Post on 29-Apr-2023
A Companion to Renaissance and Baroque Art, First Edition. Edited by Babette Bohn and James M. Saslow.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Growing up in an Italian neighborhood, I was witness to how men of a certain
generation would gather outside on street corners, porches, stairs, or parking lots
and spend hours together in what seemed aimless conversation. To my utilitarian
principles, this activity seemed to possess no clear goals nor serve any particular
purpose except to pass the time. It was only much later that I was able to under-
stand the importance of what they were doing, and that discovery began when
I first encountered the Italian city square (Italian, piazza). No one can forget one’s
first experience of such spaces as Venice’s Piazza San Marco (fig. 27.1), Florence’s
Piazza della Signoria (fig. 27.2), or Rome’s Piazza San Pietro (fig. 27.4); they
represent some of the most spectacular experiments in European urban design.
And like so many before me, I was immediately overwhelmed by the monumental
arcades, the richly decorated church façade, the elegant bell tower, and the expanse
of the lagoon that formed the basis of San Marco’s complicated beauty. What was
less immediately apparent, however, was that while I was consuming this spectacle,
the square itself was subtly performing modifications to my bodily and social
behavior – leading me in certain directions and forcing me to confront the move-
ment and presence of others who filled the square with their own desires and reac-
tions. Ultimately, I learned that the piazza was the concrete manifestation of the
street-corner chatter that I had witnessed in my youth. What Italians were doing
by whiling away the day in “idle” conversation was reconstructing the social space
of the piazza, whose concrete presence they had been forced to leave behind.
Mass emigration from Italy has been replaced by mass tourism to Italy, and it
was only when I put these two streams of human movement together that I was
able to understand how the piazza lay at the heart of the production and
consumption of medieval and Renaissance Italian urban culture. It constituted
the theater for the most elaborate ensembles of civic, religious, and political
spectacles. It was also the site that fostered everyday social relations, where
The Italian PiazzaFrom Gothic Footnote to
Baroque Theater
Niall Atkinson
27
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 563
individuals adopted and manipulated the multiple identities that urban living
required them to inhabit. Its design was a medium of communication, inflecting,
deflecting, and enhancing the negotiation of power and authority, the expression
of piety and politics, and the construction of the beautiful and the good. As a
result, the piazza bound the rhetoric of representation – images, sounds, and
narratives – directly to the consumption of spatial performances.
Bridging the distance between the theory and practice of the arts constitutes a
great deal of what art historians do, and the stakes for sustaining such a relationship
are very high indeed for Renaissance Italy. Much scholarship has been devoted to
linking a theoretical self-consciousness, in the form of treatises from the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, to the material evidence of artistic projects, whether
realized or not. In the realm of art and architecture, these treatises have been
central to the establishment of what constitutes Renaissance and Baroque style.
However, if we turn our attention to the piazza as part of a more integrated and
complex historical construct, then the gap between theory and practice becomes
strangely acute, entangled as we are, for better or worse, within the paradigms of
historical periodization: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque.
FIGURE 27.2 Piazza della Signoria, Florence. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Institut in
Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut.
564 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
To illustrate this state of affairs, I would like to use the Italian piazza as the locus
for a discussion about the relationship between artistic design, theoretical texts,
and historiography, but also to show how our understanding of such spaces is
transformed by the way contemporaries encountered, experienced, and interpreted
the complex interactions of political propaganda, religious spectacle, and daily rela-
tions that brought such spaces to life. It is precisely these interactions, where per-
formers and spectators constantly exchanged roles, that expose the mechanisms of
representational meaning and interpretation particular to the built environment.
The Problem of Periodization
In discussing the scholarship on the Italian piazza, Marvin Trachtenberg points to
a footnote in Henri Focillon’s influential The Art of the West in the Middle Ages, in
which the editor states that despite the heroic but spectacular failure of Italians to
respond to the challenge posed by Gothic architecture, their real contribution to
medieval architecture was the civic piazza.1 As a design element and an idea,
however, the history of the medieval piazza long remained buried in that single
footnote. Scholars of Italian public spaces were more interested in the simple and
absolute geometry of the Renaissance piazza. They used the perceived formlessness
and disorder of the medieval square as a foil to highlight the advances of
Renaissance planners in rationally ordering and adorning urban space.2
Such a comparison is borne out between discussions of the two most prominent
Florentine squares: the Piazza della Signoria (fig. 27.2), begun in the late thirteenth
century, and the later Piazza Santissima Annunziata (fig. 27.3), whose defining
buildings and layout are classically inspired, not medieval. Trachtenberg pointed
out that historical analysis of the former either did not deal with it as an aesthetic
object or dismissed it as devoid of any conscious planning.3 The latter, however, was
considered the epitome of Renaissance formal lucidity and was consistently
represented in scholarship as a perfect rectangle. The question is why hardly anyone
had noticed that it was in fact “sharply distorted on all sides.”4 Trachtenberg’s point
was that the modern belief in the centrality of “rationality” to Renaissance design
distorts our understanding of the very thing it is supposed to explain; more broadly,
the opposition between formlessness and rationality has caused such gross distortions
in our historical understanding of medieval and Renaissance planning that much of
the scholarly literature may be flawed to the core.5 In this case, the geometric ideal
expounded in Renaissance theoretical texts was simply assumed to translate
seamlessly into actually existing spaces, even where it did not in actual fact.
Applying such terms as medieval, Renaissance, or Baroque to city squares is
deeply problematic, since they were almost always developed piecemeal over time.
Their shape and design, materials, colors, and use are the product of multiple and
complex artistic, social, and political negotiations, making them palimpsests of
style, meaning, and function. The delicate fifteenth-century arcades of Filippo
Brunelleschi’s Foundling Hospital (1419), which were the genesis of the Piazza
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 565
Santissima Annunziata’s status as a Renaissance square, stood in near isolation for
over a century and the final spatial articulation of the arcaded square occurred
nearly a century after that, long after most historians would agree that the
Renaissance was over and done with. As a result, ironically, the “Renaissance”
square we now know and love was denied to actual Renaissance Florentines and
the culture to which they purportedly belonged.
