thomas of Chantimpré, Caesarius of Heisterbach, etc., it is not always easy to disentangle the kernel of truth from the broad swathes of exaggeration and contamination. Nor should we overlook attempts to lend an epic form to the abundant material thus furnished by legends, whether in the hagiographic field (e.g., the various *De triumphis Christi* on the saints and martyrs of Palestine, Antioch, and Arabia by Flodoard of Reims, already cited; the *Vita et passio s. Christi sopheris* of Walter of Speyer; the *Passio s. Mauritii*, etc., of Sigebert of Gembloux, etc.) or in the historical field (the *Vittoria dei Pisani sui Saraceni* [1088], the deeds of the Perugians, the conquest of Jerusalem, the *Solymarinus* on the enterprises of the First Crusade, the *Ligurinus* on Frederick II Barbarossa, the *Alexandreis* 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 culture and humanistic culture (*Polycratius* and *Enthetus* by Giovanni di Salisbury, etc.); then humanistic studies are considered as the first stage of philosophical studies (Gerardo di Betun’s *Labyrinthus*); indeed, a strong influence of Plautus and Terence becomes evident (e.g., the story of *Paolino e Polla* by a certain judge Riccardo, and *Venusinae gentis alumnus*). The shadowy areas of the Middle Ages are brought to light by a whole satirical production that reaches its peak in what is commonly called the goliardic poetry of the *clerici vagantes*, where now they beg for aid to pursue their studies, now they expound with broad and sometimes excessive freedom the most amusing subjects, the pleasures of wine and love (*Mihi est propositum in taberna mori*), and now they mercilessly expose the weaknesses of the clergy and the vices of all professions. In the absence of true art and true dramatic poetry, they resorted to liturgical plays, especially those of Easter and Christmas and other Mysteries related to them, which, however, degenerated into reprehensible contaminations with the festivals of fools or donkeys. On the other hand, religious lyric poetry and hymnody (*hymns, sequences, tropes*) flourished, drawing not only from classical sources but also and especially from rhythmic ones (St. Peter Damian, Ermanno Contractus, Peter the Venerable, Hildebert of Tours, Abelard, St. Bernard, Adam of St. Victor, St. Thomas Aquinas), and the encyclopedic work of Vincenzo di Beauvais offered a broad path for further development and study of literature: *Speculum triplex, naturale, doctrinale, historiale*, with its rich treasury of quotations and passages drawn from an extraordinary quantity of pagan and Christian authors.

V. Moderna

In this period of the humanist movement at its height, marked by a lively study of ancient authors, alongside a pagan or semi-pagan literary output, sometimes of deplorable lightness and boldness, there are also Christian literary works well worth mentioning not only for their perfect stylistic form but also for the loftiness of their thought and sentiments. For Italy, mention should be made of: Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pius II), one of the greatest champions of the Renaissance, with *De viris illustribus*, *De puerorum educatione*, and the autobiography *Commentarii rerum memorabilium*; Pier Paolo Vergerio with *De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus studiis adulescentiae*; Maffeo Vegio with *De educatione liberorum*; Giacomo Sadoleto with his little poems and his philosophical and pedagogical writings; Girolamo Vida with *De rebus divinis* and the *Christias*; Jacopo Sannazaro with *De partu Virginis*; Gian Giorgio Trissino, Gerolamo Fracastoro. Outside Italy, the following may be cited: John Gerson, Willibald Pirckheimer, Trithemius, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, John Dantiscus, Hermann of Wied. Étienne de La Boétie, Justus Lipsius, Hugo Grotius, the Lutheran bishop of Ireland Brinjolf Svensson with his fine collection of Marian poems.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the so-called Jesuit theatre remained famous, that is, the numerous series of dramas composed by teachers and performed by students in their various colleges. The field of action, so to speak, was rather limited, both because of its purely pedagogical purpose and because of the performers' artistic skill not yet fully developed. Nevertheless, it exerted a very considerable influence, and the number of compositions is very high. Generally, the subject matter was drawn from Greek and Roman history, the Bible, the salient events of the lives of the saints, episodes from medieval and contemporary history, or abstract and allegorical themes concerning virtues and vices. Among the very large number of those who engaged in it, some stood out: Giacomo Biedermann, Niccolò Avancini, Niccolò Poussin, John Spinelli. This school theatre, adopted in almost all religious schools, finds a parallel in the contemporary Protestant literature, already stimulated by Luther himself and which counts as a forerunner the Dutchman Willem van de Volder-groft.

In the same period, lyric poetry, fostered by numerous occasions such as births, commemorations, weddings, and religious investitures, had some noteworthy practitioners: Maciej Sarbiewski, Jacob Balde, Simon Rettenbacher; epic poetry produced J. Masen’s *Sarcotis*, a prototype in some respects of Milton’s *Paradise Lost*. Balde’s *Urania victrix*, mentioned above; Tommaso Ceva’s *Jesus puer* and the *Life of Mary* by the Venerable José de Anchieta; didactic and satirical works by Giovanni Lorenzo Lucchesini and Giulio Cesare Cordara.

The modern Neoclassical movement. — In the second half of the 19th century, there is a notable revival of Latin literature, especially in the field of poetry, which, freed from Humanist conventions and freely roaming the open seas of the modern era, seems finally to close the parenthesis of the 17th and 18th centuries, during which, although many were the Latin exercises, comparatively few were the voices truly worthy. To this Neo-Humanism contributed the Dutch foundation in Amsterdam, established by Jacobus Henricus Hoeufft, and various others that followed (in Italy: the Ruspantini Competition [Rome], the Triumviri Competition [Gracae Marina]). Restricting ourselves to the assigned field of Christian Latin literature, mention should be made of: the Swiss Peter Esseiva, with his Biblical poems and Roman Elegies; Diego Vitrioli (Xiphias); Leo XIII with Odes, Epigrams, and Elegies, reflecting the events of the times; Giovanni Pascoli (v.) with his Christian poems; 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, Thriumphele melos); F. S. Alessio (Vitus); G. Morabito (Martyrres); Diego Verghetti (Gloriosus Ordo B.M.V. de Mercede); A. Monti (De arte volandi, Ad Polum versus); R. Currozzari (Caecilia); O. Cagnacci (Odae); A. Trazzi (Formicae magistrae, Pio Papae XI); V. Genovesi (Carmina, Carmina fidei); A. Bacci (Inscriptiones, Oratio nes, Epistolae). To be welcomed with sympathy is the new (1953) quarterly Latin periodical *Latinitas*, published under the auspices of the Holy See, which will deal, among other things, with both ancient and recent Christian Latin writers.

III. Art.

Summary:

I. The ancient age

II. Art from the 4th century to the second half of the 18th century

III. Art from the second half of the 18th century to the present day.

I. The Ancient Age

The testimonies left by the men who lived in prehistoric times on the hills where Rome later arose, and thus the earliest inhabitants of the city, are closely connected with those of the other peoples who then lived in central Italy. Yet around the 7th century BC, elements of Etruscan culture seem to prevail even in the field of the figurative arts, and the name of the sculptor Vulca of Veii is linked to the earliest images venerated in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline and to the splendid bronze she-wolf, a work from the 6th century BC, preserved in the Capitoline Museums, itself an emblem of the city.

Thus the earliest architectural works of Rome, such as the Mamertine Prison, the Tullianum, or the Cloaca Maxima, which conveyed the waters of the Forum to the Tiber and which testifies to the high degree of civilization and technical skill attained in the region at that time, are also related to Etruscan culture. On the other hand, the cippus bearing an inscription in archaic Latin discovered beneath the so-called Tomb of Romulus in the Forum is certainly earlier than 500 BC. Meanwhile, in southern Italy and even in Etruria, from the 4th century BC onwards, Hellenic influences arrived with greater intensity and soon reflected upon the plastic and pictorial manifestations of the Romans, as evidenced not only by the three temples of the Forum Holitorium, which lie beneath the church of St Nicholas in Carcere, or the so-called Temple of Fortuna Virilis, but also by Roman coinage, bronze urns, cippi, and marble sarcophagi from the 4th century BC onwards, and the earliest records of a pictorial activity in Rome, such as the fragment of a fresco discovered on the Esquiline, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline, which may also be assigned to the 3rd century BC.

The earliest records of a pictorial activity in Rome, such as the fragment of a fresco discovered on the Esquiline, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline, may also be assigned to the 3rd century BC.

In the last two centuries of the Republic, art developed with greater intensity. The elements contributing to it were predominantly Etruscan and Hellenic, but fused with ever greater independence and originality. Indeed, one might say that the architectural culture and the great technical skill of Etruscan engineers, remarkable builders of arches and vaults, provided the framework of the buildings, while the portals of Hellenic culture were chiefly heeded for their decoration and their cladding in polychrome marbles.

Already from those times official or celebratory constructions tended toward the grandiose, the imposing, and not only did primitive temples of wood and terracotta gradually give way to stone constructions, but they were adorned with broad staircases, like the one dedicated to the Magna Mater on the Palatine, which dates to 191 B.C., or they featured large porticoes, such as the temples erected in the Campus Martius in honor of Jupiter and Juno by the architect Hermodoros of Salamis at the behest of Metellus, conqueror of the Macedonian war, in the year 146 B.C. At the same time, the Romans undertook the construction of their first basilicas, large markets, ports, aqueducts, and roads. And the construction of the latter involved that of bridges with ever higher, stronger, and bolder arches, set, as in aqueducts, upon sturdy piers. Works that already at that time displayed that accession of structural power later characteristic of the major constructions of the imperial period. Thus, even in the Republican age, in works of utilitarian character—and one could say much the same of the architectural values of fortification works—there was already asserting itself that particular tone of solemn grandeur which, in the city renewed in the imperial era, would become characteristic of Rome.

Meanwhile, in increasingly lavish villas and houses, forms closely connected to those cellae-niches and articulated according to the now traditional architectural orders (v.)—namely, the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Tuscan, and hence the various types of Composite—were evolving.

Architecture. — At first there is, so to speak, an intensification of Etruscan and Hellenistic forms, characterized by a greater imposing scale of the buildings in which those forms appear. This is followed by a second phase, which begins toward the end of the 1st century of the Christian era. In this phase, elements of the ancient classical tradition of Hellenic derivation are combined with others independent of it, or, even if derived from it or from Etruscan or other cultures, they evolve with independence and a new orientation. Finally, a third phase occupies almost the entire 3rd century and the early 4th of the Christian era. In this last phase, the architectural forms of the Romans, matured in their previous experiences, evolve with absolute independence and achieve absolute originality even in the goals they pursue. Chief among these is the aim of erecting structures in which the clearly defined and contrasted massive piers, in a harmonious alternation of light and shadow, almost concretize the sense of architectural space.

The principal works of the first phase still extant in Rome, besides the already mentioned constructions from the time of Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, are those erected during the 1st century of the Christian era by emperors from Augustus to Trajan: the tomb of Augustus and that of Cecilia Metella, the so-called House of Livia on the Palatine, the imperial palaces of Tiberius and Domitian also on the Palatine, the Arch of Titus, the Theatre of Marcellus, the Flavian Amphitheatre (the Colosseum), the Forum of Augustus and that of Nerva. In all these buildings, although with new inflections and a renewed strength in chiaroscuro effects, the laws of the preceding Hellenistic architectural syntax still hold sway in the relationships between the individual members. This value is evident in the individual parts of the largest complex of buildings that marks the beginning of the next phase, namely in the completion of the Imperial Fora, executed by Trajan according to a design by Apollodorus of Damascus between 111 and 114 and conceived with a remarkable sense of unity and grandeur of intent hitherto unknown in the West.

Now that new construction techniques had been mastered—such as the use of brick instead of tufa and stone, and the use of cement mortar, as well as extraordinary skill in constructing barrel and cross vaults and domes—these achievements reached their fullest expression in the rebuilding of the Pantheon between 115 and 125, originally erected by M. V. Agrippa and damaged by fire in 110. Here, however, the great rotunda, covered by a hemispherical dome with a diameter of 43.50 meters—the element in a sense most original of the building—is juxtaposed but not fused with the classicist tradition embodied in the pronaos. A kind of eclecticism that we shall see reflected also in the juxtaposition of architectural expressions of markedly different styles in the various buildings of the villa of the emperor Hadrian at Tivoli, in the mausoleum of that emperor, and finally in the architecture of the time of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus, such as the arch in the Forum and the palace of the latter emperor on the Palatine.

In these buildings, an ever-greater inventiveness in plans and structures is evident, along with an intensification of the taste for the picturesque and the scenographic in the alternating play of projecting columns, pediments, niches, and walls with varied and undulating surfaces. This culminates 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, in expressions of the highest and most novel aesthetic value. Thus in the mausoleum of the Gordians (238–44), which recalls the Pantheon; in the bath hall or nymphaeum known as the Temple of Minerva Medica; in the baths of Diocletian (284–305); in the basilica begun by Maxentius and completed in the year 312 by Constantine; and finally in the triumphal arch erected in 315 in honor of this emperor by the Senate and people of Rome. In these buildings and others of the same period reflecting the same taste, the clear and straightforward structures express architectural ideas that are both logical and harmonious. This is achieved through the full mastery of a remarkable technique by which the various elements of the constructions—walls, piers, arches, vaults, domes—are arranged with apparent freedom, guided as they are by the minds of 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 plastic masses that generate a sense of solemn harmony, the right balance between effort and resistance, and the vigorous interplay of light and shadow contribute, beyond rendering the sense of space concrete, to fully express the mastery of human intelligence over matter, from which there arises a sense of confidence in human capabilities that yields a full and complete enjoyment.

However, in the same Rome, alongside these important testimonies of an official architectural activity, another architectural trend continued to thrive—and of this there are numerous examples ranging from the so-called House of Livia on the Palatine to the Portico of the Consenting Gods at the foot of the Tabularium beneath the Capitoline Hill. This trend had a simpler and almost modest tone, evident in smaller buildings, especially houses, where rooms are arranged around peristyles with columns and courtyards, covered by ceilings protected by sloping roofs and terraces. These buildings did not pose the weighty problems of vaulted and domed roofs resting on pillars, typical of the grander architectures mentioned above; instead, everything resolved itself into simple and serene forms without rhetoric. The weight of the roofs, which had timber framing, bore directly and perpendicularly on the walls or on the columns and pilasters.

It was from this second trend in Roman architecture that, in the 4th century AD, the forms used to erect the first churches were largely drawn (cf. BASILICA; CHIESA; ITALIA, VI. L'Arte in I).

15. Sculpture

It has already been noted that VUCA, an Etruscan sculptor from Veii, active at the beginning of the 5th century B.C., produced sculptures for the Capitoline temple of Jupiter and perhaps the bronze she-wolf in the Museo dei Conservatori. It is certain that, just as in architecture, so too in plastic art the earliest Roman activity merges with the Etruscan. This is evident in the so-called Urn of Coroni in the Museo di Valle Giulia, a bronze urn depicting with marvelous refinement scenes from the story of the Argonauts, and bearing a Latin inscription stating that it was made in Rome by a Novios Plautios. The numerous portraits of the Republican age also show connections with the characteristic, pronounced realism of the Etruscan tradition. However, by the 1st century B.C., more cultivated and refined forms linked to Hellenistic styles—following a parallel trend noted in architecture—often turn to representations where images shift from the plane of individual reality to that of generality, even rising to the dignity of types. This is seen in the frequent portraits of Cicero, Pompey, Caesar, and finally Augustus, among which the one found at Prima Porta is particularly fine, and subsequently in the portraits of other emperors and leading figures of their families. In this series, however, the more markedly realistic modes of the ancient local tradition also frequently intrude, asserting itself 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 Greek sculptures from various periods, excels in a group of splendid reliefs of historical and commemorative content, ranging from those of the Ara Pacis of Augustus (9 B.C.) to those of the Arch of Titus, and others of Trajan’s Column, where a greater independence from Hellenic culture asserts itself, and still others that decorated the arch erected in honor of Hadrian along the Via Flaminia, where there is a return to cultivated modes of that tradition, and the subsequent ones from the time of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus, characterized—as was contemporary architecture—by a clear pursuit of pictorial effects. Then, in the 3rd century, in the field of plastic art, a twofold movement is observed. On the one hand, as in the famous portrait of Caracalla, a pronounced veristic search prevails, resulting in an accentuated torment of surfaces in pursuit of incisive and defined signs; on the other, subsequently, as in the portraits of Gallienus, there is a gradual softening and almost pictorial dissolution of surfaces, achieved through subtle transitions of blurred planes.

In the second half of the century the two styles coexisted and sometimes appeared in the same work, until, at the time of Constantine, they were again distinguished, though in two new aspects. On the one hand, in the reliefs of the famous arch, pictorial intentions serve to give vigour and character to images linked to popular and provincial styles—which, as often happens in periods following the transition from one civilisation to another, are a new source of inspiration—while on the other hand the superficial images enclosed within almost architectural frameworks appear static, hieratic, abstract, removed from all human contingency. Hellenistic naturalism, delicate pictorialism, the soft, skilful transitions of planes that mark the gradation of surfaces, in a word the ancient ideals of classical beauty, gradually decline, since the new spirituality determined by the triumph of Christianity now requires new forms of expression. Nor does it matter that sometimes during the 4th century and then again in the 5th, the old forms still asserted themselves in works of high beauty; suffice it to cite the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus in the Vatican Grottoes. Whatever subsequently appears as a valid force for the path of art will derive more from those marbles where anti-academic and anti-classical ideals are affirmed than from others where such ideals, though with ever diminishing vigour, are still contested. These latter represent more the weight of tradition than its force.

16. Painting

The number of ancient Roman paintings 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 earliest testimony (3rd century B.C.) of a pictorial activity in Rome. It was evidently linked to Etruscan art. Yet that in Rome painters carried on an extremely intense activity and attained the highest peaks of expression may be inferred from ancient testimonies and from what remains of their work. The temples, palaces, houses and tombs of the Romans were all decorated with paintings reflecting styles similar to those of the paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum, which, having survived in greater numbers, perhaps give a more organic picture of the evolution and various stylistic modes of painting in Italy in the 1st century of the Christian era. However, the decorations of the Villa della Farnesina, those of the house of Livia on the Palatine and of the Villa known as Livia’s at Prima Porta, as well as others from a house on the Esquiline, now in the Vatican Museum, together with the decorations of the imperial palaces and particularly of Nero’s Domus Aurea,

They document the high degree of pictorial culture achieved in Rome in the 1st century of the empire.

Ancient and medieval urban planning. - The city continued to be, despite the splendor of some monuments, largely built of wood, so that the fire that broke out at the time of the emperor Nero on 18 June in 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 now too large and too rich not to attract the cupidity of the barbarians, who were becoming ever more threatening beyond and even within the borders of the empire itself. Thus it was that Aurelian, in the year 271 of the era, set about the construction of the new splendid city wall, still largely extant. A wall with a perimeter of 19 km, comprising 383 defensive towers, 14 major gates, 5 minor ones, which for about a century and a half effectively preserved Rome from the fury of invaders. At the beginning of the 4th century of the Christian era, Rome was truly the most splendid and rich city in the world. It had 27 public libraries, 11 baths, 856 baths, 1,352 public fountains, 8 playing fields, 5 naumachiae, 11 great forums, 15 nymphaea, 10 major basilicas, 19 aqueducts, 36 triumphal arches, 8 bridges over the Tiber, 3 great theatres. Then Constantine transferred the capital of the empire to the shores of the Bosphorus at Constantinople, and by the inexorable law of human fate, Rome began to decline.

The new society, educated in the ideals of Christianity, then pursued aims quite different from those of antiquity, while the imperial troops and the walls of Aurelian were no longer sufficient bulwarks to contain the barbarian fury. And in August 410, the Goths of Alaric, having breached those walls, sacked the city for two days. Forty-five years later, in 455, it was the Vandals, Arabs and Bedouins who put Rome to the torch for four days.

Thirty days. The city was now falling into ruin, and the wise barbarian king Theodoric’s measures proved insufficient to halt its decline. He restored the Theatre of Pompey, the Colosseum, some aqueducts, and the sewers. But this was little compared to the abandonment into which everything was falling. This abandonment became almost complete when Vitiges, besieging the city for more than a year from February 537 to March 538, cut off the aqueducts, the source of its vital lifeblood. By then even the suburbs were in total decay: villas, gardens, and vineyards. The countryside was overrun by wrongdoers, and from the ever-expanding marshes the scourge of malaria advanced more terribly than ever. Nor did the measures of the popes—such as Adrian I (772–95), Leo III (795–816), or Paschal I (817–24), who restored old aqueducts or built new ones—avail. Rome retained only in the memories and imaginations of men its ancient splendor.

Later, in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, as a general revival of consciences and energies marked the rise and development of the Roman age, urban building activity in Rome also received fresh impetus. Then, in the year 1300, with the Jubilee drawing two million pilgrims from every part of Europe, Rome could appear resplendent even in its new buildings. But this was a brief rebirth. The internal strife during the Avignon exile again drained its strength, and neither the fiery words of Cola di Rienzo nor the measures of Cardinal Albornoz could halt its renewed decline.

The 14th century, which in so many other Italian cities marked a period of true splendor and impressed upon their streets, squares, public palaces, and entire districts a character of beauty, strength, and elegance that later centuries have not erased, marked a period of stagnation for Roman building activity. This activity would only resume toward the close of the first quarter of the 15th century. Then Martin V Colonna, returning on 30 September 1420 to his native city, which was in a state of complete abandonment, devoted his greatest efforts to restoring and rebuilding the ancient edifices. He had inscribed 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

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

None of the basilicas erected by Constantine and members of the imperial family or by his court has come down to us intact. Indeed, among the basilican structures of the 4th century, only the church of S. Pudenziana preserves much of the original building in its fabric. For the others, such as those of S. Pietro, S. Paolo, S. Croce, S. Lorenzo and so on, whatever remains of the original construction can only be useful for their ideal graphic reconstruction. They are in any case linked to that current of Roman architectural tradition, to which allusion was made above, characterized by essentially simple and clear forms. Walls and parallel alignments of columns supported roofs (trussed roofs) that bore perpendicularly on the load-bearing elements. On the shorter side of the structure, opposite the entrance, an apse curved inward, decorated like the walls with paintings or mosaics. The mausoleum of Constantina, known as the church of S. Costanza, as well as the oldest parts of the Lateran Baptistery, instead reveal the close ties uniting these central-plan constructions with similar types of Roman buildings covered with domed vaults. In the centuries that followed, up to the 10th–11th centuries, these two types of construction were transformed through a process of simplification and often of impoverishment of their primitive features. Indeed, the general layout of the basilica of S. Maria Maggiore, that of S. Sabina on the Aventine, that of S. Pietro in Vincoli, all reflect the Constantinian basilican scheme, as does the circular church of S. Stefano Rotondo, which in its design may be considered a simplification of a previous type of central-plan construction.

In Roman constructions of the 6th and 7th centuries, some of which, however, are similar in various aspects to those of the 5th (e.g., S. Pancrazio), elements derived from Byzantine art appear. Thus in the part due to Pope Pelagius II of the basilica of S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, and in that of S. Agnese rebuilt by Pope Symmachus (498–514) and decorated by Honorius I (625–38). To Honorius is also attributed the construction of the primitive church of the SS. Quattro Coronati, a truly grand and beautiful building. But to the 7th century also belongs the construction of the church of S. Giorgio in Velabro, which reflects a very different architectural sentiment: a sense of neglect and ostentatious indifference to old formulas, an air of carelessness and listlessness. This is seen in the oldest parts (8th century) of S. Maria in Cosmedin and S. Giovanni a Porta Latina. Then, at the beginning of the 9th century, there is a kind of architectural revival reflected in the clear spatial harmonies created by the architects of Pope Paschal I (817–34) in S. Prassede, S. Maria in Domnica, S. Cecilia, in the later basilica of S. Marco, and in the parts that can be assigned to the 9th century in the church of S. Maria in Aracoli. What remains from the 10th century does not suggest that this revival movement continued in the immediately following period.

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

The two aspects assumed by sculpture at the beginning of the 4th century, clearly exemplified in the reliefs of the Arch of Constantine and in those of the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, the former tending toward an expressionistic pictorialism of distinctly unclassical taste, the latter still reflecting the ideals that for centuries had been characteristic of classical art, are reflected in numerous marbles of the 4th and 5th centuries. Thus in some statues, such as, for example, the Constantinian ones of S. Giovanni and of the Capitol, as well as in the reliefs of the door of S. Sabina (422–32) or in the monograms of John II (532–35) in the church of S. Clemente. At this time, in some decorations of architectural elements, the plastic taste also suggests decisive Eastern influences (capitals at S. Agnese, S. Clemente, SS. Quattro). Then, between the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, even in Rome the taste for low-relief plastic decoration of a generally so-called barbaric type (v. BARBARICA ARTE) spread, in which the braid of wicker often appears alongside representations of the sun, moon, palm trees, the cross, etc. We have examples at S. Sabina, S. Maria in Trastevere, S. Clemente, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Maria del Priorato, etc. But in the 9th century, in the decorative elements of the architecture of the time of Paschal I, there is already a clear aspiration toward plastic forms closer to ancient sculpture, as in the portal of the chapel of S. Zeno in S. Prassede.

18. Painting between the 4th and 11th centuries

Nowhere in the world is it easier than in Rome to trace, reflected in pictorial works, the evolution of figurative taste throughout the entire Middle Ages. Yet even in the field of painting, from the 4th century onward, two distinct currents can be discerned. One remains academic, tied to the traditional modes of classicism, while the other is expressionistic and anti-academic, and, at least in part, can be linked to the methods of the abbreviated painting style that spread not only through catacomb painting. The museums of the annular vault of S. Costanza, those of the abbey of S. Pudenziana—which date from the very early years of the century—the others from the 5th century, such as the nave of S. Maria Maggiore and the wall of the façade opposite the church of S. Sabina, as well as those from the 6th century of the abbey church of SS. Cosma e Damiano, can all be connected to the various gradations of ancient classicism, which was also being modified through contact with Eastern styles. By the 5th century, these Eastern influences are already recognizable in the museum of the triumphal arch of the basilica of S. Paolo. However, in the 5th century, forms related to impressionistic painting are evident in the museum of the triumphal arch of S. Maria Maggiore. Yet by the late 6th century, in the museums of the triumphal arch of the ancient S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, and in the 7th century in those of the abbey of S. Agnese and then in others from the oratory of S. Venanzio near the Lateran Baptistery, Byzantine styles prevail, which, in the 7th and then in the 8th and 9th centuries, in forms and accents that we might call dialectal, still assert themselves in the frescoes found in S. Maria Antiqua, S. Saba, S. Clemente, S. Crisogono, S. Maria in Via Lata, etc.

But in the 9th century, a magnificent group of frescoes in S. Prassede, S. Maria in Domnica, S. Marco, S. Cecilia, bears witness to a substantial shift in taste, whereby those values of intense, even violent, chromaticism—which had already appeared in the 5th century in the museum of S. Maria Maggiore—are exalted. This marks a resolution in an anti-classical and anti-traditional direction in the developments of Roman medieval painting. However, as in contemporary architecture and sculpture, this particularly happy moment in Roman art did not have a following in the immediately succeeding period. In the 10th century, in the frescoes of the apse of S. Stefano del Palatino, in another of Christ surrounded by angels in SS. Giovanni e Paolo, and in other fragmentary examples in S. Crisogono, etc., we find tired forms with a vague Byzantine imprint. But in the 11th century, a masterpiece: the Madonna painted on panel and venerated in S. Maria in Aracoeli announces new times even for Roman painting.

