Ronald T. Ridley
The short reign of Leo XII (September 1823 - February 1829) in relation to the Roman antiquarian world was shaped by the French occupation 1807-1814 with its tumultuous programme of clearances of the classical remains1, and the struggle (mostly successful) follow-ing the Congress of Vienna (1815) for the return of the master works ceded under the Treaty of Tolentino (1797).
His reign may have been short, but it fell in a time of intense ar-chaeological activity and research, marking indeed a strong progres-sion from the strictly antiquarian focus of the eighteenth century, and presaging what we would recognise today as archaeology. This activity would have been unthinkable without the striking combina-tion of people in Rome in the 1820s, who were capable of amazing plans and visions, and who at one and the same time cooperated with, and at times bitterly opposed, each other.
At the head of them all was the commissario di antichità, Carlo Fea (1753-1836), in office from 1800 until his death2 . He may have been vainglorious and offensively combative, but he was the most effec-tive commissioner of them all, because he was a graduate in law from the Sapienza ‒ and determined to uphold the laws in the defence of Rome’s cultural patrimony, which was under constant threat of destruction or export. He was ably seconded by Giuseppe Valadier (1762-1839), the leading neo-classical architect, who, as architect of the sacred palaces and assistant at the Vatican, repaired and restored church after church, but was also the indefatigable devisor of plans
1 R. Ridley, The eagle and the spade: Archaeology in Rome during the Napoleonic era, Cambridge 1992.
2 Idem, The pope’s archaeologist: the life and times of Carlo Fea, Rome 2000.
for restoration of classical monuments, most notably already the round temple by the Tiber (1810) and the arch of Titus (1820-1824).
An unsung hero in this field is, however, the all too easily overlooked Filippo Aurelio Visconti (1754-1831), son of Giovanni Battista, com-missario 1768-1784, and brother of Winckelmann’s successor as the preeminent art historian, Ennio Quirino (1751-1818), who had to flee to France in 1799 because of his prominent part in the Jacobin Republic. Filippo himself had briefly succeeded his father as com-missario (1784-1800), but on the establishment of the Consultative Commission for Fine Arts to assist the commissario in 1816, he be-came the permanent secretary until his death. The archives of the camerlengo contain thousands of pages of his meticulous reports.
Other leading antiquarians were Giuseppe Guattani (1748-1830), secretary of the Roman Academy of Archaeology from 1810, and professor of history and mythology at the Academy of St. Luke; An-gelo Uggeri (1754-1837), in Rome from 1788, author of Journées pit-toresques des édifices de Rome ancienne3, illustrating Rome and envi-rons; and Stefano Piale (1754-1835), outstanding topographer, who identified the temple of Mars Ultor4. Youngest of all was the brilliant Antonio Nibby (1792-1839), professor of archaeology at the Sapien-za from 1820. He had already distinguished himself by overturning centuries of ignorance with his identification in 1819 of the basilica of Maxentius (not the Flavian temple of Peace!)5.
These local leading figures were joined by a number of foreign diplo-mats, undoubtedly classically trained, but also often anxious to take home collections of antiquities. Foremost were the French ambassa-dors. Pierre duc de Blacas d’Aulps, ambassador 1816-1822, financed Fea’s work on the temple of Castor and Pollux (1816-1818). The
Prus-3 A. Uggeri, Journées pittoresques des édifices de Rome ancienne, Prus-30 vols., Rome 1800-1834.
4 R. Ridley, The forgotten topographer: Stefano Piale, “Xenia Antiqua”, IX, 2000, pp.179-200.
5 Francesco Cancellieri (1752-1826), expert in Church history, is explicitly exclud-ed from the circle of the antiquarians by his biographer A. Petrucci, in Dizio-nario Biografico degli Italiani (henceforth DBI), XVII, 1974, pp. 736-742.
sian chargé d’affaires in succession to the great historian Barthold Georg Niebuhr was Christian Bunsen, who served 1823-1838. Very active in matters archaeological was the Portughese ambassador, Do-mingo Antonio de Sousa Coutinho, count Funchal (1760-1833), who served 1814-1817, but remained in Rome. He had already financed Fea’s work on the temple of Concord (1817).
These figures all knew each other very intimately, and had a num-ber of venues for meeting. One was perhaps the most famous coffee-house in the city, the Caffè Nuovo in the ground floor of the great palazzo Ruspoli, two thirds of the way up the Corso on the left hand side. More formally there were the salons. The one most attractive to antiquarians was that presided over by Marianna Boccapadula Dio-nigi (1756-1826), at 310 via del Corso. She was herself a classicist, linguist, musician and painter, member of both the Academy of the Arcadia and of St. Luke6.
