A Rome Worthy of Il Duce’s Attention

Genesis Han
Honors Program in Rome - Summer 2008

In 1861, after years of unrest between individual cities states, Italy finally became a unified country. However, this new cobblestone nation was without identity and in political shambles until Fascist leader Benito Mussolini came to power. As Prime Minister from 1922-1943, Mussolini united Italy, more specifically Rome, into the image that the world sees today. Connecting the new Rome with its glorious past, Mussolini took advantage of his vehement charisma and power over propaganda to breed his Fascist ideals into the heart of Italy through his public projects.

Born on July 29, 1883 into a humble family from Predappio, no one expected Mussolini to be a figure to change the history of the nation. Although receiving good grades in school, he developed a defiant and boisterous nature which followed him even when he became certified as a schoolteacher. Mussolini initially embraced his socialist background of his father, Alessandro Mussolini a blacksmith and socialist activist. In 1902, unable to find a job, he moved to Switzerland to find a job and expand his political horizons. Unsuccessful, he moved back to Italy and became a political journalist. In addition, he volunteered for military service. After joining the war effort in 1915, he came to the stark realization that socialism caused more problems than it solved and continued as the editor-in-chief of his own paper Il Popolo d’Italia. Similarly, many Italians saw the fallacies of socialism as the solution to all the post war problems, setting the stage for Mussolini’s rise to power.

During the years after WWI, Russia’s Bolsheviks revolution gave much confidence to Italy’s socialist party; however the populace had a waning confidence in a revolution which led to the party’s disintegration. Following the war, Italy experienced an economic backlash that translated to an increase in unemployment and inflation lowering the confidence in the socialist part. This was not helped by the property distribution issues caused by veterans came back demanding their land. Seeing the weakness and disorganization of the liberal government set up after WWI, militant socialists took it into their own hands and used a series of worker insurrections to gain power. This social uproar through labor militancy acts and the occupations of the factory by the Red Guards did not sway the socialist party leaders to escalate the revolution onto a Bolsheviks scale. However, it was the continued economic disintegration which caused socialism to lose support; Italy was left with a desperate need for leadership.Fascism emerged as way out of a Bolshevik-like revolution in Italy. By 1922, the economic recession united 300,000 members by blaming socialism for the nation’s problems. But, not all Fascist support was voluntary. Through intimidation and violence, the squadristi, or blackshirts, gained territorial support and were even sponsored by landowners, businessmen, and the police who were often targeted by socialists. The blackshirts were often hard to control because of their radical nature, making them a threatening force to Mussolini’s authority. Later, the major squad leaders recognized his political initiative and backed him as the leader of the Partito Nazionale Fascista. With their support, Mussolini quickly climbed to the top, placing the fascist party in the election, and by all means, worked to eliminate any competition.

The fascist party staged a coup and experienced its greatest victory on October 28, 1922. Threatening civil war, an army of 30,000 squadristi marched from Milan to Rome through “the path of ancient greatness” to take the country’s capital (Scott 646). However, this group that may not have even marched was less than intimidating because most were ill-armed. Regardless of the number of men, King Victor Emmanuel conceded to avoid bloodshed and asked Mussolini to form a government. Mussolini became Italy’s youngest prime minister at the age of 39 and held office for 21 years. As an act of glorification of Rome and himself, Mussolini later described this event as a march of 300,000 men, led personally by him on horseback. This exaggeration serves as a testament to his charisma which is seen as a major theme throughout his political career in his speeches, commissioned artwork, and especially his personality. He quickly gained the support of many nationalists; Mussolini declared himself Il duce in 1926 and strategically imposed his own hyper-nationalism to create a new Italian identity.


Mussolini with his ideals and political ardor revived the city of Rome, creating a grand spectacle for the rest of the world. He desired to transform the decaying city by “destroy[ing] the old to create the new and uncover the glories of the imperial past” (Painter 3). With the start of several construction projects, historical Rome rose out of the ground and the slums were torn down. In addition, identifying his own dynasty with Emperor Augustus’, he stressed the idea of romanita and recycled Roman history for his own political purposes. His obsession with Augustus brought focus and grandeur to a troubled nation, which united the people with a sense of pride to the youth, a new generation of Italians. Mesmerized by the Duce’s oratorical skills, Italians were captivated by and gave way to the fascist idea of the revival of the Italian strength, youth and energy. Winning the public, Mussolini incorporated these fascist ideals into the reconstruction of Rome.


Tearing down the slums, liberating ancient monuments, and improving the city for the modern age, Mussolini effectively used social projects to proclaim the essential fascist messages. During the late 1920s, several public construction programs of repristination that gave “older sites new fascist imprints” (Painter 7). The transformation began with excavation and demolition of the Imperial Fora. Although unveiling the key Roman Fora of Trajan, Augustus, Caesar, and Nerva, parts of these were left buried by the creation of a thirty meter wide street, Via dell’Impero, connecting the Colosseum to Piazza Venezia, Mussolini’s headquarter. But more was unveiled than lost. The superimposition of the beautiful ruins and the modern use of this street embody the notion of romanita as well as a surge into an energetic city center. On October 28, 1932, Rome celebrated the tenth anniversary of the March on Rome and the opening of Via dell’Impero. Running through the Imperial Fora, statues of the Roman emperors, and later, the four maps, this street became the site of many fascist celebrations and parades similar to the triumphal processions that took place in Roman times. Processions ended at the Piazza Venezia where Mussolini often gave speeches off the small balcony towards the roaring crowd. The glory of ancient Rome ordained the successes of Mussolini’s Rome, legitimizing his governance, as these grand parades caught everyone’s attention. Just the completion of this massive project and archeological feat empowered the fascist wave through Italy – however, the biggest propaganda piece was not added to the street until two years after the opening.


Though ordained with past artworks, Mussolini unveiled of the four maps in April 1934, on the anniversary of the founding of Rome and Fascist Labour Day, to further the idea of Fascist self-definition through its portrayal of past and present imperialism. Posted on the side of the Basilica of Maxentius, each map is about 4.6 square meters, held by two imperial eagles and made of different colored marbles to easily distinguish the sea, the Roman Empire, and the unconquered areas. The maps are arranged chronologically, depicting the 8th century BC, 146 BC, 14 AD, and 98-117 AD, so that when viewed together, one could understand the expansion of Rome throughout history. Shown in white marble, ancient Rome would move further to bring civilization and light into the peripheral lands shown by the black marble. These propagandistic maps affirmed the fascist regime in their own imperialist attitude and a fifth map, revealed on October 28, 1936, proudly displayed Mussolini’s grasp into Ethiopia. Adding to its use as a commemoratory piece, the fifth map was dedicated to fascist martyrs. Mussolini was able to impart fascist ideals even in the smallest of details while leading Italians to draw parallels with the glories of the past with the ones of their new Duce.


Mussolini continued to reconstruct Rome into a fascist center until WWII, extracting the grandeur of ancient Rome for his own agenda. Mussolini’s identification as the new Augustus, justified the need to canonize the ancient emperor. In celebration of Augustus’ 2000th birthday, the Piazza Augusto Imperatore was created with the restoration of the Ara Pacis and mausoleum. Followed by the construction of the Exhibit of Fascist Revolution and the EUR, Mussolini’s belief “that the glories of the past [should be] surpassed by the glories of the future” were stressed by the museum’s simple but bold architecture and the sports arena’s support for Italian strength and fitness (Painter 77). From the repristination of the monuments of Augustus to the fascist architecture of the EUR, Mussolini’s public programs exhibited the solidarity and strength of his political party and reign.

Mussolini’s use of propaganda increased as Italy entered WWII on the side of the Axis. He continued his captivating speeches, uniting Italians. Although feverishly cheering at the sound of Mussolini’s voice projecting from the balcony of Piazza Venezia, many of the people could not hear his speech about joining the war effort. Furthermore, he held a grand celebration to welcome Adolf Hitler when he visited Rome and was showed around Via dell’Impero. Ironically, German troops marched down this very street when occupying Italy at the turn of the war.