19. The Romanesque Period

It was during the Romanesque period that the figurative arts revived in Rome with independence and originality in comparison to what was happening in other Italian cities, while within its walls certain principles were defined earlier and more clearly than elsewhere, principles that were to remain at the foundation of the Italian Renaissance itself. Above all, that of the antique as synonymous with beauty.

In architecture this is evident in a complex and important series of buildings dating precisely from the 11th to the 13th centuries: such as the churches of S. Maria in Cappella, S. Maria in Trastevere, S. Crisogono, S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, or the porticoes of S. Cecilia, S. Giorgio in Velabro, S. Lorenzo in Lucina, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, etc. In these constructions the forms seem to be directly linked to those of the buildings from the time of Paschal I, but they are even closer to those of some great architectures of the 6th century, whose relationships were certainly held as models by the new builders. Despite this, some new type, or partially so, also appears in the Roman architectures of the Romanesque period. Thus those square bell towers (v.), with superimposed cubes, which were then so numerous as to flank both new and old churches, while truly new is the Lombard-style loggia that crowned, in the 13th century, the exterior of the apse of the church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo.

However, the most characteristic and original aspect of these architectures is given by the marvellous decorative attire that the marble-workers, Cosmati (v.) from the name of one of their families, and their manner of decorating with polychrome marbles and mosaic, knew how to provide. These marble-workers, who were also architects, erected what we can consider, in many respects, the masterpieces of Roman architecture of that time: the two cloisters of the basilicas of the Lateran and of S. Paolo, works indeed by members of one of the most illustrious families of Roman marble-workers of the early 13th century, the Vassalletto (v.). In the architectural and decorative elements of the two cloisters, it is not difficult to recognize some influence of Gothic taste, whose greatest, if not sole, architectural testimony in Rome is the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, said to have been built by those friars Sisto and Ristoro who constructed S. Maria Novella in Florence.

Romanesque sculpture exhibits characteristics analogous to those of architecture, also because it was largely practiced by those marble-workers mentioned above, who gradually, keeping an eye on ancient as well as Oriental and Northern models, regained a sense of rigorous plasticity that enabled them, by the end of the 1200s, to grasp some essential values of the sculpture CAMBIO (v.). He was in Rome in the last quarter of the century, leaving behind notable works such as the monuments to Charles of Anjou in the Campidoglio, the ciboria of St. Paul’s and St. Cecilia, the fragmentary tomb of Cardinal Annibaldi in the cloister of St. John Lateran, and the figures of the Nativity in St. Mary Major.

In painting, the achievements between the 11th and 13th centuries were certainly no less significant, if one considers not only the beauty of the frescoes, precisely from the late 11th century, in the basilica of St. Clement—linked to the narrative and popular painting tradition that here attains the highest stylistic dignity—but also the great mosaic decorations in the apses of St. Clement, St. Mary in Trastevere, St. Paul Outside the Walls, St. Mary Major, and St. John Lateran, the last two works by Jacopo Torriti. It was also in Rome that the great personality of one of the greatest Italian medieval painters, PIETRO CAVALLINI (v.), gained prominence and dominance, while Giotto himself worked in Rome.

Then during the 14th century, at the time of the Avignon exile and the internal strife, the arts completely declined and in the abandoned city only a few foreign artists found work, having come from Tuscany or Campania. But in the third decade of the 15th century, at the time of Martin V Colonna, Rome once again became a very lively center of artistic activity. And while basilicas, churches, and palaces were being rebuilt and restored, illustrious artists arrived in Rome from all parts of Italy, summoned by that Pontiff, and among them worked Masolino, Masaccio, Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello as painters, and then Donatello as a sculptor. Meanwhile, at the time of Nicholas V, the Blessed Angelico was also summoned to Rome to work in the chapel dedicated to SS. Stephen and Lawrence in the Vatican, and later, summoned by Paul II, famous architects such as Bernardo Rossellino and Giuliano da Majano arrived, who subsequently worked respectively on the restoration of the basilica of St. Mark and in the palace that stands beside II.
Then Sixtus IV of the Della Rovere family, elected pope in 1471, wished to prepare the city to worthily celebrate the Jubilee of 1475. The architectural works then promoted by that Pontiff, executed by the vigorous architect Baccio Pontelli (q.v.), were numerous, but three stand out above all: a new bridge over the Tiber, which took and retains the name of Sixtus; a grand new hospital, that of S. Spirito in Sassia; and the construction of the Sistine Chapel. When Sixtus IV died in 1484, the frescoes of the oldest decoration of that most famous space had been completed for about a year. Among them had worked, under the direction of Sandro Botticelli, some of the greatest painters of the time, 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 were also active in Rome.

At that time, the marbles of the cantorias and transennae of the Sistine Chapel were carved in the workshop of a very active Lombard master, Andrea Bregno, at which almost all the other sculptors active in the city worked, including Mino da Fiesole himself and Giovanni Dalmata. But not Antonio del Pollaiuolo, who left his mark in the funerary monuments of Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII, the pope who had also summoned Andrea Mantegna to work in the Vatican. Bregno, the dominant figure in the field of Roman building practice, is also largely responsible for one of the most characteristic architectural expressions of 15th-century Rome: the oldest part of the Palazzo della Cancelleria (q.v.), later completed or resolved, as Vasari says, by Donato Bramante.

20. The Modern Age

Thus we arrive at the early 1500s, and the city that, during the 15th century, had attracted artists from everywhere without managing to impart a unified character to its production—achieved only by the Melozzan Melozzesque Antoniozzo degli Aquili, known as Antoniazzo Romano, who was also a native—especially through the genius of several supreme artists who took up residence and worked in Rome, transformed itself into the true artistic capital, not only of Italy but of all Europe. Donato Bramante, Baldassarre Peruzzi, Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Raphael, and Leonardo all worked simultaneously in Rome during the pontificates of Julius II, Leo X, and Clement VII. It was they who imparted a solemn, lofty, and novel tone to Renaissance art. No longer the ancient Rome of the Caesars, but the new Rome of the Popes, assumed unchallenged prestige, even a veritable domination over the art of all Europe. It was their pupils, imitators, and followers who spread everywhere the beautiful forms they had conceived on the banks of the Tiber; these forms possessed the grandeur, power, and beauty of antiquity, but reflected the inflamed spirit and imagination of the new age.

And even when, on the part of imitators, the art of those great masters seemed to degenerate into a melancholic mannerism (v.)—as seen in the architecture of Ammannati, Giacomo della Porta, Guido Guidetti, Domenico Fontana, and Carlo Maderno—the new yet ancient spirit of the city found solemn expression, while in its clear skies, through their work, were incarnated the most beautiful domes that have crowned churches on this earth. Then, while the Carracci, with Domenichino, created in the gallery of the Palazzo Farnese the masterpiece of eclecticism derived from the Bolognese academy, the Lombard Michelangelo da Caravaggio—who, as a boy, had made his first experiments in Rome in the workshop of the most bombastic and pompous mannerist of our land, the Cavaliere d’Arpino—from Rome pointed the way to new paths for painting, paths that Rembrandt and Velázquez themselves would follow.

A new force, that of light, which reveals and exalts plastic masses and color alike, characterized from its very beginnings the art of the Baroque age. And in Rome, the Baroque taste found its most vital center of action and diffusion. This was true even in its dual characteristic aspect: a deliberate rupture with tradition, and a continual appeal to and reliance upon it, born of nostalgia for the beautiful forms of classicism.

In architecture this is manifested by following the line that, from Francesco Borromini—he who most clearly shattered tradition—through Martino Longhi the Younger, Carlo Rainaldi, via Carlo Fontana, reaches Francesco de Sanctis, Giuseppe Sardi, Gabriele Valvasori, Filippo Raguzzini, Domenico Gregorini, who even in the second half of the 18th century developed Borrominian themes; or the other line that, 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, with Bernini, the great Pietro da Cortona is a most authoritative exponent, followed by Nicola Salvi, the architect of the Trevi Fountain’s façade, and to it is linked the art of Luigi Vanvitelli, Carlo Murena, Ferdinando Fuga, Alessandro Galilei—these latter architects, working in Rome with their Neoconquestism, foreshadow aspects of our native Neoclassicism.

In sculpture, the Mannerism of the last two decades of the 16th century had borne witness only to the incomprehension or inability to reduce Michelangelo’s desperate artistic fury to the measure of the new times. Neither Stefano Maderno, nor Nicolò Cordier, nor Pietro Bernini—all sculptors of some merit—had succeeded in impressing a true character upon Roman sculpture of the period, something which architects and painters had instead managed to do; nor, we might say, had they stirred the depths of the Mannerist mountain.

Instead, this was attempted, between the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th, by two pure sculptors, like the others, who came from outside: Camillo Mariani of Vicenza and Francesco Mochi of Montevarchi. The two were then pursuing new research, drawing inspiration from a painterly approach that harked back to Vittoria and which, in Mochi, had grafted onto the modes of the Florentine tradition. At the start of the 17th century, the two had established themselves in Rome in a position of prominence, so much so that the art of Mochi can be linked to both Francesco Duquesnoy and Francesco Algardi. The latter was certainly gifted but with an austere composure and almost cautious restraint that smacks of academicism. Beside him, however, Gian Lorenzo Bernini immediately appears as a temperament of quite different caliber, a man of decidedly anti-academic mentality, despite his culture constantly drawing him back toward academia and tradition. But Gian Lorenzo Bernini was a genius, and in the practice of sculpture—even more than in architecture—he often worked by surrendering to happy imagination, free fantasy, whim, and invention. Thus, those who came after him almost never succeeded, even when they wished to, in forgetting him.

Domenico Guidetti attempted it, claiming to keep alive Algardi’s tradition; Ercole Ferrata attempted it, gathering numerous followers and earning great credit even into the 18th century; even Antonio Raggi, Andrea Bolgi, Francesco Baratta, Cosimo Fancelli, Pietro Le Gros, and the later Camillo Rusconi (1658–1728) attempted it, and in his statues of St. John Lateran, carved in the second decade of the 18th century, he appears, despite constant references to Algardi, as a “distracted Berninian” in his exceedingly complex drapery.

In truth, very few in the 18th century succeeded in evading Berninian imitation or reduced it to rhetorical mannerism: the Florentine Antonio Montauti, who went to Rome to assist Alessandro Galilei in his architectural enterprises; Filippo della Valle; and, in many respects, Pietro Bracci. Yet even they did not manage to create anything truly new and great before the advent of Neoclassicism and Canova.

At the name of the Carracci, of Caravaggio, as exponents of artistic currents in Rome at the end of the 16th century, must be added that of Federico Zuccari. Alongside the Cavaliere d’Arpino, beside the innovators—such as the Carracci and Caravaggio—he could also be considered the repository of the tradition that traced back to Raphael. But this traditional manner soon merged into the modes adopted by the Bolognese. Thus, while the Caravaggesque derivation is clear in the group of the tenebrosi—such as Valentin, Manfredi, Borgianni, Saraceni, Serodine, the two Gentileschis, then in Gherardo delle Notti and even in Baburen, as in other Flemish artists who resolved the master’s illumination into realistic counterfeits—quite clear to us is the line of derivation that, passing from the Carracci through Albani and Domenichino, with contributions from Guido Reni, reaches Sacchi and then Maratta, who at the end of the 17th century and in the early years of the 18th will still appear the greatest repository of a tradition claiming descent from Raphael.

But alongside these two principal currents, a third soon emerges, from as early as the third decade of the 17th century, one whose leading exponent was Pietro Berettini of Cortona. He took up again the decorative problem as it had been formulated by the Carracci in the vault of the Farnese Palace gallery and by other great painters of the late 16th century. He resumed it with the greater experience deriving from the advances painting had made in the intervening fifty years. Thus in his style are found Tuscan design elements, Emilian compositional principles—such as those of a Lanfranco and a Guercino—as well as experiences that, descending from the Carracci, went back to Correggio, Venetian chromatic elements, and that measure of Raphaelesque grace that had always found favor in Rome. In short, painting was like a summing up of the most recent experiences by a man of genius. The vault of the great hall of Palazzo Barberini is his masterpiece and the work in which Pietro da Cortona, great architect though he was, here in the guise of decorator, appears, among all who then worked in Rome, the closest—even in force of genius and fantasy—to Bernini, almost his equivalent in the realm of grand pictorial decoration. The school of the Cortoneschi is a large one; the best of them was Pietro Testa, but the grandeur of conception of the master was not matched until the Genoese Gian Battista Gulli, called Baciccia, who with supreme dash and authority created his own masterpiece in the vault of the nave of the Gesù, in the great fresco representing the Triumph of His Name. Later Brother Andrea Pozzo, with the fantasy of a stage designer, developed some themes of Berettini’s art in the vaults of the church of S. Ignazio.

Meanwhile, while foreign artists such as Paolo Brill, Poussin, Claudio Lorenese, and Gaspare Vanvitelli, followed by native painters like Salvator Rosa and Locatelli, were engaged in landscape painting, R. continued to attract painters from other regions of Italy. Thus, after crossing the threshold of the 18th century, it saw the work of Corrado Giaquinto and Sebastiano Conca, who came from Naples, Gian Paolo Pannini of Piacenza, a painter of ruins and ceremonies, and it also saw the rise to prominence in the world of archaeological culture of the Venetian engraver Gian Battista Piranesi.

By the middle of the century, while on one hand the restless Marco Benefial sometimes lingered in an insistent anti-academic realism, as seen in the painting of the Arcaceli with the Death of St. Margaret, Cades, Corvi, Cavallucci, and even Pompeo Batoni of Lucca, alongside the Pole Raffaello Mengs, still looked back to Raphael and sometimes anticipated neoclassical forms. On the other hand, neoclassicism — this was a foreign fashion — in R., from which Winckelmann had authoritatively spread its theories, had found its most accredited center, and in the history of modern painting it is of great significance that the large 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.

21. Urban planning during the Renaissance and the Baroque age

The work of restoration and arrangement of ancient buildings and the construction of new ones, begun by Martin V. and characteristic of the activity of the popes, cardinals, and leading Roman figures during the 15th century, was not carried out according to an initial organic plan. Each person concerned himself with 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 it, the latter, on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1475, had a unified vision of the city’s building and road problems. Thus, according to an organic plan whose essential lines can easily be discerned, he restored or built from the foundations new churches and other buildings, including the bridge over the Tiber that took his name, widened streets, and arranged building complexes, such as the one around the present-day Campo dei Fiori, soon dominated by the marble bulk of the cardinal Riario’s palace, later called the Cancelleria.

However, during the early years of the 16th century, despite this and despite the imposing splendid buildings then erected in Rome, no general urbanistic plan with more unified ideas was carried out. But from that time, as Julius II revived Nicholas V’s idea of renewing the entire Vatican area, 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 began to take shape for the further development of the city. Indeed, one may consider, with regard to the Corso, the ancient Via Ripetta and the other Via del Babuino, which, starting with their organic arrangement in a trident from Piazza del Popolo, extend straight into the heart of the city, that it was precisely they which 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 connecting Santa Maria Maggiore to Trinità dei Monti, to San Giovanni in Laterano, to Santa Croce and San Lorenzo, to the Forum of Trajan, and to Santa Susanna. The obelisks of the Piazza of Saint Peter, of San Giovanni, of Santa Maria Maggiore, and of the Popolo, then erected by that Pontiff through the work of Domenico Fontana, marked and still mark, as it were, the goals or focal points for the city’s development.

The importance of Sixtus V’s urbanistic conception also lies in having urged the Romans, still all crowded along the great anxiety of the Tiber, to reoccupy the higher parts of the city. To this end, he brought wholesome water there by means of the Felice aqueduct, whose façade is still visible today in Piazza San Bernardo. A sure sign of the new impetus given to the city’s development by Sixtus V is also the increased number of inhabitants of Rome. In fact, the Roman population, which during the High Middle Ages had fallen to a few thousand, and which at the most splendid period of the Renaissance, in the time of Leo X, had risen to 125-130,000, but which in the years following the Sack of Rome (1527) had again fallen to 40,000 souls, during the pontificate of Sixtus V rose to 100,000 people.

During the 17th century, work continued on Sixtus V’s urban fabric, developing themes, though grand, limited to particular settings. Suffice it to think of the arrangement of the piazza near the Palazzo Barberini,

Rome - Elephant supporting the obelisk. Sculpture designed by G. L. Bernini (1667) - Rome, Piazza della Minerva.

Then, on the outskirts of the city and bordering gardens and vineyards, it extended to Piazza Navona, to Piazza S. Pietro, and to the unexecuted plans for the arrangement of the Borghi, while in front of the new palaces and the old and new churches, squares opened up and streets widened. The work continued throughout the 18th century. Then, with the construction of the staircase of Piazza di Spagna in perspective with Via dei Condotti, and of Tor di Nona with the arrangement of Piazza di S. Ignazio by Raguzzini, and with that of the ancient Porto di Ripetta, rebuilt for Clement XI by Alessandro Specchi, the city was provided with architecturally unified spaces according to a new scenographic conception.

III. ART FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT DAY

At the end of the 18th century, in the eyes of many, Rome still appeared as the most important artistic centre in the world, and architects, sculptors, and painters from every country came to study there. Nevertheless, despite this, the architecture, sculpture, and painting of Neoclassical taste produced on the banks of the Tiber do not today appear superior or different from what was being produced elsewhere. Those who then came to study in Rome did so to draw inspiration from the monuments of the Classical period that could be admired there, from the works of art in museums and public and private collections, or simply to be enthused, imagining that the atmosphere breathed on the banks of the Tiber was still that which had stirred the hearts of ancient heroes. Yet it was still in Rome that, with Canova, the art flourishing on the banks of the Tiber managed to maintain a tone of universality and supremacy. Then, after Canova, as in painting with the Nazarenes, the Purists, and the fresco painters of the time of Pius IX, and in architecture with Poletti, Vespignani, and Pietro Comparese, etc., even the sculpture produced in Rome could in a certain way differentiate itself, until the last thirty years of the century, from that of other Italian cities, by a certain coldly academic tone that did not change even when it conceded something to the innovations brought by the strong Romantic breeze.

When Rome, having become the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, found itself, also for practical reasons, to be the most active center of artistic production throughout the peninsula, that certain tone and the very grandeur of the splendid works of the past acted as a restraint on the bolder manifestations of a taste that had become internationalized. This, while on the one hand it avoided those excesses which elsewhere at that time appeared more or less deplorable, on the other hand delayed the free development of the purest forms of expression. And after the group of purists and academicians, there emerged, clearly identifiable in the realm 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 completed in 1911—are the most characteristic expressions of that eclecticism, not devoid perhaps of skill but inflated with rhetoric and bombast.

This eclecticism also had its reflections in the field of sacred art (v. ARTE), which today, precisely in Rome, in some of its most recent realizations, has shown and continues to show that it does not shy away from the most modern and daring manifestations of taste, provided they are inwardly sustained by a spontaneous and sincere need for expression.

Urban and architectural developments of modern Rome. — Even in Rome, the last decades of the 19th century were marked by a more widespread awareness of urban planning issues, and while there were not many new realizations, the questions that were then under discussion were nonetheless very interesting, as reflected, for example, in the themes debated by the Accademia di S. Luca. Among these were the redevelopment of the Borghi district, that of Piazza del Popolo, and the creation of a large public garden, among other matters.

Many of these problems were addressed by the French administration between 1809 and 1814, while some works that were then only just begun or merely conceived were realized in the years that followed during the pontificates of Pius VII, Leo XII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX. Among the most significant achievements were the redevelopment of Piazza del Popolo and the public promenade known as the Pincio, a masterpiece by Valadier; the creation of the Verano suburban cemetery; the reconstruction of the Basilica of Ostia; the establishment of new districts such as the Mastro; the redevelopment of the transverse zone around the new large tobacco processing plant; and the inclusion in the city’s development plan of the area between Santa Maria degli Angeli and the slopes of the Quirinal, that is, the lands on which the present-day Via Nazionale and the streets perpendicular to it were laid out. Along these streets, so many new buildings arose that they helped to maintain in Roman architecture that solemn, austere, definitive tone, yet at the same time a familiar one, which was characteristic of old Rome.

During the first 24 years of Pius IX’s pontificate, from 1846 to 1870, the population of Rome had nearly doubled, reaching and surpassing 200,000 inhabitants. After 1870 this growth continued, and at an accelerated pace, so that today we can say that the population of Rome has increased tenfold compared to that of that time. This rapid increase is directly related to, and indeed justified by, the rapid development of the city and the manner in which this development occurred.

Indeed, when Rome on 20 September 1870 was occupied by the troops of General Cadorna, it appeared to those arriving from other cities of the peninsula such as Florence, Turin, and Milan—though splendid in its ancient architecture—very backward from the standpoint of modern building construction. 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 expansion and beautification of Rome and, in particular, the project for the construction of new districts in that part of the city most suitable for new buildings. The commission, which worked expeditiously, presented its conclusions after forty days in a report to which plans and proposals were also attached. These conclusions served the engineer Alessandro Viviani in drawing up a true master plan for the city, published in 1873, which, although it never became law, exerted a great influence on subsequent master plans and thus on the further development of Rome. This development, which has taken place in the last fifty years, as one might say, has spread like oil spots. Or rather, it has occurred as in almost all cities that have a strong individuality, an ancient pulsating heart that cannot fail to exert a strong attraction. Thus it was that the ancient city center of Rome, with its 100,000–150,000–200,000 inhabitants, has remained approximately the same as that of Rome with 1,500,000–2,000,000 inhabitants, with those damages and inconveniences that are easy to imagine.

It is evidently not easy, indeed it seems almost impossible, to prevent such a phenomenon from occurring when it is due to laws that are in a sense biological. However, if we now recall to mind the old Rome of Pius IX, still entirely gathered in the anxiety of the Tiber, a city full of contrasts, rich in works of art and beautiful architecture, yet unequal and chaotic from the urban planning point of view, and compare it with the present-day city, we must admit that the difficulties encountered in transforming old Rome into a city that would also meet modern needs without completely destroying that admirable ancient ensemble 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 old Rome with greenery represented a damage and an error without equal, even if their areas were used for the rise of new districts such as the Esquiline, the Boncompagni Ludovisi, and the Salario, nevertheless the works that served to graft the manifestations of the new needs onto the character and fabric of the old city without too jarring discontinuities often had notable merits. This is the case with the majestic straight line of Via Nazionale, the gentle course of Corso Vittorio Emanuele, the airy Via Arenula, the widenings of Via del Tritone, Via dei Due Macelli, Corso, and finally with the more modern Via dei Fori Imperiali and Via del Mare, which also entailed the destruction of notable architectural complexes. The same applies to the demolition of the “spine” of the Borghi and the opening of Via della Conciliazione, with which an ancient idea that had perplexed popes, architects, and urban planners for centuries was finally realized.

IV. FOLKLORE.

Delle tradizioni popolari di R. manca tuttora una documentazione accurata, redatta con criteri scientifici e con intento propriamente folkloristico: le raccolte di Sabatini e Zanazzo, per quanto ampie e apprezzabili, non possono stare sullo stesso piano delle opere di un Pitré, Finamore, De Nino e altri. Numerose sono però le fonti letterarie e iconografiche (basterà qui ricordare i nomi di Goethe, Müller, Stendhal, Thomas, De Brosses, Bresciani, Belli e Pinelli) che, per la loro affermata e sostanziale fedeltà al vero, anche se non mancano di una naturale magia d'arte, permettono a noi di ricostruire criticamente la vita popolare della prima metà dell'Ottocento: epoca che segna, per le manifestazioni popolari di R., il momento del loro massimo rigoglio e nello stesso tempo

l'inizio del loro affievolimento. Completano il quadro del folklore romano alcune cerimonie, documentate storicamente (Gregorovius, Burckhardt, ecc.) e letterariamente (specie nelle commedie), della R. medievale e rinascimentale.

Of the ancient Roman Carnival, famous for the singular splendor of its festivities, only those elements and details that are of folkloric interest are noted here. Notable was the personification of Carnival in the figure of the bear, which was led on a leash to the scene and made to dance to music, as depicted in a print by Pinelli set near the Trevi Fountain. In addition to the numerous harlequins, clowns, and Pulcinellas, the most characteristic masks were the "matti" (madmen), covered only in shirts, who harked back to the scandalous festivities of the Feast of Fools (against which the Church had long opposed itself in the Middle Ages); and among the most typical floats were the King of Acerra, riding an ass and accompanied by a group of Pulcinellas; Don Pirrone, who proceeded in a sedia gestatoria, holding a pair of fire tongs with which he hurled satirical madrigals at women; and the unforgettable General Mannaggia La Rocca, who on the afternoon of Fat Thursday advanced along the Corso on a Roman cart, brandishing a large wooden sword and surrounded by his imposing retinue of ragamuffins in full uniform, undeterred as the crowd pelted him with oranges and carrots. An ancient tradition of the Roman Carnival was the race of the barberi from Piazza del Popolo to Piazza Venezia. The Carnival concluded with the feast of the moccoletti, in which candles were extinguished by being blown out at one another, while along the Corso the Dying Carnival appeared on a triumphal chariot: “And Carnival is dead and suspected! The moccoletti have ended the ceremony” (Belli, no. 2221).

During Lent, a tradition in Rome was the custom, recalled in the following popular verses, of going to St. Peter’s and “giving” one’s husband to Carnival: “Today is the first day of March, the day to go to St. Peter’s and give away one’s husband? He’ll pay for our boy.” Solemn were the celebrations of Holy Saturday: in the Middle Ages sacred representations were staged at the Colosseum by the Compagnia del Gonfalone (in the 15th–16th centuries the Passion of G. Dati was performed on this occasion); today the Holy Saturday ceremonies are observed with particular solemnity in the basilicas of St. John and St. Peter, where the ritual blessing of the baptismal font coincides with a baptism, of an adult in St. John’s and of a child in St. Peter’s. When the bells were first loosened, there was an old custom (called “toszion de li bobotti”) of piling up along the walls old earthenware pots and pans, which were then hurled into the air with firecrackers. On that day, the chimney sweeps would come down to Rome to clean the walls, using special tools called “scacciaragni”: all rituals of renewal. A comic-carnivalesque ceremony known as cornomania (q.v.), which from the 9th century persisted until the time of Gregory VII, was celebrated in the Lateran and was followed by the blessing of houses; the date and elements of the rite reveal its propitiatory character.

From the time of Salvatore Rosa, it seems, until 1893, on the 21st of April each year, artists revived the carnival by gathering near the caves of Cervara on the Via Prenestina, renewing feasts, pranks, processions, and masquerades: a painting by Pinelli depicts this unique Roman carnival of artists. The Calendimaggio was and still is celebrated with the maypole, widely spread throughout Italy as a remnant of the contests of the "king of May," and until a century ago with "er ballo de li guitti," that is, of the destitute: each young man chose a bride, and the various couples presented themselves in Piazza San Marco, before the statue of Madama Lucrezia, adorned on that occasion with onions, garlic, multicolored ribbons, and carrots; the wedding was celebrated as if before the mayor and the parish priest, and then the dancing began, provoking laughter... ending up at Madama Lucrezia!