Trachtenberg points to the one scholar who took up the problem of formlessness
that such Renaissance squares were supposed to supersede. Wolfgang Braunfels
marshaled a mountain of documentary evidence to demonstrate that structural
order was a central concern of medieval urban planning.6 He demonstrated how
concepts of spatial order, beauty, and regularity were not only the preoccupation
of urban legislation and elite academic discourse, as they were in the construction
of Renaissance space, but were also deeply embedded in popular discourses about
the nature and value of urban communities.7
To make his case, Braunfels summoned the ideas of a popular Dominican
preacher, Fra Giordano da Pisa (1260–1311), who declared that the city as a civic
FIGURE 27.3 Piazza Santissima Annunziata, Florence. Photo: Forschungsgruppe
“Piazza e monumento”, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut.
566 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
society was defined by an order that produced its beauty, strength, and greatness.
Fundamental to this urban beauty was the spatial diversity and collective unity of
all the urban trades that filled its spaces with human activity.8 Beauty was never held
in isolation from utility; form and function were conceived as a dynamic integrated
whole. Even a nose was beautiful when attached to a face, just as “the foot is beau-
tiful in its proper place,” but, “if it were found attached to some other part, such
as one’s chest or head, it would be a loathsome thing. . . We are all, in a way, part
of one body: each of us belongs. . . and in this diversity lies [the city’s] beauty,
more than if everyone were just the same.”9
With these insights, Braunfels had unlocked the secret to medieval Italian urban-
ism, but his discovery was entirely eclipsed by conventional art historians, who still
saw in the Gothic piazza no real sense of space as a clearly articulated and discreet
entity. Instead of Fra Giordano’s celebration of exquisite social diversity, they saw only
geometric disorder and confusion.10 In the eyes of these Renaissance scholars, these
complex medieval urban configurations were only a jumbled mass of houses without
façades, streets with no coherent vistas, and squares with no stages for the spectacle
of urban ritual; with no overall plan, they were hopelessly drowning in details.11
The Renaissance piazza, on the other hand, is characterized by geometric sim-
plicity. As an image and an idea, its beauty and timeless presence can be easily
apprehended. Medieval concepts of urban beauty, which assumed a necessary
relationship between space and the social body, could not compete with such
elegant formalism. For example, the reconstruction by Pope Pius II of his home-
town of Pienza in southern Tuscany has long been considered a turning point in
the application of rational Renaissance principles to urban space. The central trap-
ezoidal piazza is defined by the surrounding cathedral, episcopal and papal palace,
and town hall with arcaded loggia. In his groundbreaking essay on Pienza, art
historian Ludwig Heydenreich argued that medieval monuments exhibited no
coordinated distribution of structures; either they were isolated in a formless void,
or they shut off the communal piazza within a fortified precinct. In contrast, at
Pienza, he saw the first conscious differentiation between the spatial ordering of
a single architectural structure and its role as part of a choreographed ensemble
with the other buildings. Fixed perspectives of the buildings were generated at
points of entry to the square, so that the buildings exhibited their organizational
logic within a carefully ordered space.12 The novelty of Renaissance design, he
felt, lay in the clear articulation of a coherent space that was also open and con-
nected to the city around it.13 Such a space mediated, therefore, between the two
extremes of medieval design: thoughtless openness and obsessive enclosure.
In contrast to the fixed perspectives of Pienza, medieval spaces were
successively encountered, choreographing multiple spatial performances to a
moving spectator. It took an architect with no formal historical training, the
Austrian theorist Camillo Sitte, to show how the most beautiful medieval spaces
were multiple and interlocking, built up over time by designers and users.14
Sitte noted that the organization of “form, size, secondary plazas, street open-
ings, placement of fountains and monuments” in Florence’s Piazza della Signoria
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 567
was “carried out so subtly that it has to be searched for, and one senses only its
effect, not noticing the cause.”15 His insight revealed how Renaissance architec-
tural historians tended to seek root causes manifest in the design rather than
effects built up through time.
From this starting point, however, Trachtenberg set himself the task of
uncovering those elusive design principles in the Florentine piazza, which had to
be manifest in the careful placement of and measurement between entrances and
monuments. And that is just what he found: a set of flexible but rational design
principles that took account of the material conditions of carving out space from
the dense fabric of medieval Florence. Unlike the Renaissance treatise writer, prac-
titioners could not design in a vacuum.16 The Piazza della Signoria took nearly a
century to arrive at its spatial limits, but there was a guiding conception of the
square as radiating out geometrically from the town hall and its tower, creating the
most striking views of the integration of piazza and monument. Seen from an
oblique angle, the tower dominates and organizes the space around it, transform-
ing the seat of the regime into an image of visual authority.17 By uncovering the
subtle underlying logic of the piazza in this way, Trachtenberg fulfilled the promise
of Braunfels’s scholarship through Sitte’s intuition of medieval spatial aesthetics.
