Rome and Farnese Patronage:
Reinventing Antiquity

Carol Martens

Rome was shaped by both the grandiose ambitions of its most prominent citizens and by the sentiments of the more modest individu­als who bustled about the citys streets. It was in the streets that public commentary was lobbied against the church in the form of sarcastic, often political poems called pasquinades. In addition, the indecorous acts of the Sack of Rome of 1527 further threatened the church. Alessandro Farnese, who became Pope Paul III in 1534, was an avid participant in urban construction and planning. The Farnese popes projects included a new design for the Capitoline Hill and his own Palazzo Farnese. These buildings offered visual evidence for the pres­tige and potency of the Farnese family and the papal office. At the same time, they were made with a heightened consciousness of the movement of crowds through the streets.

           The antique statuary fragment Pasquino, originally Menelaus mourning the dead body of Patroclus, was placed outside the home of Cardinal Carafa early in the sixteenth century. Pasquino became a forum for sixteenth century literature of disillusionment and satire (Partner 1976: 202). Expressions of disillusionment took the form of the pasquinade, a hybrid of the neo-Latin epigram and the medie­val tradition of political lampoon (Partner 1976: 202). High-ranking church officials, cardinals and popes, were especially susceptible to the anonymous verbal affronts of Pasquino. Even Paul III fell victim to the libelous obscenity of a pasquinade, in which he is said to have died in childbirth, having aborted two stillborn cardinals (Partner 1976: 202-203). Such a claim undermined the authority of the pope, suggesting his feminization and his unfulfilled aspirations of status and papal ascendance for his own descendents.  

           Pasquinos commentary was not limited only to popes. He engaged in critique of the church institution in its entirety, often in dialogue with Marforio,  a sculpture of a Roman River God located in the Forum. In one exchange, Pasquino stated, there can be no worse Devils in Hell than the Pope and his wicked Tribe of Priests (N.C. 2), attacking not only the pope, but his ecclesiastical circle as well. Later, Pasquino besmirches monastic communities claiming, the Habit of a Monk is a Habit that cloaks great vices, and covers a multitude of insufferable Sins (N.C. 1674: 179). Monks in Rome were more likely to have been involved in local parishes. Thus, Pasquino subverted church authority, in its more provincial, local parish incarnations, and in the pinnacle of its power, the papacy. Since Pasquino and Marforio were located in public spaces on street level, their conversations and their opinions were readily accessible to the public. One can imagine the discourse of Marforio and Pasquino reflected conversation among those walking among the streets. The use of antique statues for satire was indicative if nostalgia for a more likely than not fantastic notion of the ancient state of imperial Rome.

           The Sack of Rome of 1527, like Pasquinos vituperative verse, wrought humiliation upon the elite of Rome,  According to one author, The grandest nobles, the richest and most refined prelates, cardinals, courtiers, merchants, and citizens . . . were all treated more cruelly and with less respect in proportion to their rank (Guicciardini 1993: 107). The more prestigious the person, the more he was punished by the invading soldiers of the Sack. Prominent church officials such as card­inals were common targets.  The treatment of one cardinal is described, For the sake of ridicule and punishment, they carried Cardinal Araceoli one day in a bier through every street in Rome as if he were dead . . . (Guicciardini 1993: 108).  Parading the cardinal throughout the streets produced a highly visible display, a parody of the sump­tuous religious processions of the pope and his cardinals. In addition, this procession was a sign of their triumph over the church. People were not the only victims of the Sack. Buildings, cultural treasure troves, also were pillaged,  as . . . the barrels of their arabesques were made of solid gold stripped from the altars and holy places of Rome (Guicciardini 1993: 113). Not even the holy spaces of Rome were immune to the grievous and destructive behavior of the citys infil­trators.

           It was in the streets of the Sack of Rome, of talking statues and their prolific, characteristically acerbic criticism, that Alessandro Farnese, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) sought to create lasting monuments. Upon his election to the papacy, Paul III altered the course of and expanded his slowly progressing Palazzo Farnese, or Farnese Palace on the Via Giulia. The Via Giulia was itself a dazzling showcase of Rome, a hub of perpetual display (Bajard 1997: 62). The palace design, initiated by Sangallo, was taken over by Michelangelo. The result was a massive yet elegant structure, capped by a heavy cornice. With its enormous scale and imposing design program, the Palazzo Farnese was a monumental instrument of propaganda (Ackerman 1986: 171).