On the night of Ascension, popular tradition holds that Jesus descends to turn the watery sap of wheat stalks into milk, and the Madonna blesses the fresh egg of the day placed by devotees outside their windows in a small basket, which then becomes an effective amulet against lightning and disease. On June 13, in honor of St. Anthony of Padua, the triumph of strawberries was celebrated with a procession of strawberry sellers starting from Campo de’ Fiori: the procession was led by a strawberry seller carrying a large basket, symbol of the triumph, adorned all around with small baskets of silver paper filled with strawberries, and above it a small statue of St. Anthony; followed by other strawberry sellers dancing to the sound of tambourines, dressed festively and singing little refrains in honor of the Saint and the strawberries. On the evening of St. John’s Day, the parade of carts takes place, and the custom of eating snails in taverns is still alive: once the most frequented was the Osteria delle Streghe, whose name is linked to the belief that on this night, along the stretch between San Giovanni and Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, witches can be seen if one places one’s chin in the fork formed by laurel branches (Belli, no. 1905).

One of the most characteristic processions of medieval Rome was the nighttime procession of August 15, in which representatives of every kind of laborer took part: the acheiropoietos image of Christ was carried on the shoulders by 12 men from the chapel of San Lorenzo in Laterano to Santa Maria Maggiore, passing under arches of leaves and flowers. At Piazza Navona, on Ferragosto and every Saturday and Sunday of the month, according to a tradition that lasted with some interruptions from 1632 to 1865, the lake was made: the spectacle was enlivened by the tossing of coins, the passage of carriages amid splashes and shouts of joy, the falling of horses, the music of the firemen’s band, and the voices of watermelon sellers and firemen’s helpers shouting "viva a ffuoco."

The October festivities at Testaccio are picturesque (the prints by Pinelli that depict them are among the finest for the history of popular costume), enlivened by competitions, songs, and dances: with great enthusiasm to the sound of castanets and tambourines the saltarello was danced, the most famous courting dance of the people. One of Rome’s Christmas-cycle traditions is to attend on the night of 23–24 December the so-called “cotto,” that is, the wholesale fish market that once took place in the fish-market of S. Teodoro and now at the Mercati Generali. The tradition of the Nativity scene is also very much alive: famous is that of Aracoeli, whose Infant is a choice olive-wood sculpture entirely covered with gems. Particularly Roman is the tradition of throwing out old pots and other earthenware utensils from windows at New Year as an act of expelling the old and welcoming renewal. The popular depiction of the Befana is likewise traditional, as seen in Pinelli’s canvases and Belli’s sonnets; even today on the eve of Epiphany the crowded toy fair takes place in Piazza Navona, once held in Piazza S. Eustachio. On the feast of St Anthony Abbot (17 January) animals are blessed: horses, donkeys, dogs, cats, and chickens, adorned with ribbons and flowers, are brought before the church of S. Eusebio to receive the parish priest’s blessing; formerly, as described by Goethe and Müller, the ceremony took place before the church of S. Antonio near Piazza S. Maria Maggiore. Carnival then begins, the typical festival marking the start of the year.

No less rich is Rome’s musical-poetic heritage, which naturally includes not only songs composed locally but also those imported and adapted to local taste and dialect, revealing the people’s own creative work. As early as 1787 Goethe collected from the lips of the Roman populace, in his Italian Journey, songs that were more fashionable than truly traditional, recalling the song of Marbrughe (“Malborough”), and finally noting that the commonest song among the Roman lower orders was the stornello. The stornello (called by the people “arironello”), which must not be confused with the ritornello, as Blessig believed, is in fact the most widely used lyrical-monostrophic form of song in Rome and throughout Latium. Popular amorous poetry also takes the form of the strambotto, called a sonnet (with the metre now of the Sicilian octave

But the old R. [Rome], with its festivals, its customs, its poets and its songs, is gradually disappearing: only a few neighborhoods, such as Trastevere and Monti, still 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 corners of R. (such as Villa Borghese) children and adults still crowd around puppet theaters, on whose stages much of the repertoire of the cantastorie [folk singers] has taken refuge. Famous among the puppets of old was Ghetanaccio with his character Rugantino.

The Roman people’s tendency toward biting satire found its most genuine expression, from the late Middle Ages onward, in the “pasquinate,” the most celebrated of which from the 16th century to the Napoleonic era were collected by P. Fornari.

BIBL.:
S. Marroni, Costumi popolari di R., Roma 1840;
C. Blessig, Röm. Ritorne, Lipsia 1860;
R. H. Busk, The Folklore of Rome, Londra 1874;
F. Sabatini, Saggi di canti pop. rom., Roma 1878;
id., Il volgo di R., Roma 1890-1901;
G. Zanzaro, Novelle, favole e leggende romanesche, Torino 1907;
id., Usi, costumi e pregiudizi del popolo di R., 1908;
id., Canti pop. rom., 1910;
A. Bevingnani, Le rappresentazioni sacre per l’ottavario dei morti a R. e nei suoi dintorni, Roma 1912;
P. Romano (P. Fornari), Pasquino e la satira in R., 5 voll., 1913-1915;
id., Il Natale a R., 1914;
F. Clementi, Il carnevale rom., 2 voll., Città di Castello 1938-39;
P. Romano – E. Ponti, Modi di dire pop. rom., Roma 1944;
P. Romano – P. Partini, I cantastorie in R., 1914;
P. Toscani, La poesia pop. di R. e del Lazio, in Poesia e vita di popolo, Venezia 1946, pp. 118-135;
A. G. Bragaglia, Le maschere rom., Roma 1947;
C. G. Pela Falletti di V., Le associazioni giovanili a R. e nel Lazio, in Lares, 16 (1950), pp. 40-67;
A. Lancellotti, Feste tradizionali, 2 voll., Milano 1950-51;
G. Belli, I sonetti, a cura di G. Vigolo, 3 voll., 1951;
cf. anche la rivista Roma (1923-43).

V. Topografia.

SUMMARY:
I. Christian origins.
II. S. Giovanni in Laterano and the Patriarchium.
III. The patriarchal basilicas.
IV. The decorations of medieval churches.
V. Basilicas and churches according to the period of their foundation.
VI. The Marian churches.
I. Santa Maria Maggiore.
II. The lesser Marian churches.
VII. The cemetery basilicas.
VIII. The abbeys.
IX. The ecclesiastical regions and the rioni.
X. The ancient catalogues of the churches.

I. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

The first meeting places of Christian communities were in private homes, as attested in the Acts of the Apostles (12:12; 19:9; 20:6-9) and in the letters of St. Paul (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phil 1:2), who declares that in Rome his co-workers in Christ, Aquila and Prisca, had placed their home at the disposal of the faithful (Rom 16:3, 5). However, one cannot accept the medieval legend that identifies the house of Prisca with the site where the church of St. Prisca now stands on the Aventine, since excavations have shown that it was built over a mithraeum from the late 2nd century AD and there is no trace of an earlier house (A. Ferrara, Il mitreo sotto la chiesa di S. Prisca, in Bull. della Commissione archeologica municipale di Roma, 68 [1940], pp. 59-96).

The origin of the Christian community in Rome is traced back to those Israelites who had come from Rome to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost and witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit and heard Peter’s discourse. Peter had also converted Roman soldiers, namely the centurion Cornelius of the Italic cohort and his household at Caesarea. The first nucleus of the Christian community in Rome would thus date to the time of Tiberius and then developed under his successors Caligula and Claudius. Eusebius of Caesarea places the arrival of St. Peter in Rome in the second year of Claudius (January 42–43 AD) both in the chronological canon of his Chronicon and in his Ecclesiastical History (II, 17), adding that the philosopher Philo would have been in Rome in relation to St. Peter; but Philo was in Rome in 39–40 AD. The same notice is found in the Historiae adversus paganos by P. Orosius, written in Africa between the years 417–418, at the suggestion of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (PL 31, 1072-73). St. Jerome also places St. Peter in Rome in the second year of Claudius (De viris ill., 1), but this dating cannot be proven. In the year 49, however, Claudius was forced to expel from Rome “the Jews who

They were in constant turmoil because of Chrestus» (Suetonius, Claudius, 25). The Roman historian Tacitus reports that the people called them chrestianos («quos vulgus chrestianos appellabat»; Annals, XV, 44). Even at the end of the 2nd century Tertullian reproached pagans for pronouncing «chrestiani» instead of «christiani» (Apologeticum, 3). That Christian ideas had already penetrated the Roman environment at that time is documented by Tullo 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 confirmation of the expulsion of Christians from Rome under the empire of Claudius is also found in Acts 18:2, where it is stated that the two Christian spouses Aquila and Priscilla were forced to leave Rome «because Claudius had by an edict expelled all Jews from Rome» and thus they met the apostle Paul in Corinth. But the decree cannot have been very rigorously enforced, since Cassius Dio shows that its application was limited to the prohibition of holding meetings; the same historian then observes that the Jews «although they were the object of repressive measures, have never ceased to prosper greatly, to the point of finally winning free exercise of their rites» (XXXVII, 17). Another proof that the exile of the Jews was of short duration is given by the fact that by about 58 Aquila and Priscilla were again in Rome (Rom. 16:3-5).

St Paul, writing about 58 to the Romans, declares that he had long desired to visit the Christian community of Rome «ex multis iam praecedentibus annis» (ibid. 15:23); it was already well established and flourishing since Paul tells the Roman brethren «fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo» (ibid. 1:8). He calls the brethren of Rome «beloved of God and saints» and hopes to visit them soon to be consoled with them «by the common faith, both yours and mine, and to revive memories». In this letter he names as many as 24 persons of this community whom he had already known, either in Corinth or in Asia, such as Aquila and Priscilla, Epenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Amplias, 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, Herod’s grandson, the other at the house of Narcissus, the famous freedman of Claudius (ibid. 16:3-16).

It is known that when St. Paul came to Rome the brethren of that community had gone out to meet him on the Appian Way as far as Forum Appii and Tres Tabernae (Acts 28:15) between Cisterna and Terracina (cf. A. Harnack - Th. Mommsen, in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, 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 leaders of the Jewish colony and had a long conversation with them. He then remained for fully two years in this rented house where he gladly received and instructed all who came to him (Acts 28:16-30). Later, writing from Rome to the Christians of Philippi in Macedonia, Paul sends them greetings from the faithful of Rome, especially those belonging to the imperial household (4:22). Finally, from the Second Letter to Timothy we learn four more names of members of the Christian community of Rome, namely Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia (4:19-21). From all these names we gain an idea of the ethnic composition of the first Christian community, where, although most of the names are not of Roman origin, there are also those which betray a provenance rather from the “Church from the Gentiles” than from that “from the Circumcision.”

Of great importance is the testimony of Tacitus regarding the proto-martyrs of Rome who were victims of Nero’s persecution. He speaks of a “multitude ingens.” No other topographical memory remains of their holocaust save that of Nero’s gardens on the Vatican; no trace of a commemorative liturgy, and the mention of 979 on the Aurelian Way in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum under June 29 remains a mere hypothesis. Besides the founders of the Roman Church, Peter and Paul, victims of the same persecution, Pope Clement refers to the many others, and especially women, who gave a wonderful example of their faith amid the most cruel torments (Ep. I ad Corinthios; PG 1, 37-21). St. Justin, writing his Apology to Rome in 155, does not specify the place of the liturgical assemblies which he says are held on the day of the sun (Sunday; ch. 67), and adds that the deacons, after the gathering, carry the Holy Species to the absent (ch. 61).

Between 163-67, more probably in 165, the same Justin together with his disciples Charite, Evelpistus, “servus Caesaris,” Hyacinthus, Peon and Liberianus were condemned to beheading by the prefect of Rome, Junius Rusticus; he asks where the Christians assemble and Justin replies 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 destroyed in 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 we learn that under Alexander Severus (222–35) a dispute arose in Rome over the possession of a piece of land between a group of innkeepers (popinarii) and the Christian community; the emperor preferred that a Christian religious building be erected in 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 down Christians and drag them before the courts (F. Dölger, Unserer Taube Haus. Die Lage des christlichen Kultbaus nach Tertullian, in Antike und Christentum, 2 [1930], pp. 41–56). DUBA EUROPOS (v.), in Mesopotamia, in the mid-3rd century a private house was converted into a Christian church with its baptistery; at the same time, in Carthage, St Cyprian indicated that a young man who had confessed his faith in Rome was well worthy to ascend the pulpit, that is, the place where the Holy Scriptures were read, a place which Tertullian had already called “the house of our dove” (Contra Valentinianos, 3). All the more reason must we suppose that by the mid-3rd century the Christian community in Rome, organized during the period of peace enjoyed from 236 to 250 under Pope Fabian, had its places of worship; to this Pope indeed 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

ROMA

(1st. Anderano)
ROMA - Summer flooding of Piazza Navona. An event instituted in 1652, which fell into disuse after 1863. Painting by an unknown artist of the 18th century - Rome, National Gallery of Ancient Art.

DECIO, according to Cyprian, would have preferred a competent ruler in the Empire rather than the bishop at Rome (Ep. 55, 9). But just as the exact boundaries of each of the fourteen Augustan regions are unknown, so it is very difficult to determine the boundaries of the seven ecclesiastical districts established by the said Pope. Pope Cornelius (251-53), in his letter to Bishop Fabian of Antioch, indicates the composition of the Roman clergy in his day; it comprised 46 priests, 7 deacons and an equal number of subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, readers and door-keepers, that is, the clergy who assisted him in his ministry, totaling 154 persons. It is not known how the priests were distributed.

The Emperor Aurelian in 272 decreed that the house of the church, occupied in Antioch by Paul of Samosata, should be returned to those who would be indicated by the bishops of Italy and the city of Rome. The same Emperor, writing to the senators who had shown themselves reluctant to open the Sibylline books, expressed surprise that they had hesitated so long, as if they were assembled 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 who witnessed the burning of the Christian church at Nicomedia, Eusebius relates that he saw with his own eyes the houses of prayer destroyed and the Holy Scriptures burned in the public squares (Martyr. Palestin., 1). But in 311 Galerius granted that the Christians might again build houses for assembly, provided they did nothing contrary to discipline; indeed they were to pray for the Emperor (Eusebius, op. cit., VIII, 17, 9-10).

It seems that at this time the Basilica Apostolorum on the Appian Way dates from, judging by its masonry of the striped type, the same as that of the nearby Circus of Maxentius and the mausoleum of his son Romulus.

St. Augustine, in a conference held at Carthage in 411, spoke of an ancient document in which it was stated that Pope Miltiades (d. Jan. 314) had sent deacons bearing the letters of the Emperor Maxentius and of the Praetorian Prefect to the Prefect of Rome «so that they might receive those things which, at the time of persecution, had been taken away, as the aforementioned Emperor had ordered to be returned to the Christians... Melchiades sent the deacon Stratone and others to recover ecclesiastical places» (Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, XVIII, 34-35; PL 43, 645-46). In the regulations issued by Constantine regarding the restitution of property to the Christians it is specifically stated that all places where they «were wont to assemble» must be immediately restored, and all must be returned «to the body of the Christians». And it is added that the Christians did not have only these places of assembly, but also others belonging «to the right

of their doors, that is, of the churches, not of individual men”: these too must be restored without any ambiguity or delay “to the same Christians, that is, to their body and assembly” (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. whose whereabouts are unknown; Pope Damasus built for them a new edifice in Regio IX (Circus Flaminius), near the Theatre of Pompey and the “stabula factionis prasinae.”

In the Constantinian age, Optatus of Milevis speaks of forty and more basilicas in R. (De schismate Donatistarum, 11, 4; PL 11, 954). The laterculus of Polemius Silvius (a. 449) merely notes “religious buildings with countless cells consecrated to martyrs” (MGH, Auctores antiquiss., IX; Chronica minora, I, p. 545). About 550, Zacharias in his ecclesiastical history of R. in Syriac reports in R. “churches of the blessed Apostles, twenty-four Catholic churches” which may be the tituli (the Latin version is by I. Guidi, in Bull. della Commiss. archeol. com. di R., 12 [184], p. 228).

The concentration of tituli in certain districts shows that Christian communities were more numerous there. At the summit of the Quirinal near the Alta Semita and not far apart stood the “titulus Gai,” also called “ad duas domos iuxta Diocletianas” (Martyrologium Hieronymianum, p. 434) and the titulus Cyriaci likewise “iuxta Diocletianas” (ibid., p. 189). The area must have been very populous; near the Agger Servianus there was a fruit shop and a “prosecta” (C. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, I, Città del Vaticano 1936, p. 391). In the valley between the Esquiline and the Viminal stood the titulus Pudentis (v.), not far away on the Esquiline near the Macellum Liviae the titulus Praxedis, and on the Oppius the titulus Aequitii. These three tituli lay also at the edge of one of the most densely populated quarters of the city: the Subura, where many Jews formed the synagogue of the “Suburenses” (C. Frey, op. cit., I, pp. LXXXIII-LXXXIV). In the northern part of the Caelian stood the tituli of Clemens, near the mint, of Nicomedes (perhaps SS. Pietro e Marcellino), of Matthaeus; in the lower part the titulus Aemiliana (SS. Quattro Coronati) and on the edge of the Caelian the titulus Byzantis. In Trastevere the oldest titulus is that of Callistus, the pope martyred in 223; then those of Caecilia, whose martyrdom cannot be dated with certainty, and of Chrysogonus.

About the development of Christian communities within the city and their liturgical centers, a valuable clue is provided by the number of cemeteries along the various consular roads, corresponding to as many urban Christian centers. On the Via Flaminia, in the time of Pope Julius (336–352), there is the cemetery basilica of St. Valentine; the attached cemetery yielded an inscription from 318 and later another showing that it served the faithful of the “titulus” of Lucina. On the Via Salaria vetus, the cemetery of Bassilia with the tombs of the martyr of the same name, St. Hermes, and the SS. Protus and Hyacinth. Later documents along the same road mention a group called “ad S. Ioannem, ad septem palumbas” or “ad clivum cucumeris,” unidentified, and the group of Pamphilus (v.), which excavations have allowed to date back to the second half of the 3rd century. On the Via Salaria nova are the four cemeteries of Maximus with the martyr Silanus, of Thraso with the martyr Saturninus, the Giordani, and Priscilla.

On the Via Tiburtina there are three 3rd-century cemeteries: that of Hippolytus, which would later be connected with the titles of Praxedes and Pudentiana; the one called Novatian with inscriptions from 266 and 270; and the great cemetery of St. Lawrence, where inscriptions of the titles of Clement and Nicomedes were found. The Christian population must therefore have been numerous in the area from the Esquiline to the Subura.

In the cemetery “inter duas lauros” on the Via Labicana, from the end of the 3rd century, faithful belonging to the titles of Eusebius and Matthew were buried, that is, from the area of the present Piazza Vittorio Emanuele to the Vicoli Giusti and Alfieri. Then there is on the Via Prenestina the cemetery of Castulus; on the Via Latina the groups of Gordian, Epimachus, Tertullinus, Apronianus; on the Via Appia the group of Praetextatus for the faithful of the Caelian around the Lateran, with inscriptions of a Quintus Lactearius who was from the noble house of the Laterani, and of the families Annia, Instia, Postumia, etc.; that in the catacombs for the faithful in imperial service on the Palatine, who later had the titulus Byzantis on the Caelian; that of Callistus, directly dependent on the deacon-administrator of the community from the beginning of the 3rd century; numerous on the Via Ardeatina: the cemetery called Domitilla for the faithful of the region of the public baths (Via Nova and the Baths of Antoninus) where the titulus called de fasciola arose; the cemetery of Balbina with the mausoleum of Pope Mark; that where Damasus made the tomb for his mother, his sister, and himself; that at the tomb of the martyrs Mark and Marcellian. The faithful of the Aventine (titles of Prisca and Sabina) had cemeteries on the Via Ostiensis (Commodilla, St. Paul, Thecla). Trastevere had cemeteries on the Via Portuense (Ponzano and ad ursum pileatum), three nuclei on the Via Aurelia (Pancratius, Processus and Martinian, Callistus, later called Calepodius), and on the Via Cornelia at the Vatican.

II. SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERANO AND THE PATRIARCHIUM

The basilica of the Saviour at the Lateran is Constantinian; this indication in the biography of Sylvester (Lib. Pont., I, p. 124) has been confirmed by the Constantinian foundations discovered beneath the central nave of the present Basilica during the renovation of the pavement (cf. E. Josi, Scoperte nella Basilica Costantiniana al Laterano, in Riv. arch. crist., 11 [1934], pp. 335-38; A. M. Colini - I. Gismondi, Storia e topografia del Celio nell'antichità in Atti della Pont. Accad. rom. di archeol., 3a serie, 7 [1944], pp. 364-380). This nave had thirty columns of the Munidia type, all of which had already been replaced by masonry piers in the time of Martin V in 1425, and only four remained when Borromini made the careful survey of the Basilica, which is now 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, while others were taken by F. Borromini to S. Agnese al circo agonale, which he rebuilt under Innocent X.
Gregorio Magno in 591 called the Constantinian Basilica of the Lateran the "golden" one (Registr., II, 1, ed. P. Ewald -

Rome - Convent of the Cappuccins on the present Via Veneto. Engraving by G. Vasi (18th century).

Rome - Piazza Montanara with the Theatre of Marcellus and the superstructures of the Palazzo Savelli, later Orsini. Engraving by G. B. Piranesi (18th century) - Rome.
ROMA - Piazza Montanara and the Theatre of Marcellus with the superstructures of the Palazzo Savelli, later Orsini. Engraving by G. B. Piranesi (18th century) - Rome.

L. M. Hartmann, in MGH, Epistolae, I, p. 101). It was indeed clad, not only in the lower parts of the walls but also in the intrados of the arches, with slabs of yellow Numidian marble, of which masses of fragments have been found, some still adhering to the springing of the arches. When Septimius Severus built his castra nova equitum singularium, that is, the new barracks for his bodyguard, he demolished a group of private dwellings, filled in their lower floors to obtain the platform on which to erect the new foundations. The excavations of 1934-38 brought to light the remains of these dwellings with their 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 edifizi al Laterano, in Annali dell'Istituto di corrispondenza archeol., 1877, pp. 132 ff.). One of the rooms in 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 19 January 197 AD, and another of 203 AD on his 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 construction of the Corsini chapel under the pontificate of Clement XII (1730-40), and further remains have been uncovered 66 m north of the perimeter of the Basilica in the courtyard of the Lateran Palace. In the Middle Ages the square to the north of the patriarchium continued to bear the name in campo, which also passed to the church of S. Gregorio. Excavations carried out in 1635 near the baptistery brought to light the fresco representing the goddess Roma, which passed into the Barberini collection (hence called Roma Barberini) and is now in the Palazzo Venezia Museum (Wilpert, Mosaiken, I, pp. 130 ff. and pl. 125). The excavations ordered by Pope Pius XI beneath the floor of the central nave of the present Basilica from 1934 to 1938 revealed the continuous Constantinian foundations, with equidistant travertine plinths to support the columns and two impost blocks, one of which still retains the springing of two arches that conclusively confirm the description given by Onofrio Panvinio when seven of the thirty columns of Numidian marble in 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; it had received, a few years earlier, between 429-30, mosaic decorations offered by the consul Flavius Felix and his wife Padusia, as is attested by the inscription preserved in the

Loge di Lorsch (G. B. De Rossi, *Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae*, II, 1, Roma 1888, pp. 149, 306-307). The apsidal museum was built under NICCOLÒ IV (1291) by two French artists, Fra Giacomo Torriti and Fra Giacomo da Camerino. Today, in the apse, above the hand of the Eternal on the image of the Saviour, under the Holy Spirit represented as a dove clad in a gem-studded cross on Mount Golgotha, from which four rivers flow where stags and lambs drink, to the right of the Cross are the Madonna, St. Peter, St. Paul; to the left are St. John the Baptist and the Evangelist, St. Andrew; behind the figures of the Madonna and the Precursor are the two French artists who, in 1291, restored the mosaic: Fra Giacomo Torriti and Fra Giacomo da Camerino. In this place the mosaics of the Old and New Testaments that adorned the central nave were cited by the legates of Adrian I at the VII Ecumenical Council (787) in favor of the veneration of sacred images. These mosaics, destroyed by the earthquake of 896, were repainted under SERGIUS III (904-11); they were replaced by the present Baroque stuccoes during the Borromini restoration (1644-55). In 1595 Flaminio Vacca freed the transept of the Basilica by order of Clement VIII, bringing to light a series of large inscriptions belonging to the Severian castra nova. A Roman road with a paved surface running east-west appeared during the restoration of the papal altar under Pius IX in 1855. Of the façade of the Constantinian Basilica, Panvinio left a description. The medieval inscription on the façade, which contained dogmatic papal assertions, was removed and used as material in the baptistery, where fragments were found during excavations carried out by the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology in 1924.The primitive baptistery was dated to a thermal environment and the remains identified as earlier than the present one, a work of Sixtus III; it was of octagonal type with eight porphyry columns supporting the trabeation, in which was carved the famous inscription of profound doctrinal and elevating form that F. X. Dölger held to be the work of the deacon Leo, later successor of Sixtus III (*Die Inschrift im Baptisterium S. Giovanni in Fonte an der Lateranischen Basilika aus der Zeit Xvstus III. (432-40) und die Symbolik des Taufbrunnens bei Leo dem Grossem*, in *Antike und Christentum*, 2 (1930), pp. 25-57).

The structures of the baptistery of Sixtus III and the earlier and later ones were studied by G. B. Giovene, *Il Battistero lateranense nelle recenti indagini della Pontificia Commissione di archeologia sacra*, Roma 1929.

The pope had two oratories built to the east and west of the baptistery, decorated with precious marbles and mosaics, with altars of silver and bronze; one was dedicated to St JOHN THE EVANGELIST near whose relics the church was saved at Ephesus (on the architrave inscription: *Liberatori suo beato Ioanni Evangelistae, Hilarius episcopus famulus XPI*); the other oratory was dedicated to ST JOHN THE BAPTIST (on the bronze door inscription: *in honore[m] beati Ioannis Baptistae Hilarius episcopus Dei famulus offert*).

The same pope also ordered a third oratory, splendidly adorned with precious marbles, columns and mosaics in the style of the Holy Cross (*Lib. Pont.*, I, p. 243); it was demolished by Sixtus V, but its design is preserved in drawings by F. G. Marteni, Lafrery, Sansovino, Peruzzi, Sangallo, Ciaconio, and in the descriptions of O. Panvinio and P. Ugonio.