In a letter of 9 December 1822, too much quoted to be omitted, Giacomo Leopardi gave a damning account of «literature» in Rome at this time. He claimed that «I have not been able to find a Roman liter-ary figure who understands by literature anything but archaeology».
This must be considered an extraordinary statement by any account, but it has been constantly quoted out of context, which the next sen-tence, even more extraordinary, provides: «Philosophy, morals, poli-tics knowledge of the human heart, eloquence, poetry, philology ‒ all this is foreign to Rome, and seems a child’s game, like seeing if a piece of metal or stone belongs to Mark Antony or Marcus Agrippa»7.
The early nineteenth century is not well treated in general ac-counts of the period. Fiorella Bartoccini named many of the above
«antiquarians, between archaeologists and historians», whom she also described inscrutably as «more or less moving from a pure inter-est in description to philological rigour». This is far from an adequate description. They were, however, appreciated by Italians and
foreign-6 S. Rinaldi di Tufi, in DBI, XVII, 1974, pp.777-779.
7 G. Leopardi, Lettere, M. Capucci, Florence 1958, p. 258. F. Bartoccini, Roma nell’Ottocento, Bologna 1974, p. 323 who quotes the letter, notes that the stress on the past was cultivated by the papal government.
ers alike, who came to Rome for study, and were made welcome8. She goes on to list many journals of the time, but without dates or names of editors. To our decade, in fact, may be assigned the dissertations of the Pontifical Academy (from 1821) and the Memorie romane di antichità e belle arti (1824-1827), edited by Luigi Cardinali9.
The world of the antiquarian in Rome had changed dramatically from the previous century. In the eighteenth century, the traditional definition of such a person was unflattering: a narrow expert, pri-marily interested in local history, and in objects, especially those of his own collections, mainly to reconstruct social history. A prime ex-ample of this would seem to be the leading representative in Rome of the first half of the eighteenth century, Francesco de Ficoroni, whose books were essentially unsystematic catalogues of his own collec-tions, and who had a strong interest in his own birth place. His col-lections, however, were far from limited, numbering up to five hun-dred examples or more, and his professional contacts covered all of western Europe10. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, these men were more likely university trained, and it is suggested that new careers were available, notably that of museum director ‒ but these posts had been available for ages; for example, the Kircherian mu-seum from 1652 and the Capitoline from 1734. And an emphasis on primary sources was anything but a new development11.
8 The Germans would find that was qualified: see below.
9 Bartoccini, Roma nell’Ottocento cit., pp. 323-324.
10 R. Ridley, The prince of antiquarians: Francesco de Ficoroni, Rome 2017 (forth-coming).
11 G. Salmeri, L’antiquaria italiana dell’Ottocento, in Lo studio del mondo antico nella cultura italiana dell’Ottocento, ed. L. Polverini, Naples 1993, pp. 267-298, at pp.
269, 275, 282 (quoting Croce). The first professor of archaeology in Rome was Emanuel Loewy 1890-1915, whereas it was taught at Göttingen by Christian Heyne from 1767: Settis, Dal centro alla periferia: l’archeologia degli italiani nel secolo XIX, in Lo studio del mondo antico cit., pp. 301-334. Winckelmann had stressed autopsy of the monuments. It is hilarious to note that Heyne suggested that losing sight of the literary sources was a disadvantage of living in Rome ‒ where he had never set foot!
Laws and regulations
The minister in charge of antiquities was the camerlengo: Cardi-nal Bartolomeo Pacca (1814-1824), succeeded by Pier Francesco Gal-leffi (1824-1837).
Shortly before Leo’s accession, a famous edict had been issued in April 1820 in the name of Pacca. This was the most important at-tempt by the government to regulate antiquarian activities since the equally famous edict of 1802, which controlled especially export abroad of any antiquities, and enacted that all excavations were to be licensed and supervised12. This revision of the edict of 1802 was the result of a struggle between the camerlengo and the treasurer for control of the ancient monuments13.
There followed a supplement in 1823, which reveals that there was need to regulate another activity that was obviously widespread and open to abuse: the study and copying of ancient monuments14. Scaffolding and ladders were being erected, causing not only ob-struction but also, more importantly, damage, and even more dan-gerous would have been the taking of moulds. Permission for study was henceforth to be under the control of the Academy of St. Luke15.
The application of the laws controlling antiquities
What was the effect of the new laws? Despite the upheavals and losses which Rome had suffered with her cultural patrimony since 1787, she was surrounded by royal collectors whose needs brooked no obstacle. No one could hold a candle to Ludwig I of Bavaria, to whom in 1819 the Barberini had sold the Faun which they had
de-12 Ridley, The pope’s archaeologist cit., pp.101-de-123.
