# data[].attributes.body
A dilemma faced by both the post-1870 liberal government and the Fascist party was the issue of how to reconcile two conflicting agendas when it came to city planning in Rome. Both regimes needed to modernise the city in some way; the Liberals needed to make Rome and its infrastructure suitable for its new role as the modern capital city of the recently unified Italian state, and the Fascists wanted to transform the city into an embodiment of their supposedly ground-breaking plans for the future of unified Italy. However, both regimes also understood the symbolic importance of preserving Rome’s ancient heritage and working it into their political narrative.[1] This project will explore the issues of heritage preservation and modernisation in Liberal and Fascist Rome and argue that while the issue itself was nothing new, the approaches taken by the two regimes were quite different from one another, with the Fascists being much more willing to use demolition as a tool in both their modernising and heritage preservation projects.[2]

[1] John Agnew. “‘Ghosts of Rome’: The Haunting of Fascist Efforts at Remaking Rome as Italy’s Capital City”. Annali d’Italianistica 28. (2010). p.179
[2] Peter Aicher. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. Classical Bulletin 76, 2. (2000). pp.120-121

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 1. Lanciani's groundbreaking 1901 map of Rome detailed the different layers of Roman history.

# data[].attributes.body
The first and main problem encountered by both regimes was the result of the state in which they found the city when they came to power. While both the Liberal and Fascist regimes wanted to refashion Rome in their own images and for their own purposes, Rome’s long and complex history made this an impossible task unless they wanted to take the same route as was taken in Paris and completely reconstruct the city from scratch after demolishing the old one.[3] This was not an option in Rome as the monuments to its history, particularly its ancient history, were considered too important to nation/empire-building projects and political rhetoric as both regimes idealised the Roman Empire as the blueprint for a strong, unified Italy with Rome as its capital.[4] This meant that, when designing their plans for their ideal capital city, the new governments were not working with a blank canvas – they instead had to incorporate, compete with, and in some cases demolish, structures from the urban palimpsest of Rome’s over two-thousand-year long history.[5] For this reason, a major conundrum for both the Liberal and Fascist governments would revolve around deciding which parts of Rome’s history needed to stay, and how best to incorporate them into the ‘new’ city that each regime was trying to create.

[3] Agnew. “‘Ghosts of Rome’. p.183
[4] Aicher. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. p.118
[5] Agnew. “‘Ghosts of Rome’”. p.183

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 2. The Lanciani map comprised 46 plates and was colour coded; black for ancient structures, red for modern, blue for planned changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 3. The Pantheon during the flood of 1870

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to 1870, Rome had grown organically over the course of many centuries with minimal attempts at city planning, meaning the city taken from the Catholic Church was troubled with poor sanitation, narrow, congested streets, and underdeveloped infrastructure.[6] For Rome to function properly as the capital city of the newly unified Kingdom of Italy, it required a lot of modernisation in order to accommodate the rapid increase of population, traffic, and new governmental activities.[7] However, in some regards, it was the city’s anachronism that had made it the ideal choice for the capital of Italy due to the supposedly unifying potential of its ancient Roman heritage.[8] For this reason, city planning in Rome post-1870 was shaped by debates over the level of interference allowed in the old city, with some arguing for the building of new government ministries alongside the ancient monuments, some suggesting the repurposing of old papal buildings, and some demanding the complete preservation of Rome’s heritage, with all modern projects relegated to a new administrative centre built outside of the old city.[9] The evolution of Rome during the Liberal era can thus be viewed as the result of trying to find a compromise between all of these different viewpoints.[10]

[6] Jessica Maier. The Eternal City: A History of Rome in Maps. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2020). p.158
[7] Maier. The Eternal City. p.158
[8] John Agnew. “The Impossible Capital: Monumental Rome Under Liberal and Fascist Regimes, 1870‐1943”. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography80,4. (1998). p.230
[9] Frank Costa. “Urban Planning in Rome from 1870 to the First World War”. GeoJournal, 24. (1991). p.269
[10] Costa. “Urban Planning in Rome from 1870 to the First World War”. p.269

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 4. Depiction of the construction of the Tiber River embankments, c.1880s