This analysis countered the criticism directed at Braunfels’s concept of the
medieval art of city-building (Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst) by another, more
traditional architectural historian, Wolfgang Lotz, who had claimed that the city
could not be a work of art because it was not a newly synthesized gestalt, a single
coherent whole distinctly bound by a proper name and a limited and closed chro-
nology. Art, for Lotz, was the product of an individual master, not society as a
whole, even though, as Trachtenberg points out, that conception of art would
remove most works of architecture from the canon of art history.18 Lotz, however,
was sensitive to Braunfels’s dilemma in trying to integrate a complex theory of
order derived from medieval sources into the domain of artistic aesthetics. He
acknowledged that, in order to be studied more productively, medieval cathedrals
required new modes of inquiry that took account of their temporally complicated
identity, because such buildings, like cities, represented “an accumulation of his-
torical facts insofar as the builders continuously had to come to terms with, and
to reshape, existing structures.”19
By 1977, Lotz had changed his mind about what constituted a work of art in
the field of architecture, and it appears that it was the Renaissance square itself
that taught him to see in this new way. Lotz demonstrated, in an article on
Italian squares, how Renaissance builders preserved a link with the past,
combining the old with the new, even though it “would be easier and less expen-
sive to erect a totally new structure.”20 What distinguished architecture from
sculpture and painting was the near impossibility of designing without regard for
older structures, the inevitability of design changes in the course of construction,
and the centrality of time as a factor in determining the aesthetic value of a build-
ing. Despite radical changes through adaptation and patterns of use, the build-
ings still maintained their artistic identity.21 This was a radical reversal on the part
568 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
of Lotz, who now stated that the same stones that revealed the “creative genius
of the architect are also eloquent witnesses to the passage of time, what men [sic]
call history.”22 Now an expanded and more complex notion of historical time was
infused into the study of works of art, based on the fact that the squares he dis-
cusses were all ancient or medieval in origin, continually in use, always multi-
functional, and were given new, if not final form in the sixteenth century.
However, Lotz was still searching for that elusive Renaissance square, whose
defining feature was the covered colonnades surrounding an ideal ancient Roman
forum. It was this feature that bound together the period’s diverse formal con-
figurations. His concept of temporal development, moreover, allowed him to
claim the Piazza Santissima Annunziata for the Renaissance, since its cohesiveness
came from copying Brunelleschi’s original arcades in the design of subsequent
buildings, even though the facing building’s function as apartments did not
require it.23 In Florence, his new aesthetic category of temporal change allowed
him to separate form and function in the Renaissance square, where order is
divorced from the functional idea of beauty that Braunfels found in medieval
urban planning. This approach also allowed him to include Piazza San Marco in
Venice, where Jacopo Sansovino’s sixteenth-century classically inspired arcades
created their own formal dialogue with their medieval counterparts (fig. 27.1).24
Here, medieval design was re-imagined through a Renaissance lens, bringing him
closer to Sitte’s interpretation of the square as a series of spaces and monuments,
sculpture and polychromy, cut stone and open lagoon, whose irregular arrange-
ment produced its delicate and beguiling beauty.
Lotz ends his article by making the sixteenth-century square the link that binds
the two great ages of piazza construction in Italy, integrating the medieval into
the Renaissance and anticipating the monumental spaces of the Baroque. But
unlike each of those great ages, the Renaissance reconciled its principles with the
past, with a history that was updated to a more regularized set of human propor-
tions, preserving those structures that merited it. There was no rigid regime, and
this respect for the past explained why hardly any of them resembled each other
in form. “If a sense of history is one of the special attributes of man,” he writes,
“then here in these squares, more than anywhere else, the realization is granted to
him of how much the past conditions his present and future conditions.”25 Such
an interpretation, however, implicitly condemns the Middle Ages once again as
completely oblivious, not to space in this instance, but to time.
Despite his subtle intuition of Renaissance historical sensitivity, however, Lotz
was more interested in the one square in his survey that fully expressed the classiciz-
ing planning principles derived from the ancient architect Vitruvius and his
Renaissance interpreter, Leon Battista Alberti. The Piazza Ducale at Vigevano was
built from 1492–93 through the wholesale destruction of its medieval foundations,
and its architect, Bramante, might have received his sobriquet as the “wrecker” (il
ruinante) for his part in what Lotz admits was “ruthless planning.”26 But Vigevano’s
square offered Lotz everything an art historian could desire: a limited building time,
a princely patron – Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan – and a single architect.27 Are we
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 569
to assume, then, that the communal opposition to the destruction of the existing
“medieval spaces of confusion” could only have been the cries of philistines who
refused to assimilate the lessons of Alberti’s treatise? In compensation, the city’s
inhabitants were among the privileged few during the Renaissance who actually
ever experienced the “pure” expression of Renaissance urban design theory.
Lotz admits that this square belongs more to the domain of Renaissance theory
than practice, and this distinction effectively demonstrates how the identity of the
Renaissance square is fractured by the conflict between a seductive abstract theory
derived from texts and the unavoidable hybridity such squares almost always
exhibit when that theory is applied to the concrete conditions of the actual built
environment. To bridge that gap requires reuniting social performances to built
space. Piazza San Marco, for example, cannot be separated from the long tradi-
tion of civic rituals that took place there. The poet Petrarch doubted that there
was any equal to this square in the world when he described the celebrations of
military victory he witnessed there, where the
performance was so skillfully staged and completed that you would conclude that
you were not seeing men riding, but angels flying – a marvelous spectacle, so many
youths dressed in purple and gold, reining in and whipping on so many fleet-footed
horses, so aglitter with ornaments, that their feet barely seemed to touch the ground.
. . . It is not easy to say nor credible to hear what a crowd of people was there day
after day; neither sex, nor age, nor station, was missing.28
Not only was the square’s beauty a product of the spectacular performance, it was
also grounded in the diversity of the audience, which reveals a similar ethic of social
belonging that underlay Fra Giordano’s ordered city. Petrarch marveled at the innu-
merable crowds packed into the square, where “a grain of millet could not have
fallen to earth; the huge square, the church itself, the towers, roofs, porches, win-
dows were not only filled but packed.”29 He found the piazza most fascinating when
it dissolved into the unseen substructure of a reveling body politic that spilled across
its architectural surfaces. Petrarch, who stands as a link between medieval Italy and
the transformation of intellectual attitudes and interests that would come to define
the Renaissance, shows how the social aspects of beauty embodied in Fra Giordano’s
concept of order would never disappear under the formal order of Renaissance
design. The increasingly spectacular festivals staged in these public spaces of
Renaissance and Baroque Italy are a clear reminder of this fact (see chapter 22).