Pope JOHN IV (640-42) built near the oratory of St JOHN THE EVANGELIST a portico and an oratory dedicated to St VENANTIUS (*Lib. Pont.*, I, p. 334), where he deposited relics taken from the abbey of St Martin in Dalmatia. The mosaics of the apse and of the façade wall remain. In the apse conch, in the upper part, is the Saviour between two angels; in the lower zone at the centre is the B.V.M. with the apostles Peter and Paul, then the two Sts JOHN THE BAPTIST and THE EVANGELIST; see VENANTIUS, see DOMNIO and JOHN IV. On the two walls flanking the apse are Paulinianus, Telijus, Antiochianus, Gaianus, Anastasius, Asterius, Septimus, Mauro. Also Stephen II was active in the service of the patriarch (*Lib. Pont.*, I, p. 471).

Adrian I received Charlemagne at the Lateran (*Lib. Pont.*, I, p. 498) where every day under the portico

dì S. Pancrazio (Lib. Pont., I, p. 506). Sotto Leone III (795-816) si ha notizia di un monastero femminile presso l'acquedotto Claudio dedicato ai martiri Sergio e Bacco (ibid., II, p. 24). Pasquale I (817-24) vi sostituì monaci con l'obbligo della salmodia «notte diceque» nella basilica del Salvatore (ibid., II, p. 58; P. Fr. Kehr, op. cit., I, p. 34). Alessandro II vi chiamò i Canonici Regolari di S. Frediano di Lucca. La Basilica ebbe anche la sua schola cantorum dotata da s. Gregorio Magno. I pueri «bene spallentes» venivano scelti dalle varie schiole e nutriti nella Schola cantorum, donde divenivano poi cubiculari (R. Casimiri, Cantantibus organis, Roma 1924, p. 460 sgg.). Il card. Bernardo (m. nel 1176), già priore della Basilica e poi cardinale di Porto, compose un ordo officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis (L. Fischer, Bernardi cardinalis et Lateranensis ecclesiae prioris Ordo ecclesiae Lateranensis, Monaco di Baviera 1916) in cui si illustra il compito della schola insieme con quello dei Canonici Regolari Lateranensi incaricati dell'ufficiatura. Nell'Archivio lateranense si conserva il testo di una convenzione stipulata nel 1232 tra i Canonici Regolari Lateranensi e la schola cantorum per il servizio musicale liturgico. Giovanni Diacono attribuisce la istituzione della schola cantorum a Gregorio Magno (santi Gregorii Magni v'ta, II, 6: PL 75). Il Liber diurnus la chiama «orphanatrophium» (formola 97); in una lettera di Paolo del 761-67 è detta schola cantorum (MGH, Epistolae, III, p. 553); in un atto del 919 si legge schola cantorum qui appellatur orphanatrophium (L. Allodi-G. Levi, Resutum Sublacense, Roma 1885, p. 159, n. 112). Il suo oratorio fu S. Stephanus orphanatrophii, ricordato nel Catalogo di Parigi, mentre in quello di Torino tale chiesa risulta già distrutta (R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico d. Città di Roma, III, Roma 1946, p. 310). I beni della schola cantorum, non più funzionante, dopo gli incendi della Basilica nel 1307 e nel 1361 furono da Urbano V, con bolla del 13 giugno 1370, concessi al Capitolo della cattedrale di Montefiascone (R. Casimiri, L'antica schola cantorum romana e la sua fine nel 1370, in Nel XVI centenario della dedicazione della Arcisalicia Lateranense del S. Mol Savatore, Roma 1924, pp. 56-59). Bonifacio VIII con bolla del 3 sett. 1299 rimosse i Canonici Regolari e istituì quindici canonici secolari. Eugenio IV con bolla del 6 febbr. 1439 vi chiamò i Canonici Regolari di S. Maria di Frigionia presso Lucca. Sisto IV con bolla del 16 apr. 1472 vi ripose i Canonici secolari. Presso la Basilica si costituì ben presto la residenza del vescovo di R. Fin dal 314 si ha notizia che il papa Milziade riunì il primo Concilio contro i Donatisti nella domus Faustae in Laterano. L'oratorio dedicato a s. Lorenzo ebbe più tardi il nome di Sancta Sanctorum; fu la Cappella privata del pontefice, dove solo il Papa poteva celebrare sull'altare che racchiudeva nell'arca di cipresso di Leone III le reliquie più insigni dei martiri romani, le teste degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo, di s. Lorenzo, di s. Agnese, di s. Pancrazio, di s. Prassede; inoltre reliquie della S. Croce, dei più celebri santuari della Palestina e l'immagine acherpita (v.). Il Patriarcho Lateranense fu devastato da Maurizio e da Isacio (640). Il papa Zaccaria restaurò il Patriarcho (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 432-38, n. 38); egli dette spesso vitto ai poveri (Lib. Pont., I, p. 435), Stefano II era stato elevato in venerabili cubiculo Lateranensi, dove poi fu eletto (Lib. Pont., I, p. 443). Sotto la minaccia dell'invasione longobarda, Stefano II portò processionalmente sulle proprie spalle l'immagine acherpita dal Laterano a S. Maria Maggiore. Zaccaria (741-52) fece il triclinio presso la basilica di papa Teodoro nel Patriarcho Lateranense da lui restaurato, dove decorò pure l'oratorio di S. Silvestro il protirò; ivi costruì presso il Tesoro una torre con triclinio superiore abbellito con le rappresentazioni di R. e dell'orro. Nel Patriarcho il biografo di papa Sergio I (687-701) ricorda l'oratorio di S. Silvestro e la basilica di papa Teodoro, tutte e due nell'area dell'attuale Palazzo Lateranense (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 333, 374-76).

The papal possessions at the Lateran after Avignon. After Avignon, the popes preferred to reside in the Vatican, generally limiting themselves to going to the Lateran only for the solemn ceremony of possession, immediately after the coronation, and sometimes for the Ascension feast. There is news of this from Martin V and the opening of the Jubilee of 1425. Eugenius IV (1431–47) carried out some restorations there and made a brief stay. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini wrote the possession of Nicholas V (1447–55), who held the Jubilee there on 24 Dec. 1449; Callistus 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 died there during the Fifth Lateran Council in 1512; a few days after the possession Leo X remained there in 1513. The sack of Rome also damaged the Patriarchium. Pope Sixtus V (1585), immediately after the possession, began the work of demolishing 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, from which the oratory of St Lawrence, called the Sancta Sanctorum, was also separated. 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 Sistine hall the ancient rite of the presbyterium, which was 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 part of the Palace into a large barracks for the troops, part into a granary, part into a lazzaretto and a male hospital. Innocent X (1644) accommodated the poor and the sick there; Innocent XII carried out new restorations, transforming it into a hospice together with the Apostolic Hospice (bull Ad exercitium pietatis of 1692). Benedict XIII (1724–30) had planned to adapt it as the site of the conclaves, but then established there a workshop for young girls, which remained even under Pius VI in 1776. Pius VII carried out works to place the public archives there, but it was later reduced to a barracks. After the solemn possession of Pius IX in 1846, the ceremony was resumed by Pope Pius XII on Ascension Day in 1939.

22. THE PATRIARCHAL BASILICAS

In the 12th century the basilicas of the Lateran, St Peter’s, St Paul’s, St Mary Major and St Lawrence each constituted a patriarchatus, and the adjoining buildings used as residences were called patriarchia; in fact O. Panvinio writes: «palatium conspicuum illis adiuncta patriarchia appellantur». Indeed, to recall these five basilicas the following distich was composed: «Paulus, Virgo, Petrus, Laurentius atque Iohannes» hi Patriarchatus nomen in Urbe tenent». At the high altar of the patriarchal basilicas only the pope or someone receiving a special mandate from him may celebrate. The palaces adjoining the individual patriarchal basilicas, apart from the Lateran palace used as the residence of the Pontiff and for the offices of the administration and the Curia, served respectively for the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in case of their presence in Rome. The four patriarchal basilicas (v. BASILICA), where the Holy Doors were instituted to gain indulgences during the Jubilee, are: St John Lateran, St Peter’s (v. VATICANO), St Paul’s (v.) and St Mary Major. The seven churches are: St Peter’s, St Paul’s, St Sebastian’s, St John’s, Holy Cross, St Lawrence’s (v.) and St Mary Major, in the topographical order in which the pious visit of the same is performed (G. Severano, Memorie sacre delle sette chiese di R., Rome 1630).

IV. SURNAMES OF MEDIEVAL CHURCHES

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

Other churches still 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. Maria Trinità Scottorum; S. Gregorio, S. Giacomo de Armenis; S. Andrea, S. Tommaso de Hispanis. Even hospices gave rise to the names of some churches, such as S. Lucia in xenodochio Aniciorum; S. Maria in xenodochio Firmis; S. Abbario in xenodochio Valeriorum; S. Stefano de orphanotrophio or de schola cantoris; S. Nicola de hospitali.

S. Sabina, fondata dal presbítero Pietro d'Illiria al tempo di CELESTINO I (422-32), come attestano l'iscrizione musiva nell'interno della parche d'ingresso e il Lib. Pont. (I, p. 235), che l'indica compiuta sotto Sisto III (432-40), è titolo nel Sinodo del 499; l'epitafio di un presbyter Basilius tituli Sabinae è in S. Paolo fuori le mura (A. Silvagni, Inscriptiones Christ., nuova serie, II. Roma 1935, n. 5154). Restaurata e abbellita da Leone III (795-816) Lib. Pont. II, p. 20), e da Eugenio II (824-27) ibid., p. 69). Onorio III la concesse all'Ordine dei Frati Predicatori. Fu modificata e danneggiata nel 1559 e 1585. Fu restaurata in pristino per iniziativa del p. M. Gillet quando nel 1936 decise di riportarvi la Curia generalizia del suo Ordine, affidando la direzione dei lavori al p. M. D. Darsy che ne ha dato una prima limpida relazione (DACL, XV, 1, coll. 218-38). Il papa SIMPLICIO (468-83) resse una basilica alla martire Bibiana, presso il palatium Licinianum (Lib. Pont., I, p. 240; V. anche 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]), ed anche S. Andrea in Catabarbara sull'Esquiline; un goto di nome Valia adattò a chiesa cristiana la basilica eretta dal console Giulio Busso nel sec. IV. Il museo abbasile rappresentava Gesù Cristo tra gli Apostoli (G. B. De Rossi; Inscr. chr., II, 1, Roma 1888, p. 436; Lib. Pont., I, p. 249; G. Lugli e T. Ashby, La basilica di Giulio Busso, in Riv. di arch. christ., 8 [1932], pp. 221-55; R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 64-65). Anche S. Stefano in Cuiello Monte fu fondata dal papa Simplicio (Lib. Pont., I, p. 249), decorata da Giovanni I (523-26) e da Felice IV (526-30) G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. christ., II, 1, p. 152, nn. 29, 32). Papa Teodoro (642-49) vi trasferì i corpi dei martiri Primo e Feliciano (Lib. Pont., I, p. 332). Rinnovata da Adriano I (772-95) ibid., p. 510), ebbe doni da Leone III (795-816) ibid., II, pp. 20-31), Gregorio IV (ibid., II, p. 76) e Leone IV (ibid., II, p. 119). Divenne titolo presbiterale dopoli 1000. Inno cenzò il la restaurò (ibid., II, p. 384). Gregorio XIII nel 1573 la concesse al Collegio ungarico (R. Krautheimer, S. Stefano rotondo a R. e la chiesa del S. Sepolcro a Gerusalemme, in Riv. di arch. christ., 12 [1935], pp. 51-102; P. F. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I, Berlino 1906, p. 42; E. Mälle, La mosaica de S. Stefano Rotondo a Rome, in Scritti in onore di Bartolomeo Nogara, Città del Vaticano 1937, pp. 237-52). Simmaco (498-514) eresse l'oratorio dei S. Cosma e Damiano presso S. Maria, costruì dai fondamenti la basilica dei S.S. Silvestro e Martino ai Monti, fece una scalata dietro l'abside del S.S. Giovanni e Paolo (Lib. Pont., I, p. 262). Sotto Simmaco si ha il Sinodo del 499 in cui sottoscrivono i presbiteri dei vari titoli. L'elenco del 499 fa conoscere i seguenti titoli: di Bizante, di Pammachio, di Emiliana, di Clemente, degli Apostoli, di Equizio, di Prassede (iscriz. del 491 in Bull. arch. crist., 4° serie, 1 [1882], p. 65), di Eusebio, di Pudente, di Vestina, di Gaio, di Ciriaco, di Marcello, di Lucina, di Damaso o di S. Lorenzo, di Marco, di Anastasia, Fasciola, Crescenzi, Tigrida, Matteo, Romano, Sabina, Prisca, Giulio, Cecilia, Crisogono. Il titulus Aemiliae del 499 è stato identificato con quello dei SS. Quattro Coronati del Sinodo del 595 (A. Munoz, Il restauro della chiesa e del chiostro dei SS. Quattro Coronati, Roma 1914). Il titulus Anastasia figura nel 499. Nel primo stadio S. Anastasia ebbe nave unica con transepto e abside semicircolare decorata da Damaso (G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. Chr., II, 1, pp. 24 e 150); in un secondo tempo furono aggiunte le due navatelle; nel terzo appartiene il restauro di Leone III (795-816). La nuova facciata è del 1634-40, l'ultimo grande restauro del 1721-1722 (R. Krautheimer, S. Anastasia, in Corpus, cit., pp. 43-63). Il titulus Byzantis si è ritenuto lo stesso che quello di Pammachio, il che non è provato, e si è identificato con

quello dei SS. Giovanni e Paolo del 595 (J. P. Kirsch, Die römischen Titelkirchen, Paderborn 1918, pp. 20-33). Il titulus Callisti è stato identificato con il titulus Iulii et Callisti del 595, cioè con S. Maria in Trastevere (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., p. 104 sgg.). Il titolo di Cecilia nel Trastevere diviene titulus S. Caeciliae nel Sinodo del 595 (bibl. in R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 95-112). S. Ciriaco in Themis fu eretto su terreno pubblico e certo non prima del sec. IV; esso stava verso il padiglione sud ovest del Ministero delle finanze (R. Krautheimer, Corpus, pp. 115-117). Il titulus Clementis era antico al tempo di S. Girolamo il quale scrive che non minime eius (Clementis) memoriam usque hodie Romae extructa ecclesia custodit (De viris ill., 15); sul « dominicum Clementis» V. G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. arch. crist., 1863, p. 25, e 1874, p. 159; per il resto R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 118-36.

Il titulus Crescentiana si è identificato con S. Sisto del 595 (J. P. Kirsch, cit., p. 111 sgg.). S. Ciriaco figura tra i « tituli » nel 499; è « titulus S. Chrisogoni » nel 595 (bibl. in R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., pp. 144-64).

Il Titulus Fascicola ha la sua più antica iscrizione in una epigrafe dell’a. 377 (G. B. De Rossi, Inscript. christ., I, Roma 1857-61, n. 262; Cinnamius, Opus lector de Fasciola; J. B. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 90-94). Il titulus Gai diviene di S. Susanna nel Sinodo del 595; è detto « ad duas domos iuxta Diocletianas » nel Martirologio germaniano all’11 a.g. (autae s. Susanna). Nel Sinodo del 499 Benedetto e Severo firmarono come presbiteri del « titulus Gai ». È indicato « iuxta S. Quiriacum » nella biografia di Sergio I (687-701) che ne fu prete titolare. La restauro è l’arricchì (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 371, 375; G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. arch. crist., 2ª serie, I (1870), pp. 80-112; L. Duchesne, in Melanges d’arch. et d’hist., 36 (1916), p. 33 sgg.). Il titulus Luciana, con S. Lorenzo in Lucina (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 80-84). Il titulus Marcelli, diventa « S. Marcelli » nel Sinodo del 595 (G. A. Barelli, Il titolo di S. Marcello in Via Lata e la scoperta di un antico battistero, in N. Bull. di arch. crist., 19 (1913), pp. 109-20; J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 77-80). Il titulus Marci diviene nel 595 « S. Marci » (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 87-90; A. Ferrara, La basilica di S. Marco, in Circ. Catt., 1948, III, pp. 503-13). Il titulus Matthaei (Kl. Henze, S. Matteo in Merulana, in Miscellanea Ehrle, II [Studi e testi, 38], Roma 1924, pp. 404-14; pianta in S. Du Péréc-Lafrery, 1577; G. B. Nolli, 1748, tav. 15, n. 28), fu riconsacrata il 25 marzo 1110 da Pasquale II; l’altare fu restaurato dal presbitero Anastasio (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., cit., I, p. 39). Il titulus Nicomedis con i SS. Marcelino e Pietro in Via Merulana nel Sinodo del 595 (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 54-58). Il titulus Priscae appare già in un epitafio del 491, la chiesa attuale è al di sopra di un mitreo (A. Ferrara, Il mitreo sotto la chiesa di S. Prisca, in Bull. arch. com. di Roma, 68 (1940), pp. 59-86). Il titulus Sabinae è certo anteriore al presbitero Pietro che costruì la Basilica (oggi S. Sabina) al tempo di papa Celestino (422-32) altrimenti egli sarebbe stato il « conditor tituli » e questo avrebbe preso il suo nome (v. Sabina, santa). Il titulus Tigridea del 499 è stato identificato con la S. Balbina del 595 (J. P. Kirsch, op. cit., pp. 94-96). Il titolo di S. Balbina appare per la prima volta nel Sinodo del 595 dove firmarono due presbiteri; un frammento epigrafico dello stesso secolo lo ricorda pure: TT. SCE Ba (G. B. De Rossi, Roma sotterr., III, Roma 1877, p. 515. Per la bibl. V. R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 84 sgg.).

Felix IV (526-30) erected the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian near the "templum urbis Romae" (cf. 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, which had already been erected by Ricimer between 459-470 (Lib. Pont., I, p. 312; Dialogues, III, 30; Registr. epist., in MGH, Epist., I, Leipzig 1891, p. 253). To this Pope is also connected St. Sabas: John the Deacon (Vita s. Gregori, I, 9; PL 75, 66) wrote that St. Silvia, mother of St. Gregory.
ROMA - The Portico of the church of S. Gioacchino, which was built on the occasion of the jubilee of Leo XIII (1588). Drawing by the architects R. Inganni and Lorenzo M. de Rossi.
ROMA - Interno della chiesa di S. Luce Manno offerta al padre Pio XII dagli Uomini di Azione Cattolica Italiana (1952) - Roma.

ma volta nel 715-31 quando Gregorio II fondò lo «Sennodochium in platana» (ibid., pp. 440, 456, n. 5; R. Krautheimer, Corpus, cit., p. 216).

Gregorio III (731-41) pose nell'oratorio del Presepe in S. Maria Maggiore, da lui restaurata, un'immagine d'oro della Madonna con il Salvatore; restaurò e abbellì la chiesa di S. Crisogono, istituendovi il monastero di SS. Stefano, Lorenzo e Crisogono; restaurò i monasteri presso la Basilica Lateranense, la basilica di S. Maria ad martyres; trasformò in basilica l'oratorio di S. Maria in Aquiro; rinnovò la chiesa dei SS. Marcellino e Pietro presso il Laterano; restaurò le mura della città (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 418-20). Adriano I (772-95) restaurò S. Prisca, S. Clemente, S. Pudenziana; trasformò la «statio» nana in S. Maria in Cosmedin (ibid., p. 404 sgg.); ricostruì S. Giovanni ante Portam Latinam, chiesa durante anteriore edificata in onore dell'Evangelista che ivi avrebbe subito il martirio dell'olio bollente (ibid., p. 508); di nuovo ricostruì nel 1191 da Celestino III (P. G. S. 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 Orientalia silica in Roma, in American journal of archaeology, 11 [1936], p. 485 sgg.). Pasquale I (817-24) ricostruì S. Cecilia, S. Prassede, S. Maria in Domnica.

The Epiphany, the Presentation, and St. Matthias. At the end of the 13th century, Filippo Rusuti decorated the façade in *musaico* (now behind that of Benedict XIV). At the top is the Saviour between four angels and the symbols of the four Evangelists; below are the B.V.M., St. Paul, St. James, St. Jerome, and on the other side St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Andrew, and St. Matthias. In the lower zone, Gaddi depicted the visions of the Madonna to Pope Liberius and 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 tracing the plan of the Basilica in the snow. About 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], pp. 51 ff.). The two Borgia popes, Callistus 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 inside above the entrance were still visible (*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 *musaico* panels; Benedict XIV in 1750 carried out repairs on the roof, cleaned the mosaics, and reduced the columns to uniform dimensions; he made the new baldachin at the High Altar, the façade, and the arrangement behind the apse, and rebuilt the Palace, which had been constructed by Nicholas V. The Confession opened before the High Altar was executed by order of Pope Pius IX, who is represented kneeling before 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. Biasotti, *La riproduzione della grotta di Betlemme nella Basilica di S. Maria Maggiore*, in *Dissertazioni della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch.*, 2nd ser., 15 (1921), pp. 95–110; on the relics known as of the crib: 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, I, pp. 209 ff.

Around St. Mary Major were the following monasteries for the service of the Basilica: the oratory of SS. Cosmas and Damian called *ad S. Mariam Majorem* or *ad praespe*, first mentioned in the biography of Pope Symmachus ([498–514] *Lib. Pont.*, I); there was the *Gerocomium post absidam S. Genitricis ad praespeem*, founded under Gregory II (715–31), later converted into a monastery and enriched with gifts by Leo III (795–810); it was destroyed under Sixtus V. S. Andrea *in assa* or *in Exaolo*, mentioned in 998–99 in the charters of S. Prassede, and in a bull of Benedict VII of 8 Feb. 1024; it became a dependent church as attested by bulls of Celestine III of 4 Jan. 1192 and of Innocent IV of 19 March 1244; there was built the hospital *de Piscina* or *piscinula*, which remained until the 15th century. S. Adriano, recorded 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 Iuliana*. It was at the summit of the Clivus Suburanus near S. Vito. It is mentioned in the biography of Leo III (795–816) and in the charters of S. Prassede of 998–99; mention is made of an archpriest of the said monastery, which recurs several times in the *Regesto Sublacense* (years 1005, 1015, 1051). It seems to have been abandoned after the 13th century and replaced by S. Andrea *de fractis*, founded in 1270 by Cardinal Ottobono, archpriest of S. Maria Maggiore. It is mentioned in bulls of Nicholas IV of 27 Jan. 1290 and of Benedict XI of 9 Jan. 1304; Eugenius IV in 1433 united it to S. Paolo fuori le mura, while the goods went to the Liberian Chapter (L. Duchesne, *Les monastères desservants de Ste Marie Majeur*, in *Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist.*, 27 [1897], pp. 479–91).

ROME - Mosaics in the chapel of SS. Francis and Catherine in the church of S. Leone Magno, cartoons by Adriana Venturini - Night, execution by the Cassio brothers (1952) - Rome.

ursprüngliche Apisianlage, Città del Vaticano 1939; E. Lavagnino, S. Maria Maggiore, Roma s. d.

23. The lesser Marian churches according to ancient catalogues

R. also holds the primacy for the greatest number of churches dedicated to the Mother of God, even from the first centuries of the Middle Ages. Indeed, the following Marian churches are recorded up to the 16th century.

S. Maria Degli Angeli, iniziata da Pio IV nel 1561 nelle Terme di Diocleziano. S. Maria de Anima: ricordata nel Catalogo del 1492, fu terminata sotto Alessandro VI; è oggi la chiesa nazionale dei Tedeschi (J. Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Nationalkirche S. Maria dell’Anima, Friburgo in Br. 1906). S. Maria Antiqua al Foro Romano: adattata in un precedente edificio romano, con affreschi della fine del sec. V e sgg., abbellita specie da Giovanni I (1705-1707) H. Grisar, S. Maria Antiqua, in Civ. Catt., 16a serie, 1896, VI, p. 458 sgg.; 1901, I, p. 228 sgg.; 1901, IV, p. 491 sgg.; G. Wilpert, S. Maria Antiqua, in L’Arte, 13 (1910), pp. 1-20; 81-107; id., Mosaiken, 11, passim, e IV, tavv. 133-135; 142-146; 151-163; 1-3; 167-168; 177-187; 192-201; 215, 2, 5; W. De Grinich, S. Maria Antiqua, Roma 1911; E. Tea, La basilica di S. Maria Antiqua, Milano 1937). S. Maria de Arte Aurea: chiesa ad oriente del Foro di Nerva (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese di R. nel medioevo, Roma 1927, p. 312). S. Maria Antiqua del Collego Romano: certa di Vittoria della Tolfa, nipote di Paolo IV, aveva l’ingresso in via S. Ignazio; è ricordata nel Catalogo dello Spagnolo. Fu demolita tra il 1649-54 per la nuova chiesa di S. Ignazio. S. Maria Annunziata detta la Nunziatella: posta al terzo miglio della Via Ardeatina; un’iscrizione ivi esistente del tempo di Onorio III ed ha la data del 12 a. 1220. S. Maria de Aquaricians: è ricordata nell’elenco di Cencio Camerario, doveva essere presso Piazza Nuova (Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., p. 310). S. Maria in Aquino: tuttora esistente nella Piazza degli Orfani è ricordata per la prima volta nella biografia di Gregorio III come S. Maria a Cyro (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 419, 424, n. 24; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I, Berlino 1906, p. 85). S. Maria de Archa Noe (L. Duchesne, S. Maria in Foro, S. Maria in Macello, in Mélanges d’arch. et d’hist., 35 [1905], p. 153). S. Maria de Armenis: ri-rodata in un documento dell’Archivio di S. Pietro del 13 apr. 1325 (Bullarium Vatic., II, p. 34). Il card. Ehrle la localizzò all’angolo sud orientale della Basilica Constantiniana (F. Ehrle, Ricerche su alcune antiche chiese del Borgo di S. Pietro, in Dissertaz. della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch., 2a serie, 11 [1907], p. 32). S. Maria de Arte Archea: è ricordata nella bolla di Giovanni XII dell’8 marzo 962. S. Maria de Astartis: denominazione derivata dalla famiglia Astalli; un documento del 9 maggio 1337 ricorda un suo presbitero, fu demolita per la costruzione della chiesa del Gesù (P. Tacchi Venturi, in Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, 21 [1989], p. 314). S. Maria de Aventino: oggi S. Maria del Priorato; vi fu annesso il monastero benedettino fondato da Alberico nel 980 che fu tra le venti abbazie romane (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, pp. 116-117). S. Maria de Cacabardi: dai cacabi o caldaie; la bolla di Urbano II del 1186 ricorda tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso. S. Maria de Cacabardelli: ad occidente del Celio; è ricordata nel Catalogo di Torino e nella bolla di Onorio III del 25 febb. 1217 (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., p. 316). S. Maria de Cambiatoribus: nella zona tra Piazza delle Carrette, via S. Pietro in Vincoli e via del Colosseo. È ricordata come S. Maria in candidatore in una bolla di Adriano IV del 18 marzo 1116 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 14, n. 24; p. 48, n. 3). S. Maria de Cannela: al termine del 14 di Pasquale II (1099-1118) era alle dipendenze della chiesa di S. Marcello. Il nome deriva dai condotti dell’acqua Vergine; era nella strada tra il Corso e il Quirinale e fu demolita da Paolo 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). S. Maria in Campi- telli: esisteva sulla Piazza omonima nel sec. XIII, ma con facciata verso la torre del Melangolo; è segnata nella pianta di L. Bufalini del 1551 e di S. Du Péric-Laffrey del 1577; l’attuale edificio è del 1661. È una diaconia.