13 Ivi, pp. 221-228.
14 This activity was a formal part of the activities of the pensionnaires of the Acad-emy of France. See the splendid volumes preserving their work: Roma antiqua.
Envois degli architetti francesi (1788-1924). L’area archeologica centrale, ed. F.-C.
Uginet, Rome 1985, especially during the reign of Leo, F.B. Lesueur, pp. 154-162; Grandi edifici pubblici, ed. P. Ciancio Rossetto, Rome 1992, especially M.
Griesheimer, pp. 74-84, and M. Royo, pp. 174-191.
15 Ridley, The pope’s archaeologist cit., pp. 255-256.
clared was an integral part of their identity. One of the other most famous collections in Rome was of the Giustiniani family, a collection being broken up at this very time. It must be emphasised that the worst enemies of the famous aristocratic collections were their debt-ridden owners, who were very resentful of what they saw as govern-ment intrusion in their rights over their “private property”. Ludwig demanded in 1825 five prize pieces: statues, a sarcophagus (singled out by Winckelmann) and a relief. The Consultative Commission as-sessed them, and declared only the life-size Vestal a unique work.
Ludwig’s agent, Staefflin, ridiculed the Commission and claimed that none of these works would be significant additions to the Vatican Museums. Why, then, one might ask, was Ludwig so desperate for them16?
Another case from 1825 cannot be equalled for bad manners and arrogance. Alexander Douglas, tenth duke of Hamilton, wished to ex-port two columns. They had been found in the sacristy of S. Giorgio in Velabro, and removed under false pretences, then sold illegally to Douglas by a sculptor. Two months had passed since his friend, the Portughese ambassador, count Funchal, had written to Galleffi; he therefore wrote again, ridiculing Fea, the commissario. Galleffi ex-plained the delay, and prodded the Consultative Commission. This sent Funchal into a fury. He meant Galleffi to speak directly to Leo!
It transpired that Douglas had, in fact, ruined the columns by having them “cleaned”. The Commission therefore allowed their export17!
And in 1828 again Ludwig demanded the herm of Demosthenes from the circus of Maxentius (see below). This time his agent, Me-hlem, claimed that the herm was only an “accessory” in the circus, and again, nothing special. It was, in fact, part of the entrance. Lud-wig was so shameless as to write to Leo thanking him for granting
16 Archivio di Stato di Roma (henceforth ASR), Camerlengato, p. II, tit. IV, b. 146, fasc. 25. R. Lanciani, Storia degli scavi, new ed., 7 vols., Rome 1989-2002, VI, pp. 304, 306 records another saga with Ludwig. In 1827 a beautiful sarcopha-gus featuring Alkestis was found at Ostia and secretly sold to him, but this was discovered by the Consultative Commission, which purchased the object for the Chiaramonti Museum.
17 ASR, Camerlengato, p. II, tit. IV, b. 156, fasc. 219.
the export licence, and offering as a token of gratitude a set of casts of the Aegina marbles18.
The classical monuments
The precise state of the main classical monuments is revealed in an expert report by the leading architect, Giuseppe Valadier, in Octo-ber 182319 in response to a request by Pacca for an indication of re-pairs needed. The main items listed in need by the architect were the Colosseum (as always), the arch of Titus, the temple of Antoninus and Faustina, the baths of Titus (the Domus Aurea), and the basilica of Maxentius. Encouraged by this interest, Valadier then submitted a much more extensive lists of repairs to virtually all the main mon-uments, and a request for 25,000 scudi. Almost 13,000 scudi were granted. This was a tribute to the government’s willingness to pay for the maintenance of the monuments of the classical past.
Work was, in fact, carried out at this time on a number of im-portant classical buildings. The markets of Trajan (then known as the baths of Aemilius Paullus) were in a very degraded and rubbish-ridden state. As a result of pressure from Fea and Valadier, work of clearing began early in 1823, and was mostly completed by early 1825. The clearances, in fact, required new walls to support the up-per levels20.
Major work was required on the mausoleum of Hadrian. Its foun-dations were suffering from damp and water was leaking from a cis-tern on the top floor. The fabric showed, indeed, serious weakness on one side. More information was needed, it was realized, about the structure of the building. Work began in 1823 which revealed the spiral ramp and the sepulchral chamber21.
18 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 184, fasc. 241. The pediment of the famous temple of Aigina was sold to J.Martin von Wagner, Ludwig’s agent, in 1813, was shipped to Rome in 1815, where the sculptures were restored by Thorvaldsen, and were on display in Munich from 1828.
19 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 454, fasc. 364.