The Textual Construction of the Piazza
To fully comprehend this perpetual dialectic between social and aesthetic factors,
we must now take a closer look at the textual tradition upon which the under-
standing of Renaissance urban space was conceived. It began with the rediscovery
of Vitruvius’s first-century B.C.E. treatise on architecture.30 For Vitruvius, design
570 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
was subordinate to the forum’s function as gladiatorial arena. The colonnades and
surrounding buildings were crucial in facilitating and restricting the vision of
those engaged in both private and public activities.31 Ritual spectacle, orches-
trated views, justice, commerce, and the monumental display of government:
these were the foundational attributes that defined the design and use of the
Roman city square.
The fifteenth-century theorist Leon Battista Alberti’s architectural handbook
De re aedificatoria (ca. 1450) responded to and went beyond Vitruvius’s text.
Alberti was concerned with the city as a series of integrated but separately articu-
lated functional spaces promoting the peaceful and secure life for its inhabitants.32
His squares are both aesthetic ornamentation and functional necessities,33 serving
as marketplaces, military training grounds, and communal storehouses.34 He also
understands the square to be part of the larger network of streets and not a dis-
creet articulation of space. For Alberti, like Fra Giordano, the presence of the
entire urban community in all its diversity is taken as a given and actually serves to
regulate behavior. The recklessness of youth would be restrained by the presence
of elders engaged in leisure or business.35 Correspondingly, such communal inclu-
sivity also generates self-repression and fear, since public squares belong most
fully to homeless beggars, who can shout about whatever they want without fear
of reprisal, while suspicious citizens fear the reproving ears of others and suppress
their own public speech. Elsewhere, Alberti shows how public space was a con-
stantly negotiated forum where liberty is both an ideal and a terrifying social
deformation, expressed through the crazed babble of the vagabond: “The theat-
ers belong to the beggars, the porticoes to beggars – in fact every public place
belongs to beggars!”36
For Alberti’s contemporary, the architect and treatise-writer Filarete, the square
was an organizing principle for the distribution of public activities and institutions:
government, royal court, markets, law courts, churches, mint, prison, vendors of all
kinds, artists, brothels, baths, inns, and taverns – the entire spectrum of public life.37
For another architect in the next generation, Francesco di Giorgio Martini, the
organization of the city followed the form of the human body, where each indi-
vidual unit was related in a harmonic proportion to the whole. The main square was
centered on the navel and surrounded by the principal public buildings.38 Radiating
streets lead out from it to the palms and feet. As an organic entity, the city was not
simply a rationally ordered environment, but one that lived and breathed, where
streets were veins transporting vital fluids to interlocking, mutually dependent sec-
tors. Like all those before him, he stipulated loggias or arcades surrounding the
city’s public squares, providing space for citizens to withdraw. The piazza was a
place for the inhabitant, understood as a microcosm of the social body.39
The influential sixteenth-century architect and theorist Andrea Palladio also
considered the city as an integrated whole based on beauty and efficient design.
In his treatise, The Four Books on Architecture, streets and squares are harmonized
to facilitate views, human and vehicular movement, conversations, business, and
urban cleanliness. Porticoes that flank streets separate pedestrians from carts
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 571
and animals loaded with goods and are paved with bricks to facilitate pedestrian
movement.40 The colonnaded main square follows Vitruvius’s requirement that
its size be calibrated to the number of bodies that would regularly fill it, so that it
would be neither too empty nor too full. 41
All these examples, which assume the primacy of the colonnaded square, exhibit
something far more complex than mere geometry in their definitions of what
constitutes good design. Central to their understanding of the piazza is the pres-
ence, movement, interaction, and services of the body public, of the body as a
concrete presence and an organizing metaphor. That understanding includes a
precise visual aesthetic, but it is also fully engaged with the entire sensorial appa-
ratus of the body and its immersion within a diverse social sphere. It is a remark-
ably coherent development of medieval spatial aesthetics, but one that is codified
more explicitly into formal design.
Theatrum Mundi
If the medieval piazza contained a dynamic social order that was recast by a more
historicizing design ethic in the Renaissance, then the seventeenth-century
Baroque square manifested an attempt to more radically control the symbolism
and use of the piazza. This goal was achieved through a design logic that made
the more transgressive and quotidian activities of the city square aesthetically
incompatible with a new theater of the urban spectacle. As Rome re-emerged
from the religious and military crises of the sixteenth century, papal plans to rede-
sign and control urban space led to the creation of a remarkable series of projects,
linked by a network of processional streets. Of these, the Piazza San Pietro
(fig. 27.4) and Piazza Navona (fig. 27.5) provide a richly instructive comparison
for the ways in which popes recast their relationship to the city and its history. The
latter represents a long historical trajectory of competitive civic performances,
culminating with its physical transformation into a showcase for papal family poli-
tics. The former, on the other hand, grew out of a dynamic design process that
created a new space with an invented history for the direct expression of papal
propaganda.
Piazza Navona was originally a stadium for athletic contests, built in the first
century C.E. by Emperor Domitian. Although it fell into disuse, the space
remained a secular oasis tied to civic activities, associated with the minor elites
that dominated the communal government and repeatedly clashed with the eccle-
siastical aristocracy that took increasing control of the Renaissance and Baroque
city.42 This alternative topography located in the center of the city was the site of
the commune’s most important Carnival rituals, including the Festa in Agone, a
procession of civic officials, guildsmen, and youths on horses ( giocatori) that
included sumptuously decorated floats, bull hunts, fireworks, as well as masked
festivities. Papal policy either attempted to suppress these transgressive rituals
or co-opt them into a processional idiom that praised rather than criticized
572 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
FIGURE 27.5 Piazza Navona with inset of Bernini’s Four Rivers Fountain, Rome, 1648–51.
Photo by author.
FIGURE 27.4 Gianlorenzo Bernini, Piazza San Pietro, Rome, begun 1656–58. Scala/
Art Resource, NY.