(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 anniversarium 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 Dono Gregori: è nel Catalogo di Cencio già senza clero; non si è identificata. S. Maria de Cannapara: ad occidente del Foro Romano; appare nei Catalogli dei secc. XII-XIV: è indicata nelle piante di Roma di L. Bufalini e anche in quelle di Noli del 1748. S. Maria in Capitolio: V. Aracocelli, 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 bariletti (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 (1722-95) 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 (850-82); era abbandonata nel 1306. S. Maria in Caterina: è la chiesa oggi detta S. Caterina della Rota; è menzionata nei 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. mun. di R., 65 [1937], pp. 240-42). S. Maria «Cella Farfae» o «De Thermis»: si trovava dove è ora S. Luigi dei Francesi, apparteneva all’abbazia di Farfae; è ricordata per la prima volta nel Re- gesto Farfense in un documento del 998: «coclesia S. Mariae sita Romae regione nona in thermis Alexandrinis» (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 326-27). S. Maria de Curte in Campiello: 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 Consolatione»: chiesa consacrata presso quella della Grazie il 3 nov. 1472; ricordata nel Catalogli 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 cave del Teatro di Pompeo (Ch. Hülsen, Le Chiese, cit., pp. 328-29). S. Maria «In Curte Domine Micine»: tra la parte occidentale del Campidoglio e Piazza Montanara. Dorma Miccina appartiene ad una famiglia romana del sec. XI o XII: la chiesa è ricordata nell’Anonimo Magliabecchiano ed è scomparsa nel sec. XV. (R. Lanciani, in Bull. della Commissione archeol. mun. di R., 45 [1917], p. 186). S. Maria «De Episcopio»: sul versante occidentale dell’Aventino; chiesa ricordata nei Catalogli di Torino e di N. Signorili, il primo la indica già senza porte e senza servizio. Scomparsa dal sec. XV (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 322, n. 41). S. Maria «Dominae 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 «Dominae 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

ROMA - II pino centenario del Campidoglio, caduto nella notte del 30 apr. 1931.

nella piazza antistante). Diaconia ricordata già nella biografia di Leone III (795-816; Lib. Pont., II, pp. 9, 14, 16, 19). S. MARIA «DONO IOHANNIS BOVIS O BOBONIS».

S. MARIA «IN FALCONE»: forse sotto Monte Mario, presso Villa Madama; ricordata in un atto del 12 apr. 1483 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 168 n. 16; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 332-333). S. MARIA «DE FERRARIIS»: chiesa presso il Colosseo, scomparsa nel sec. XV. Appare in un atto del 1205 e nella bolla di Innocenzo IV del 18 marzo 1254 (G. Gatti, in Bull. della Commissione archeol. com. di R., 23 [1895], p. 124 sgg.). S. MARIA «DE FLUMINE»: era presso Monte Cenci; la bolla di Urbano III del 1186 la pone tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso. Fu dissacrata il 19 febbr. 1573 (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 333-335). S. MARIA «IN FORMOSA»: scomparsa; fu pure tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso (ibid., p. 335). S. MARIA «IN FORO»: dov'era il foro di Augusto (ibid.). S. MARIA «DE FOVEA»: oggi S. Giovanni Decollato; la chiesa fu data da Innocenzo VIII con bolla del 23 ag. 1490 alla compagnia della Misericordia dei Fiorentini (ibid., pp. 335-336). S. MARIA «DE GRADELLIS»: presso S. Maria in Cosmedin. Dal Catalogo del 1492 in poi è detta S. Maria Egiziana (ibid., pp. 336-338). S. MARIA «DE GUINIZO»: nel versante occidentale del Campidoglio. Ricordata già nel Catalogo di Torino (ibid., pp. 338-339). S. MARIA «DE INFERNO»: certa nel sec. XIV sopra S. Maria Antiqua. Demolita all'inizio del 1900 (ibid. pp. 339-400). S. MARIA «INTER DUO»: «DUAS»: tra due antiche strade romane presso il Colosseo (ibid., p. 340). S. MARIA «IN IULIA»: chiesa e monastero ricordata già nelle biografie di Leone III; filiale di S. Lorenzo in Damaso fu poi detta S. Anna de Funari o de Falegnami e demolita nel 1887 (ibid., pp. 240-41). S. MARIA LAURETANA: al Foro Traiano, oggi della Madonna di Loreto. Fondata dalla Compagnia dei Fornari nel 1507; è nei Cataloghi del 1555, di Pio IV e di S. Pio V. S. MARIA «DE LUTARA»: oratorio e monastero ricordato nella biografia di Leone III (Lib. Pont., II, p. 45, n. 103). Non identificato (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 341).

S. MARIA «DE MACELLO»: verso la piazza Montanara (ibid., pp. 341-42). S. MARIA ET S. BLASII: forse è la stessa di S. Benedetto in Thermis (ibid., p. 378). S. MARIA MAGGIORE: V. SORA. S. MARIA «IN MAURENTA»: presso Piazza Navona; per la prima volta appare nel Catalogo di Cennio Camerario, già senza clero; scomparsa nel sec. XVI (ibid., pp. 342-43). S. MARIA «DE MANU»: alle pendici del Palatino, verso il Circo Massimo. Appare in un atto del 20 dic. 1215, poi detta S. Maria dei Cerchi (ibid., pp. 343-44). S. MARIA «DE MAXIMA»: chiesa o monastero, oggi S. Ambrogio della Massima. Già nella biografia di Leone III (ibid., pp. 344-45). S. MARIA «AD MARTYRES»: ROTUNDA O S. MARIA DELLA ROTONDA: il Pantheon trasformato da Bonifacio IV (Lib. Pont., I, p. 363; P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pontif., I, p. 99). S. MARIA «MEDIANAE»: oratorio ricordato nella biografia di Leone III (705-816; Lib. Pont., II, p. 42, n. 70) fu presso il portico della basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 345). S. MARIA «DE MERITRIO»: presso l'arco di Costantino, all'inizio della Sacra Via; la bolla di Alessandro IV del 9 apr. 1256 indica già esistente la chiesa di cui gli avanzi sono poco oltre la «meta sudante» verso l'altura del Palatino (ibid., pp. 345-46). S. MARIA «IN MINERVA»: «SUPRA MINERVAM»: è già nell'itinerario di Einsiedeln. Passata dal Senato e dal popolo romano ai Frati Predicatori confermata con bolla di Giovanni XXI del 3 nov. 1276 (I. Berthier, L'église de la Minerva à Rome, Roma 1910; R. Spinelli, S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1912). S. MARIA DEI MIRACOLI: presso il Tevere. Al principio del sec. XVI era una cappella dedicata alla Madonna negli archi delle Mura Aureliane presso Piazza del Popolo. L'Arcionfraternita di S. Giacomo degli Incurabili eresse nel 1525 un oratorio per collocarvi l'immagine che fu trasferita nella chiesa attuale nella Piazza del Popolo nel 1664. S. MARIA «IN MONASTERO»: è ricordata in un placito di Benedetto VII del 1014 (Regestum Farfense, III, p. 199, n. 492). Era davanti a S. Pietro in Vincoli; demolita nel sec. XVI (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 347-48). S. MARIA «IN MONASTERO MICHAELIS»: è già nella biografia di Leone III; era presso i SS. Quattro Coronati (ibid., p. 348). S. MARIA «DE MONTERONE»: appare tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso nella bolla di Urbano III del 1186; la denominazione proviene dalla famiglia Monteroni. senese, che la fondò come un ospizio pellegrini (ibid., pp. 348-49). S. MARIA «IN MONTICELLIS»: è della regione Arenula; fu consacrata da Pasquale II (1099-1118; Lib. Pont., II, p. 305), e poi da Innocenzo II il 6 maggio 1143 (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 96; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 350-51). S. MARIA «IN MONTICELLO»: «DE MONTE IOHANNIS RONZONIS»: appare nella bolla di Alessandro III del 21 febbr. 1178 poi in quella di Urbano III del 1186 tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso. Fu detta anche «S. Maria de monte Giordano». Profanata all'inizio del sec. XX (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 350-51). S. MARIA «MONTIS BALNEANAPOLIS»: sul versante occidentale del Quirinale. Ricordata nel Catalogo del 1555 presso la chiesa di S. Agata al Quirinale. Era sul posto dell'attuale SS. Domenico e Sisto (ibid., p. 351). S. MARIA «MONTIS SERRATI»: sorta nel sec. XVI sul luogo d'un ospedale catalano con cappella di S. Nicola. La chiesa appare nei Cataloghi dello Spagnolo del 1555 e di S. Pio V. S. MARIA NOVA: diaconia fondata da Leone IV tra le rovine del tempio di Venere e Roma. Rifiatta da Onorio III e nel 1615 (P. Lugano, S. Maria Nova, Roma s. d.; P. Fedele, Il «Tabularium S. Mariae Novae» in Arch. Soc. rom. st. patria, 23 [1900], p. 171 sgg.; A. Prandi, Vicende edilizie della basilica di S. Maria Nova, in Rendiconti della Pont. Accad. rom. di arch., 13 [1938], p. 197 sgg.)

S. MARIA “DE OBLATIONARIO”: a chapel mentioned in a privilege of Paschal II. Honorius II, Innocent II with an adjacent cemetery for pilgrims between Porta Asinaria (S. Giovanni) and the basilica of S. Croce; later perhaps called “de Spazolaria” (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 32; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 352).

S. MARIA “DE OLIVA”: seems to have stood in Trastevere where S. Apollonia now is; it had a women’s monastery of S. Francesco attached; recorded in the Catalogue of St Pius V.
S. MARIA DELL’ORTO: erected in 1488 in Trastevere near S. Cecilia. Here the Compagnia di S. Maria dell’Orto was established.

l'8 sett. 1492. Si trova nei Cataloghi del 1555, di Pio IV e di s. Pio V. S. Maria della Pace: fondata sotto Sisto IV col titolo di S. Maria della Virtù dove era la chiesa di S. Andrea degli Acquari. S. Maria in Palazzo in quella costa del Gianicolo prospicente il Vaticano. Chiesa scomparsa nel sec. XV; appare soggetta a S. Pietro in Vaticano dal sec. XI (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 352-353). S. Maria « in Palla a »: chiesa sul Palatino proprio, spicente l'arco di Costantino con monastero del sec. X. Appartiene al monastero di Montecassino. Denominazione dal Palladium. Contiene affreschi della fine del sec. X e della fine del sec. XII, editi da G. Wilpert, Mo- saiken, tavv. 224-25. È detta anche di S. Sebastiano; passò nel 1630 in patronato ai Barberini (P. Fedele, in Archivio Soc. rom. di st. patria, 26 [1903], pp. 343-36; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 353-355). S. Maria in Parvi «: è ricordata in un'epigrafe del 1088. Sembra fosse ad ovest della Via Appia (ibid., pp. 355-56). S. Maria « in Peregrino », Fu presso S. Angelo in Pescheria. È nel Catalogo di Parigi e di N. Signorili. Scomparsa (ibid., p. 356). S. Maria « in Petrochio »: fu tra l'angolo della Via della Bocca della Verità e Via dei Cerchi. È nel Catalogo di Cencio Camerario. Nel 1614 fu concessa alla Compagnia degli Scarpinelli e dedicata a s. Aniano ibid., pp. 356-57). S. Maria « ad Pineam »: in Trastevere, V. Cappella. S. Maria della Pietà: con ospedale per poveri stranieri e per malati di mente: « xenodochium insanorum » lo chiama l'Anonimo Spagnolo. Nel sec. XVII fu concesso alla Compagnia dei Bergamaschi e di essere l'attuale chiesa in Piazza Colonna. S. Maria « de Populo »: è ricordata nel 1263 da una iscrizione. Rifiatta sotto Sisto IV (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, p. 86; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 358; E. Lavagnino, S. Maria del Popolo, Roma 1923). S. Maria « de Porto »: attestata nel Catalogo di Parigi e in quello di Torino che la pone nella zona Nomentana; ma già senza personale. Non appare più nel 1492 (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., p. 359). S. Maria « de Porticu »: una tradizione attribuisce alla nobilissima figlia di Simmaco l'erezione di un santuario mariano nel proprio Palazzo. La denominazione « porticus » viene dal « porticus Gallatorum ». Nel 1650 il papa Alessandro VII fece trasportare l'immagine della Madonna ivi venerata in S. Maria in Campitelli, detta da allora S. Maria « in Porticu in Campitelli » (F. Ferraironi, S. Maria in Campitelli, Roma s. d.). Fu consacrata da Gregorio VII 18 luglio 1973 (G. B. De Rossi, Inseript. christ., II, 1, Roma 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, Roma 1902; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 359-60). S. Maria « de Posterula »: quasi incontro all'albergo dell'Orso demolita alla fine del sec. XIX. Fu detta anche S. Maria « ad Flumen a ». Appare già nel Catalogo di Cencio Camerario (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 360-61). S. Maria « de Publico »: presso S. Carlo a Catinari; annoverata nella bolla di Urbano III nel 1186 tra le filiali di S. Lorenzo in Damaso. È detta anche « de Publico o in Publicolis » (ibid., p. 361). S. Maria « Puritatis »: del Collegio dei cadaveri dei cardinali, fondata sotto Clemente VII nel Borgo Nuovo. È ricordata nel Catalogo di s. Pio V. S. Maria « de Puteo Proba »: « in Campo »: fra S. Vitale e S. Agata alla Suburra. Vi fu annesso un ospedale per gli Albanesi. Appare già nel Catalogo di Parigi; era già in rovina nel Catalogo di s. Pio V (ibid., p. 362). S. Maria « Regina Coeli »: fu in Piazza S. Pietro, ricordata nel Catalogo del 1492 e di Pio IV. S. Maria dello Rispo: sulla Via Aurelia. S. Maria Rotonda: V. S. Maria « ad Martyres ». S. Maria « in Saxia », oggi S. Spirito in Saxia. Fondata nel 727 dal re Ina; rifatta da Leone IV (Lib. Pont., II, p. 128). Con bolla di Noncenzio III del 13 marzo 1198 divenne filiale di S. Pietro in Vaticano (P. Fr. Kehr, Italia Pont., I, pp. 145-51; Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 363-64). S. Maria « de Scala »: con annesso monastero, oggi S. Maria della Scala, eretta nel 1592. S. Maria « Secundiceri »: è citata nel Catalogo di Cencio Camerario e nella biografia di Gelasio II (Lib. Pont., II, pp. 315 e 347). Era vicino al Ponte Rotto. S. Maria « ad S. Silvestri »: è ricordata 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 »: « de Tempulo »: 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 Tofelano »: « in Tofelano »: nel rione Ripa, era già in rovina sotto s. Pio V (ibid., pp. 368-70). S. Maria « in Traspadina »: « in Traspadina »: da Antonio 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 Transiberim: V. SORA. S. Maria « in Turre »: era in Trastevere presso il porto di Ripa Grande, denominata così da una torre di Leone IV (ibid., p. 372). S. Maria « in Turri »: « in Turri »: era tra i due campanili della Basilica di S. Vaticano (v.). S. Maria « in Vallicella »: si trova già al tempo di Eugenio III (1145-53). Nel 1575 S. Filippo Neri iniziò la costruzione della Chiesa Nuova (E. Strong, La Chiesa Nuova », Roma 1923). S. Maria « in Via »: appare in un atto, del 1042, di S. Maria in Via Lata; il nome deriva da una via che dalla Flaminia si dirigeva all'arco dell'acqua Vergine (C. Cecchini, S. S. Maria “in Via,” Rome s.d.). S. Maria “in Via Lata”: a diaconia enriched by Leo III in 806. Eugene IV, with a bull of 19 March 1433, united to it the monastery of SS. Ciriaco and Niccolò (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). S. Maria “via Ponteficialis Regione Collegium”: recorded in the Catalogue of 1555. S. Maria “de Virgariis”: a small church on Piazza S. Pietro near the site of the present obelisk; it is already mentioned 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). S. Maria “de Virgariis”: an oratory near the vicolo al Colonnato and the Corridoio del Borgo, recorded in a document of 13 Apr. 1345 from the Archive of S. Pietro, with an attached monastery of canonesses. It disappeared in the 15th century (Ch. Hülsen, Le chiese, cit., pp. 377-78). S. Maria “in Xenodochio Firmis”: an oratory recorded in the biography of Leo III near that of Belisarius (Lib. Pont., II, p. 46, n. 108).

VII. The cemetery basilicas

The first notice of basilicas erected over the tombs of Roman martyrs is found in the biography of Sylvester, where those over the tombs of St. PETRA (v.), St. Paul (v.), St. Lawrence (v.), St. Agnes (v.), and SS. PETRA (v.) are described as Constantinian constructions. Sylvester was buried in Priscilla, on the Salarian Way, on 31 Dec. 335, as the Depositio episcoporum and his biography attest (Lib. Pont., I, p. 187). His tomb would later be indicated in the “ecclesia” or “basilica S. Silvestri,” erected over the tombs of the martyrs Felix and Philip, as noted in the same cemetery by the Depositio martyrum (R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di Roma, Rome 1942, pp. 77, 144). Although there is no written documentation for the foundation of the cemetery basilica called “Apostolorum” on the Appian Way at the site “in catacumbas,” its antiquity is demonstrated by its structure, of the same type as the nearby Circus of Maxentius and the mausoleum. Pope Mark (336) erected a basilica in the “cymiterio Balbinae Via Ardetina,” where he was buried (Lib. Pont., I, p. 202). Julius built three cemetery basilicas recorded in the Liberian Catalogue: the first “in Via Portuense, mile III,” identified by G. B. De Rossi with the basilica of St. Felix; the second is the basilica “in Via Flaminia, mile II, which is called Valentini”; the third on the Via Aurelia at the third mile near the tomb of Pope Callistus (MGH, Script. Antiquiss., I, Berlin 1892, p. 76).

« in Via Aurelia miliario III ad Callistum », cioè dove egli fu scelto, come conferma la Deposito episcoporum : « Iuli in Via Aurelia, miliario III in Callisti » (ibid., p. 70; identica notizia è riportata pure in Lib. Pont., I, p. 206); Liberio (352-66) adornò con lastre marmoree il sepolcro di s. Agnese (Lib. Pont., I, p. 208). DAMASO (366-84) adornò con versi la lastra marmorea « in catacumbas » dove erano state deposte le reliquie degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo. Inoltre la sua biografia attesta che egli « multa corpora sanctorum martyrum requisivit et invenit, quorum etiam versibus declaravit » (ibid., p. 212). Infatti Damaso mise in culto e abbellì i sepolcri dei martiri Marcellino e Pietro, di cui il carnefice stesso gli aveva narrato, mentre era puer, i particolari del martirio (A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana, Città del Vaticano 1942, n. 28). Damaso adduì ai fedeli l'esempio dei due martiri militari Nerco e Achilleo (ibid., n. 8); commette al presbitero Vero di adornare il sepolcro dei martiri Felice e Adauto, in cui onore compone un epigramma (ibid., n. 7). Nell'area dell'antica Basilicamimiteriale sulla Portuense, G. B. De Rossi scoprì nel 1868 un frammento di un epistolio marmoreo dove in lettere filocaliane è la dedica in onore dei martiri « (Fau)-stino. Viatici », che lo stesso De Rossi integrò « sanctis martyribus Simplicio Faustino. Viatici et Rufo Damasus episcopus fecit » (ibid., n. 6). Damaso è il primo a far conoscere l'episodio del martirio del diacono o accolto Tarsicio protomartire dell'Eucaristia nell'epigramma posto sul suo sepolcro in Callisto (ibid., n. 15); per opera di Damaso « quaeritur, inventus colitur » il corpo del martire Eutichio di cui « expressit Damasus meritum venerare sepulchrum » (ibid., n. 21).

Frammenti di un carme scoperto in Pretestato, non trascritto dalle sillogi epigrafiche, ma composto da Damaso « Damasus episcopus fecit. Furius Dionysius Filocalus scribit » : ibid., n. 26) con espresso riferimento ai castra e in armis, si attribuisce al martire militare Quirino, che è ricordato in una posteriore iscrizione dedicata rinvenuta nello stesso cimitero (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, tav. 1, 1) e che il Martirologio geronimiano attesta venerato in Pretestato, dove pure gli Acta ss. Alexandri Egenti et Theoduli, che lo qualificano « tribunus », pongono il suo sepolcro (BHL, n. 266).

Damaso pone un carme sul sepolcro del martire Tiburzio deposito sul cimitero « inter duas lauros » (A. Ferrua, op. cit., n. 31) effigiato insieme con gli altri martiri locali Marcellino, Pietro e Gorgonio in un affresco nello stesso cimitero (Wilpert, Pitture, tav. 252). Nulla si sa del tempo in cui fu costruita la basilichetta sul suo sepolcro, di cui restano i ruderi (O. Marucchi, La cripta storica dei ss. Pietro e Marcellino, in N. Bull. arch. crist., 4 [1898], pp. 181 e 183). Damaso abbellisse il sepolcro dei martiri Proto e Giacinto compiendo i lavori, come attesta il carme ivi posto (A. Ferrua, op. cit., pp. 190-93); lavori compie pure ai sepolcri del papa Cornelio sull'Appia (ibid., pp. 136-37) e del martire Gennaro in Pretestato dove pone una grande epigrafe dedicatoria in prosa (ibid., pp. 151-52). Pose un carme sul sepolcro del martire Saturnino di Cartagine deposito in Trasone (ibid., pp. 188-90) ma non si sa quando fu eretta la basilichetta in suo onore, bruciata e restaurata più tardi, i cui ruderi erano ancora visibili al tempo di A. Bosio e il nome si era corrotto in quello di S. Citronina. Damaso pose pure un'iscrizione dedicatoria in caratteri filocaliani sul sepolcro dei martiri Abdon e Sennen indicati, depositi sub divo, « ad Ursum pileatum » dalla Deposito martyrum. La basilica in loro onore, non si sa quando costruita, tornò in luce nel 1917 (F. Fornari, in Notisie degli scavi, 1917, p. 283).

Sotto il papa Siracino (385-98) viene costruita la ba-

quella di S. Agnese, restaurò quella di S. Felicita e il cimitero dei Giordani o la basilica eretta sui sepolcri dei martiri Vitale e Alessandro e Marziale (Lib. Pont., I, pp. 262-63).

Giovanni I (523-26) rifecce la basilica dei SS. Nereo e Achilleo, dei SS. Felice e Adauto e, probabilmente sopra il cimitero di Priscilla, la Basilica dove era sepolto s. Silvestro (ibid., p. 276). Sotto Felice IV (26-30) bruciò la basilica di S. Saturnino sopra ricordata che venne rifatta a cura del Papa (ibid., p. 279). Sotto Silvestro (536) si ha il grande scempio delle basiliche cimiteriali e dei sepolcri dei martiri: «ecclesias et corpora martyrum sanctorum exterminatae sunt a Gothis» (ibid., p. 291); il successore Vigilio (537-55) si prodigò per restaurarle come è attestato da un carme conservato dalle sillogi e da alcuni frammenti superstiti (G. B. De Rossi, Inserip. christ., II, 1, Roma 1888, pp. 84-87, 116, 135). Il papa Giovanni III (561-74) andò ad abitare presso il sanctuario alla sinistra della Via Appia dove erano stati depositi i martiri Tiburzio, Valeriano e Massimo e vi compì anche consacrazioni di vescovi (Lib. Pont., I, p. 360). Il papa Pelagio II (579-90) rivestì di lastre marmoree la confessione di S. Pietro (v.), fece la basilica sul sepolcro del martire Ermete (R. Krautheimer, in Corpus Basil. Christianarum, Città del Vaticano 1936, pp. 195-208), eresse la basilica a doppio ordine di colonne in S. Lorenzo (v.) al Verano (Lib. Pont., I, p. 309).

Gregorio Magno fece lavori nelle basiliche di S. Pietro (v.) e di S. Paolo (ibid., p. 312). Bonifacio V (619-25) completò e consacrò la chiesa cimiteriale di S. Nicomede sulla Nomentana (ibid., p. 325; Martyr. Hieronymus, p. 291). Il papa Onorio I (625-38) costruì la basilica sul sepolcro di s. Agnese sulla Nomentana, con il doppio ordine di colonne, come quella di S. Lorenzo, decorando l'abside con il musaico tuttora superstite; la chiesa di S. Apollinare detta «ad palma» presso S. Pietro in Vaticano; la chiesa sul sepolcro di S. Ciriaco al VII miglio della Portuense; restaurò il cimitero o la chiesa dei martiri Marcellino e Pietro sulla Balbicana; ricostruì la basilica di S. Pancrazio sulla Via Aurelia; ricoprì la basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano con le tegole di bronzo del tempio di Roma (Lib. Pont., I, p. 323). Il papa S. Veniero (640) riparò il musaico dell'abside della basilica di S. Pietro (v.). Il papa Teodoro (642-49) è il primo, secondo il Liber Pontificalis, a eseguire traslazioni di corpi di martiri; egli trasportò in S. Stefano al Celio i corpi dei mariti Primo e Feliciano depositi «ad arcos Nomentanos» al XV miglio della Nomentana (ibid., p. 332). A lui è pure attribuito il restauro della basilica di S. Valentino sulla Flaminia che la Notitia ecclesiarum attribuisce ad Onorio (R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, Cod. top., cit., II, p. 333). Il papa Teodoro costruì ed adornò un oratorio in onore del martire Eupio. Adeodato (672-76) restauro e dedicò la basilica di S. Pietro sita sulla Via Portuense presso il «pos» Meruli» e le cui vestigia furono distrutte nel 1858 per la costruzione della linea ferroviaria Roma-Pisa (A. Pellegrini, Cenni storici intorno ad una basilica di S. Pietro in Campo di Merlo, Roma 1860). Leon II (682-83) trasferì dal cimitero di Generosa le reliquie dei martiri Simplicio Faustino e Beatrice, deponendole in una chiesa che dedicò a S. Paolo situata presso S. Bibiana (Lib. Pont., I, p. 360). Benedetto II (648-85) restaurò la basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano, ed eresse un cimiterio sull'altare della basilica di S. Valentino sulla 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 Marcelliano 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) abbelli la basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano; restaurò le basiliche di S. Callisto e dei SS. Processo e Martiniano, il mausoleo del papa Marco; stabilì una stazione annua nella basilica di S. Petronilla; restaurò il tetto degli edifici nel cimitero di Pretestato (ibid., p. 419-20). Il papa Zaccaria (741-52) al quinto miglio della Via Tiburtina, dove costituì una «domuscula», ampliò e decorò l'oratorio di S. Cecilia e costruì un oratorio a S. Abba Ciro dove depose molte sacre reliquie (ibid., p. 434). Il papa Stefano II (752-57) costruì due ospizi presso S. Pietro ponendoli sotto le locali diaconie di S. Maria e di S. Silvestro (ibid., p. 441). In quel tempo Astolfo portò via dai cimiteri molti corpi di santi (ibid., p. 451) e restaurò l'edificio sepolcrale di S. Ostere. Il papa Paolo I (757-67) trasferì a R. dai cimiteri molti corpi di martiri e non pochi ne depose nel monastero dei SS. Stefano e Silvestro da lui fondato nella sua casa. Trasportò nel mausoleo adiacente all'oratorio di S. Andrea in Vaticano il corpo della martire Petronilla; pure presso S. Pietro eresse un oratorio alla Madonna presso quello di S. Leone (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, SS Peter and Marcellinus, where he also built the staircase to descend directly to their tomb; of St Januarius near the Porta S. Lorenzo (Tiburtina), of SS Abdon and Sennen, of St Agapitus and St Stephen near St Lawrence, of St Sebastian, St Eugenia, SS Gordian and Epimachus; of SS Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus and St Zeno in Pretestato, of St Felicity, of St Saturninus, of SS Alexander, Vitalis and Martial at the Giordani, of St Sylvester on the Salarian Way, of St Agnes, of St Emerentiana, of St Hippolytus; in many of these basilicas he offered liturgical furnishings and precious fabrics (*Liber Pontificalis*, I, pp. 499–500, 504–12).