# data[].attributes.body
Despite protest from the preservationist camp over any interference in the pre-existing urban landscape of Rome, on the whole, far more was preserved than was demolished, and arguably most of the demolition that did occur was done out of necessity, such as the demolishing of certain neighbourhoods in order to accommodate the River Tiber embankments and protect the city from regular catastrophic flooding.[11] Viviani’s master plan for Rome was ratified in 1883 and prioritised the modernisation of Rome’s infrastructure, but it did so in a way that still valued the preservation of the city’s heritage.[12]

[11] Costa. “Urban Planning in Rome from 1870 to the First World War”. p.271
[12] Terry Kirk. “The Political Topography of Modern Rome, 1870-1936: Via XX Settembre to Via Dell’Impero”. In Rome: Continuing Encounters between Past and Present. Dorigen Caldwell, and Lesley Caldwell, (Eds.). (London: Routledge, 2016). p.116

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 5. Viviani's master plan of 1883, showing the plans for expansion in red, and demolition for the opening and widening of roads in yellow.

# data[].attributes.body
For example, the Corso Vittorio Emanuele II was designed out of the need for more modern roads that could handle the volume of traffic typical of a growing capital.[13] The road served a nationalistic purpose as well and created a symbolic path from the Vatican to the new centre of secular authority at the foot of the Monument to Victor Emanuele, but instead of cutting straight through the centre of the old papal city, it was designed to expertly weave around the most important buildings, churches, and monuments.[14] Through their commemoration of Italy’s first king, the Corso Vittorio Emanuele II and its bridge, the Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II, symbolically connect the heritage sites of Rome’s many layers with the monument to the monarchy at the centre.[15] This road is an example of the Liberal government’s main method of dealing with the relics of Rome’s past eras; through the act of the ‘patriotic building’ of monuments and thoroughfares in specific locations, the Liberal Regime attempted to ‘challenge the singular association of the Church with the most sacred sites in the city’ and instead associate those sites with the modernity of the new ‘third Rome’.[16]

[13] Kirk. “The Political Topography of Modern Rome”. p.117
[14] Carroll L. V. Meeks. Italian Architecture 1750-1914. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966). pp.319-320
[15] Terry Kirk. “The Image of King Vittorio Emanuele II and the Remaking of Rome”. The Court Historian 13, 1. (2008). pp.35-49, P.47
[16] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. p.231

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 6. The curved Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, c.1915

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 7. Sella's proposed location for the new administrative centre of the city.

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest change to the city-form of Rome made during the Liberal era was the shifting of the spiritual and administrative centres eastward, away from the old papal city that centred around the Vatican.[17] However, the fate of the new government ministries reveals, once again, the conflict between the need to preserve Rome’s heritage and the need to impose modernity on the city. An early plan by Quintino Sella called for the development of a new administrative centre separate from the old papal city, with the government buildings concentrated in one area.[18] This plan would offer more freedom of design and remove the issue of having to fit the new buildings into the fabric of the old city, but, due to lack of funds and centralised city planning, it was eventually only partially realised through the construction of the Ministry of Finance along Via XX Settembre, with the rest of the ministries being scattered across the old city, some in purpose-built structures, but many in repurposed monastic and Renaissance-era buildings.[19] The ongoing ‘Roman Question’ also played a role, as both the use of former papal buildings for the politics of the new regime, and the strategic placement of new buildings designed as ‘secular shrines’ to Liberalism, undermined the sovereignty of the Vatican, its heritage, and its influence over the old city.[20] Overall, the Liberal regime’s impact on the old city was minimal in terms of demolition of pre-existing buildings, but attempts were made to symbolically alter the city’s papal heritage and identity through the imposition of monuments to the Risorgimento and the new government.

[17] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital. p.231
[18] Costa. “Urban Planning in Rome from 1870 to the First World War”. p.272
[19] Maier. The Eternal City. pp.160-161
[20] Terry Kirk. The Architecture of Modern Italy. Vol I: The Challenge of Tradition, 1750–1900. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005). p.246

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 8. Ariel view of the Palace of Justice and St. Peter's Basilica, showing their close proximity to each other, c.1920