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 573
the church. For example, the papal possesso, which had been a medieval ritual
humiliation of the newly elected pope, became “an artfully choreographed trium-
phal entry that celebrated the power of the papacy as an institution.”43 The square,
which was nearly three times longer than it was wide, still maintains its curved
north end despite twentieth century alterations. It was a space that lent itself easily
to casual social relations – small commerce, beggars, itinerant sellers, acrobats,
storytellers, as well as the easy circulation of both people and information.44 The
transfer of both the weekly and daily markets to the square in the late fifteenth
century spurred significant economic growth in the area, while the ancient stadium’s
seating had been gradually replaced by palaces and medieval towers, whose
ground floors contained spaces for shops and taverns. Many prominent buildings
and churches on the square, however, had long turned their backs to it. This cus-
tom began to change in the sixteenth century, however, when important families,
most notably the Pamphilj, sought to ground their presence in the increasingly
prestigious square.45 When the Pamphilj Pope Innocent X was elected in 1644,
the piazza became a forecourt to the magnificent familial drama on display in the
architectural reconfiguration of his palace and the nearby church of Sant’Agnese.46
The design of the palace and the church involved the competing designs of
Girolamo Rainaldi and Francesco Borromini, who intervened upon each other’s
work as the pope tried to create an integrated complex of palace, holy shrine, and
open square. The design linked it to both the palace-shrine-square ensemble of
the Vatican and to the ancient imperial palaces on the Palatine Hill in Rome and
in Constantinople, which had also overlooked circuses.
Two sixteenth-century fountains occupied the ends of the square and Innocent
commissioned the sculptor and architect Gianlorenzo Bernini to design a central
fountain to display an Egyptian obelisk that he dragged from the Circus of
Maxentius, and to rework the sixteenth-century Moro fountain at the southern
end. The unveiling of the central Four Rivers fountain, the climax to Innocent X’s
interventions in the square, was accompanied by commemorative coins, prints,
poems, and theatrical performances.47 When Bernini turned the water on in
1651, it symbolically cleansed the square of all the unsightly elements that
remained in it, just as it replaced the water trough that had served the more quo-
tidian needs of daily commerce. The redesign of the square, with its papal allu-
sions and ancient references, had transformed it into a work of art, one whose
design had to be protected by laws from the contamination of daily commerce
and public life.48 As such, the square fits easily into the discourse of art history
because its formal organization, aligned façades, and central monument increase
its symbolic depth, even as they diminished its social diversity. The daily market
was immediately banned and offending sellers were sent to prison. Public reac-
tion was instantly hostile: numerous protests were staged and the Pamphilj had to
post sentinels at night to protect their property while by day they were harassed in
the streets.49 Throwing coins at the angry crowd in the square and trying to con-
trol the price of bread were futile amid the constant literary attacks posted anony-
mously on the ancient statue of Pasquino in a piazza nearby. The controversy was
574 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
a dramatic clash between the aesthetic forces of papal authority and the persistent
public power of spatial subversion. Piazza Navona stood at the intersection of
these competing expressions of identity, which included processions, acts of vio-
lence, literary criticism, and the competitive revival of classical forms.
One of the most important of these revivals was the triumphal entry (trionfo),
a rite that had legitimized and communicated political changes and power shifts
in ancient Rome. The role of spectators was to respond acoustically with applause,
rejoicing, and ovations, spontaneous sounds that confirmed the desired consen-
sus demanded by the trionfo form. In 1539, the revival of this ancient military
parade served civic ends in a festival that highlighted the collective memory of the
Roman people for their ancient past.50 For the popes of seventeenth-century
Rome, the triumph, with its elaborate staging, fantastic animals, mythical figures,
and ephemeral architectural constructions, overlaid an ideal and marvelous urban-
ism that allowed propaganda to cohere seamlessly with the newly redesigned per-
manent theatrical backdrop created by Innocent X, and masked the profoundly
fractured spatial and social dimensions of the city.51 The history of Piazza Navona
from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries dramatizes how the creation of a
palatial papal complex, which displaced daily commercial life, created a spectacu-
lar urban theater (teatro) that expressed a more absolutist aesthetic, one that con-
demned its own economic foundations as an annoying eyesore.
“Quel gran teatro attorno la piazza”52
Compare these artistic and social dynamics to the form, meaning, and use of the
square that Bernini designed for Pope Alexander VII between 1656 and 1658
(fig. 27.4). The opposition to the new square of St. Peter’s came largely from cardi-
nals who protested against the demolition of needed buildings for an architectural
showpiece of papal spectacle.53 Although never fully completed, the square still
succeeds in combining several forms of ritual movement. It acted as the climactic
threshold for pilgrims on their way to venerate the remains of St. Peter: its colon-
nades reached out to envelope and isolate them from the city and reveal the heavenly
splendor of the church. The square also provided a series of sightlines between the
pope – on the benediction loggia of the church and in his private apartment – and
his flock, each of whom needed to see the other to visually confirm their mutually
dependent roles of legitimization.54 Its porticoes also made structurally permanent
the canopied routes of the feast of Corpus Christi, celebrated by a circular papal
procession through the square and the surrounding neighborhood, while providing
cover also for the carriages of canons and dignitaries visiting the papal palace.55
As Tod Marder has pointed out, Alexander VII, who legally enforced the sump-
tuousness of religious festivals, ascended to the papacy just as conditions relegated
it to a minor role in European politics. In compensation, he funneled the remains
of papal terrestrial power into the sanctification of the city, which became the
theater of his perpetual papal drama.56 As part of these new urban theatrics, Piazza
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 575
San Pietro shows how meaning was built into the piazza through a series of
contentious negotiations between patrons, institutional bodies, historians,
intellectuals, as well as architects themselves. Although the square is now firmly