Finally, Mussolini was overthrown in July 1943 when the Grand Council of Fascism withdrew confidence in him. When executed in 1945, many of the fascist symbols such as the piccone and fascio, which represented his political projects and the idea of strength in numbers, were taken down from buildings and art around the city as well as the fifth map on the side of the Basilica of Maxentius. Likewise, many of the names of his public works were changed from their fascist façade as a symbol of removing fascism and restoring a greater Italian purpose. Via dell’Impero became Via dei Fori Imperiali and Foro Mussolini became Foro Italico. These anti-fascist sentiments unified Italy more than Mussolini was able to achieve with fascism. Though in some cases destructive, one can not ignore the amount of resources Mussolini poured into the transformation of Rome in order to create propaganda to legitimize his government and project him and the fascist revolution.
---------------------
Works Cited
Agnew, John. "The Impossible Capital: Monumental Rome under Liberal and Fascist Regimes, 1870-1943." Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 80.4 (1998): 229-240. JSTOR. 27 Apr. 2008 .
Lyons, Carolyn. "The Empire's New Clothes For Mussolini, Rome and Architecture Became Twin Obsessions." Financial Times 25 Aug. 2007, Surveys ed.: 24. ProQuest Newsstand International. ProQuest. U of Washington, Seattle, WA. 25 Apr. 2008 .
Minor, Heather Hyde. “Mapping Mussolini: Ritual and Cartography in Public Art during the Second Roman Empire.” Imago Mundi 51 (1999): 147-162. JSTOR. U of Washington, Seattle, WA. 23 July. 2008 .
Mras, George P. "Italian Fascist Architecture: Theory and Image." Art Journal 21.1 (Fall 1961): 7-12. JSTOR. 27 Apr. 2008 .
Packer, James E. "Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a Retrospective." American Journal of Archaeology 101.2 (Apr. 1997): 307-330. JSTOR. U of Washington, Seattle, WA. 25 Apr. 2008 .
Painter, Borden W., Jr. Mussolini's Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.
Scott, Kenneth. "Mussolini and the Roman Empire." The Classic Journal 27.9 (June 1932): 645-657. JSTOR. U of Washington, Seattle, WA. 23 July 2008 .

Geometry vs. Theatricality: A Comparison of Style between Borromini’s San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane and Bernini’s San Andrea al Quirinale

Catharine Killien
Honors Program in Rome - Summer 2008

Introduction
Standing atop the Quirinal Hill, opposite the imposing and seemingly endless façade of the Quirinal Palace, two small churches act as the most iconic representations of the rival architects who transformed the Roman Baroque era: Gian Lorenzo Bernini and Francesco Borromini. Although Bernini and Borromini worked at the same time, in the same city, and on many of the same projects, they could not have been more different. While Bernini was charming, ambitious, and well connected with the powerful papal families of Rome, Borromini was antisocial, inflexible, and difficult to work with. Perhaps a result of their diverging personalities, Bernini and Borromini had incredibly different approaches to architecture: Bernini saw architecture as a staging of an experience, and used theatricality and drama in his design to heighten the visitor’s emotional and spiritual response. Borromini, on the other hand, stretched the limits of classical architecture that had made a revival during the Renaissance by distorting pure classical elements to create dynamic, sculptural spaces. These vastly different approaches to design presented two distinct visions of what baroque architecture was, and nowhere is this difference better illustrated than in the quintessential works of the two architects: Bernini’s San Andrea al Quirinale and Borromini’s San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane.
Despite their differences in personality and architectural style, Bernini and Borromini had surprisingly similar upbringings. Both were born at the dawn of the 17th century to successful craftsmen and began their careers very young at a time of vibrant building and patronage of the arts in Rome. Gian Lorenzo Bernini was born in Naples in 1598 to the successful Mannerist sculptor, Pietro Bernini. Upon coming to Rome at age 7, Bernini’s skill was quickly recognized and he was brought to the Vatican to be mentored by Cardinal Borghese, the pope’s nephew. Under Borghese’s patronage, the child protégé quickly rose to become the preeminent sculptor of Rome. Bernini’s lifelong rival, Francesco Borromini was born in Lombardy in 1599 to a master stone mason, and went to Milan at age 10 to work as a sculptor’s apprentice. At age 16, he moved to Rome, where he began his work as a decorative sculptor at St. Peter’s under the guidance of Carlo Maderno, a distant relative and the chief architect of St. Peter’s basilica. Borromini thrived under Maderno’s instruction, developing excellent technical and drafting skills that would become his most important advantage over Bernini in coming years.

Rivalry
The skilled architectural draftsman and the master sculptor didn’t cross paths until 1624, when Urban VIII became pope and commissioned Bernini to design the baldacchino for St. Peter’s. Bernini and Borromini worked on St. Peter’s together for the next 9 years, a collaboration that was instrumental in the development of each man’s individual architectural style and spurred the rivalry that spanned the next four decades. Although Borromini was responsible for many of the technical aspects and for a large part of the design of the baldacchino, his contributions received little notice and the baroque masterpiece was credited to Bernini. When Borromini’s mentor, Maderno, died in 1629, Urban VIII appointed Bernini the new chief architect for St. Peter’s. Borromini was infuriated by this decision—he felt cheated and was convinced that he deserved the position because he had worked for so long under Maderno and knew the details of St. Peters, while Bernini was simply a young sculptor with no architectural experience. Further angering Borromini, Urban appointed Bernini the architect of Palazzo Barberini, a position previously held by Maderno. Despite the grudge Borromini held over Bernini, Borromini was persuaded to work as an assistant for Bernini, as Bernini acknowledged that he would need Borromini’s technical skill for the completion of the two important commissions. However, as in St. Peter’s, Borromini’s work on Palazzo Barberini received little notice, and thanks to his overwhelming popularity at the time, Bernini received the majority of the credit and money for the project. Reacting to his second snub, Borromini stated, “I do not mind that he [Bernini] has the money, but I do mind that he enjoys the honor of my labors.”[1] Borromini eventually broke with Bernini’s workshop, abandoned his work on St. Peter’s and Palazzo Barberini, and devoted the rest of his career to his own architecture.

San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane
Borromini’s swift exit from two high-profile building projects appeared to his contemporaries to be reckless and self-destructive, but Borromini never showed any regret over his decision. In 1634 Borromini accepted his first independent commission to build a church and monastery for an impoverished Spanish order of Trinitarians who had acquired a small, irregular site on the top of the Quirinal Hill in Rome. The Trinitarians monks initially received financial support from Cardinal Francesco Barberini whose palace was across the street, but Barberini soon lost interest in the project and abandoned his patronage. San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane took over 40 years to complete, but the Trinitarians were well satisfied with Borromini’s final design. Despite the church’s originality and complexity, it was also practical and economical, costing only 11,678 scundi—a bargain by the standards of the time. Borromini accepted no money for the project, desiring only due credit for his work. The finished result is quintessentially Borromini: he was granted full artistic freedom in the design, and thus the church perfectly illustrates his architectural ideals.

A preview of Borromini’s spectacular design for the church can be seen in his design for the cloister at San Carlo, completed in 1635. By pushing the corner columns in towards the center to form a narrow octagon, Borromini successfully transformed a cramped rectangular courtyard into an energetic, vibrant space (Fig. 1). In February 1638, when Borromini was 38 years old, he began work on the church of San Carlo. Borromini faced limitations due to the irregular size and shape of the site: the two bounding streets were at obtuse angles and one corner of the site was cut off by a fountain that Pope Sixtus V had placed several years earlier. Although the asymmetry of the site presented difficulty, Borromini came up with an ingenious solution that reflects his incredible imagination and creativity at a time when the Baroque era was just reaching its climax in Rome.

Fig. 1: cloister, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

Geometry permeates every aspect of Borromini’s design for San Carlo, as he believed that geometry reflected the rationality of the world created by God. In his architectural design process, Borromini began with a simple plan, and gradually made it more complex and dynamic through a series of geometric manipulations of adding variations and distorting elements. San Carlo is based entirely on the geometry of the circle and the triangle—the two most elemental shapes in geometry and the most important images in Christianity: the triangle represents the holy trinity and the circle represents the eternity of God. Borromini designed the plan of San Carlo as an ellipse with the entrance and the high altar at opposite ends of the long axis, evoking a distorted Latin cross plan (Fig. 2). To create this oval shape, Borromini placed two equilateral triangles side by side and inscribed circles in each of them to create the outer curve of the ellipse. The geometry of the floor plan is reiterated in the top of the dome, the point of the church closest to heaven, where a dove—the symbol of The Holy Spirit—is enclosed in a triangle surrounded by a circle.