           Although intended in part as a testimony to his familys repute, the Palazzo Farnese  also served a public function. Paul III purchased property around his palace to provide it more space and to distinguish his monument from those around it. Other properties were cleared to make room for the palace using the privilege of eminent domain. The pope could claim land, even if it was inhabited, for the cause of urban improvement. Sangallos adjustments for the palace are described,

To open up the Via Baullari in the direction of the Piazza Navona in exact  alignment to the main entrance of the palace, he had dozens of houses demolished, and in front of the building laid out a huge square from where the entire faade was visible. (Bajard 1997: 65-67).

Writer Annibale Caro mentions such a practice in his play, The Scruffy Scoundrels.  When two characters, Pilucca and Barbagrigia discuss the removal of a womans home, they dismiss it as an honor, with the words, Well, there could be no greater glory than falling to make way for a work of such splendor (p. 10).  A third char­acter, Demetrio adds, What a beautiful palace!  What a splendid piazza! Oh, magnificent Rome! (p. 10). The splendor of the palace seems to exceed by far the inconvenience of removal. One should consider, however, the plays motivations, as Caro wrote the play for the Farnese family.

           In the dialogue from Caros play, the beautiful palace is soon conflated with the city of Rome, which is called magnificent because of the palace. The lavish private palaces of the city, such as the Palazzo Farnese, provided visual identification and a source of pride and enjoyment for the citys inhabitants. In addition, the palaces impressed upon viewers the notion of Romes wealth. The flagrant opu­lence of palaces was also intended, ironically as a deterrent. Court fig­ure Paolo Cortesi admonishes, the sight of the sumptuous cardinals palaces will easily deter the admiring multitude from doing harm (Cortesi 1980:  89). Despite the effort to maintain a distance from the public, the Farnese Palace included a piazza, a public space for a view of the palace, a casual gathering, or perhaps a spectacle.

           The provision of public amusement in the space outside ones pal­ace was not a novel phenomenon. Cardinal Riario, a patron of theater, staged public performances in front of his own palace. However, the clearing of space and manipulation of roads near the Farnese Palace and its sheer size made the palace a useful landmark. In fact, Pilucca of The Scruffy Scoundrels having recently returned to Rome becomes lost. He asks in frustration, Wheres the Farnese Palace, anyway? (Caro 1980: 7),  as though the Farnese Palace was among the easiest and ordinarily most memorable places to locate. The creation of a palace was its own theatrical endeavor. It is evident from the displacement of people and the expansion of roads necessary for the palace of Paul III that the construction of a palace was a highly orchestrated effort to present ones character and role in the city. The complete visual access­ibility of the Farnese Palace faade from the piazza demonstrated out­ward appearances, the performative aspect of the cardinals behavior was of primary importance. The act of walking through the space of the palace and its piazza was indeed a staged experience, a highly constructed architectural experience of privilege and clerical office.

           The popes image was under greater scrutiny in the wake of the Sack of Rome. The Farnese Palace, with its great size and generous piazza responded to the consequent rise in public attention and expecta­tion. Having suffered numerous insults in 1527, the church and its offi­cials attempted to reclaim the glory they had enjoyed before the Sack. The Palazzo Farnese marked an attempt to return to ecclesiastical hier­archy and civil order. The Palaces  intent  to inspire peace and order­liness is seen in its regular, balanced faade composition. The main entrance has an equal number of doors on either side. The upper stories are decorated with classical string coursing, corbels, and windows with alternating triangular and rounded pediments, making the faade even more dignified, and as Cortesi would hope, formidable.