attached to the “genius” of Bernini, contemporaries were very much aware of the
fiction of artistic genius, as much as they were sensitive to the truth of artistic
vanity. Based on compelling evidence, Marder takes seriously Bernini’s own
attribution of the oval design of the square to the pope himself, and it was Cardinal
Virgilio Spada, a prominent member of the works committee (congregazione della
fabbrica) overseeing the project, who suggested the design of the colonnade: a
triple portico with a central barrel vault and flat-ceilinged lower aisles. Spada
based his conceptual model on a historical reconstruction of the ancient Greek
Chalcidian portico – considered to be one of the most beautiful in antiquity – by
the Vatican librarian. Such academic erudition was not something for which
Bernini could claim credit. Spada, however, was sensitive enough to Bernini’s
exceedingly jealous self-regard to suggest a way for him to do just that: he told
the pope, “It will not be difficult to find the means to make Cavalier Bernini
appear to be its author, so that he will not be annoyed that others want to improve
his designs.”57
Marder also points to the set of anonymous, inventive, biting, and poetic coun-
ter-projects, presumably by other architects, that document how Bernini addressed
or ignored the mounting criticism of his designs.58 These images might have been
commissioned within the context of the intense scrutiny of Bernini’s designs and
the continued opposition to the project by the fabbrica, and may have been des-
tined to illustrate a treatise critical of Bernini.59 They are reminiscent of the liter-
ary attacks on the Pamphilj fountain, and represent an antagonistic form of
collaboration about the proper value and meaning of social and architectural
space in an age of glorified individuals. The most striking of these critiques depicts
two images of St. Peter. In the first, he has a pained expression, and his out-
stretched arms are horribly contorted by conforming to the shape of the trapezoid
and oval plan of Bernini’s design. In the other image, he presents a more serene
expression, while his extended arms intersect with the limits of the reconceived
oval piazza that envelops him. This figure recalls Vitruvius’s claim that the male
body represented the ideal of good architecture and draws attention to the cor-
rect relationship of architecture to that body, a relationship in which the body was
supposed to provide a set of ideal proportions rather than be subject to a literal
translation of forms. In a position paper (giustificazione) attributed to Bernini, he
countered his critics’ attacks by inserting this Christianized bodily metaphor
directly into his design logic, making the claim that his square represented the
arms of the church reaching out to both supporters and critics.60 He had taken
the criticism and turned it on its head, defusing its impact, while making it the
most memorable symbolic feature of the square.
Finally, the square’s relationship to the ancient trionfo was already expressed by
Gaspare Alveri’s contemporary guidebook to the city, by Pope Alexander’s biogra-
pher, and by the architect Carlo Fontana, all of whom bound the ancient rite to the
576 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
procession of Corpus Christi, the proclamation of Christ’s triumph over the world.61
In the end, a pope’s keen sense of his own image of papal grandeur, the antagonistic
competitiveness of architectural culture in Rome, the specific ritual choreography, as
well as the criticism and intellectual work of scholars, all worked to bring the square
into being. Its meaning was nowhere fully inherent in the actual formal logic of the
design, but was built into it through the work of an informal and even hostile dia-
logue in which the architect’s voice was one among many. To adhere, such symbolic
content had to be continually staged, the way it was in the contest over Piazza
Navona. At St. Peter’s, the stakes were quite different, since they were deeply embed-
ded in the papal relationship to the presence of the saint who, as gatekeeper to para-
dise, could be construed as the final arbiter of successful urban design.
In Bernini’s giustificazione, he described his design as responding to utilitarian
and ornamental demands through design. It had to provide shelter from the ele-
ments, a processional route, sightlines, space for pilgrimage, and a correction of
the excessive width of the façade. However, through its use, the symbolism of the
piazza developed in complexity until it was understood as a theatrum mundi by
the eighteenth century.62 Consequently its meaning evolved from generic classical
references to abstract metaphors and complex systems of representation. Bernini’s
response to his critics had forced him to think about meaning and design, the
demands of the patron, and the content of the piazza. As a type of “spin,” “it
makes neat after the fact what was surely a more serendipitous design process,”
while the nature of the debates over the square produced some rather unusual
records concerning the content and meaning of the piazza.63
Conclusion: The Embodied Piazza
This essay has emphasized the ways in which the Italian piazza, whether in its
theoretical construction, aesthetic design, or subsequent use, was always a
collaborative venture that produced complex urban spaces. Nowhere in this
historical development did contemporaries divorce discursive space from actual
space. However, the multifunctional and social diversity praised by medieval
Italians and built into the rhetoric of Renaissance interventions was increasingly
focused into a carefully choreographed theatrical narrative by Baroque designers.
The success of this more rigid narrative depends on how the historical record is
interpreted and whether the final form of Baroque squares is read as the culmination
of a coherent and politically monologic design process or as the unfinished nego-
tiations of a decidedly uneven dialogue. The city’s inhabitants still had a part to
play in this newly scripted drama of urban design, but they were increasingly cast
as a more monolithic and passive entity, disconnected from the more chaotic and
aesthetically questionable roles they had played in such spaces in the past. The
Baroque festival attempted to transform the square into a purer form of represen-
tation through the medium of the theater – even if not everyone properly played
their parts – by attempting to alienate the public from an active role in the
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 577
constitution of social space. Such a move was similar to the way Renaissance
architectural theory is often alienated from Renaissance built form by art history’s
construction of a stylistic category based on a singular idea of geometry and order.
The expansive inclusiveness and frenetic energy that Petrarch marveled at in
Venice’s San Marco, or the charlatans, quacks, street entertainers, hawkers, and
peddlers who congregated there daily,64 had no part to play even at the margins of
or in between the ritual dramas that these later piazzas were created to serve. The
commerce and clutter of daily life had to be erased from official images.