Fig. 2: plan, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

Borromini divided the space of the church into three distinct horizontal zones—the wall surface, the continuous entablature above the walls, and the dome floating on top—to create an effect of vertical ascension. Though there appears to be a lack of unity between the different levels, Borromini purposefully created this discontinuity to emphasize the progression from complex to simple geometries. The incredible sculptural treatment of the walls represents significant move away from the flat, crisp surfaces of Renaissance architecture and the plasticity of the surface forms an undulating curvilinear surface that is distinctly Borromini. The eight pairs of columns throughout the lower portion of the church provide essential order and support to the space, but are ingeniously set into the wall so they do not interrupt the dynamic flow of the wall. Above the wall surface, Borromini took a classical element—the entablature—and completely distorted it, giving it a free and vibrant expression (Fig. 3). The entablature runs continuously around the church, acting as a breaking point between the geometry of the wall and the geometry of the dome. While the lower levels appear complex and distorted, the pure oval shape of the dome illustrates that the design of the church is based on simple geometry (Fig. 4). On the interior surface of the dome, a series of complex geometrical shapes fit like pieces of a puzzle and become smaller near the top, making the dome seem taller than it actually is. The incredible progression from the complexity of the walls, to the distorted yet organizing entablature, to the pure oval shape of the dome beautifully illustrates Borromini’s idea of the baroque as something based on the classical architectural elements, but taken to a new level through the free expression of the architect.

Fig. 3: wall surface and entablature, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

Fig. 4: dome, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

In order to emphasize the geometry of the architecture, Borromini used relatively little decoration in San Carlo. While Bernini was known for his use of different artistic media to create a theatrical effect in a space, Borromini hoped to deliver the same sense of awe using only architecture. Aside from the altarpieces and the Trinitarian symbol—a red, equal sided cross—that appears throughout the church, the entire space is painted stark white, emphasizing Borromini’s incredible use of light to make the tiny church seem open and free. No windows permeate the wall surface but the church appears full of light due to the seemingly mysterious light sources at the base of the dome and the lantern. The few sculptures that do appear in the church—mostly winged cherubs, Borromini’s favorite motif—serve to bring out the architecture, not overpower it.

Though the church interior was completed in 1641, the façade wasn’t begun until 1665 and construction continued after Borromini’s death in 1667. The highly sculptural concave-convex façade is an incredible expression of the baroque sense of movement and influenced the design of later church facades throughout Rome (Fig. 5). While it is unclear how much of the façade was designed by Borromini, it is known that he planned for a curved façade when he designed the interior of the church in the late 1630s—before a single curved church façade existed in Rome.

San Carlo solidified Borromini’s reputation as a talented architect of unparalleled imagination and creativity. The church incited much talk when it was completed, as nothing quite like it had ever been seen in Rome. Borromini never received another commission that allowed him as much artistic freedom as San Carlo. While many of his later churches—particularly Sant’Ivo alla Sapienza—illustrate his same ideas about geometry and movement, San Carlo was his most famous commission. Following the completion of San Carlo, Borromini fell out of popularity under Alexander VII’s papacy—just when his lifelong rival, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, was coming back into the spotlight.

Fig. 5: facade, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

San Andrea al Quirinale
After a short period of decline under Pope Innocent X, Bernini regained his position as the preeminent sculptor and architect of Rome when Alexander XII rose to the papacy in 1655. In 1658, Bernini was selected by Alexander for the commission of San Andrea al Quirinale, a small Jesuit church atop the Quirinale hill, just a block away from Borromini’s San Carlo. San Andrea was built at the height of the Counter Reformation in Rome when Catholics were trying to bring people back to the church. The patron, Prince Camillo Pampilli, wanted an extravagant church that would show the glory of god, and Bernini delivered. Rather than simply designing a dynamic space, Bernini combined sculpture, painting, dramatic lighting, and architecture together to create a transcendent spiritual experience that aimed to restore people to Catholicism. Like Borromini at San Carlo, Bernini was granted full artistic freedom in his design, and thus San Andrea is a perfect illustration of his belief that through theatricality in design, architecture acts as a staging of an experience.

From the exterior, the rounded and lively entrance of the church acts as a stark contrast against the static Renaissance facades of the neighboring buildings. In true baroque fashion, the exterior uses a combination of convex and concave forms to create a dynamic effect, and the semicircular portico draws visitors inside, welcoming them into the church (Fig. 6). The oval shape of the plan is evident from the exterior, as the curved walls on either side of the portico act as the curtains of a theater, providing a glimpse of the stage beyond.

Fig. 6: exterior, San Andrea al Quirinale

The drama of the church overwhelms the visitor upon entrance, as the majestically ornate high altar comes into view immediately. The plan recalls that of Borromini’s San Carlo but the oval shape is kept pure (Fig. 7). Bernini did not distort any of the geometry of the plan and the oval is clear from the lower level of the church. Furthermore, unlike at San Carlo where the altar is placed at the long axis of the oval, the high altar at San Andrea is placed on the short axis of the oval, necessitating that one walk around the church to fully experience and understand the space—an important aspect of baroque design. The church is tiny by the standards of the day, but its theatricality makes it appear grand. Bernini used a rich palate of materials and colors on the interior to achieve a greater sense of complexity and drama in the space. Pink colored marble inundates the church, creating an opulent vision of splendor (Fig. 8). Enormous square pilasters are placed evenly around the church, drawing the eye toward the high altar.

Fig. 7: plan, San Andrea al Quirinale

Fig. 8: interior, San Andrea al Quirinale

Bernini’s vision of theatricality reaches its climax in the high altar, where he uses painting, sculpture, lighting, and architecture to create an effect of vertical ascension. Depicted in a painting over the altar is the martyrdom of St. Andrew, the namesake of the church. St. Andrew looks up, directing the eye toward Bernini’s masterful sculpture of the cloud born spirit of St. Andrew, ascending into heaven. A hidden window above the altar illuminates the statue, giving life to the sculpted rays of light bursting out from the clouds (Fig. 9). The eye continues upward, past the vibrant sculptures that ring the entablature, along the ribs of the elliptical dome symbolizing rays of sunlight, and finally to the lantern and the image of a dove surrounded by the golden light of heaven (Fig. 10). This incredible sequence from the earthly to the celestial realm is a powerful dramatic effect, recalling Bernini’s vision of architecture as a staging of a religious experience.

Fig. 9: altar, San Andrea al Quirinale

Fig. 10: dome, San Andrea al Quirinale

Bernini’s incredible theatricality in San Andrea would have overwhelmed the visitor with its majesty and drama. Completed in 1672, the church was Bernini’s last major commission and the only work he ever considered perfect. Bernini refused payment for the church, and visited the church every day until he died. Reacting to his magnificent work, Bernini told his son, “I feel a special satisfaction at the bottom of my heart for this one work of architecture. I often come here as a relief from my duties to console myself with my work.”[2]

Conclusion
Borromini’s San Carlo alle Quattro Fonante and Bernini’s San Andrea al Quirinale offer two very different visions of what architecture meant during the Baroque age in the hands of two very different architects. Both men were deeply religious, but expressed their devotion through different architectural styles. While Bernini sought to display the grandeur of god through drama and emotion, Borromini aimed to venerate God through geometry that emphasized the rationality of nature. Borromini was a master of manipulating classical elements and pure geometries to create a dynamic, flowing space. He never used any color in his church design and any sculpture or lighting effects were used to emphasize, not overwhelm, the architecture. The incredible sculptural expression that Borromini achieved in the walls of San Carlo is the epitome of the Baroque sense of movement that would come to influence future architectural design throughout the world. Bernini, on the other hand, tended to use simple forms and more pure, yet dynamic, geometries. To achieve the dramatic and theatrical effect he strived for, he fused painting, sculpture, and architecture to elicit a deeply emotional response from the visitor. Bernini and Borromini were crucial to the development of the Rome we know today, and their rivalry produced some of the greatest artistic works of the 17th century. Perfectly illustrating the incredible though drastically different genius of the two architects, Morrissey states, “Bernini astounded by letting his talent spring from his heart; Borromini by arranging and controlling the wonders of the infinite. Bernini, at heart, was a sculptor who manipulated space. Borromini was an architect who sculpted it.”[3]

[1] Morrissey, 92
[2] Morrissey, 245
[3] Morrissey, 179

Works Cited
Blunt, Anthony. Borromini. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1979.

Conners, Joseph. “ Bernini’s S. Andrea al Quirinale: Payments and Planning,” JSAH, XLI: 1, March 1982.

Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture, Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Morrissey, Jake. The Genius in the Design: Bernini, Borromini, and the Rivalry that Transformed Rome. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Trachtenberg, Marvin, and Isabelle Hyman. Architecture, from Prehistory to Postmodernity, Second Edition. New York: H.N. Abrams, 2002.

Varriano, John. Italian Baroque and Rococo Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

The Legacy of the Obelisks of Rome

Nina Tan
Honors Program in Rome - Summer 2008

I. Introduction
The thirteen obelisks of Rome can be found in front of some of the city’s most important buildings, such as the Pantheon and St. Peter’s in the Vatican. These ostensibly simple stone monuments link two of the greatest ancient civilizations in history to the legacies of the papacy in Rome. The use of the obelisk as a tool of propaganda by prominent historical leaders spans three important historical eras: the rule of the Egyptians, the peak of the Roman Empire, and the transformation of Rome into the center of Christianity. Although the general public probably did not understand the carved hieroglyphs and inscriptions, the strategic placement of these spoils of war around the city of Rome was not without political and social agenda. The buried history of the obelisk makes it all the more effective as a symbol of worship, conquest, and power simultaneously, especially in its most recent use as papal propaganda. Looking more closely at these monuments, we gain a more thorough understanding of the resurrection of power the great leaders of the past utilized within the chapters of Roman history.


II. Historical function in Egypt
The ancient Egyptians created obelisks as early as 2400 BC, often erecting them in pairs in front of funerary monuments or temples dedicated to different pagan gods. The obelisk can be seen as a petrified ray of sunshine that widens as it reaches out from the sky and towards the earth. In this way, it was considered a vessel for communication between the gods, the heavens, and the mortal world. As a physical representation of the sun, it was common to find obelisks in front of temples dedicated to the sun god Ra. The importance of the sun as the source of light and warmth made Ra one of the most prominent Egyptian gods, and he was seen as the ruler of the pantheon of Egyptian gods. Many of the obelisks in Rome were taken from the ancient Egyptian capital city of Heliopolis, known as the city of the sun, where the cult of Ra was based. Even though the hieroglyphs of an obelisk may have glorified another god, the fact that the obelisk was built to mimic the shape of a ray of sunlight pays tribute to the omnipresence of Ra in ancient Egypt.


The original hieroglyphs on some of the monuments also tell the story of the particular obelisk. Some of the columns of hieroglyphs on the obelisk that now stands in Piazza del Popolo translate to this message, written by the Pharaoh Seti I: “Rā, I give to thee all lands and foreign countries with rest of heart, O king of the north and south…” This passage exemplifies the use of obelisks in ancient Egypt as gifts to the gods by way of “dedication” of conquests. Found on the same obelisk in Piazza del Popolo are columns of hieroglyphs added by pharaoh Rameses II that exalt the reign of his father and compare him to various gods. These messages from the pharaohs to the gods decorated the sides of their obelisks that stretched towards the heavens to deliver their message. Usually commissioned by pharaohs to commemorate their accomplishments or those of the pharaohs before them, the obelisks stood as lasting monuments to celebrate the rule of these leaders. When the Roman emperor Augustus conquered Egypt in 30 B.C, he was well aware of the importance in function of the obelisk in the Egyptian civilization. As both a monument of gratitude for the gods and a physical representation of the divine power of Egypt’s pharaohs, the history of the obelisk only made it all the more valuable as a sign of the glory of his conquest.


III. Structure and Transport
An obelisk is a vertically erect, four sided structure that sits on a base and tapers to a pyramidal top. Parts of the Egyptian obelisks would have been plated in gold, most likely the pyramidal top that reached into the heavens. Spanning a variety of lengths, the shortest found in Rome today measures approximately 6 meters, and is found outside the Church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva. The tallest is about 33 meters high and stands in front of the Church of San Giovanni in Laterano. The bronze cross and pontificate’s coat of arms that caps the obelisks in Rome are not part of the original Egyptian structure, but were added by the Popes who re-erected the monuments during the Counter Reformation. The vertical rows of hieroglyphs on an obelisk span the length of the sides they are carved into, and document and praise a pharaoh’s bravery in a victorious battle or some other fortuitous event that had occurred for the leader or the empire. The hieroglyphs also expressed thanks to various pagan gods for the protection and goodwill they provided for the Egyptian people. However, some of the hieroglyphs found on the obelisks today are “fake,” ordered by the emperors of Rome. Roman workers carved nonsensical messages into the obelisks without proper knowledge of the complex symbols, some of which can still be seen today.
Typical Egyptian obelisks were carved from a single block of red granite. The stonemasonry of the Egyptians, as seen in any of their historical monuments like the pyramids, was undoubtedly a clever use of their resources and ancient tools. It has been hypothesized that the Egyptians must have cleverly employed the use of sand when creating the obelisks. Through the use of the sturdy properties of rocks, sand was used to carve rock with rock.


Keeping in mind the limited methods and technology available at the time of their creation, the construction of an obelisk from a single block of granite exemplifies a feat in engineering that further mystifies the symbolism of the monument. One idea is that the Egyptians carved the obelisk out of the quarry horizontally, first releasing three sides and then carving the last side to leave a narrow connecting strip. Wooden beams were then placed under the obelisk and the connecting strip was carved out so that the weight of the monolith lay on the beams. The obelisk was then pulled out of the quarry using a series of levers and transported down the Nile on barges.


Moving the obelisk is an even greater accomplishment than its creation. The ancient Romans under the rule of Augustus moved the first obelisks from Egypt, most likely down the Nile and across the Mediterranean Sea to its final location in Rome. To move these stone monuments that often weighed a few hundred tons was never considered impossible. The Romans engineered new ships specifically for the transportation of the obelisks. These ships moved with the work of multiple levels of rowers and were so admired that they were often put on display for the Roman citizens. One of the ships that the Emperor Caligula built to transport an obelisk to Rome in 37 A.D weighed about 1,550 tons. Once on land, it took hundreds of workers months to pull the obelisk to its next location. The sheer effort required in engineering and carrying out a method of transporting obelisks is yet another testament to the greatness of the Roman Empire.


IV. Symbolism in ancient Rome
The hieroglyphs on the obelisk, and even the obelisk itself, were known by both the literate and illiterate of Rome as symbols of Egypt. Thus, because of their mere presence in the city of Rome, the obelisk became a spectacle. Not only did they serve a decorative purpose, but also stood as a reminder to the people of Rome, and even visitors to Rome, of the defeat of the Egyptians led by Augustus.

Now known as one of Rome’s most revered emperors, Augustus conquered Egypt in 30 B.C after defeating Caesar and Cleopatra in Alexandria. Although Egypt’s reign had been in decline, the conquest of such an important civilization completed Rome’s conquest of the Mediterranean basin. Such a feat deserved not only widespread recognition but also an assured remembrance in history, which was commonly achieved through the possession of spoils. Emperor Augustus understood the importance of the obelisk in Egypt as a symbol of association between the gods and the pharaohs. He included the monuments in his spoils, but with the first two obelisks he brought to Rome in 10 B.C the symbolism of the monument changed with respect to its new location. While the Egyptians placed the obelisks outside temples and funerary monuments, Augustus had a different purpose in mind. One of the obelisks was placed in Circus Maximus, an ancient Roman stadium used for chariot races and gladiator fights that were guaranteed to attract a large and diverse crowd of people. The other was placed in the Field of Mars as the gnomon (pointer) of a sundial. The placement of this obelisk in particular was especially symbolic in that Augustus oriented it so that on his birthday its shadow would fall upon the Ara Pacis, the altar that commemorated the peace that Augustus brought to the empire after his conquests in 13 B.C. Additional obelisks were placed outside pagan temples in Rome as a symbolic gift to the gods from the emperor.
The mere presence of the obelisks in Rome was not their only testament to Augustus’ power. Augustus himself ordered Latin inscriptions to be carved into the base of the obelisks. For example, the obelisk that stood in the Field of Mars had an inscription that dedicated the obelisk to Rome’s defeat of Egypt and to the sun God as a gift from Augustus, “son of the divine Julius Caesar.” In creating a connection between himself and the great pharaohs of Egypt, his own power also increased in status.