# data[].attributes.body
In the grand scheme of things, city planning under the Liberal government was relatively mindful of preserving the heritage of Rome, however, it is also worth considering which sections of the old city were sacrificed in the name of modernisation and nation-building, and at what cost. Despite the aims of modernisation, much of the Liberal government’s early attempts at city planning failed to address the issue of housing Rome’s growing population, particularly its working-class residents who were more often than not the ones displaced when their residential areas were deemed unworthy of preservation when land was needed for the construction of new roads and monuments.[21] This reveals an element of inequality present in the decision making processes of which parts of Rome’s heritage were privileged with preservation and deemed too important to the city and kingdom’s national heritage to be demolished. Not only were working-class histories pushed aside, but living working-class people were ignored by the state and forced to relocate to slums on the edges of the city.[22] It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that city planning in Rome became more socially sensitive under the influence of mayor Ernesto Nathan.[23]

[21] Rabun Taylor, Katherine Wentworth Rinne, and Spiro Kostof. Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). p.319
[22] Taylor, et al. Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present. pp.320-321
[23] Giorgio Piccinato. “Rome: Where Great Events not Regular Planning Bring Development”. In Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, edited by Gordon, David. (London and New York: Routledge, 2006). p.215

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 9. Unplanned settlements (baracche) that developed along the city walls, c.Early-1900s

# data[].attributes.body
When the Fascists came to power in Italy in the 1920s, they, like the Liberal government before them, faced the issue of how best to assert their authority and leave their mark on the capital and struggled to reconcile two contradictory approaches. On the one hand, Fascist ideology claimed to be modern and ever-evolving, but on the other hand, the Fascists relied on ideas of nationalism and a shared history to unify their members.[24] Over the course of his reign, Mussolini, who quickly became emblematic of the entire party and ideology through his cult of personality, grew more enamoured with the ‘myth of Rome’ and how it could be utilised to provide credence to Fascism’s imperial ambitions.[25] While Mussolini was not the first to mine the ruins of the ‘eternal city’ for political symbolism, his methods of doing so were uniquely destructive compared to those of his predecessors.[26]

[24] Borden Painter. Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005). pp.2-3
[25] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. p.235
[26] Peter Aicher. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. Classical Bulletin 76, 2. (2000). pp.120-121

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the 1930s, the Fascist regime’s method of heritage management reflected their attitude towards Rome’s history, which glorified the ancient Roman Empire and ignored or abhorred every subsequent iteration of the city.[27] While the Liberals had made relatively minor interventions into the pre-existing landscape of Rome, Mussolini authorised a series of extensive demolition projects in order to ‘isolate’ ancient ruins from the rest of Rome’s eras and ‘reframe’ them in a way that associated their ‘Romaness’ with the new Fascist modernity.[28] A prime example of this was the reconfiguration of the area surrounding the Mausoleum of Augustus, in which the ancient monument was ‘freed’ from the Medieval and Renaissance buildings that supposedly obscured it, and incorporated into a new piazza, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, framed by new Fascist-approved constructions.[29] The design of the new buildings synthesised ancient and modern Fascist architecture and was meant to signify a continuity between the two eras.[30] As well as recognising the significance of the cult of romanità in this era – that being the celebration of ancient Rome as integral to the creation of a modern unified Italy – the whole project is best understood within the context of the Fascist presentation of Mussolini as a modern-day Roman emperor.[31]

[27] Mazzoni, Cristina. “Capital City: Rome 1870-2010”. Annali d’Italianistica 28. (2010). p.18
[28] Aristotle Kallis. “‘Framing’ Romanità: The Celebrations for the Bimillenario Augusteo and the Augusteo – Ara Pacis Project”. Journal of Contemporary History 46, 4. (2011). p.823
[29] Kallis. “‘Framing’ Romanità”. pp.815-816
[30] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. p.233
[31] Maier. The Eternal City. p.162

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 10. The Mausoleum during its late-nineteenth-century use as a concert hall, surrounded by the neighbourhood that built up around it over the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 11. The Mausoleum and new surrounding Fascist buildings under construction, c.1937

# data[].attributes.body
Fascist propaganda in the 1930s leaned heavily on the idea that Mussolini was the re-embodiment of Emperor Augustus, presenting both men as heroes of Italy who restored order after years of conflict and corruption.[32] The demolition of buildings surrounding the mausoleum was justified as a means of bringing order and modernisation to Rome through the cutting of new streets to improve traffic circulation and clearing of neighbourhoods considered ‘unhygienic’ and unfit for purpose, as most instances of Fascist demolition were justified.[33] Destruction of heritage in the name of modernisation had occurred in the Liberal era as well, but the Fascists took it to a new extreme. For example, plans for the Via dell’Impero began during the Liberal era in the form of the creation of a narrow, curved street, but under Fascism entire functional neighbourhoods were cleared to make room for straight, wide thoroughfares through the heart of the ancient city, fit for military parades that symbolised the rebirth of ancient Roman imperial glory in the form of the new Fascist Empire.[34]