In this light, consider Bernini’s most famous dramatic work, a play for the 1637
Carnival in which the curtain opened to reveal to the audience a mirror image of
itself: another audience onstage, watching them. The play sets off an unending
loop of reflections in which the real and the theatrical are never resolved. The two
characters, played by Bernini and his brother, each contend that their respective
audience and the play they is about to perform is the real one. The ambiguity
between audience and performers is profoundly different in this metaphor from
what it is in the piazza, where inhabitants were very much aware of playing both
roles and managing multiple urban identities. In Bernini’s drama, however, which
was intimately associated with the concept of the urban teatro, the ambiguity dis-
solves into delightful confusion. Bernini himself made reference to the final scene,
where each audience is getting up to leave, as taking place in front of St. Peter’s
before his remodeling of the site.65 The ideal of what we might call the Baroque
piazza in Rome was the complete aestheticization of the social relations that took
place there. But cleansing the piazza of its public function was a hopeless enter-
prise, captured brilliantly by Richard Krautheimer, who contrasts the carefully
orchestrated views of the newly renovated spaces of Rome with the impossibility
of eradicating the offending buildings and bodies from the square. In his attempts
to renovate the piazza around the Pantheon, for example, Alexander VII was
unable to permanently expel the vendors, who repeatedly returned to their tradi-
tional spaces of commercial exchange.66 In a similar manner, the meaning of the
“idle” conversation that I heard Italians engage in on the childhood street corner
was not located in its content so much as its form. The traces of movement and
patterns of use that people endlessly inscribed onto the surfaces of the most con-
tested Italian piazzas continued to draw them back there, in all of their messy and
unwanted diversity, to participate in the spectacle of urban life.
Notes
1 Trachtenberg, Dominion, 289, n. 65, citing Henri Focillon, The Art of the West in the
Middle Ages, edited and introduced by Jean Bony (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1980), vol. 2, 55, n. 1.
2 Trachtenberg, Dominion, 9.
3 Ibid., 9, 289, n. 68.
4 Ibid., 11.
5 Ibid., 13.
578 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
6 Ibid., 9.
7 Wolfgang Braunfels, Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Toskana (Berlin: Gebr.
Mann, 1953), 122–26.
8 Ibid., 123–24, n. 464.
9 Ibid., 124, n. 465, 466, quoting from Domenico Moreni, ed., Prediche del beato fra
Giordano da Rivalto dell’Ordine dei predicatori: recitate in Firenze dal 1303 al 1306
ed ora per la prima volta pubblicate (Florence: Magheri, 1831); my translation.
10 Trachtenberg, Dominion, 9, quotes several instances of this comparison between
medieval confusion and Renaissance clarity and order.
11 Braunfels, 124.
12 Heydenreich, “Pius II,” 140. Braunfels quotes the bulk of this passage, 125–26.
13 Heydenreich, “Pius II,” 140, n. 35.
14 Trachtenberg, Dominion, 10; Collins and Collins, Camillo Sitte, 192–97.
15 Collins and Collins, Camillo Sitte, 195.
16 When they did, however, the designs of medieval cities and squares have a remarkable
resemblance to Renaissance planning principles. See Friedman, Florentine New Towns.
17 For his detailed reconstruction of the geometric order of Florentine planning see
Trachtenberg, Dominion, 87–147.
18 Lotz, “Review of Braunfels,” 65–66; Trachtenberg, Dominion, 289–90, n. 74.
19 Lotz, “Review of Braunfels,” 66. Trachtenberg has developed this temporal theme
into a monumental study of his own: Building in Time: from Giotto to Alberti and
Modern Oblivion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010).
20 Lotz, “Sixteenth-Century Italian Squares,” 74.
21 Ibid., 75.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., 82.
24 Ibid., 83–84.
25 Ibid., 90.
26 Ibid., 79.
27 Although Lotz does not have enough evidence to definitively establish Bramante as
the architect, he makes a convincing case.
28 Petrarca, Letters of Old Age, IV, 3 (134–35).
29 Ibid., 135.
30 A complete copy of Vitruvius’ treatise was rediscovered in 1414; see Vitruvius: Ten
Books on Architecture.
31 Vitruvius, Ten Books, V:1.
32 Alberti, On the Art of Building, I:9; IV:2; VIII:6.
33 Ibid., IV:3.
34 Ibid., IV:8.
35 Ibid., VIII:6.
36 Leon Battista Alberti, Momus, 133.
37 Filarete, Treatise on Architecture, II:26–27, VI:74–75, VIII:104–105, X:123 ff.
38 Quoted in Portoghesi, La piazza, 260–61, 263. See also Francesco di Giorgio
Martini, Trattati, vol. 1, 20–25.
39 Portoghesi, La piazza, 263–64.
40 Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, III, 2:166. On Palladio and architectural
treatises, see Caroline Yerkes’ contribution to this volume.
41 Ibid., III, 16: 193–94.
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 579
42 Ingersoll, “The Ritual Use of Public Space,” 278 ff; Rak, “Piazza Navona,” 183.
43 See Warwick, “Pasquinade at Piazza Navona,” 362.
44 Rak, “Piazza Navona,” 183.
45 Ibid., 184; Low, On the Plaza, 79.
46 See Leone, The Palazzo Pamphilj. For another interpretation of the piazza, see the
forthcoming monograph on Borromini by Joseph Connors.
47 Warwick, “Pasquinade at Piazza Navona,” 355.
48 Ibid., 358. Until Innocent X’s death in 1655 the only festivals allowed in the square
were those organized by the Pamphilj family: ibid., 368.
49 Ibid., 357.
50 Rak, “Piazza Navona,” 185.
51 Ibid., 183, 187, 195.
52 “That grand theater surrounding the piazza.” Kitao, Circle and Oval, 20. The quote
comes from papal avvisi, official papal publications distributed to the city.
53 Krautheimer, Rome of Alexander, 70.
54 Kitao, Circle and Oval, 2.
55 Krautheimer, Rome of Alexander, 70, 72.
56 Marder, Bernini, 124–26.
57 Quoted in Ibid., 138.
58 Ibid., 138 ff.
59 Tod Marder, Bernini’s Scala Regia, 92.
60 Habel, The Urban Development of Rome, 284. Marder, Bernini, 141–42 (the draw-
ings are reproduced on page 141).