Leo III (795–816) continued the work with rich gifts and precious fabrics to almost all the sacred buildings of Rome, oratories, chapels and monasteries. His restorations are recorded at St Peter’s in the Vatican, at the basilicas of Felix and Adauctus, of St Mennas, of St Sixtus, of St Cornelius and of St Zoticus on the Lubicana (*Liber Pontificalis*, II, pp. 1–33).

Pope Paschal I (817–24) sought out many bodies of saints in the cemeteries and transferred them to urban churches, especially those he had rebuilt, such as St Cecilia and St Praxedes. Particular mention is made of the translations of the bodies of SS Processus and Martinian to St Peter’s, of St Zeno to St Praxedes, of SS 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 Salarian Way; he transferred into the basilica of St Peter the body of St Gregory the Great into a chapel he had erected, 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 *Rivista di archeologia cristiana*, 13 [1936], pp. 61–99); he offered gifts to the basilicas of St Peter, St Paul, St Lawrence, St Pancras and St Valentine (*Liber Pontificalis*, II, pp. 74–89).

Sergio II (844-47) eresse una basilica in onore di S. Romano presso la Via Salaria, indicata solo nella sua biografia (ibid., p. 92). Il Papa trasportò molti corpi di martiri nel titolo dei SS. Silvestro e Martino da lui rinnovato (ibid., pp. 93-94). Sotto il suo pontificato le basiliche degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo «funditus depraedatae sunt» dai Saraceni (ibid., p. 106). Il Papa Leone IV (847-88) cercò di riparare a tanta sciagura con ricchi e continui donativi e con stoffe preziose. Istituì la celebrazione dell'ottava dell'Assunzione di Maria S. Maria nella basilica a lei dedicata presso S. Lorenzo al Verano, dove restaurò il monastero dei SS. Stefano e Cassiano, dove pose pure monaci greci per la «laus perennis»; fece doni alle basiliche di S. Lorenzo, di S. Pancrazio e di S. Agata; di S. Stefano sulla Latina, di S. Rufina e dei SS. Cosma e Damiano alla Silva Candida; nella basilica dei SS. Quattro Coronati al Celio, da lui restaurata, trasportò i corpi dei ss. Quattro Coronati e un gruppo notevole di altri corpi di martiri (ibid., pp. 109-16, 119-22, 125, 127-29, 130, 132-34). Benedetto III (855-58) adornò

\[\begin{align*}
& \text{for } \alpha \in \mathbb{R}, \quad \text{the function } \alpha \mapsto \alpha^2 \text{ is convex.} \\
& \text{for } \alpha \in \mathbb{R}, \quad \

LE XIII REGIONES

Regio I Maracum et Ebaretace
Regio II Tunii et Vae Lato
Regio III Calumniae et Sanctae Manice et Aquino
Regio IV Campi Maris
Regio V Pontes et Sancti Iohannis
Regio VI Paroecis et S. Laurentii in Domino
Regio VII Aemilia et Caracalla
Regio VIII S. Eustachii et Venesae Theodomiae
Regio IX Piscae et S. Marci
Regio X Campanili (et S. Hadrian)
Regio XI S. Angelis in Faro Piscum
Regio XII Eparce et Marinarotae
Regio XIII Tomisibus

LE XIII REGIONES (RIONI) DI ROMA DAL SEC. XI AL X

C i u s
UM
Thévenac
Diodétaine
C. Viminalis

M. Esquilinus
Amphi-
S. CUSMAF. ET DAMIANI
Amphi-
S. Cusmaf.
C. Caelius
Amphi-
S. Caelius
Scala. 1:40000
Km.

V con le tre Fraternitates nelle quali erano raggruppate le chiese dell'Urbe.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 552. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 583. 584. 585. 586. 587. 588. 589. 590. 591. 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. 605. 606. 607. 608. 609. 610. 611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 616. 617. 618. 619. 620. 621. 622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627. 628. 629. 630. 631. 632. 633. 634. 635. 636. 637. 638. 639. 640. 641. 642. 643. 644. 645. 646. 647. 648. 649. 650. 651. 652. 653. 654. 655. 656. 657. 658. 659. 660. 661. 662. 663. 664. 665. 666. 667. 668. 669. 670. 671. 672. 673. 674. 675. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684. 685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 692. 693. 694. 695. 696. 697. 698. 699. 700. 701. 702. 703. 704. 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. 712. 713. 714. 715. 716. 717. 718. 719. 720. 721. 722. 723. 724. 725. 726. 727. 728. 729. 730. 731. 732. 733. 734. 735. 736. 737. 738. 739. 740. 741. 742. 743. 744. 745. 746. 747. 748. 749. 750. 751. 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. 757. 758. 759. 760. 761. 762. 763. 764. 765. 766. 767. 768. 769. 770. 771. 772. 773. 774. 775. 776. 777. 778. 779. 780. 781. 782. 783. 784. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793. 794. 795. 796. 797. 798. 799. 800. 801. 802. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807. 808. 809. 810. 811. 812. 813. 814. 815. 816. 817. 818. 819. 820. 821. 822. 823. 824. 825. 826. 827. 828. 829. 830. 831. 832. 833. 834. 835. 836. 837. 838. 839. 840. 841. 842. 843. 844. 845. 846. 847. 848. 849. 850. 851. 852. 853. 854. 855. 856. 857. 858. 859. 860. 861. 862. 863. 864. 865. 866. 867. 868. 869. 870. 871. 872. 873. 874. 875. 876. 877. 878. 879. 880. 881. 882. 883. 884. 885. 886. 887. 888. 889. 890. 891. 892. 893. 894. 895. 896. 897. 898. 899. 900. 901. 902. 903. 904. 905. 906. 907. 908. 909. 910. 911. 912. 913. 914. 915. 916. 917. 918. 919. 920. 921. 922. 923. 924. 925. 926. 927. 928. 929. 930. 931. 932. 933. 934. 935. 936. 937. 938. 939. 940. 941. 942. 943. 944. 945. 946. 947. 948. 949. 950. 951. 952. 953. 954. 955. 956. 957. 958. 959. 960. 961. 962. 963. 964. 965. 966. 967. 968. 969. 970. 971. 972. 973. 974. 975. 976. 977. 978. 979. 980. 981. 982. 983. 984. 985. 986. 987. 988. 989. 990. 991. 992. 993. 994. 995. 996. 997. 998. 999. 1000. 1001. 1002. 1003. 1004. 1005. 1006. 1007. 1008. 1009. 1010. 1011. 1012. 1013. 1014. 1015. 1016. 1017. 1018. 1019. 1020. 1021. 1022. 1023. 1024. 1025. 1026. 1027. 1028. 1029. 1030. 1031. 1032. 1033. 1034. 1035. 1036. 1037. 1038. 1039. 1040. 1041. 1042. 1043. 1044. 1045. 1046. 1047. 1048. 1049. 1050. 1051. 1052. 1053. 1054. 1055. 1056. 1057. 1058. 1059. 1060. 1061. 1062. 1063. 1064. 1065. 1066. 1067. 1068. 1069. 1070. 1071. 1072. 1073. 1074. 1075. 1076. 1077. 1078. 1079. 1080. 1081. 1082. 1083. 1084. 1085. 1086. 1087. 1088. 1089. 1090. 1091. 1092. 1093. 1094. 1095. 1096. 1097. 1098. 1099. 1100. 1101. 1102. 1103. 1104. 1105. 1106. 1107. 1108. 1109. 1110. 1111. 1112. 1113. 1114. 1115. 1116. 1117. 1118. 1119. 1120. 1121. 1122. 1123. 1124. 1125. 1126. 1127. 1128. 1129. 1130. 1131. 1132. 1133. 1134. 1135. 1136. 1137. 1138. 1139. 1140. 1141. 1142. 1143. 1144. 1145. 1146. 1147. 1148. 1149. 1150. 1151. 1152. 1153. 1154. 1155. 1156. 1157. 1158. 1159. 1160. 1161. 1162. 1163. 1164. 1165. 1166. 1167. 1168. 1169. 1170. 1171. 1172. 1173. 1174. 1175. 1176. 1177. 1178. 1179. 1180. 1181. 1182. 1183. 1184. 1185. 1186. 1187. 1188. 1189. 1190. 1191. 1192. 1193. 1194. 1195. 1196. 1197. 1198. 1199. 1200. 1201. 1202. 1203. 1204. 1205. 1206. 1207. 1208. 1209. 1210. 1211. 1212. 1213. 1214. 1215. 1216. 1217. 1218. 1219. 1220. 1221. 1222. 1223. 1224. 1225. 1226. 1227. 1228. 1229. 1230. 1231. 1232. 1233. 1234. 1235. 1236. 1237. 1238. 1239. 1240. 1241. 1242. 1243. 1244. 1245. 1246. 1247. 1248. 1249. 1250. 1251. 1252. 1253. 1254. 1255. 1256. 1257. 1258. 1259. 1260. 1261. 1262. 1263. 1264. 1265. 1266. 1267. 1268. 1269. 1270. 1271. 1272. 1273. 1274. 1275. 1276. 1277. 1278. 1279. 1280. 1281. 1282. 1283. 1284. 1285. 1286. 1287. 1288. 1289. 1290. 1291. 1292. 1293. 1294. 1295. 1296. 1297. 1298. 1299. 1300. 1301. 1302. 1303. 1304. 1305. 1306. 1307. 1308. 1309. 1310. 1311. 1312. 1313. 1314. 1315. 1316. 1317. 1318. 1319. 1320. 1321. 1322. 1323. 1324. 1325. 1326. 1327. 1328. 1329. 1330. 1331. 1332. 1333. 1334. 1335. 1336. 1337. 1338. 1339. 1340. 1341. 1342. 1343. 1344. 1345. 1346. 1347. 1348. 1349. 1350. 1351. 1352. 1353. 1354. 1355. 1356. 1357. 1358. 1359. 1360. 1361. 1362. 1363. 1364. 1365. 1366. 1367. 1368. 1369. 1370. 1371. 1372. 1373. 1374. 1375. 1376. 1377. 1378. 1379. 1380. 1381. 1382. 1383. 1384. 1385. 1386. 1387. 1388. 1389. 1390. 1391. 1392. 1393. 1394. 1395. 1396. 1397. 1398. 1399. 1400. 1401. 1402. 1403. 1404. 1405. 1406. 1407. 1408. 1409. 1410. 1411. 1412. 1413. 1414. 1415. 1416. 1417. 1418. 1419. 1420. 1421. 1422. 1423. 1424. 1425. 1426. 1427. 1428. 1429. 1430. 1431. 1432. 1433. 1434. 1435. 1436. 1437. 1438. 1439. 1440. 1441. 1442. 1443. 1444. 1445. 1446. 1447. 1448. 1449. 1450. 1451. 1452. 1453. 1454. 1455. 1456. 1457. 1458. 1459. 1460. 1461. 1462. 1463. 1464. 1465. 1466. 1467. 1468. 1469. 1470. 1471. 1472. 1473. 1474. 1475. 1476. 1477. 1478. 1479. 1480. 1481. 1482. 1483. 1484. 1485. 1486. 1487. 1488. 1489. 1490. 1491. 1492. 1493. 1494. 1495. 1496. 1497. 1498. 1499. 1500. 1501. 1502. 1503. 1504. 1505. 1506. 1507. 1508. 1509. 1510. 1511. 1512. 1513. 1514. 1515. 1516. 1517. 1518. 1519. 1520. 1521. 1522. 1523. 1524. 1525. 1526. 1527. 1528. 1529. 1530. 1531. 1532. 1533. 1534. 1535. 1536. 1537. 1538. 1539. 1540. 1541. 1542. 1543. 1544. 1545. 1546. 1547. 1548. 1549. 1550. 1551. 1552. 1553. 1554. 1555. 1556. 1557. 1558. 1559. 1560. 1561. 1562. 1563. 1564. 1565. 1566. 1567. 1568. 1569. 1570. 1571. 1572. 1573. 1574. 1575. 1576. 1577. 1578. 1579. 1580. 1581. 1582. 1583. 1584. 1585. 1586. 1587. 1588. 1589. 1590. 1591. 1592. 1593. 1594. 1595. 1596. 1597. 1598. 1599. 1600. 1601. 1602. 1603. 1604. 1605. 1606. 1607. 1608. 1609. 1610. 1611. 1612. 1613. 1614. 1615. 1616. 1617. 1618. 1619. 1620. 1621. 1622. 1623. 1624. 1625. 1626. 1627. 1628. 1629. 1630. 1631. 1632. 1633. 1634. 1635. 1636. 1637. 1638. 1639. 1640. 1641. 1642. 1643. 1644. 1645. 1646. 1647. 1648. 1649. 1650. 1651. 1652. 1653. 1654. 1655. 1656. 1657. 1658. 1659. 1660. 1661. 1662. 1663. 1664. 1665. 1666. 1667. 1668. 1669. 1670. 1671. 1672. 1673. 1674. 1675. 1676. 1677. 1678. 1679. 1680. 1681. 1682. 1683. 1684. 1685. 1686. 1687. 1688. 1689. 1690. 1691. 1692. 1693. 1694. 1695. 1696. 1697. 1698. 1699. 1700. 1701. 1702. 1703. 1704. 1705. 1706. 1707. 1708. 1709. 1710. 1711. 1712. 1713. 1714. 1715. 1716. 1717. 1718. 1719. 1720. 1721. 1722. 1723. 1724. 1725. 1726. 1727. 1728. 1729. 1730. 1731. 1732. 1733. 1734. 1735. 1736. 1737. 1738. 1739. 1740. 1741. 1742. 1743. 1744. 1745. 1746. 1747. 1748. 1749. 1750. 1751. 1752. 1753. 1754. 1755. 1756. 1757. 1758. 1759. 1760. 1761. 1762. 1763. 1764. 1765. 1766. 1767. 1768. 1769. 1770. 1771. 1772. 1773. 1774. 1775. 1776. 1777. 1778. 1779. 1780. 1781. 1782. 1783. 1784. 1785. 1786. 1787. 1788. 1789. 1790. 1791. 1792. 1793. 1794. 1795. 1796. 1797. 1798. 1799. 1800. 1801. 1802. 1803. 1804. 1805. 1806. 1807. 1808. 1809. 1810. 1811. 1812. 1813. 1814. 1815. 1816. 1817. 1818. 1819. 1820. 1821. 1822. 1823. 1824. 1825. 1826. 1827. 1828. 1829. 1830. 1831. 1832. 1833. 1834. 1835. 1836. 1837. 1838. 1839. 1840. 1841. 1842. 1843. 1844. 1845. 1846. 1847. 1848. 1849. 1850. 1851. 1852. 1853. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1858. 1859. 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 1872. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1881. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923. 1924. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1930. 1931. 1932. 1933. 1934. 1935. 1936. 1937. 1938. 1939. 1940. 1941. 1942. 1943. 1944. 1945. 1946. 1947. 1948. 1949. 1950. 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 1955. 1956. 1957. 1958. 1959. 1960. 1961. 1962. 1963. 1964. 1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 1971. 1972. 1973. 1974. 1975. 1976. 1977. 1978. 1979. 1980. 1981. 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. 2019. 2020. 2021. 2022. 2023. 2024. 2025. 2026. 2027. 2028. 2029. 2030. 2031. 2032. 2033. 2034. 2035. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2039. 2040. 2041. 2042. 2043. 2044. 2045. 2046. 2047. 2048. 2049. 2050. 2051. 2052. 2053. 2054. 2055. 2056. 2057. 2058. 2059. 2060. 2061. 2062. 2063. 2064. 2065. 2066. 2067. 2068. 2069. 2070. 2071.

The basilicas of St. Peter, of St. Paul, restored the mausoleum of Pope Mark (ibid., pp. 144–48). Pope Nicholas I (858–67) made rich gifts to the basilicas of St. Peter, of St. Paul, of St. Lawrence; he renewed the basilicas of St. Felix and of SS. Abdo and Sennen on the Via Portuense, and 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, at the end of the 9th century, the records of works carried out in the cemetery basilicas come to an end.

VIII. The abbeys

Peter Mallius (v.) compiled a list of 20 abbeys, namely: St. Caesarius in Palatio, St. Gregory on the Clivus Scauri, St. Mary on the Aventine, St. Alexis, St. Saba called “Cella Nova,” St. Pancras, SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Golden Lane, St. Sylvester between the Two Gardens, St. Mary in the Chapter House, St. Basil next to the Palace of Emperor Trajan, St. Agatha which is on the Subura hill, St. Lawrence in Panisperna, St. Thomas next to the Forma Claudia, St. Blaise of the Captive Stream, the Holy Trinity of the Scots, St. Valentine on the Via Flaminia, St. Anastasius on the Via Ostiensis, St. Mary in Pallara, St. Mary in the monastery next to St. Peter ad Vincula, and St. Mary in the Golden Castle (Vat. lat. 3627, f. 22v); John the Deacon (v.) likewise enumerated 20, but omitted St. Anastasius and added that of SS. Prisca and Aquila (Vat. Reg. 712, f. 89).

IX. The ecclesiastical regions and the rioni

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

In the Liber Pontificalis, Region I is mentioned in the biographies of Popes Simplicius (468–83), Silverius (536–37)—where a “Johannes subdeaconus regionarius regionis primae” is recorded—and Eugenius I (654–57), a native “of Region I of the Aventine.”

Region II appears in the life of Pope Zachary (741–52), where “Region II” is identified as the diaconia of St. George ad Velum Aureum.

While the Augustan regions continue to be mentioned in the biographies of Anastasius II (496–98), who belonged to Region V “Caput Tauri,” i.e., the Esquiline, and of Benedict VI (973–74), described as “de regione VIII sub Capitolio,” i.e., the area of the Roman Forum, etc., C. Re, in his study on The Regions of Rome in the Middle Ages (cf. the cited article in the bibliography, pp. 185 ff.), holds that the Augustan regions continued to be indicated in documents until the 11th century, sometimes alongside the ecclesiastical regions. L. Duchesne maintained that from the mid-6th century, i.e., after the Gothic invasion, the use of the Augustan regional division ceased, being replaced by the ecclesiastical circumscription into seven regions; moreover, that the 12 medieval regions from which the “riori” derive represent that grouping which occurred under the Byzantine period for the formation of the Roman army and the military distribution of the Roman population. Furthermore, the system of the seven ecclesiastical regions would have remained in use until around the end of the 11th century, though with some variations in this latter period; finally, that the 12 regions have nothing to do, topographically, either with the 14 Augustan or with the 7 ecclesiastical ones. At the time of Theodoric the Deacon, Romanus Johannes wrote that “septem regionibus ecclesiastica apud nos militia continetur” (Johannis diaconi epistola ad Senarium: PL 59, 405). The clergy and people were grouped into the seven ecclesiastical regions, as indicated by the seven crosses carried during the stational processions and litanies, crosses then preserved in S. Anastasia. Later, the military insignia of the “milites draconarii,” called *banda*, then *bandora*, whence the present-day *bandiera*, appear.

R

OMA – Canopy and façade of the Termini Station. Designed by architect Montuori (1950).

At the arrival of Charlemagne in Rome, the commanders of the Roman army are found “cum bandora” (Lib. Pont., I, p. 497). At the election of Gelasius II (1188), mention is made of “regiones XII Romanae civitatis Transtiberi et Insulani” (ibid., p. 313).

The Ordo of Benedict the Roman (c. 1140) in the solemn papal procession lists the “milites draconarii portantes” thirteen *vevilla*, which are called *bandora*.

The names of the rioni are already found in the 11th and 12th centuries; in the 14th century they are: 1) Montium et Bibracte; 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 Thedermarii; 7) Arenule et Caccabariorum; 8) Parionis et S. Laurentii in Damaso; 9) Piene et S. Marci; 10) 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. 12-49; C. Re, Le regioni di R. nel medioevo, in Studia e documenti di storia e diritto, 7 (1886), p. 197 segg.

X. Gli antichi cataloghi delle chiese

Alla fine dell’itinerario de locis sanctorum martyrum «qui sunt foris civitatis Romae», si trova un paragrafo con l’indicazione «iste ecclesiae intus Romae habentur»; si tratta di 21 basiliche stazionali nell’interno della città nelle quali «per certa tempora publica statio geritur» (R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di R., II, Roma 1942, pp. 118-31). Leone III fece probabilmente nell’a. 806, una serie di donazioni alle chiese di R., di cui il biografo del Liber Pontificalis ha trasmesso l’elenco che fu preso in esame da Ch. Hülsen (in Rendiconti della Pont. accad. rom. di archeol., I [1923], p. 107 segg.). Il catalogo comincia con la Basilica Lateranense, seguono 11 chiese sacre a Maria S. ma, poi quelle dedicate agli Apostoli, a S. Giovanni B., ai martiri (nn. 13-27), quindi i «tulii» (n. 28-48), le diaconie (49-64), i monasteri (65-113), tre «xenodochia» (114-116) e un ospedale.

L’itinerario detto di Einsiedeln della fine del sec. VIII contiene i nomi di 66 chiese (Ch. Hülsen, La pianta di R. dell’anonimo einsiedlense, in Dissertazioni della Pont. accad. rom. di arch., 2ª serie, 9 [1907], pp. 377-424; R. Valentini - G. Zucchetti, op. cit., II, pp. 155-207). Cencio Savelli, camerario della Chiesa romana, poi Onorio III (1216-27) Liber censuum (v.) due liste ufficiali di chiese di R.: la prima per il «presbiterium» concesso alle 315 chiese romane il lunedì in albis, la seconda in occasione della «litania maior» al 25 apr. elenca 62 chiese (Liber censuum, ed. P. Fabre-L. Duchense, I, Parigi 1889-1910, pp. 300-309; R. Valentini-G. Zucchetti, op. cit., II, pp. 224-70; sul carattere delle due

arranged according to the three parts of the «Fraternitas», but with varying arrangement (St. Thomas and therefore first St. John Lateran, then SS. Apostles and SS. Cosmas and Damian), followed by a list of the relics venerated in the principal shrines. Some churches are missing in other documents. A good edition is by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. x–xii and 43–49. A copy of the catalogue by N. Signorili with notes and additions by P. Ugolino is found in the Biblioteca Oliveriana of Pesaro. Indications of churches are also found in the Libri anniversarium compiled by the individual Compagnies and Confraternities from the 15th century for the celebration of anniversary Masses in the various churches of the city, such as the Liber anniversarium of the Most Holy Saviour «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. 544–557; that of the Compagnia del Gonfalone (in two codices now in the Vatican Archive, the first of 1470, the second of 1490); that of St. Mary in Araceli of 1489. In these Libri more than 200 churches are listed, as recorded 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 incompletely by M. Armellini from the Vatican Archive (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. 14–18r) edited by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. xiv–xv, pp. 69–79 and 548–49); this list, divided by the 13 regions, comprises 295 churches and contains topographical references and of the religious Orders to which the service in some churches and hospitals was entrusted at the time of Panvinio himself.

The Epigrammata antiquae Urbis of I. Mazzocchi (1521) contains inscriptions transcribed from 203 churches of R. (list published by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. 549-56). Hülsen also published a catalogue of 1555 drawn up from that of Panvino 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 established a “Tassa delle chiese e benefici di R. per la soventione delle povertà alla mendicanti.” The alphabetical list enumerates 269 churches (246) and chapels (23); Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xvi-xix, 879-95; the value and tax imposed on each church is added at pp. 557-65. The same author has shown how this document can serve as a basis for the lists of churches compiled for the taxes of Clement VIII of 1594 and 1601; of Paul V of 1620 and of Urban VIII in 1623, and has given the variants (op. cit., pp. 565-78). For the general sacred visitation of the Roman churches ordered in 1566 by Pope St Pius V, a catalogue of “chiese di tutti i rioni di R.” was compiled, listing 321 churches and monasteries, both male and female, and their condition (Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xix, 95-106). An anonymous Spaniard compiled in 1570 in R. a list of 287 Roman churches and a collection of inscriptions contained in them preserved in the Cod. Chigiano Vaticano (n. I, V, 167; edited by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xx, 106-14). Francesco Dal Sodo, canon of S. Maria in Cosmedin, compiled between 1575-83 a catalogue of 297 Roman churches (Cod. Vallicelli, G. 33) edited by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. xx-xxi-xxix-xxx, 114-23). There also exist, scattered in various European libraries, many manuscript guides compiled for pilgrims who visited the Roman shrines in the 14th-15th centuries, in which the first part is generally a summary of the Mirabilia (q.v.), while the second is a list of relics and indulgences. Ch. Hülsen has examined not a few specimens (op. cit., pp. xxii-xxv, 137-56). In the versions of some of these from the 15th century, as in the first printed books the

ROMA — The hall of the Auditorium in Palazzo Pio, the largest in Italy (1952).

The 1467, the second of 1490; that of S. Maria in Aracoeli of 1489. In these Books more than 200 churches are recorded, 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 incompletely by M. Armellini 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. 14-18v) edited by Ch. Hülsen (op. cit., pp. xiv-xv, pp. 69-79 and 548-49); this list, divided by the 13 regions, comprises 295 churches and contains topographical references and the religious Orders to which the service in some 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 Rome (list published by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. 549-56). Hülsen also published a catalogue of 1555 drawn up from 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 established a “Tax of churches and benefices of Rome for the relief of the poor and mendicants.” The list in alphabetical order enumerates 269 between churches (246) and chapels (23); Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xvi-xix, 879-95; the value and the tax imposed on each church is added at pp. 557-65). The same author has pointed out how this 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 the variants (op. cit., pp. 565-78). For the general sacred visitation of the Roman churches ordered in 1566 by Pope St Pius V a catalogue of “churches of all the rioni of Rome” was drawn up 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 in 1570 in Rome a list of 287 Roman churches and a collection of inscriptions contained in them preserved in the cod. Chigiano Vaticano (n. I, V, 167; edited by Ch. Hülsen, op. cit., pp. xx, 106-14). Francesco Dal Sodo, canon of S. Maria 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-xxx, 114-23). There exist moreover, scattered in various libraries of Europe, very many manuscript guides compiled for pilgrims who visited the Roman shrines in the 14th-15th centuries, in which the first part is generally a summary of the *Mirabilia* (v.), while the second is the list of relics and indulgences. Ch. Hülsen has examined not a few specimens of these (op. cit., pp. xxii-xxv, 137-56). In the versions of some of these from the 15th century, as in the first printed books

Lists V. L. Duchesne, in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., 25 [1905], pp. 153 ff. The English cleric Giraldus Cambrensis was in Rome in the years 1199–1200 and 1202–1203, during the pontificates of Innocent III and Cencio Camerario. Around 1220, the number of churches was exaggerated to the point that one reads: “Sunt Rome mille quinquaginta quinque capelle que tamen pro magna parte et quasi pro maiore parte sunt destruit” (For printed editions of these guides from the end of the 15th century to the first decades of the following century, see also Ch. Hülsen, *Mirabilia Romae. Ein römisches Pilgerbuch des 15. Jahrhunderts* (Berlin 1925). G. B. Pauliani, in his *De iubileis et indulgentiis libri tres* (Rome 1550, pp. 220–51), provides a list of 102 churches divided into 4 parts, namely the Lateran Church, St Peter’s, St Mary Major, and St Paul’s.