[32] Susan L. Fugate Brangers. “Political Propaganda and Archaeology: The Mausoleum of Augustus in the Fascist Era”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3,16. (2013). pp.2-3
[33] Agnew. “‘Ghosts of Rome’”. p.190
[34] Aicher. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. pp.120-121

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 12. The Alessandrino district in the ancient centre of Rome before extensive demolitions were carried out by the Fascists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 13. The Via dell'Impero carved straight through the ancient city, connecting the Colosseum and the Vittoriano.

# data[].attributes.body
However, when studying the urban history of Rome, it is important to differentiate between the political and symbolic intentions of a project, versus the actual results. Agnew argues that recent scholarship has tended to take propaganda at face value instead of investigating the urban, political, and social impacts of regimes’ attempts at ‘monumentality’.[35] While they differed in their approaches, the Liberal and Fascist regimes’ attempts to utilise both heritage and modernity in their national identities yielded similar results because neither regime was able to create and enforce a singular identity on the landscape of Rome.[36] This was due partly to the lack of a coherent and consistent vision for city planning, and partly due to the landscape of Rome itself, whose diverse and complex history ‘resisted’ the imposition of a singular interpretation that framed Roman heritage through the lens of a single ideology.[37] Rome’s many layers of history have no clearly defined separation between them, meaning modern additions often did not accomplish their intended symbolism and instead became integrated into the fabric of the city and its shaped by its many pre-existing, conflicting meanings.[38] Similarly, ancient monuments could not be so easily separated from their surroundings and uses in subsequent Romes, exemplified by the Mausoleum of Augustus which, once isolated from the surroundings that had incorporated it into the culture of the city over many eras, became remote and isolated from city life.[39] Despite being one of Rome’s largest piazzas, Piazza Augusto Imperatore is also one of its least well known due to issues of access and design, meaning it fails to live up to the grand and symbolic expectations that the Fascists had for it.[40]

[35] Agnew. “Ghosts of Rome”. p.179
[36] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. p.229
[37] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. p,229
[38] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. pp.235-236
[39] Fugate Brangers. “Political Propaganda and Archaeology”. p.7
[40] Fugate Brangers. “Political Propaganda and Archaeology”. p.6-7

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, the use and co-option of Rome’s complex heritage was a powerful tool for both the Liberal government and the Fascist regime as they attempted to impose modern political statements on the urban fabric of the city. Both regimes prioritised certain epochs over others and sacrificed heritage when they deemed it necessary for the modernisation of the city, be it through infrastructure or new political monuments, but the Fascists used demolition as a tool for city planning and heritage management at a level and pace that was unprecedented.[41] However, for all its usefulness, the urban palimpsest of Rome and its many eras of complex, interwoven histories, presented its own challenges to those attempting to co-opt its ruins and their symbolism. Different eras were not easily separated from one another, making the creation of a singular interpretation near-impossible.[42]

[41] Aicher. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. p.120
[42] Agnew. “The Impossible Capital”. pp.237-239

# data[].attributes.body
Agnew, John. “‘Ghosts of Rome’: The Haunting of Fascist Efforts at Remaking Rome as Italy’s Capital City”. Annali d’Italianistica 28. (2010). pp.179–198.

Agnew, John. “The Impossible Capital: Monumental Rome Under Liberal and Fascist Regimes, 1870‐1943”. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography80,4. (1998). pp.229-240.

Aicher, Peter. “Mussolini’s forum and the myth of Augustan Rome”. Classical Bulletin 76, 2. (2000). pp.117-139.

Costa, Frank. “Urban Planning in Rome from 1870 to the First World War”. GeoJournal, 24. (1991). pp.269-276.

Fugate Brangers, Susan L. “Political Propaganda and Archaeology: The Mausoleum of Augustus in the Fascist Era”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3,16. (2013).