61 Marder, Bernini, 146.
62 Habel, The Urban Development of Rome, 284.
63 Ibid., 282, 284.
64 Fenlon, Piazza San Marco, 108.
65 A summary of this play is given in Kitao, Circle and Oval, 22–23.
66 Krautheimer, Rome of Alexander, 106.
Bibliography
Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Translated by Joseph Rykwert,
Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988.
Alberti, Leon Battista. Momus. Translated by S. Knight. Edited by V. Brown. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Bek, Katrin. Achse und Monument: Zur Semantik von Sicht- und Blickbeziehungen in
fürstlichen Platzkonzeptionen der Frühen Neuzeit. Weimar: VDG, 2005.
Braunfels, Wolfgang. Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Toskana. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1953.
Brinckmann, Albert Erich. Platz und Monument. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und
Ästhetik der Stadtbaukunst in neuerer Zeit. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2000.
Burroughs, Charles. From Signs to Design: Environmental Process and Reform in Early
Renaissance Rome. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
_______. “Michelangelo at the Campidoglio: Artistic Identity, Patronage, and
Manufacture.” Artibus et Historiae 14 (1993): 85–111.
Collins, George R. and Christiane Crasemann Collins, eds. Camillo Sitte: The Birth of
Modern City Planning. New York: Rizzoli, 1986.
580 � � � N I A L L AT K I N S O N
Connors, Joseph. “Alliance and Enmity in Roman Baroque Urbanism.” Römisches
Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 25 (1989): 207–94.
Fagiolo, Marcello. La festa a Roma: dal Rinascimento al 1870. Torino: U. Allemandi,
1997.
Fenlon, Iain. Piazza San Marco. London: Profile Books, 2009.
Filarete. Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known As
Filarete. Translated by John Spencer. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.
Friedman. David. Florentine New Towns: Urban Design in the Late Middle Ages. New York:
Architectural History Foundation, 1988.
Giedion, Sigfried, “Sixtus V and the Planning of Baroque Rome.” In his Space, Time and
Architecture, 75–106. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967.
Habel, Dorothy M. The Urban Development of Rome in the Age of Alexander VII. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Harris, Ann Sutherland. “Bernini’s Fountain of the Four Rivers as Permanent Theater.” In
“All the world’s a stage – ”: Art and Pageantry in the Renaissance and Baroque, edited
by Barbara Wisch and Susan Scott Munshower, 488–516. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990.
Heydenreich, Ludwig. “Pius II als Bauherr von Pienza.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorisches
Institutes in Florenz 6: 2/3 (1937): 105–46.
Ingersoll, Richard Joseph. “The Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome.” Ph.D.
diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
Kitao, Timothy Kaori. Circle and Oval in the Square of Saint Peter’s: Bernini’s Art of
Planning. New York: New York University Press, 1974.
Krautheimer, Richard. The Rome of Alexander VII, 1655–1667. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1985.
Leone, Stephanie C. The Palazzo Pamphilj in Piazza Navona: Constructing Identity in
Early Modern Rome. London: Harvey Miller, 2008.
Lotz, Wolfgang. “Review of Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Toskana by Wolfgang
Braunfels.” The Art Bulletin 37 (1955): 65–67.
_______. “Sixteenth-Century Italian Squares.” In his Studies in Italian Renaissance
Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
Low, Setha M. On the Plaza: the Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 2000.
Mack, Charles R. Pienza: The Creation of a Renaissance City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1987.
Marder, Tod A. Bernini and the Art of Architecture. New York: Abbeville Press, 1998.
_______. Bernini’s Scala Regia at the Vatican Palace. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Martini, Francesco di Giorgio. Trattati di architettura, ingegneria e arte militare. Edited
by Corrado Maltese. Milan: Edizioni Il Polifilo, 1967.
Milner, Stephen. “The Florentine Piazza della Signoria as Practiced Place.” In Renaissance
Florence: A Social History, edited by R. Crum and J. Paoletti, 83–103. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Muir, Edward. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1981.
Nevola, Fabrizio. Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2007.
T H E I TA L I A N P I A Z Z A � � � 581
Palladio, Andrea. The Four Books on Architecture. Translated by Robert Tavernor and
Richard Schofield. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
Petrarca, Francesco. Letters of Old Age. Edited by Aldo S. Bernardo, Saul Levin, and Reta
A. Bernardo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Portoghesi, Paolo. La piazza come “luogo degli sguardi.” Rome: Gangemi, 1990.
Rak, Michele. “Piazza Navona: trionfi sacri e profani.” In La festa a Roma dal Rinascimento
al 1870, 182–201. Turin: Allemandi, 1997.
Rowland, Ingrid. “‘Th’ United Sense of th’ Universe’: Athanasius Kircher in Piazza
Navona.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 46 (2001): 153–81.
Sennett, Richard. The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. New York:
Knopf, 1990.
Shearman, John K. G. “Art or Politics in the Piazza.” In Benvenuto Cellini: Kunst und
Kunsttheorie im 16. Jahrhundert, edited by A. Nova and A. Shreuers, 19–36. Cologne:
Böhlau, 2003.
Tönnesmann, Andreas. Pienza: Städtebau und Humanismus. Munich: Hirmer, 1990.
Trachtenberg, Marvin. Building in Time: From Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
_______. Dominion of the Eye: Urbanism, Art, and Power in Early Modern Florence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Tuliani, M. “Il Campo di Siena: Un mercato cittadino in epoca comunale.” Quaderni
medievali 46 (1998): 59–100.
Vitruvius Pollio. Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture. Edited by Ingrid Rowland, Thomas
N. Howe, and Michael Dewar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Warwick, Genevieve. “Pasquinade at Piazza Navona: ‘Public’ Art and Popular Protest in
Early Modern Rome.” In Ex marmore: pasquini, pasquinisti, pasquinate nell’Europa
moderna, edited by Chrysa Damianaki, Paolo Procaccioli, and Angelo Romano, 355–76.
Manziana, Italy: Vecchiarelli, 2006.
Zucker, Paul. Town and Square from the Agora to the Village Green. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959.