Augustus had started a trend referred to by some academics as “megalithomania,” and emperors after him both built and erected obelisks around the city. Their intentions sometimes paralleled those of Augustus. In 357 A.D, Constantius relocated an obelisk from the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis to the Circus Maximus in Rome as a commemoration of the peace he brought to the Empire. Some emperors employed the obelisks in their original Egyptian use as funerary monuments. Between 117 and 138 A.D, Hadrian ordered an obelisk to be carved and brought over from Egypt to stand in front of the funerary temple he built for his lover Antinous. Inscriptions on the obelisk deified Antinous and compared him to the Egyptian gods, stating that his soul was like that of the “truth speaker” Ra

V. Symbolism in Christian Rome
Just as there were multiple emperors who utilized the importance of the obelisk in history to promote themselves and the Roman Empire, there were a total of six popes who physically and symbolically resurrected the obelisks between the 16th and 18th centuries. The obelisks had been forgotten after the decline of the Roman Empire and were usually found in pieces scattered throughout the city.


If a pope decided to re-erect an obelisk, he would do so with the noble intent of celebrating the triumph of Christianity over paganism. These symbols of power once stood in front of pagan temples but were now moved in front of churches. In their resurrection, obelisks not only glorified Christianity, but also stood as a symbol of the legacy of the current pontificate as a continuation of the greatness of the emperors and their Empire. The process of fixing these obelisks usually included and exorcism and purification process completed by the addition of the bronze cross and pontificate’s coat of arms on the pyramidal top. Rather than destroy the remaining hieroglyphs on the obelisks they were preserved, but the symbol of the cross that crowned the obelisk was a symbol of the defeat of paganism and the rise of Christianity. New inscriptions were also be carved into the base of the obelisk often to link the pope to the emperor who had brought it from Egypt, again harkening back to the glory of the Roman Empire. For example, Pope Pius VI, who re-erected 3 obelisks during his pontificate between 1775 and 1799, attempted to point out the similarities between his rule and the prosperity of the Roman Empire under Augustus with the following inscription found on one obelisk base: “[Augustus] after bringing Egypt under the power of the Roman people, dedicated the obelisk to the sun…[Pius] cleaned the obelisk of dirt and damage, carefully completed the missing parts, and gave it back to the city and the sky.” Thus, the obelisk was transformed not only into a reminder of what the city once was but also brought attention to the generosity and auspicious rule of the Pope.

Obelisks were also incorporated into statues and fountains around the city, such as the obelisk erected by Pope Innocent X in 1651 in Bernini’s Fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona. However, the most important use of the obelisks is the role they played in the urban planning efforts of Pope Sixtus V in the late 16th century. Pope Sixtus V was head of the Church from 1585-1590, during the conclusion of the Counter Reformation. As the rising center of Christianity in the world at the time, Pope Sixtus’ vision was to create a city accessible for the many pilgrims that would visit Rome. Sixtus restored and relocated obelisks at three major churches, St. Peter’s, Santa Maria Maggiore, and St. John Lateran, and placed a fourth obelisk at Piazza del Popolo, the city’s Northern entrance. These obelisks sat at the ends of major roads that connected the sites, and served to orient pilgrims so they would be able to make their way from one obelisk to the next.

The strategic placement of these obelisks also highlighted the accomplishments of Sixtus during his pontificate. At St. Peter’s, Sixtus was building both a papal palace and Michelangelo’s dome. His family’s villa and his own personal burial chapel were at Santa Maria Maggiore, and he had built a new portico and pontifical palace at St. John Lateran. When pilgrims visited Rome, they would follow the path laid out by the obelisks, and end up at each site Sixtus had a hand in restoring or creating. With his efforts, Christianity spread and his own pontificate flourished.


VI. Conclusion
It is no coincidence that with the restoration of these ancient monuments, a Pope’s legacy would be carved in stone next to the memory of the emperors of the ancient Roman Empire. The power of the obelisk is unique in its extensive historical use as propaganda, dating all the way back to the ancient Egyptians and maintaining its symbolism of power throughout its subtle transformations. The obelisks that remain today have been interwoven into the city’s ancient and modern infrastructure. They are found in front of important churches and in the middle of famous Piazzas, strategically placed there by their most recent caretakers, the popes. Over thousands of years, the physical structure of the obelisk has hardly been altered, save for damaged hieroglyphs and the addition of symbols of the papacy and Christianity. Yet in its initial move to ancient Rome and its resurrection during the 16th-18th centuries, the obelisk has found new meaning that was built upon historical greatness. From the feats of engineering required to create and transport these stone pillars, both during the Roman and over a thousand years later during the Counter Reformation, to the integral use of the monuments in organizing Rome into the center of Christianity, the 13 remaining obelisks of Rome contain the lasting marks of two of the greatest civilizations in history. Ultimately, they stand as a symbol of the dominance of Christianity in the world today.

VII. Author’s closing notes
What I found most interesting about obelisks is how little they changed over thousands of years yet they embody such extensive historical importance. The obelisk is the prime example of the ostensibly subliminal symbols of power placed around the city of Rome. By using inscriptions to describe the parallels between their own lives and the lives of emperors and gods, the leaders of Rome used the religious connotations of the obelisk to assert their own power. Obelisks are simple, so simple in their composition, yet serve as reminders of the ancient Roman Empire and its emperors, the accomplishments of the popes, the rebuilding of Christianity’s reputation and the rule of the great pharaohs of Egypt. They have been the ultimate trophy for many, and this layered history makes them so interesting to study.

Works Cited
Budge, E. A. Cleopatra's Needles and Other Egyptian Obelisks. Grand Rapids: Kessinger, LLC, 2003.

Collins, Jeffrey. “Obelisk designs by Giovanni Stern.” The Bvrlington Magazine 142 (2000): 90-100.

Collins, Jeffrey. Papacy and Politics in Eighteenth Century Rome. New York: Cambridge UP, 2004. 193-218.

Grafton, Anthony. “Obelisks and Empires of the Mind.” The American Scholar 71.1 (2002): 123-127.

Howard, Philip. "War Memorial Obelisks Tell an Old Roman Story." Times Online. 30 Mar. 2008. 9 July 2008 .
Jokilehto, Jukka. History of Architectural Conservation. 1st ed. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002. 36-38.

Kirk, Terry. "Framing St. Peter's: Urban Planning in Fascist Rome." Art Bulletin 88 (2006): 756-776. 27 June 2008 Framing St. Peter's: Urban Planning in Fascist Rome.>.

Kleiner, Diana E. Cleopatra and Rome. Boston: Harvard UP, 2005. 163-165.
Mysteries of the Nile. 1 Nov. 2000. NOVA PBS. 9 July 2008 .

Paoletti, John T., and Gary M. Radke. Art in Renaissance Italy. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2005. 539-542.

Piperno, Roberto. “Obelisks of Rome.” Rome: In the Footsteps of an XVIIIth Century Traveler. 1999-2005. <>

Heavenly Architecture: The History, Design, and Propaganda of Piazza San Pietro

Jeff Smith
Honors Program in Rome - Summer 2008

Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) is regarded as one of the best baroque artists in history. Although involved with many famous projects, this sculptor and architect from Naples is forever immortalized for his design and creation of Piazza San Pietro (St. Peter’s Square) -the Vatican City piazza that invites pilgrims and tourists alike to behold the splendor of Basilica di San Pietro (Basilica of St. Peter) before entering “the greatest of all churches in Christendom” (Bannister).
This piazza is a masterful piece of propaganda of the Roman-Catholic Church which allows both the pilgrim and visitor to view Catholicism as an intricate, powerful, and awe-inspiring entity as they enter into the heavenly glow of Piazza St. Pietro.

Both the glowing piazza and the massive basilica of Vatican City were named after St. Peter, the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus and the first pope of the Catholic Church. Many art historians believe that the body of St. Peter still rests under the basilica which bears his name. St. Peter’s Basilica was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 319 AD during the papacy of Sylvester I. Due to years of neglect and damage suffered during the sack of Rome in the 15th century, Pope Julius II and a number of his successors directed the nearly complete restructure of the Basilica. A legendary staff of architects, including Raphael, Michelangelo, Bramante, and Maderno, were involved in the rebuilding. The current dome of the Basilica was completed in 1590, and it stands today as the fundamental symbol of the Roman-Catholic Church and all of Christianity. After completion of the magnificent Basilica, Pope Alexander VII decided almost immediately upon his papal election in 1656 that the approach to St. Peter’s needed to be rebuilt as well. He commissioned Bernini, who had worked on other architectural projects for the church, including St. Peter’s baldachin, to be the lead architect in designing the piazza which was to welcome tens of millions of pilgrims to one of the holiest sites in all of Catholicism.