From the 10th century, some churches were constituted as dependencies of larger ones, such as St John Lateran, which, by bulls of Leo IX (1050), Alexander II (1061–73), Anastasius IV (1154), Honorius III (1216), and Gregory IX (1228), had 10 dependent churches (P. Fr. Kehr, *Italia Pontificia*, I, Berlin 1906, pp. 25 ff.); St Peter’s in the Vatican, by bulls of Leo IX (1053), Innocent II (1138), Adrian IV (1158), and Urban III (1186), had a total of 11 dependencies (P. Fr. Kehr, *op. cit.*, I, pp. 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. Pancrioli, *Tesori nascosti dell'almac 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 basilia 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).

VI. ISTITUTI DI CULTURA.

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

**SOMMARIO:**

I. La scuola di Giustino

II. La scuola pubblica

III. La scuola lateranense

IV. Lo Studium Curiae

V. Lo Studium Urbis

VI. Istituto un

iv. di Magistero Maria Assunta

VII. Istituti vari di cultura

VIII. Archivii

IX. Biblioteche

X. Musei e gallerie

XI. Istituto per l'arte sacra.

I. THE SCHOOL OF JUSTIN

Having converted to Christianity (c. 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 the “pallium of a philosopher” (cf. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, IV, 11, 8; St. Jerome, *De vir. ill.*, 23). He was the first Christian “doxa” etivon of which mention is made in the 2nd century (cf. const. apost. *Deus scientiarum Dominus* of Pius XI: AAS, 23 [1931], p. 242). Among his disciples was Tatian, and among his most bitter adversaries the Cynic Crescens, whose rivalry caused him much suffering. The seat of the school was well known and is indicated in the *Acts* of his martyrdom (ch. 3); but the relevant text, though corrected, does not allow for a secure reading (P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, *Note agiografiche* [*Studi e testi*, 8], Rome 1902, pp. 27–28 and p. 34, ll. 15–16; id., in *Nuovo bull. di arch. crist.*, 10 [1904], p. 6, note). One may think of the T. Burtino quarter (the fragment of the *Digest*, XXXII, 35, 3 clarifies but does not resolve the question) or, more probably, of Region I (Porta Capena).

(from H. I. Marrou, in *Mélanges d’arch. et d’hist.* 3) [642], p. 161. Rome – Plans of the Forums of Trajan and Augustus: I) Temple of the deified Trajan; II) the Libraries; in the center the Trajanic Column; III) Basilica Ulpia; IV) the Forum of Trajan proper: a b) Scholae Fori Traiani; V) Forum of Augustus: c

---

As minister at the Gothic court and praetorian prefect, he had so greatly favored the public school of Rome that he also drew up, together with Pope St. Agatho (535–36), a plan for a great athenaeum for theological studies on the model of Alexandria and Nisibis. But the project fell through because of the wickedness of the times; and so, though far from Rome, he wrote the *Institutiones divinarum [et humanarum] litterarum* almost as a substitute for the Roman university (cf. praef.: PL 70, 1105 sqq.). Undoubtedly, from Cassiodorus’ work the schools of Rome, like all medieval schools, derived great benefit; yet it was the literary treasures of the Urbs that contributed no little to the formation of that famous claustral library which he gathered in his retirement at Vivarium.

The same St Agapito, in view of the planned athenaeum (cf. Marrou, Autour de la bibl. [V. BIBLICA.], p. 128), had succeeded in forming, in his father’s 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 St Andrew ad clivum Scauri (Marrou, however, thinks he transferred it to the Lateran), and in part also realised his academic design by organising, in the Lateran Patriarchate, the celebrated Schola cantorum, which he endowed with abundant revenues (praedia). With these he strove, as far as was then possible, to foster the cultivation of letters within the Church, and tolerated no barbarism in his disciples or ministers, whom he wished to be inspired everywhere by the Latin genius; he desired his court to become the temple of Wisdom, in which the seven Liberal Arts, like columns of precious marble, should form the most noble act 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).

St Gregory’s institution 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 realised that luminous principle of his which was the informing idea of all medieval schools: «Liberales artes discendae sunt ut per instructionem illarum divina cloquia subtilius intelligatur» (In I Reg. expos., lib. V, cap. 3, n. 30: PL 79, 355 D).

As a minister at the Gothic court and praetorian prefect, he had so greatly favoured the public school of Rome that he also drew up, together with Pope St Agapito (535–36), the plan for a great athenaeum for theological sciences on the model of Alexandria and Nisibis. When the project collapsed because of the wickedness of the times, he, though far from Rome, wrote the Institutiones divinarum [et humanarum] litterarum almost as a substitute for the failed Roman university (cf. praef.: PL 70, 1105 sg.). Undoubtedly, from Cassiodorus’s work the schools of Rome, like all medieval schools, derived great benefit; yet it was the literary treasures of the Urbe that contributed no little to the formation of that famous claustral library which he gathered in his retirement at Vivarium.

The same St. Agapitus, it seems, in view of the planned athenaeum (cf. Marrou, Autour de la bibl. [V. BIBLICA.], p. 128), had succeeded in forming, in his father’s 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 successor, St. Gregory the Great donated the library to the monastery of St. Andrew ad clivum Scauri (Marrou, however, thinks it was transferred to the Lateran), and in part also realized his academic design by organizing, in the Patriarchal Lateran Basilica, the celebrated Schola cantorum, which he endowed with abundant revenues (praedia). With this he sought, as far as was then possible, to nourish in the Church the cultivation of letters, and he tolerated no barbarism in his disciples or ministers, whom he wished to be inspired by the Latin genius and to make his court the temple of Wisdom, where the seven liberal arts, like columns of precious marble, would form the most noble act 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).

St. Gregory’s institution thus became a literary and theological school (John the Deacon, loc. cit.), one that was «the light of Rome and the model of the West» (Ozanam). Thus was fulfilled his own luminous principle, which was the informing idea of all medieval schools: «Liberales artes discendae sunt ut per instructionem illarum divina cloquia subtilius intelligatur» (In I Reg. expos., lib. V, cap. 3, n. 30: PL 79, 355 D).

With the decline of the Empire, the school of Rome did not entirely disappear, for Theodoric, through the agency of his minister Cassiodorus (q.v.), maintained the ancient institutions and continued to honor Rome as «a city of letters», «the mother of eloquence and the temple of all virtues» (Cassiodorus, Variae, V, 22 and IV, 6), even urging foreigners to complete their education there (ibid., I, 39; IV, 6). His nephew and successor Athalaric ordered the Roman Senate to pay the professors’ stipends «promptly», deeming it a crime to discourage the educators of youth (ibid., IX, 21). Justinian likewise acted through the Pragmatic Sanction (cap. 22), promulgated on 14 August 554 at the request of Pope Vigilius to remedy the many evils of the Gothic war (Novellae, app. VII: ed. Schoell-Kroll, Berlin 1928, p. 799).

With the Constitution Omnem (16 December 533), prefacing the Digest, the same Emperor, recognizing in the Empire only three official law schools (those of the two capitals [«regiae urbes»] and that of Beirut), had also laid out for Rome a new program of legal studies, with five years of compulsory coursework (q.V. Berito). Yet in the twilight of the ancient world, even the splendor of these schools faded away.

III. THE LATERAN SCHOOL

Cassiodorus, who had already

With the Schola cantorum the Schola lectorum was fused (cf. G. B. De Rossi, in Bull. di arch. crist., 4th series, 2 [1883], p. 19), and within it the Roman clergy’s elite was formed, as is explicitly stated for various Popes in the Liber Pontificalis (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 arricantore]), and for both sections the superior seems to have been a single person (primicerius or prior Scholae), appointed in CIPRIANO (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 the Orphanotrophium, whose dilapidated building was rebuilt by Sergius II (844–847), who restored the Gregorian Institute after a period of decline (Lib. Pont., II, 92). Its pupils not only took part in liturgical functions but also in popular burlesque entertainments (ludi romani communes [cf. Benedict the Canon, Liber polit.]). The Liber Hymnariorum, preserved in manuscript (cod. Vat. lat. 7172 and Paris. lat. 1092), appears to be a collection of the liturgical hymns composed by the Schola. Among its festive songs (Greek and Latin) the Landes Cornomaniae (v. cornomania) are famous, as well as some student rhythms published in 1900 by L. Traube and reproduced by K. Strecker in MGH, Poët., IV, pp. 657–59 [nos. 98–100]). Performances were given for the Candlemas of January and for Carnival; landes for Lent and for the return of spring (cf. Benedict the Canon, Liber Polit., in P. Fabre – L. Duchesne, Liber Centuum, II, pp. 171–74; cf. I, pp. 109–13).

According to F. Novati [V. BIBLICA.], the curriculum of the Schola cannot exclude Roman law: indeed, from the 6th century onwards the Lateran School would have taken the place of the public school, until the time when legal studies could revive, probably in the mid-9th century, through the work of Leo IV (847–855), restorer of cultural life in Rome. The papal court then became, also under the influence of the Carolingian renaissance, a centre of theological, historical and literary studies, as is shown by the names of Anastasius Bibliothecarius and John Hymmonides (deacon), principal historian of St Gregory the Great. Yet the singular importance of the School is essentially liturgical, having fulfilled over the centuries the specific mission of preserving and spreading Gregorian chant throughout Europe. After fluctuating fortunes, by 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 stead, with 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 consider it founded, with the advice and work of St. Dominic, by Honorius III (1216–1277), for theology; Innocent IV would have merely restored it, adding the juridical faculty with the bull Cum de diversis partibus, which Boniface VIII inserted into the Sexto Decretalium (V, 7, 2).

The true origins of the School have been illuminated by Denifle and, with more extensive details, by Fr. Raimondo Creyten. The former, in fact, by examining the genuine text of the bull, preserved intact in cod. 72 of Grenoble (the one given by Boniface VIII in the Sexto is an abbreviated version: cf. Friedberg, II, 1083), and the Life of the Pope written by his penitentiary Niccolò da Calvi (cf. L. Oliger, in Antonianum, 15 [1940], pp. 275–78), was able to establish that the institution of the Studium Romanae Curiae was due exclusively to Innocent IV.
To better understand the documents of the time and the unfolding of events, it is necessary to distinguish between the Palatine School and the Cathedral School.

24. Cathedral School

This is the school for the instruction of the clergy, decreed by the Third (19 March 1179) and Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Councils, which prescribe a school of grammar in every cathedral (episcopal) church and a theological course in every ecclesiastical province, under the care and at the expense of the metropolitan church (cf. Decretals of Gregory IX, lib. V, tit. 5, cc. 1 and 4: Friedberg, II, pp. 768–70). Therefore, just as every metropolitan, so too the Pope, as bishop and metropolitan of Rome, was bound by the conciliar canons to provide instruction in the humanities (grammar) and in theology (sacra pagina) under the responsibility of the Chapter of the Lateran. In this cathedral school of the Lateran, famous theologians taught during the time of Innocent III (1198–1216), such as James of Vitry (q.v.) and, in 1206, Stephen Langton. It is possible that, under Honorius III, St. Dominic of Guzmán may also have given some instruction there.

Professors and students of theology who held a benefice were obliged to reside in accordance with their benefice and thus could not attend study centers. Honorius III removed this obstacle (bull Super speculum of 16 November 1219: H. Denifle–E. Chatelain, Cartulaire Univ. Paris., I, p. 90 ff.; cf. Decretals, V, 5, 5: Friedberg, II, p. 770); and this great innovation, destined to give a powerful impetus to all medieval university schools, also benefited Rome itself.

25. Palatine School

In the constitution *Cum de diversis partibus* (H. Denifle, op. cit., p. 302), Innocent IV declares that he has already established, in fact (*providimus*), at the Apostolic See, a regular school (*studium litterarum*) with a dual faculty, in theology and in law (*in utroque iure*, canon and civil [Roman]). The reason for its establishment was to extend to the students of the Palatine School the same privileges enjoyed by «the students of the General Studies» (at Paris, Bologna, etc.) by virtue of the bull of Honorius III of 16 Nov. 1219 (cf. Potthast, no. 15128). It was issued in the second year of his pontificate (cf. Niccolò da Calvi, *Vita Inn. IV*, cap. 16: RIS, 1st ed., III, 1, p. 592 s.). At Lyon, where the Pope had arrived on 2 Dec. 1244 for the imminent ecumenical council (thus before 28 June 1245, the beginning of the third year). Since no earlier document is known, this constitution is considered the «foundation charter» of the *Studium Romanae Curiae* (as it would later be called): a school entirely independent of the Cathedral School of Rome, but in essential relation with the Papal Court (*penes Sedem Apostolicam*). A school, therefore, of the Palace, without a fixed abode, but shifting with the frequent moves of the Court itself. Indeed, under Innocent IV himself, it moved from Lyon to Perugia, to Assisi, to Naples. This migratory character gave it a sui generis juridical aspect, which recalled the Palatine School of the Carolingian court, but was entirely new in the Church. The Studium was directly dependent on the Pope, not as Bishop of Rome, but as head of the universal Church. Its students were the curial clergy and numerous foreigners who flocked «to the Apostolic See as to a mother» (*cost. Cum de div. part.*). These characteristics distinguished it from every other school and created particular needs even for the assistance of students (hence the hospital of St. Anthony, «which is maintained at the Roman Curia as portable»: *epist. Immensa*, 9 Jan. 1253, from Perugia: E. Berger, *Les Registres d’Innocent IV*, no. 6257; cf. nos. 6916 and 7079).

Schools could have their seat in the same papal palace, as at first; or in other premises, as at Avignon, where courses were held in a building rented for the purpose. Originally the Studium did not have the status of a university conferring the licentia ubique docendi. Although, as a centre of studies, it was more important than ordinary cathedral schools, it still resembled them in the simplicity of its organisation: the task of the master of the Curia had many points in common with that of the “theologus” of a metropolitan church. But with the permanent residence of the Apostolic See at Avignon the Studium underwent a profound renewal that enabled it to attain 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 age. As therefore for Paris, Bologna, Salamanca and Oxford, the Council also decreed for it the new chairs of Oriental languages, for better biblical exegesis and with a view

to

tefiore (before 1300, then cardinal of the title of S. Martino ai Monti), William Gainsborough (c. 1300) and Reginald of Assisi: lectors in their Conventus Curiae. Later chroniclers, not considering the ambiguous value of the expression, have attributed to them the title of masters or readers of the S. Palazzo. It is not improbable, however, that G. Pecham and M. d’Acquasparta, like some others, were also true holders of the papal chair (no certain information on this point is available).

With the election of Clement V there followed the transfer of the Curia and the Studium to Avignon. In 1306 William of Peter Godin, a Dominican, was elected “lector”; after him the “Dominican” tradition became established, by which the lector in theology was almost always chosen from the Order of Preachers. With the development of the Studium the “lector” became the true regent of the university Faculty of Theology, and from 1343 onwards began to appear among the officials of the Curia under the name of Magister Sacri Palatii, with ever greater powers, until, when actual teaching ceased, he remained at the Apostolic See only as a court dignitary, theologian to the Pope and member of the Papal Household (v. MAESTRO DEL SACRO PALAZZO. PALAZZO).

The end of the Studium. The various Faculties were independent; the papal camerlengo, however, acted as chancellor of the University of the Curia. When the Papal Court was finally established at Rome in the course of the 15th century, the School of the S. Palazzo, as an internal study-centre of the Pope, lost its raison d’être, since at Rome there already existed a university since the time of Boniface VIII. Deprived of pupils and teachers, the Studium Curiae gradually died out (no documents on the subject are available) at the beginning of the 16th century, before or at the beginning of the pontificate of Leo X (1513–21).

V. THE "STUDIUM URBIS"

The Lateran school had, in itself, a local character. Boniface VIII, considering Rome as the "Urbs urbium", the "communis patria" and the "caput Orbis", decided to establish there a Studium generale. Thus he founded the Roman Studium, where, "perpetuus futuris temporibus", knowledge would be cultivated in every faculty, and, "ad universale profectum", students would be admitted "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 rione of S. Eustachio. Enriched with all the university privileges, it immediately acquired notable importance, especially in the juridical sciences. The transfer of the Apostolic See to Avignon, however, had dire repercussions even on the new university, which, plagued by political disturbances, was closed in 1370 and its building sold.

After various attempts, including a transfer of the seat to Trastevere, under Eugenius IV (1431-47), considered its second founder, the Studium took on new life: it regained its ancient seat and reached great prosperity. In 1456-57 Capranica (v.) founded the university college called the "Sapienza Fermana" (Collegium pauperum scholarium Sapientiae Firmanae), with particular regard to the formation of the clergy. In the fullness of Humanism, Leo X (1513-21) carried out wise reforms. On designs, it seems, by Michelangelo, he began the slow construction of the Palace which, completed 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 to this day the proper name of the University of Rome). Toward the middle of the 16th century it had that of Archigymnasium Urbis and of Sapientia: hence the biblical motto placed with its own coat of arms by Sixtus V on the façade of the Palace: Initium Sapientiae timor Domini.

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

established (origin of the present-day Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities of Studies) the Sacred Congregation for the Roman Studium, with duties of oversight over the major universities of Europe (Constitution *Immensa*, 22 Jan. 1588: Bull. Rom., VIII, Turin 1863, p. 992). Urban VIII (1623–44) appointed Borromini architect of the Studium, who left so deep an imprint there, especially with the church of S. Ivo. Alexander VII (1655–67) endowed the University with a botanical garden and his own library, which, continually enlarged, is today one of the most important in the city (Biblioteca Universitaria Alessandrina). After him, however, despite a few illustrious names, the Athenaeum slowly declined, so much so that at the end of the century it was proposed to cede the building to the Scolopi for free popular schools. The energetic intervention of Cardinal G. B. Spinola and his reforms as vice-chancellor restored its fortunes. Benedict XIV, already appointed rector, enhanced 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 upheaval of the French Revolution shook the Roman Athenaeum as well, which in 1800 was practically suppressed. The following year, however, it was reopened. But after various dispositions, the French government made it an academy attached to the Imperial University of Paris. Once the Napoleonic tide had passed and papal government was restored, the Athenaeum received new organization from Leo XII with the constitution *Quod divina Sapientia* (28 Aug. 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 (now at Monte Mario), equipping it with the best instruments of the day.

With 1870 a new historical period began for the Studium Urbis, now the Royal University of Rome, equalized with the other universities of the Kingdom (law 12 May 1872, no. 821). The renewed provisions of the Italian State rendered it ever more adequate to the dignity of the Royal capital. By Royal Decree 20 June 1935, no. 1071, the following were aggregated to it as faculties: the higher institutes of engineering (founded as a higher school by Pius VII with the motu proprio of 23 Oct. 1817), of architecture (established by Royal Law Decree 31 Oct. 1919, no. 2592), of economic sciences (erected in 1906 by the Ministry of Agriculture and in 1928 transferred to the Ministry of National Education), and that of education (established by Royal Decree 16 Dec. 1878, together with that of Florence). On 31 Oct. 1935 the University City was inaugurated in the San Lorenzo district. Pope Pius XII wished, in a munificent gesture, to donate to it the great Chapel dedicated to Eternal Wisdom (brief *Romanorum Pontificum*, 22 March 1950: AAS, 42 [1950], pp. 387 ff.; and Address to University Students, 15 June 1952).

Numerous are the celebrated men who at all times have distinguished the Roman Athenaeum: distinguished masters who have made an effective contribution to letters and the sciences, such as Cino da Pistoia, Pomponio Leto, Lorenzo Valla, Nicolaus Copernicus, Andreas Caesalpinus, Andreas Baccius, Bartholomaeus Eustachius, Thomas de Vio, Benedictus 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.

By the vastness of its organization, the richness of its scientific institutes, the multiplicity of its teachings, the value and number of its professors (about a thousand: full professors, lecturers, and free docents), as well as by the provenance and attendance of its students, including foreigners, the Studium Urbis is today justly considered the national university of Italy.

For ecclesiastical universities see: Istituti di Studium Superiore.

DIVINA PROVIDENTIA
PAPÆ VIII,
INSTITVTIO
Archivii generalis in Vrbe.

ROME,
Ex Typographia Recensendae Camerae Apostolicae,
M. D. XXVI.

(dn. L. Guanc, L'arch. St. Capito, Roma 1916, tav. 3.)
ROMA - Frontispiece of the brief of Urban VIII dated 16 November 1625, which establishes the General Notarial Archive.

destitute of any historical value, deriving as it does from an unfounded assertion by Galvagno della Fiamma, a Dominican writer who was a minor between 1340 and

1344. V

The classical works of J. Carafa, *De Gymnasio Romano et de eius profesoris*, Rome 1751, and of F. M. Renazzi, *Storia dell'Università degli Studi di R.*, 4 vols., Rome 1803–1806, are valuable as sources. Also: H. Denfield, op. cit. [V. n. IV], pp. 310–17 (up to 1400); *Monografie della Università e degli Istituti superiori*, edited by the Ministry of Public Education, 1, Rome 1911, pp. 329–403; A. Pazzini, *Storia dell'insegnamento medico in R.*, Bologna 1935; N. Spano, *L'Università di Roma* 1935 (particularly useful for the modern period).
VI. THE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING (MARIA S.M.A. ASSUNTA). - Faculty of Teacher Training reserved for religious. Promoted by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, the Institute was founded in 1939 by the Vicar of Rome, the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, and the Sacred Congregation of Religious. With Royal Decree no. 1760 of 26 October 1939, it was legally recognized and equated with the State Faculties of Teacher Training, with the right to confer degrees in literary subjects, pedagogy, foreign languages and literatures, and the diploma in school supervision. The Vicariate grants the teaching diploma in Religion to graduates.

The government of the Institute is entrusted to the Administrative Council, the Director of the Institute, the Steering Committee, and the Faculty Council (Statute, art. 5). The President of the Administrative Council, appointed by the Cardinal Vicar, has legal representation of the Institute; the Director has responsibility for academic governance. Internal order and secretarial, economic, and custodial services are entrusted to the University of St Catherine of Siena of the Missionary Sisters of the School.

The purpose of the Institute is to facilitate religious in perfecting their culture by offering them the opportunity to pursue university studies in an environment particularly suited to their state, under the guidance of an excellent teaching body. The Institute also promotes any other initiatives aimed at advancing the sacred and profane culture of sisters, such as lecture courses and study conferences.

The student body to date has consisted of religious belonging to over 150 congregations and 10 different nationalities. The Institute publishes the most significant theses in its Yearbook.

Attached to the Faculty of Teacher Training is the Pontifical Institute “SEDES SAPIENTIAE,” erected by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities on 8 June 1945, which pursues similar aims. It had already been functioning since 1940 as “Cultural Courses for Religious,” which are reserved for them. It admits sisters of any nationality to prepare them for university studies and to adapt their culture to the demands of their apostolate. About two hundred religious congregations have sent numerous students to the “Sedes Sapientiae” Institute, many of whom now hold teaching, educational, and social assistance positions in Italy and in various countries of Europe and other continents. Igino Cecchetti.

VII. VARIOUS CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

In addition to universities and seminaries, as well as those mentioned under other headings (v. ACCADEMIE; ARCADIA; COLLEGIO DI SAN PIETRO IN MONTO RIO; COLLEGIUM CULTORUM MARTYRUM; ISTITUTI DI STUDI SUPÉ-RIORI), the following are noteworthy (the year of foundation and any essential characteristics are given in parentheses; the abbreviation B. indicates that the institute has a specialized library): a) ecclesiastical: in addition to the proper ecclesiastical colleges (v.), the following institutes should be noted: Pontifical Ecclesiastical Institute (v. 1900); Pontifical Ecclesiastical Institute (v. 1940); Ecclesiastical Institute (v. 1940); Ecclesiastical Institute (v. 1940); Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940; Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940; Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940; Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940; Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940; Ecclesiastical Institute of 1940.

XXX. UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONS

In addition to the University and the Seminaries, as well as those mentioned under other headings (v. ACCADEMIE; ARCADIA; COLLEGIO DI SAN PIETRO IN MONTO RIO; COLLEGIUM CULTORUM MARTYRUM; ISTITUTI DI STUDI SUPÉ-RIORI), the following are noteworthy (the year of foundation and any essential characteristics are given in parentheses; the abbreviation B. indicates

(1924, but dating back to its foundation in 1893; B.); the Italian ones: ACCADEMIA DI BELLE ARTI (1923: formerly Istituto superiore di belle arti [1874]; B.); CONSERVATORIO DI MUSICA DI S. CECILIA (detached in 1911 from the homonymous academy); ACCADEMIA FILARMONICA ROMANA (1821; B.); ACCADEMIA DI ARTE DRAMMATICA (1935; formerly Scuola di recitazione Eleonora Duse; B.); CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE (1923; B., which 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; B. very rich, with headquarters at Palazzo Venezia); ISTITUTO STORICO ITALIANO PER IL MEDIOEVO (1934; created, like the following, from the split of the Istituto storico italiano [1883]; it oversees the Fonti per la storia d'Italia; the Regesta chartarum Italiae and the new edition of the RIS; it publishes a Bullettino which 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: derived from the Soc. naz. per la storia del risorgimento ital. [1906]; B.); ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI (1925; promotes annual courses and congresses; publishes a multi-volume Storia di Roma and is working on a Latin dictionary; B.); SOCIETÀ ROMANA DI STORIA PATRIA (1876; publishes Miscellanee and an Archivio; B. linked with the Vallicelliana); SOCIETÀ FILOSOFICA ITALIANA (1901; publishes the Archivio di filosofia); ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE PER GLI STUDI PEDAGOGICI (1888; 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; 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; promotes various publications); ISTITUTO ITALIANO DEGLI ATTUARI (1928; continues a foundation from 1897); ISTITUTO CENTRALE DI STATISTICA (1926; B.); ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI URBANISTICA (1930); SOCIETÀ GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA (1867; publishes a Bollettino; B.); SOCIETÀ GEOLOGICA ITALIANA (1881; B.); SOCIETÀ ROMANA DI ANTROPOLOGIA (1893); OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO E METEOROLOGICO (1827; in 1924 it incorporated the Osservatorio del 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.); and various medical societies, some foundations (notable among them the «Marco Besso» [1918; B.]), and other minor ones.