           The notions of governing and civil order were also present in the plans of Paul III to redesign the Capitoline Hill. Paul III started his renovations with the transfer of a statue of Marcus Aurelius from the Laterine Church to the Middle of the Capitoline Hill. Marcus Aure­lius, a Roman sculpture dating from the second century C. E., was a large image of a Roman emperor on horseback, which symbolized strong rule, justice, and clemency. In moving Marcus Aurelius onto the Capitoline, Paul III was constructing an image of his rule, the rule of the pope, aligned with old ideas of imperial Rome. Thus he added ancient pedi­gree to papal claims of legitimacy and satiated nostalgic recollections of antique Rome,  a time and place which seemed more secure than the sixteenth century city in which they lived.

           Paul III took particular interest in the Capitoline Hill as a result of the humiliation he had felt due to its condition during the procession of Emperor Charles V (Partridge 1996: 27). The new plan for the Capi­toline Hill attempted, as the construction of the Farnese Palace had done, to restore organization to Rome through images of consolidated power and efficacious government.

           Other pieces of antique statuary in addition to Marcus Aurelius were drawn into the Capitoline renovations. At the end of the rampart designed to facilitate entrance on horseback stood two large Horse-tamers. The Horse-tamers were thought to represent Alexander the Great with his Horse Bucephalus and to have been carved as a contest between the famous Greek sculptors Phidias and Praxitiles.  The sig­nificance of Alexander the Great for Paul III was autobiographical, since his name was Alessandro. The message of the Horse-tamers was one of domination. Walking up the rampart, one first encountered the rearing horses being tamed. Once inside the Hill, one found Marcus Aurelius, representing Paul III, watching over the Hill judiciously from his placid horse. Marcus Aureliuss tame horse signals his strength and leadership. The emperors mastery of his horse was translated into the reign the pope who had placed the sculpture in the midst of the Capi­toline, Paul III.

           Also contributing to the grandeur of the Hill were two river gods, the Tiber, formerly the Tigris, and the Nile, from the Baths of Con­stantine. The river gods were quite large, indicating the extent of papal domain. Together, Tiber and Nile were part of a visual program of papal propaganda. They acted in concert with Marcus Aurelius and the Horse-tamers to bolster the idea of pope as a new sovereign, a modern incarnation of a Roman emperor. The function of the Nile and the Tiber, then, was antithetical to the purpose of Pasquinos partner in conversa­tion, the river god Marforio. Marforio corroborates Pasquinos efforts to undermine papal and church claims of sovereignty, while the Tiber and Nile act to substantiate the popes claims. One wonders if the choice of river gods was made in response to Marforio, or if it was a function of Renaissance fantasia, Renaissance fascination with and fanciful imag­inings of ancient sculpture.

           The Capitoline Hill of Paul III was a public space much like the piazza in front of the Farnese Palace. At the same time, it was a per­sonal monument bearing the signs of Paul III. Experience, however, did not always mirror intention. Voices that were not petrified in stone monuments were nonetheless recorded in literature. The lively street culture, the everyday experience of Rome is vividly conveyed in Annibale Caros play and the pasquinades. It is from the intersection of literature and art, of page and monument, that a more complete view of life in Rome after the Sack of 1527 can start to be comprehended, and the consequences of papal building projects may become more evident.  

References

Ackerman, James.1986.The Architecture of Michelangelo. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bajard, Sophie and Bencini, Rafaello. 1997. Rome Palaces and Gardens. Ed. Jean-Claud Duboot and Jean-Francois Gonthier. Paris: Finast SA/Editions Terrail.

Caro, Annibale. 1980. The Scruffy Scoundrels. Trans. Massimo Ciavioletta and Donald Bleecher. Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Cortesi, Paolo. 1980. De Cardinaletu, Studies in Italian Art and Architecture. Ed. M.A. Millon. Cambridge : MIT Press.

Guicciardini, Luigi. 1993. The Sack of Rome. Trans. James H. McGregor. New York: Italica Press.

N.C. 1674. Pasquin Risen from the Dead: Or, His Own Relation of a Late Voyage He Made to the Other World, in a Discourse with his Friend Marforio. London: Printed by J.C. for N.C.

Partner, Peter. 1976. Renaissance Rome 1500-1559. Berkeley : University of California Press.

Partridge, Lauren. 1996. The Art of Renaissance Rome, 1400-1600. New York: Harry N. Abrams.