Bernini worked on the piazza from 1656 until its completion in 1667. Papal commissions were nothing new to Bernini. Before the papacy of Alexander VII, he was a favorite of Pope Urban VIII, and worked near or at St. Peter’s for fifty-four years of his life. After obtaining the commission from Alexander VII to design the piazza, Bernini considered many blueprints, including a trapezoidal shaped entrance. However, with much input from cardinals and other church officials, he settled on a primarily elliptical-shaped piazza, a “sub-piazza” known as Piazza Obliqua (unless otherwise noted, I will use “piazza” synonymously with “Piazza San Pietro”). The long axis of the ellipse spans 350 meters and the short axis is roughly 240 meters; an impressive size given the central location of St. Peter’s relative to Rome and Vatican City. In addition to the dominant elliptical portion of Piazza San Pietro, Bernini incorporated a trapezoidal shape (named Piazza Retta) into the piazza near the entrance to the Basilica. Bernini enclosed the Piazza San Pietro with radially aligned travertine Doric columns utilized to accentuate the vertical height of the piazza’s enclosure. In an unconventional architectural move, Bernini also made use of ionic entablature on top of the Doric columns, a design which added structural strength to the colonnades. A total of 284 columns, thirty-nine feet in height and four rows deep, surround the elliptical and trapezoidal portions of the piazza. The area between the columns is wide enough for a carriage (or car) to pass through; allowing the Pope and other church officials to quickly traverse the large piazza while bypassing crowds. Bernini placed a heightened portion of the portico in the middle of the colonnade arms, which breaks up some of the repetitiveness of the nearly three hundred columns, but still allows the eye to transition smoothly around the piazza. A fifteen foot high statue of a saint or a martyr of the Catholic Church tops each of the 96 colonnades. The surface of the piazza was initially paved with cobblestones, but the current cobblestones are not the originals due to the wear on the piazza’s surface from hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and visitors who fill the area each year. Today, radiating lines of whitish travertine intertwine the new dark cobblestones.

At each of the geometric focal points of the elliptical portion of the piazza, there are two identical fountains composed of white marble that provide a striking contrast to the dark cobblestones paving the piazza. The original fountain was designed by Carlo Maderno (found on the southern side of the piazza) and the second fountain was added by Bernini to give symmetry to the piazza; a decision which is consistent with Renaissance-style design. Between the two fountains, a 25.5 meter obelisk adorned by a cross sits atop small bronze lions and a pedestal, raising the obelisk to a height of 41 meters above the ground. The cross that rests atop the obelisk symbolizes the relic of the “true cross” on which Jesus Christ was crucified on.

During the Middle Ages and before the cross sat upon the apex of the obelisk, a small sphere rested upon the pinnacle of the obelisk. It was said that this ball held the ashes of Julius Caesar; symbolically linking the Catholic Church to the days when the Roman Empire was at the height of its power. This Egyptian obelisk was built in the 13th century BC and is made of red granite. It was moved to Rome in 37 AD by the Emperor Caligula. It is one of only 28 known remaining intact obelisks in the world from ancient Egypt, and was moved by Pope Sixtus V to its current location in 1586. The task of moving the prodigious and ancient obelisk intimidated many of the greatest minds of the day and was finally delegated to Dominco Fotana, who supposedly had horses ready to escape the wrath of Sixtus V in case the obelisk toppled during the move. Luckily, Fontana’s engineering feat was successful, and the obelisk which serves to represent light and the power of the Catholic Church still stands slender and triumphant against the backdrop of St. Peter’s Basilica.

Because the obelisk had been moved to the front of St. Peter’s Basilica before work on the piazza began, Bernini was forced to incorporate the already existing obelisk into his design; a task that was not new to him. In his design of the Fountain of Four Rivers in Piazza Navona in 1651, Bernini also had to work around an existing obelisk. It was fitting that Pope Alexander VII (a lover of history and the arts, and one of the more worldly individuals to hold the papacy) was the Pope to commission the piazza which would display the historic obelisk. Pope Alexander VII wanted an entrance to the basilica that would convey the power and glory of the Catholic Church while filling the viewer with an overpowering sense of awe. During the design and construction of the piazza, the baroque style which incorporates movement, awe, and balance into architecture and art was at its height of popularity in Rome. In his design, Bernini was forced to deal with many architectural restrictions due to existing buildings and structures, many of which housed church officials who did not want their homes destroyed.

Still, these complications could not prevent Bernini from utilizing the baroque style as propaganda to meet the Church’s wishesof an entrance which would make pilgrims and visitors feel a sense of holy revelation while being overwhelmed by the massive, yet ornate structures of the Catholic Church. However, Bernini did not complete his finalized design in its entirety.
The “third arm” of the piazza which would guide pilgrims and visitors into its interior was never completed. Nevertheless, the completed piazza and basilica signify the power and importance of the Catholic faith while also serving to make visitors feel welcome in the wake of their feelings of awe.

This feeling of amazement in the pilgrim was dramatically increased by Bernini’s design of the approach to the piazza. Bernini specifically constructed the path to the basilica and piazza to wind through the narrow streets of Rome, preventing the pilgrims from being able to see the piazza or basilica until they were nearly upon them. This design was characteristic of the baroque “surprise.” The brilliant white travertine marble colonnades of the piazza provide a divine glow, giving the pilgrims and visitors the impression that they are transitioning from dark, winding streets of Rome into the light of Catholicism. In the words of Bernini, the piazza allows pilgrims to be received into “the motherly arms of the church.” These propaganda techniques were intended to show the strength and power of the Catholic Church.

In addition to linking the church to strength and power, Alexander VII, a son of the prominent Chigi family, wanted to link his family to the magnificent attributes of the piazza. He did so by having his name inscribed numerous times throughout the two porticos, as well as having his family’s coat of arms of mountains and oaks decorate both the base of the obelisk and doors within the portico. Alexander VII’s goals were clear: as patron of these architectural masterpieces, he wanted to heighten the glory and strength of the Catholic Church, but also assure that his family would gain both fame and power. Alexander VII did not to be forgotten in the annals of history, and his tomb, designed by Bernini, which rests inside the basilica is further testament to his goal of surviving posthumously through the art and architecture he commissioned.

The current approach to St. Peter’s and the masterful propaganda of the Catholic Church has been changed since its original construction. Bernini initially designed the approach to prevent pilgrims from seeing the piazza until they were nearly on top of it. He mapped an approach to the piazza that involved pilgrims and visitors crossing the Tiber River over Ponte Sant’Angelo near Castel Sant’Angelo. Castel Sant’Angelo was initially constructed by Emperor Hadrian (76AD-138AD) as a mausoleum for his family. It was converted into a military fortress in 401 AD, and used by the papacy as a fortress until 1901, when it was decommissioned from defense purposes. Today, the building stands as a museum. During the crossing of Ponte Sant’Angelo, the pilgrims were able to get their first glimpses of St. Peter’s Basilica; a site that would almost certainly give any weary pilgrim more than enough strength to walk the final steps to the rock of Catholicism. The winding approach to St. Peter’s was destroyed in 1936 by Benito Mussolini. In a politically savvy move, Mussolini had an avenue built that would lead directly to the Basilica. This linked his dictatorship with the power of the Catholic Church, as well as served as propaganda to give his leadership divine legitimacy.