Kallis, Aristotle. “‘Framing’ Romanità: The Celebrations for the Bimillenario Augusteo and the Augusteo – Ara Pacis Project”. Journal of Contemporary History 46, 4. (2011). pp.809-831.

Kirk, Terry. The Architecture of Modern Italy. Vol I: The Challenge of Tradition, 1750–1900. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005). pp.222-252.

Kirk, Terry. “The Image of King Vittorio Emanuele II and the Remaking of Rome”. The Court Historian 13, 1. (2008). pp.35-49.

Kirk, Terry. “The Political Topography of Modern Rome, 1870-1936: Via XX Settembre to Via Dell’Impero”. In Rome: Continuing Encounters between Past and Present. Dorigen Caldwell, and Lesley Caldwell, (Eds.). (London: Routledge, 2016).

Kostof, Spiro. “The Drafting of a Master Plan for “Roma Capitale”: An Exordium”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 35, 1. (1976). pp.4-20.

Maier, Jessica. The Eternal City: A History of Rome in Maps. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2020).

Mazzoni, Cristina. “Capital City: Rome 1870-2010”. Annali d’Italianistica 28. (2010). pp.13–29.

Meeks, Carroll L. V. Italian Architecture 1750-1914. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).

Painter, Borden. Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005).

Piccinato. Giorgio. “Rome: Where Great Events not Regular Planning Bring Development”. In Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, edited by Gordon, David. (London and New York: Routledge, 2006).

Taylor, Rabun, Katherine Wentworth Rinne, and Spiro Kostof. Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1. Lanciani, Rodolfo. Forma Urbis Romae. Index map. Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1901. From David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~308659~90078189:Synopsis-XLVI-Tabularum?sort=pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no (Accessed December 20, 2021)

Figure 2. Lanciani, Rodolfo. Forma Urbis Romae - 22-LL-fori-imperiali. Map. 1901. From Sights.Siendal.dk. https://sights.seindal.dk/other-images-sources/lanciani-forma-urbis-romae/ (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 3. Unknown photographer. [The Pantheon during the flood of 1870]. Photograph. 1870. https://www.atouchofrome.com/the_pantheon.html (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 4. Paolocci, Dante. Tiber embankment under construction, Rome. Drawing. 1889. De Agostini Editore Collection. https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/details-photo/tiber-embankment-under-construction-along-lungotevere-mellini-and-ripetta-rome-italy-engraving-from-a-drawing-by-dante-paolocci-from-l-illustrazione-italiana/DAE-B8014522 (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 5. Viviani, Allesandro. Piano Regolatore e di Ampliamento della città di Roma. City plan. 1883. From Archivo Capitolini. http://www.archiviocapitolino.it/ (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 6. Unknown photographer. [Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne, Corso Vittorio Emanuele II]. Photograph. 1915. From Roma Sparita | Foto Storiche. https://www.romasparita.eu/foto-roma-sparita/49129/palazzo-massimo (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 7. Kostof, Spiro. [Viminal and Quirinal Hills: Plan of 1873 and revised Plan of 1881]. From “The Drafting of a Master Plan for “Roma Capitale”: An Exordium”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 35, 1. (1976). p.10

Figure 8. Unknown photographer. Palace of Justice, Prati District, Rome. Photograph. September 1920. From L’Illustrazione Italiana no.38.

Figure 9. Unknown photographer. [Via dell’Acquedetto Felice]. Photograph. c.Early 1900s. From From Roma Sparita | Foto Storiche. https://www.romasparita.eu/foto-roma-sparita/1904/via-dellacquedotto-felice (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 10. Unknown photographer. [The Augusto Concert Hall]. Photograph. c.1870s-1930s. From Rome on Rome. https://romeonrome.com/2014/12/2014-saving-the-mausoleum-of-augustus/ (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 11. Unknown photographer. [Restoration of Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome]. c.1937. From https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Piazza_Augusto_Imperatore (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 12. Unknown photographer. [Alessandro district]. Photograph. c.1930s. From https://colosseum.info/de/the-roman-forum-via-fori-imperiali/ (Accessed December 22, 2021)

Figure 13. Unknown photographer. [Ariel view of the Via dell’Impero]. Photograph. c.1937. From Atkinson, D. and Cosgrove, D. “Urban Rhetoric and Embodied Identities: City, Nation, and Empire at the Vittorio Emanuele II Monument in Rome, 1870–1945”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88. (1998). p.29