VIII. ARCHIVES

It is not possible to give in brief a comprehensive picture of the archives of Rome with the extent of their holdings: for more extensive information cf. the bibliography indicated below, which, moreover, is not sufficient to reconstruct the state of the Roman archival holdings.

a) Ecclesiastical: ARCHIVE OF THE VICARIATE (1902; to this are also transferred the parish archives and those of some works of Rome); CAPITOLAR ARCHIVE OF S. GIOVANNI IN LATERANO; ARCHIVE OF THE COLLEGE OF ORPHANS OF S. MARIA IN AQUILO; the various archives of the houses and general procurations of the religious orders (among which noteworthy are those of the Dominicans, the Franciscan Friars Minor, the Lateran Canons Regular, etc.). The archives of the ancient monasteries have for the most part passed to the State Archive following the law of 19 June 1873; some
ROME — Biblioteca Casanatense. Hall of the early 18th century with a marble statue of Cardinal Casanate by P. Legros (1666–1710) — Rome.

However, in whole or in part, they have remained in situ; among the most notable from a historical point of view are those of St. Francesca Romana, St. Praxedes, St. Mary in Cosmedin, St. Lawrence in Panisperna, St. Sabina, etc. b) Secular: CENTRAL ARCHIVE (formerly the Archive of the Kingdom: 1871, includes the acts of the various government departments no longer retained at their original location); STATE ARCHIVE OF ROME (1870: includes very many collections, among which are those of the suppressed monasteries, the papers of the various offices of the Papal government which in 1870 were not in the Vatican, etc.); CAPITOLINE HISTORICAL ARCHIVE (includes the Secret Archive, the Urban Archive, the Orsini Archive and the Archive of the Proto-notary of the Senator); NOTARIAL ARCHIVE (preserves notarial deeds for a period after the cessation of activity of individual notaries ranging from a minimum of fifty years to a maximum of one hundred). Among private archives worthy of mention are those of the Borghese, Caetani, Chigi (now at the Vatican), Colonna, Doria and Sforza-Cesari families.

IX. LIBRARIES

Besides those already mentioned in the article *BIBLIOTECA* (vols. III and IV), those of the abbeys of S. Paolo fuori le mura and of S. Girolamo de Urbe, those of ecclesiastical colleges (*v.*) and of institutes of higher studies (*v.*), the following are worthy of mention (the first figure in parentheses indicates the date of foundation; the size is approximate): LIBRARY OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE (1831 [Turin]; 50,000 vols.); LIBRARY OF THE COURT OF ACCOUNTS (1862 [Turin]; 20,000 vols.); LIBRARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE (1876; 15,000 vols.); ROME LIBRARY (municipal; 30,000 vols.); LANCIAN LIBRARY (1711; 341 manuscripts, 40,000 vols., 80 incunabula); CENCELLI LIBRARY (of the psychiatric hospital of S. Maria della Pietà; 1863; 6,000 vols.); ROME SARTI LIBRARY (donated to the Municipality by A. Sarti in 1877 and entrusted to the Accademia di S. Luca; 18,000 vols.); ROME LIBRARY (attached to the Capitoline Historical Archive; specialized in works on Roman topics; 40,000 vols.); HERTZIAN LIBRARY (1913; specialized in art history and Germanic culture; 40,000 vols. and 20,000 photographs); KEATS-SHELLEY MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION LIBRARY (1908; 7,000 vols.); LIBRARY FOR AMERICAN STUDIES IN ITALY (1920; 20,000 vols.); LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH COUNCIL (1946; 8,000 vols.); BERTINI-FRASSONI LIBRARY (of heraldic character; 10,000 vols., 25,000 pamphlets); G. FORTUNATO LIBRARY, for Southern studies (1923; 15,000 vols.); THEATRE LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY OF AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (25,000 vols.); MISCIATTELLI LIBRARY (some manuscripts and incunabula; 20,000 vols.); CENTRAL MILITARY LIBRARY (1891; 150,000 vols. and pamphlets).

Among the museums of Rome, besides the Capitoline Museums, the Vatican Museums, the Borghese Gallery, the National Roman Museum, the Gallery of Modern Art, the Palazzo Venezia Museum, the Palazzo Corsini Gallery, the Doria Pamphilj Gallery, the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia, the National Gallery of Ancient Art, the Gallery of the Academy of S. Luca, the National Prehistoric and Ethnographic Museum, the National Museum of the Middle Ages, the National Museum of the Risorgimento, the National Gallery of Modern Art, the National Museum of the Palazzo di Venezia, the National Museum of the Palazzo Corsini, the National Museum of the Doria Pamphilj Gallery, the National Museum of the Borghese Gallery, the National Museum of the Vatican Museums, the National Museum of the National Roman Museum, the National Museum of the Gallery of Modern Art, the National Museum of the Palazzo Venezia Museum, the National Museum of the Palazzo Corsini Gallery, the

A complemento delle indicazioni bibliografiche particolari si vedano per tutto ciò che riguarda R. (antichità, storia, monumenti, costumi, tradizioni, istituzioni ecc.) i seguenti repertori: L. Cicognara, Catalogo ragionato dei libri d'arte e d'antichità posseduti dal conte Cicognara, II, Pisa 1821, pp. 166-226 (la Biblioteca Cicognara è passata nel 1824 alla Vaticana); G. Amati, Bibliografia romana, I, Roma 1880; Ceccarius [G. Ceccarelli], Saggio di bibliografia romana, I-VI, Roma 1940-52 (repertori annuali di opere su R., dal 21 apr. 1945 al 20 apr. 1951).

Alessandro Pratesi

XI. ISTITUTO DI STUDI PER L'ARTE SACRA (BEATO ANGELICO)

Founded at the end of 1932, under the direction of the Dominicans of S. Maria sopra Minerva and with the support of several figures in the artistic field, this Institute was established with the precise aim of providing artists, as well as clergy and laity interested in Christian art, with instruction in sacred subjects related to art, to assist them in their artistic endeavors, and to prepare them for various roles they may undertake in diocesan commissions for sacred art, in courses to be held in seminaries, and in any initiative connected with the protection and enhancement of religious artistic heritage.

The courses are biennial and include: aesthetics, liturgy, iconography, hagiography, the history of religion in relation to art, the history of sacred art, and techniques of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Courses typically begin in November and conclude in May; lessons are held in the evenings.

Each year, the program is further enriched by various lectures, unpublished reports by Italian and foreign scholars, and refresher weeks. Urban and extra-urban field trips provide direct contact with the world of art. At the end of the two-year program, the Institute issues: a diploma to those who pass exams in all subjects; a certificate to those who pass the exam in a single subject; and a certificate of attendance to simple auditors who demonstrate worthy engagement. The Institute has collaborated with international and national congresses on art criticism, architecture, sacred art, and liturgical pastoral care (Paris, Versailles, Florence, Perugia, Vicenza); and with international exhibitions of missionary art and sacred art (1950). From the Beato Angelico, the original nucleus of the Unione cattolica artisti italiani emerged. The Institute’s social activities among artists are carried out in agreement with similar institutions.

X. MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES

The principal artistic and antiquarian collections of Rome are listed below, with the date of their establishment and essential characteristics noted in parentheses (the letter C indicates that the museum is administered by the municipal authority): CAPITOLINE MUSEUMS (end of 15th century; C: comprising the Capitoline Museum of sculpture, with Greco-Roman monuments; the Palazzo dei Conservatori, with sculptures, inscriptions, bronzes, and terracottas; the Capitoline Picture Gallery, with Italian paintings mainly from the 16th and 17th centuries; the Museum of Ancient Art, with sculptures, inscriptions, and urns); NATIONAL ROMAN MUSEUM AT THE BATHS OF DIOCLETIAN (1889; comprising monuments of Greco-Roman, Paleo-Christian, and barbarian art, and a rich coin collection); MUNICIPAL ANTIQUARIUM (1894; C: houses inscriptions and archaeological material from excavations in Rome); BARRACCO MUSEUM (1905; C: comprises Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Greek, Roman, and Christian sculptures); NATIONAL MUSEUM OF VILLA GIULIA (1889; contains Etruscan monuments and artifacts from ancient Italian civilizations); PREHISTORIC-ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM LUIGI POGORINI (1875, formed from the original nucleus of the ancient Kircherian Museum, many pieces of which were later divided among other collections); MUSEUM OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND MUSEUM OF ROME (1927; C: the former documents Roman civilization in the provinces, the latter the life of Rome from the Middle Ages to modern times); BORGHESE MUSEUM AND GALLERY (17th century; includes some ancient art monuments, but is best known for its sculptures and paintings from the Renaissance and post-Renaissance periods); NATIONAL GALLERY OF ANCIENT ART (17th century, donated to the State by the Corsini in 1883; comprises paintings from the Renaissance to the 18th century); NATIONAL GALLERY OF MODERN ART (1883; comprises paintings from the 19th–20th centuries); GALLERY OF THE ACADEMY OF S. LUCA (1874; comprises mainly paintings from the Renaissance and Baroque periods); PALAZZO VENEZIA MUSEUM (1921; contains paintings and decorative objects from the Middle Ages and Renaissance); DORIA-PAMPHILI GALLERY (mid-17th century; comprises paintings from the 16th–17th centuries); COLONNA GALLERY (1820; features paintings from the 15th century onward, but especially from the 17th–18th centuries); PALLAVICINI GALLERY (17th century, comprising mainly Renaissance paintings); BARBERINI GALLERY (17th century, reorganized in 1892; the finest paintings are from the 16th–17th centuries); SPADA GALLERY (17th century, purchased by the State in 1926; notable for its 17th-century paintings); VILLA ALBANI MUSEUM (18th century; contains monuments and paintings from various periods, but is best known for its Greco-Roman sculptures); TORLONIA MUSEUM (19th century; preserves mainly Greco-Roman monuments and the Etruscan paintings from the François Tomb); CASTEL S. ANGELO MUSEUM (1900;

R., Florence, Milan (Artists' Mass, New Cloister, Angelicum, etc.). The Institute has a specialized library of sacred art (open in the afternoons), currently being developed, which offers serious study opportunities to scholars; it has published lecture courses, initially in essays (1933–40), later in monographs: Astori, Petruzzelli, Cordovani, Ciappi, etc. In 1949 it began a film initiative to promote art documentaries. Periodically the Institute makes its premises available for solo and group art exhibitions. The *Notiziario di arte*, a monthly bulletin of artistic information and the Institute’s mouthpiece, collects all competition announcements and surveys current trends in Italian art.

VII. INSTITUTES OF CHARITABLE ASSISTANCE.

I. OSPIZIO PONTIFICIO DEI CATECUMENI E NEOFITI

An institute established to prepare unbelievers of both sexes for Christian life, where they could receive adequate instruction, was conceived by St. Ignatius of Loyola and approved by Paul III with the bull Cupientes of March 21, 1542 (cf. Bullarium Romanum, VI, Turin 1860, pp. 336-337). Attached to the now destroyed church of S. Venanzio de’ Camerinesi, the Hospice was later favored by Julius III, Pius V, and other pontiffs, and conversions received a strong impetus. To ensure that neophytes received what was due to them against any undue pressure from parents who reverted to paganism or Judaism, the popes often arranged for legal inventories to be drawn up; subsequently, Urban VIII, in order to provide catechumens and neophytes with more comfortable and suitable accommodations, had a grand palace built adjoining the church of S. Maria dei Monti, where the Hospice is still located. Suppressed in 1798, the Institute was soon reestablished and placed in full operation, but in 1875 the Italian State confiscated its property, though it was secured that the proceeds be converted into government bonds. From its inception, the Hospice was placed under the immediate protection of the Roman Pontiff, who was represented by three cardinals, in accordance with the bull Vice eius of September 19, 1577, issued by Gregory XIII (cf. Bullarium Romanum, VIII, Turin 1863, pp. 188-191). To this Hospice there is still attached an apostolic visitation of three cardinals appointed by the pope.

II. OSPIZIO PONTIFICIO PER MONACI MARONITI ALEPPINI

To promote the Eastern missions, Clement XI established in 1707 in Rome, at the church of SS. Peter and Marcellus, a College-Hospice for the Aleppine Maronites, granting them in addition, by the constitution *Supereminenti* of 24 May 1718, a benefice founded in the aforesaid 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 *Illustrium Nobis* of 7 October, and again in 1745 with the brief *Apostolatus officium* of 8 November (op. cit., pp. 323-28). These rules stipulated that the students, upon completing their course of studies, were to be ready for those missions to which the Sacred 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 ST STANISLAUS

It was founded by Gregory XIII when, through the intercession of Cardinal Stanislao Hosio, he granted to the Polish nation, by a constitution of 15 October 1578, the church of the Most Holy Saviour “for the purpose of Catholic worship and charity for Polish subjects living in Rome.” In 1748 the pro tempore Bishop of Cracow was elected protector of the church and 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 a condition where it could no longer function, until Canon Giovanni Battista Piva, an Italian, intervened to restore its fortunes. Through the good offices of the Russian ambassador Count Italinski, he obtained from Pius VII in 1818 recognition of the ancient foundation by Gregory. Only in 1920, however, following the First World War, the church and hospice of St Stanislaus returned to Poland, which had been re-established as an independent nation. Today the church remains in the hands of the Polish clergy.

IV. PONTIFICIO ORFANOTROFIO E PATRONATO DI VIGNA PIA

With a chirograph of 25 Jan. 1855, Pius IX founded, on the outskirts of Rome, an institute for the shelter of orphaned and abandoned boys so that they might be brought up in a Christian manner and trained in agricultural work. With another chirograph of 30 Dec. 1859 he added a similar institution for the assistance and reformation of minors released from prisons. The new institution, which continued to be called Vigna Pia, from the name of one of the two estates ceded to it by the Pope, was entrusted to the care of the religious of the Congregation of S. Croce. In 1868 they were succeeded by the Brothers of Mercy, who directed it until the outbreak of the war of 1914-18, when the Institute was converted 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 accommodates about a hundred boys up to the age of eighteen.

V. PONTIFICIO OSPIZIO ECCLESIASTICO DETTO DEI CENTO PRETI

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 elderly and infirm priests who had served the diocese of Rome. 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 the Roman secular clergy, one of whom is the president of the Hospice.

VI. OSPEDALE DI SANCTA SANCTORUM (S. GIOVANNI). — The earliest origins of the Hospital of Sancta Sanctorum (S. Giovanni) go back to a kind of “apostolic field ambulance” that followed the Curia in its peregrinations and to a fixed hospital dedicated to St Anthony “iuxita Lateranum,” both run by the Antonines, whose first origins date to 1209. In 1216 the hospital was enlarged by Cardinal Giovanni Colonna. However, such notices pertain more to the locality than to the institution itself. A more direct reference concerns the Compagnia del Santissimo Salvatore dei Raccomandati, which from at least 1330 probably possessed a hospital, while the year 1348 appears more reliable for the Company’s possession of a hospital dedicated to St Michael, construction of which is said to have begun in 1303. By the end of the century the title of the Compagnia had been superimposed on the hospital, so that it began to be called the Hospital of the Santissimo Salvatore; by 1450 this title in turn gave way to that of S. Giovanni. New constructions began in 1462, when a “new ward” dedicated to the Santissimo Salvatore was built alongside the old one, erected near the church of S. Andrea. Both were additions to the original premises of the Hospital of S. 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 storeys to the wards in 1686. In 1655 the northern wing was completed (architect G. A. De Rossi) to house women, to which an upper annexe was added. In 1865 Pius IX established a maternity section, uniting it with the obstetric clinic and transferring the patients from the Hospital of S. Rocco. Around 1870 the average number of in-patients was about 850, and the hospital had by then assumed roughly its present appearance.
VII. HOSPITAL OF S. SPIRITO. — It stands in a locality dedicated to hospital buildings almost from the earliest Christian centuries. Around 498 Pope Symmachus had built there a hospital which, enlarged by subsequent pontiffs, was later abandoned. Ine, King of the Saxons, having abdicated the throne and retired to Rome around 729, established there a Schola for his countrymen, which therefore took the appellation “Saxonum,” and with it a hospital. The first

IX. HOSPITAL OF ST JAMES

It bore the attribute “in Augusta” because of its proximity to the mausoleum of Augustus, and, according to an extant inscription, it would have been founded in 1339 by the executors of the will of Cardinal Pietro Colonna. In fact, however, the first record dates to 1451 in a bull of Nicholas V, which states that it was entrusted to the confraternity of Santa Maria del Popolo. It was reserved for the “incurables” through the work of Ettore Vernazza (1515) and was hallowed by the labours of St Cajetan of Thiene and St Camillus de Lellis. Enlarged at that time and again in 1580, it received its definitive arrangement under 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. OSPEDALE DEI FATEBENEFRATELLI

It stands on 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 Tiber Island into a building already occupied by the Confraternity of the Bolognese and renovated at the expense of the new owners. Subsequently, it underwent modifications and expansions, especially in the 18th century, with the construction of a new ward. Seized by the French government in 1811, it was returned to the Order three years later. In 1858 Francesco Amici bequeathed his estate so that two new wards could be opened; the work was entrusted to the architect Azzurri. The current restoration work began in 1930, according to a design by the architect Bazzani.

XI. POLICLINICO

The original plan was devised in 1874 by G. Baccelli, but the idea began to take concrete form in 1884, with the laying of the first stone, however, only occurring in 1888. Construction could be considered complete in 1902 and included seven buildings for the clinics, the Administration Building, structures for general services, a section of the infectious disease wards, and ten hospital pavilions. The Policlinico was conceived with the idea of a university city and indeed housed the clinics and institutes for the teaching of medicine. The original plan underwent certain modifications that led to its current arrangement.

XII. MANICOMIO

The first hospice for the insane arose in Rome in a house located where the sacristy of the church of S. Bartolomeo in Piazza Colonna now stands. In that house, which belonged to the Spanish brothers Bruno, the owners and the priest Ferdinando Ruiz first accommodated pilgrims and later the insane. This occurred around 1548. In 1564 the Confraternity of S. Maria della Pietà dei poveri pazzi was approved. The aforementioned hospice, called del Piazzerelli, was transferred in 1720 to the hospital of S. Spirito on the Lungara, in a building designed by the architect Azzurri, which extended immediately after the Sangallo arch on the said street.

The building was constructed with capital from Pius IX and served as the seat of the first clinic for mental diseases, which was moved to the Policlinico in 1920–21. In 1909 the new asylum of S. Maria della Pietà was founded on Monte Mario and was inaugurated in 1914. The definitive closure of the Lungara hospital was decreed by the provincial administration in 1924.

Adalberto Pazzini

XIII. HOSPITAL OF THE BOY JESUS

Admits sick children for illnesses considered curable, from birth up to 12 years of age.

Its origin is most noble and moving: on 25 February 1869, on the occasion of the birthday of the Duchess of R., the children of the Arabella Salviati family wished to buy a little bed and some linen for a sick child. The proposal was immediately accepted by the Duchess and on 19 March 1869 four little sick children were admitted to a modest room adjoining the orphanage in Via delle Zoccolette. Soon the number of sick children began to increase, so that it became necessary to abandon the old building and, thanks to the help of the City of R. and the Provincial Council, a large part of the old convent of S. Onofrio on the Gianicolo was granted, which was gradually transformed into a proper hospital. Since 1922, with a bull of Pius XI, it has become the property of the Holy See.

At present the hospital is under the supervision of the Cardinal Vicar and is governed by an administrative council appointed by the Holy See.

In total 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 accommodating 150 sick children, all from the hospital. It mainly admits children suffering from bone lesions of tubercular origin, who greatly benefit from the stay by the sea.

**VIII. VICARIATE.**

It is the particular Curia for the diocese of R.

During his absence from Rome, or when special circumstances required it, the Roman Pontiff entrusted the spiritual care of the city of Rome to a special delegate, usually a bishop; at other times, as at the beginning of the 16th century, he entrusted particular tasks to a prelate of his confidence or to a special commission. Little by little these occasional measures acquired greater stability and clearer definition of duties, also due to the growth of the population and the need for constant reform in the clergy and the people, so much so that on 18 November 1558 Paul IV established that the vicariate of Rome should always be entrusted to a cardinal. This cardinal still today assumes the office of vicar general for the diocese with ordinary jurisdiction that does not cease with the death of the Pope and which was later further defined by particular pontifical constitutions, up to the *Etsi nos* of Blessed Pius X of 19 January 1912. By virtue of this, the vicariate is now composed of four offices:

**I. Divine Worship and Apostolic Visitation:** for the supervision of churches, chapels, oratories, and everything used for divine worship: sacred functions, relics, images, fulfillment of legacies, construction, restoration, adornment, etc. for the decorum of sacred temples.

Attached to the first office are also:
- The Commission for Divine Worship, with a secretary;
- The Catechetical Commission, with a president (vice-gerent), a vice-president, a secretary, and fourteen consultors;
- The Commission for Sacred Archaeology, established by Pius IX on 6 January 1862 and reorganized by a *motu proprio* and regulation of Pius XI on 11 December 1925, with a president (who is the same cardinal vicar), a vice-president, a secretary, and an inspector (v. COMMISSIONI PONTIFICE).

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

**2. Discipline of the Clergy and Christian People:** for the oversight of the clergy, female religious institutes, colleges, orphanages, various sodalities, schools, and social works.

The following also belong to this office:
a) the apostolic examiners of the clergy;
b) the delegate for hospitals, clinics, and charitable institutes;
c) the secretary 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 everything concerning baptisms, confirmations, and the valid and licit celebration of marriages; the other for judicial affairs.

The judicial section is, in practice, the ecclesiastical tribunal of the diocese of Rome.

Following the *motu proprio* *Qua cura* of 8 December 1938 and the subsequent instruction of the Sacred Congregation of
**ROME - Bridge of the Palazzo del Vicariato, formerly Marescotti, erected by Giacomo Della Porta (late 16th century).**

On 6 August 1940, by decree, the Vicariate Tribunal became a court of first instance for marriage nullity cases throughout the ecclesiastical region of Lazio, and a court of second instance for the same cases from 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 regional judges are subordinate to II.
4. The fourth office is responsible for economic administration and is presided over by the economo.

After the reorganization by Bl. Pius X, the office of the vice-gerent continued to exist; it had been established for the suffragan bishop, commonly called the bishop suffragan, who was occasionally appointed as a temporary coadjutor of the Cardinal Vicar. He too acquired a stability and continuity that became ever more clearly defined, especially in the sacred functions for which the episcopal character is required. Clement XII, with the constitution *Apostolatus officium* of 4 October 1732, entrusted all the faculties of the Cardinal Vicar to the vice-gerent when the latter was absent during a sede vacante or confined in a 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 dignity of archbishop 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 arch-priests, are not exempt from the supervision of the Cardinal Vicar with regard to the discipline of their clergy. Thus the jurisdiction that titular cardinals once had over the churches and clergy of their title has in fact been greatly reduced, also because those churches are either parochial or served by a much reduced clergy.

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

For the work of the Preservation of the Faith and the provision of new churches in Rome, see the related entry.

QUESTIONS

X. SANTUARY OF THE DIVINE LOVE.

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

The castle was built by the Savelli family around 1285 on land purchased from the church of S. Sabina; in 1400 it changed hands 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 Monsignor Cosimo Giustini, who, upon his death, left it to the Conservatory of S. Caterina della Rosa ai Funari and to the Casa degli Orfani. By a notarial deed of 1633 the entire estate passed into the ownership of the said Conservatory. Of the ancient castle only a few ruins of the tower remained, and on one of these a Madonna seated with the Child and two angels had been painted by an unknown Roman-school painter of the 14th century. It is not a work of particular artistic merit, except for the very expressive face of the Madonna. The fresco remained exposed to the elements on the tower, venerated only by the few shepherds of the surrounding malarial district until 1740, when the event occurred that marked the fundamental turning point in the history of the Divino Amore. A pilgrim, whose name is unknown, traveling to R., lost his way near Castel di Leva; set upon by a pack of enraged shepherd dogs, he invoked the aid of the Madonna, whose image he saw on the ruined tower. Immediately the dogs calmed down and left him unharmed. The incident made a deep impression and was the beginning of a great devotion among the inhabitants of R. and Lazio toward this image of the Madonna, a devotion that has continued to grow down to our own day. In 1745 the image was removed from the wall of the tower and taken to the small church built nearby on the summit of the hillock, and consecrated by Cardinal Rezzonico, later Clement XIII. The image was crowned on 13 May 1883 and again, after the crowns had been stolen, on 13 May 1933. On 30 December 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 R., which sent a priest with a permanent appointment as Rector of the Sanctuary; later (8 December 1932) it was erected as a parish of the diocese of R.

A singular devotion to the Roman sanctuary of the Madonna del Divino Amore is felt by His Holiness Pius XII, who wished the Roman people to turn to her in the spring of 1944, when the war was approaching the Eternal City. In gratitude for the protection granted, it was then promised that a new sanctuary would be built to replace the 18th-century one, now decayed and inadequate for the needs of the pilgrim movement. The project has been defined in its details and its imminent execution is now awaited. Pius XII blessed the first stone, which was then placed in position by Cardinal Vicar C. Micara.

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

At the Sanctuary, a women’s religious institute has been established: the Daughters of the Madonna del Divino Amore. A girls’ orphanage, a minor seminary for poor vocations, and other social and charitable works have also been opened.

FOLKLORE. - The day following Pentecost sees a pilgrimage to the Madonna del Divino Amore. It is attended mainly by the faithful of the lower classes, especially women. In the last century the pilgrimage had a markedly folkloric character. The groups set out from R. at dawn, from customary meeting places such as Piazza Margana, Piazza Montanara, or S. Maria in Trastevere. The outing was made in all kinds of vehicles, even in carriages drawn by as many as six pairs of horses. Upon arrival, after hearing Mass and witnessing the scenes of devotion of the faithful who had obtained the grace they had invoked from the Madonna, the women scattered through the surrounding meadows to picnic, all gaily adorned with fresh roses or even with quivering flowers (artificial roses whose stems, made of thin steel wire, trembled at the slightest movement). The groups then boarded their carriages again and went to Albano to parade along the main street of that town in Lazio. From there they returned to R., not without stopping at taverns along the Via Appia as far as Porta S. Giovanni, where they drank the stirrup cup. The whole of R. in festive mood went out to meet the Madonna. The feast, which had a distinctly spring-like and joyous character, dissolved into songs, stornelli, and shouts. Now it has taken on a more strictly religious character, though the fervent participation of the people has never diminished; indeed, in recent years, because of the special graces that the Roman people recognize in the Madonna del Divino Amore as the saviour of the city from the dangers of war, popular devotion to this Madonna has rapidly increased with various forms of piety (offerings of candles and flowers before her images, inscribed ex-votos, etc.). A poem in ottava rima, in popular style, by a certain Luigi di Francesco, a gardener in the service of the Rospigliosi household, was published about the feast of the Divino Amore in

1924. The feast also inspired a charming poem in Roman sestinas by Giggi Zanazzo

See pl. LX-LXXIV. ROMAGNA — 1) Regional boundaries; 2) provincial boundaries; 3) ecclesiastical district boundaries; 4) railways; 5) roads; 6) oratories; 7) oads; 8) pievi.