Changes and constraints were forced upon Bernini both during and after his lifetime. Bernini was limited in his design by both restrictions of religious officials and the lay of the land, and had to deal with many logistical and structural problems. Nevertheless, he put much thought into the symbolic nature of the piazza’s design. The piazza had to encompass a large amount of area to allow the maximum number of pilgrims to attend masses presided over by the Pontiff. Also, the Doric columns which surround the both the trapezoidal and elliptical portions of the piazza were erected to be a specific height to allow pilgrims to view the Pope without architectural hindrance. Like many historical masterpieces, art historians have made different arguments regarding the reasoning behind Bernini’s unique design of Piazza San Pietro.
Kiato argues that the construction of the piazza was designed almost solely as an amphitheater “for the performance of God’s worship;” built primarily to pack pilgrims into the piazza for mass. While the ability to hold a prodigious number of individuals was a practical necessity to allow for large mass attendance, the art historian Napier argues that there is deeper meaning behind the symmetrical fountains and welcoming travertine colonnades. In his book, Napier states that the design of the piazza was shaped to mimic a uterus. As Bernini intended to glorify St. Peter’s as “the mother of all churches,” Napier attempts to persuade his audience that Bernini accomplished that task by glorifying the Virgin Mary through his design, and allowing “the womb of the world [to be] inverted on the altar of God.” Napier provides structural evidence for his claim: the two fountains symbolize the uterine arteries which “bring life giving fluid to the womb,” while the third arm of the piazza that was never constructed would have formed two entrances meant to symbolize fallopian tubes. In addition, the overall shape of the piazza with its elliptical and trapezoidal portion does resemble the shape of a uterus. Napier expands his assertion further, arguing that the altar symbolizes the masculine key to the womb with the keys being eternally held by St. Peter, whose body rests under the altar. One aspect of Bernini’s creation is certain: the piazza was designed as a propaganda piece to convey the power, spirituality, and greatness of the church, yet also serves to invite pilgrims to the most well known basilica in the world to gaze upward at the wonder and glory of God.

Piazza San Pietro has survived nearly four and a half centuries, and has influenced the thoughts, actions, and lives of millions of people, whether Catholic or not. Even a person of the 21st century living in a technologically advanced world that Bernini could not have possibly fathomed is left awe-struck by the piazza’s magnificence. With radiating white travertine marble columns enclosing the colossal piazza adorned by fifteen foot high legends of Catholicism, it is difficult to imagine a pope, or any other individual for that matter, advocating any major changes to Bernini’s baroque masterpiece. The cross that adorns the ancient, slender obelisk provides a beacon of light to those feeling the call of the Catholic Church. This piazza will continue to be an experience of a lifetime for countless more pilgrims through the coming centuries.

In writing and researching this paper about Piazza San Pietro, there were two topics that I kept delving deeper into: Bernini and the ancient Roman Obelisk. I was taken with Bernini before I had the privilege of seeing his works firsthand in Rome, but after seeing the statues that he designed while in his teens, I was truly amazed at this baroque sculptor who centered his life on artistic perfection. The thought, time, and dedication that he put into each of his masterpieces deserve the kudos of the millions of people who have the privilege of seeing his works.

The 440-ton obelisk between the two fountains of St. Peter’s also captured my attention, as it likewise did for many Roman emperors and popes. Reading about the specially constructed boats used to transport the obelisk to Rome in the first century as well as the stories involving the ceremonies during its move to its present location under Pope Sixtus V will amaze almost anyone. I also thought it very interesting that the pagan-constructed obelisk had held the ashes of the legendary pagan Roman leader Julius Caesar, and yet remains an icon of the holiest site of the monotheistic Catholic Church. Although the obelisk and Bernini captured my curiosity, it would be easy to pick almost any portion of Piazza San Pietro and be struck by its magnificence. It is a testament to Bernini’s artistic skill that his work invokes such feelings of awe.

Bibliography
Baumgarten, Paul M. “Basilica of St. Peter.” New Advent. 23 Apr. 2008.

Bonechi, Casa E. The Golden Book of Rome and the Vatican. Trans. Erika Pauli. Italy: Centro Stampa Editoriale Bonechi, 2000.

Campbell, Ian. “The New St. Peter's; Basilica or Temple?” Oxford Art Journal. 1981. 3-8.

Driggers, Jenne. “Piazza San Pietro: the Rhyme and Reason Behind Great Art.” 2006. Art History Presentation Archive. June-July 2008 .

Duptay, Abbe. “Description of St. Peter’s Church, at Rome.” Vol. 4, Iss. 3; pg. 182

Mattson, Julia. “Bernini’s Work at St. Peter’s.” 2004. Art History Presentation Archive. June-July 2008 .

Marder, Tod A. Bernini's Scala Regia at the Vatican Palace. Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Napier, David A. "Bernini's Anthropology: A 'Key' to Piazza San Pietro." RES. Autumn 1998.

Nguyen, Minh-An. “St. Peter’s Piazza.” 2005. Art History Presentation Archive. June-July 2008

Scotti, R. A. Basilica: The Splendor and the Scandal: Building St. Peters. Kindle Publishing.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and architecture in Italy, 1600 to 1750. Penguin Books. 1958.

Bernini’s Private Commissions in the Villa Borghese

Andy Zhou
Honors Program in Rome - Summer 2008

The Villa Borghese lies just to the north of city center and is one of the largest parks in Rome. Just like when it was built, it still offers a break from hectic urban life today. However, most visitors come to the Villa Borghese not for the beautiful gardens and peaceful environment, but for the incredible art collection in the Borghese Gallery. Built by Cardinal Scipione Borghese, the Borghese Gallery houses a stunning variety of art from ancient Rome to the Baroque. Among all the great works of art, Bernini’s four life-size sculptures are arguably the most amazing pieces in the collection. These four sculptures exemplify Bernini’s Baroque style and relate closely to Scipione Borghese’s personal life.

Before discussing Bernini’s sculptures and how they relate to Scipione Borghese and his family, it is important to understand the background of both the Bernini and the Borghese family. The Borghese family originated from Sienna, but moved to Rome in 1541 under the head of the family, Marcantonio I. While in Rome, Marcantonio I was able to get his two sons, Camillo and Orazio involved in the church at a young age. The family quickly rose to prominent status when Camillo was elected Pope in 1605 and took the name Pope Paul V. At the time when Camillo came into power, nepotism was still very popular. He elevated his nephew Scipione Borghese to cardinal-nephew status, which turned out to be a very important move for the advancement of the Borghese family. Scipione Borghese had tremendous amounts of power as the cardinal-nephew and was able to bring in great fortunes to the Borghese family. Using these fortunes, he was able to develop his art collection and build Villa Borghese.

During Scipione’s time in the 17th century, villas were a popular trend among noble families. These villas served several purposes. The first was for relaxation. Noble families wanted to get away from the hectic city life and have a peaceful place to rest. Villas also had diplomatic and social functions, serving as places for receptions and gatherings. Finally, and maybe the most important, villas were a way for families to flaunt their status and fortune. For Scipione, the Villa Borghese was, from the beginning, a place to house and show off his collection of art.
Scipione was known as a determined and often ruthless collector of art. Many times in his life, he used his positions of power or even theft to gain pieces of art that he coveted. Despite his methods of obtaining his collection, he had an incredibly astute taste in art. He was the first patron of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, who would go on to do major works in the Vatican under Pope Urban VII and would become one of the best sculptors of the Baroque era.

Bernini was born in Naples in 1598. At a young age, Bernini learned under his father Pietro, who was a successful Florentine sculptor in the Mannerist era. When Bernini was 6, his father was called to Rome by Pope Paul V to help work on the church of Santa Maria Maggiore. In Rome, Bernini was able to really start his education in art and begin his great career. He was introduced to successful artists such as Annibale Carracci and in his first three years in Rome, he supposedly spent every day in the Vatican studying and making sketches of paintings and sculptures that he saw. Bernini was known as a child prodigy. He was supposedly only 8 years old when he carved his first marble head and by the age of 10, he was introduced to Scipione Borghese and eventually to Pope Paul V. Bernini impressed Pope Paul V so much during their meeting that the Pope declared, “This child will be the Michelangelo of his age.” Whether a prophecy or an astute observation, his words could not have turned out to be more correct.

Aeneas and Anchises

Bernini was only 19 when Scipione commissioned Aeneas and Anchises¸ the first of the four life-size sculptures that Bernini would do for Scipione. Bernini started the sculpture in 1618 and finished just a year later. The sculpture depicts Aeneas, who is the legendary founder of Rome, carrying his father Anchises on his shoulder, with his son Ascanius following him as he flees Troy when it falls. Following the story, Bernini depicts Anchises carrying the penates, the household gods in Roman mythology, and Ascanius carrying a torch that would later become the sacred fire of Vesta. Since Bernini was still young when he did this sculpture, it shows the influences of his father’s mannerist style rather than the Baroque style Bernini is known for. The figures are organized into a single spiraling column, which was a trademark of mannerism. The sculpture was not truly mannerist, however, and shows the beginnings of the Baroque style. Though not as much as in his later works, Bernini portrays a sense of movement in the three figures. Aeneas’ muscles and tendons bulge under the skin as if he is about to carefully take his next step. In addition, the viewer is forced to move around the sculpture since there is no angle where all three figures can fully be seen. Bernini also displays incredible detail in the sculpture. The skin of Anchises is noticeably sagging in comparison to that of his son’s, whose muscles and veins bulge under the skin.