20 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 158, fasc. 287; p. II, tit. IV, b. 195, fasc. 1002.
21 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 174, fasc. 603; Biblioteca Angelica Roma, ms. 1601, f. 186.
One of the most important and satisfying works to preserve a ma-jor monument was the construction of the second Colosseum but-tress, August 1824 - July 1826. This was the work of Valadier. Since the great earthquake in Petrarch’s time, most of the outer wall on the Caelian side of the amphitheatre had been lost, providing end-less building material for Roman entrepreneurs. The great brick but-tress on the northern side had been planned by Raffaele Stern (1774- 1820) after the earthquake of 1804, and was constructed 1806-1807.
The buttress is effective, but too massive. Valadier’s solution was a much lighter buttress, also of brick, imitating the three levels of the original building, but ‒ and this is the key ‒ allowing the observer to distinguish clearly this modern addition22.
In 1826 Fea proposed the clearance of the Porta Maggiore, the famous triple-level aqueduct, buried at that time in slums owned by the Barberini, who had been granted by their ancestor Urban VIII the right to collect tolls there. The proposal was supported by Nibby, Valadier and Visconti. Nothing was done until 183823.
The famous vault, the so-called Minerva Medica, had been in a par-lous state for centuries, with parts of the roof periodically falling in.
Repairs were estimated in 1826 to cost nearly 2,000 scudi. The Con-sultative Commission recommended the repairs be carried out, but it seems that they were not; for in July 1828 further parts of the vault collapsed24.
One of the main problems with the maintenance of the classical monuments was the invasion of plants. This was a special danger with the Colosseum, the basilica of Maxentius, all arches, and the pyramid of Cestius. Galleffi urged action on Fea in 1827, and it seems that the commissario spread herbicide all over the Forum25!
These details do not, however, succeed in bringing these famous
22 ASR, Camerlengato, p. I, tit. IV, b. 37; L. Canina, Sul ristabilmento e riparazione della parte media verso l’Esquilino dell’anfiteatro Flavio, in Dissertazioni - Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, XIV, 1860, pp. 169-194.
23 ASR, Camerlengato, p. II, tit. IV, b. 171, fasc. 522.
24 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 170, fasc. 480.
25 Ivi, p. II, tit. IV, b. 172, fasc. 530; p. II, tit. IV, b. 189, fasc. 720.
locations to life. For that we need the help of a description of the Forum by Percy Shelley, in the years immediately previous, in 1818:
L. Rossini, Il Foro romano dal volgo Campo Vaccino, 1836-1839, da “Viaggio pittoresco da Roma a Napoli…” (Roma 1839), tav. 11
The Forum is a plain in the middle of Rome, a kind of desart [sic] full of heaps of stones and pits and though so near the habita-tions of men, is the most desolate place you can conceive. The ruins of temples stand in and around it, shattered columns and ranges [that is, rows] of others complete, supporting cornices of exquisite workmanship, and vast vaults of shattered domes distinct with the regular compartments once filled with sculptures of ivory or of brass.
The temple of Jupiter and Concord, and Peace, and the Sun and the Moon, and Vesta are all within a short distance of this spot26.
26 P. Shelley, Letters, 2 vols., ed. F. Jones, Oxford 1964, II, p. 59. The temple of Concord is Saturn, that of the Sun and the Moon is Venus and Rome, that of Peace is the basilica of Maxentius.
Excavations
The archives reveal that licences to excavate were being sought and granted in enormous numbers at this time. This matter is, in fact, almost all that Rodolfo Lanciani had had time to begin amassing for the last volume of his Storia degli scavi. It is to be noted that one of the main stimuli to digging at this time was the search for columns for the rebuilding of S. Paolo27.
In 1824 a licence was granted to Duke Giovanni Torlonia to ex-cavate at the Circus of Caracalla (that is, of Maxentius, along the via Appia) and at the mausoleum of Caecilia Metella. This very impor-tant work was directed by Nibby and uncovered the carceres (starting-gates), the spina (central axis), the meta (turning points), the main entrance gate, an inscription of Maxentius’ son Romulus ‒ which thereby established the identity of the circus ‒ and, among other items of sculpture, the famous herm of Demosthenes. The portable finds were, following contemporary practice, removed to the aristo-cratic “owner’s” palace, where they were checked by the Consultative Commission, and it was ordered that nothing was to be removed from Rome. The bust of Demosthenes, however, again according to custom, had already been sold to Ludwig of Bavaria28!
In a class of its own, remarkable for its folly, was an “excavation”
carried out on the night of 2-3 January 1827 in the temple of
carried out on the night of 2-3 January 1827 in the temple of