In general, the story of Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius symbolizes the three stages of a man’s life (childhood, adulthood, and old age) or more broadly the past, present, and future. However, for Scipione Borghese, this piece could have represented several ideas in his life. The first is his view of the Borghese family: noble ancestry, current power, and future success. It could also refer to the fact that the Borghese family moved from Sienna to Rome and became incredibly successful. Finally, it may represent the idea of devotion to the family and shows his gratitude to Pope Paul V for making him the cardinal-nephew.

Rape of Persephone

The second statue group that Scipione commissioned was the Rape of Persephone. This sculpture was completed from 1621-1622 when Bernini was only 23. It shows Pluto, the god of the underworld, abducting Persephone, and taking her to Hades past the three-headed dog, Cerberus, that guards the borders. As with his previous work, Bernini’s sculpture exhibits an unbelievable amount of detail and realism. Pluto’s face is distorted from the push of Persephone’s hand while her body twists as she tries to escape his grasp. Her skin also shows an incredibly natural depression as he grabs her with his hands. Furthermore, Bernini successfully captures the bewilderment in Pluto’s face and Persephone in the middle of a scream with tears flowing down her cheeks. With this sculpture, Bernini moved entirely into the Baroque style. The characteristic sense of movement in Baroque art is fully evident in this sculpture. The viewer can truly feel that Persephone is trying to escape Pluto’s firm grasp from her twisting body and flowing hair. Another important aspect of Baroque style, the forced movement of the viewer is also evident. Bernini designed the sculpture so that the viewer is forced to move around the sculpture in order to get the whole story. Bernini intended the sculpture to be first viewed from the left. At this angle, the viewer would only see Pluto’s right leg and powerful body. Moving slightly to the front of the sculpture, the viewer begins to notice Persephone’s involvement in the story. From this angle, the viewer sees Pluto’s facial expression and Persephone’s hand pushing his face as she tries to escape. Continuing to move around to the front of the sculpture, Persephone’s facial expression becomes visible and her urgency is felt. Finally, from the far right of the sculpture, Pluto can barely be seen at all and the focus is entirely on the Persephone’s struggle and anguish as she cries for help. The three-headed dog Cerberus also becomes fully visible, showing that Pluto is carrying Persephone to Hades.

By the time Bernini completed the Rape of Persephone, Pope Paul V had died and Scipione Borghese was no longer in power as the cardinal-nephew. Shortly after it was finished, Scipione Borghese actually gave the sculpture to the new cardinal-nephew as a gift and the sculpture was not returned to Villa Borghese until 1908. The pedestal on which the sculpture rests has an inscription written by Cardinal Barberini (future Pope Urban VIII) that says, “Oh you who, bending, pick the flowers of the earth, heed the one who was carried to the dwelling of wild Pluto.” With this gift, Scipione is telling his rival to be careful and that his power will eventually come to an end.

Apollo and Daphne

Bernini’s third statue group that he created for Scipione was Apollo and Daphne. Bernini started the sculpture in 1622 and finished in 1625, but work was suspended for 1 year in the middle so that Bernini could complete his sculpture of David. According to the Ovidian story, Cupid shot Apollo with a golden arrow so he fell love with Daphne and chased after her. However, Daphne was shot with a lead arrow so she repelled love and ran away from Apollo. As Apollo was finally about to catch Daphne, she screamed for help from her father, the river god Peneus, who turned her into a laurel tree to end her misery. Like with the Rape of Persephone, Bernini wanted the viewer to walk around the sculpture and watch the story unfold. Bernini intended the sculpture to first be viewed from Apollo’s back. From this point of view, the viewer can see that Apollo is in motion but it is unclear exactly what he is doing. Moving slightly to the right of the sculpture, it becomes clear that he is chasing after Daphne and reaching out his hand to grab her. At this angle, Daphne still appears to be mostly a woman. Continuing to the right of the sculpture, the viewer notices that Daphne is crying out and is beginning to turn into a tree. Her body begins to be covered with bark, her fingers are turning into leaves, and her feet are morphing into roots. From the far right of the sculpture, the viewer sees the stunned expression on Apollo’s face and notices he is actually grabbing a piece of bark and never actually touches Daphne.

The pedestal of the Apollo and Daphne also has an inscription by Cardinal Barberini. The inscription states, “Those who love to pursue fleeing forms of pleasure, in the end find only leaves and bitter berries in their hands.” Even though the sculpture depicts a Pagan story, Barberini’s passage ties the moral of the story back to Scipione’s religious background. It essentially warns against excess frivolity and promotes devotion to the Church.

David

The final commission that Bernini did for Scipione was David. It was commissioned after Apollo and Daphne but was actually finished beforehand. It took Bernini only seven months to complete the sculpture and he was only 25 when it was finished. The sculpture depicts David as he is preparing to shoot his slingshot. Like the previous two works, Bernini again illustrates a developing story as the viewer moves around the sculpture. Bernini intended this sculpture to be approached from the right side. From this angle, it is difficult to tell what the sculpture is about or what is happening. Moving slightly to the left, the viewer begins to see David’s tense muscles and the intense concentration and fierceness on his face. Continuing further to the left, the tightly-pulled slingshot becomes visible and the viewer gets a sense that the slingshot is about to be released. This sculpture is different from his previous three statues in that he only depicts one figure in the sculpture. Instead of seeing the whole story, the viewer must imagine what David is fighting. One can follow the gaze of David’s eyes and imagine the presence of a huge Goliath out in front of David. There are also several objects that lie beneath David. One is a lyre with an eagle’s head on it, the symbol of the Borghese family. There are also unused pieces of armor on the ground that were given to David by King Saul.

Another way to examine to Bernini’s Baroque style is to contrast it with Renaissance style. During the Renaissance, David was a popular subject among sculptors, with the most famous being Michelangelo’s masterpiece. Bernini’s David, however, is markedly different from Michelangelo’s David and other sculptures of the Renaissance. Bernini was the first to depict David in the middle of the battle in action. Renaissance sculptors usually depicted David after his victory or, as in the case with Michelangelo, before the fight with Goliath. Bernini’s sculpture also shows incredible emotion and movement, while Michelangelo’s shows David in a stationary, pensive state. The two sculptures really illustrate the contrast in styles between the Renaissance and the Baroque.

There are several connections that can be made between the David sculpture and Scipione. First, it is interesting to note that this culpture is one of the few works with a biblical reference in Scipione’s collection. The David, then, may have been a way for Scipione to highlight his relation to the church. Next, the story of a victorious underdog may symbolize the Church’s triumph over the pagans. Finally, the eagle (the symbol of the Borghese family) on the lyre beneath David’s feet, ties the Borghese family to a story of victory.

The last three sculptures that Scipione commissioned really showed why Bernini is considered the best sculptor in the Baroque era. However, he was not only the best, but the first to really embrace the Baroque style, setting the stage for future artists to follow in his footsteps. Even today, visitors of Borghese Gallery marvel at Bernini’s talent. Viewers are pulled in by the realism and feel the emotion and action of the characters as if they were part of the scene. His ability to instill movement and emotion into and tell stories through a still marble sculpture was truly astonishing. However, the David was the last major private commission that he completed. While he was still working on the David, Bernini’s good friend Maffeo Barberini was elected Pope Urban VIII and Bernini would enter a new period in his career. He would no longer have time for private commissions and his future works would be on a much grander scale.

Bibliography
Baldinucci, Filippo. The Life of Bernini. University Park: Pennsylvania State ?University Press, 1996.

Fiore, Kristina Herrmann. Guide to the Borghese Gallery. Roma: Edizioni De Luca Srl for the Minister of Culture and the Environment, 1997.

Hibbard, Howard. Bernini. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966.

Kenseth, Joy. “Bernini's Borghese Sculptures: Another View.” Art Bulletin. 63.2 (1981): 191-210.

Magnuson, Torgil. Rome in the Age of Bernini. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982.

Moreno, Paolo, and Chiara Stefani. The Borghese Gallery. Milano: Touring Club Italiano, 2000.

Ovid. Metamorphoses.

Scribner, Charles. Gianlorenzo Bernini. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1991.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque. New York: Phaidon Press, 1997.