Archaeology on Shifting Ground : Rodolfo Lanciani and Rome, 1871-1914 [1 ed.] 9788891318763, 9788891318749

Citation preview

STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 231

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

-

De Marinis, s. Baroni, F. Laurenzi, L. GiuLiano, a. nocentini, s. GiuLiano, a. Ferrari, G. BreGLia, L. Lattanzi, e. saLetti, c. BLank, H.

-

12 - canciani, F. 13 - conti, G. 14 - sprenGer, M.

-

15 16 17 18 19 20

-

poLascHek, k. FaBBricotti, e. poLascHek, k. pensa, M. costa, p. M. perrone, M.

-

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

-

MansueLLi, G. a. (a cura di) Fayer, c. oLBricH, G. papadopouLos, J. veccHi, M. Manacorda, d. MansueLLi, G. a. (a cura di) rowLand, J. J. RoMeo, p. roMeo, p. MacnaMara, e. stuccHi, s. zuFFa, M. veccHi, M. saLza prina ricotti, e. GiLotta, F. Becatti, G. FaBrini, G. M. Buonocore, M.

-

40 41 42 43

-

FucHs, M. BuraneLLi, F. piccarreta, F. Liverani, p.

-

44 - strazzuLLa, M. J.

-

45 - Franzoni, c.

-

46 47 48 49

-

-

scarpeLLini, d. d’aLessandro, L., perseGati, F. MiLanese, M. scatozza HöricHt, L. a.

La tipologia del banchetto nell’arte etrusca arcaica, 1961. Osservazioni sul «Trono di Boston», 1961. Umanità di Fidia, 1961. Il commercio dei sarcofagi attici, 1962. Sculture greche, etrusche e romane nel Museo Bardini in Firenze, 1965. La cultura artistica delle province greche in età romana, 1965. Il commercio dei sarcofagi asiatici, 1966. Le antiche rotte del Mediterraneo documentate da monete e pesi, 1966. I ritratti dei «cosmeti» nel Museo Nazionale di Atene, 1968. Ritratti severiani, 1967. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, 2a Ed. riv. ed. ill., 1969. Bronzi orientali ed orientalizzanti a Creta nell’viii e vii sec. a.C., 1970. Decorazione architettonica della «Piazza d’oro» a Villa Adriana, 1970. Die Etruskische Plastik des v Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und ihr Verhältnis zur griechischen Kunst, 1972. Studien zur Ikonographie der Antonia Minor, 1973. Galba, 1976. Porträttypen einer Claudischen Kaiserin, 1973. Rappresentazioni dell’oltretomba nella ceramica apula, 1977. The pre-Islamic Antiquities at the Yemen National Museum, 1978. Ancorae Antiquae. Per una cronologia preliminare delle ancore del Mediterraneo, 1979. Studi sull’arco onorario romano, 1979. Aspetti di vita quotidiana nella Roma arcaica, 1982. Archaische Statuetten eines Metapontiner Heiligtums, 1979. Xoana e Sphyrelata. Testimonianze delle fonti scritte, 1980. Torcello. Ricerche e Contributi, 1979. Un’officina lapidaria sulla via Appia, 1979. Studi sulla città antica. Emilia Romagna, 1983. Ritrovamenti romani in Sardegna, 1981. Riunificazione del centro di Roma antica, 1979. Salvaguardia delle zone archeologiche e problemi viari nelle città, 1979. Vita quotidiana degli Etruschi, 1982. Il gruppo bronzeo tiberiano da Cartoceto, 1988. Scritti di archeologia, 1982. Torcello. Nuove ricerche, 1982. L’arte del convito nella Roma antica, 1983. Gutti e askoi a rilievo italioti ed etruschi, 1984. Kosmos. Studi sul mondo classico, 1987. Numana: vasi attici da collezione, 1984. Schiavi e liberti dei Volusii Saturnini. Le iscrizioni del colombario sulla via Appia antica, 1984. Il Teatro romano di Fiesole. Corpus delle sculture, 1986. L’urna «Calabresi» di Cerveteri. Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, 1985. Manuale di fotografia aerea: uso archeologico, 1987. Municipium Augustum Veiens. Veio in età imperiale attraverso gli scavi Giorgi (1811-13), 1987. Le terrecotte architettoniche della Venetia romana. Contributo allo studio della produzione fittile nella Cisalpina, 1987. Habitus atque habitudo militis. Monumenti funerari di militari nella Cisalpina romana, 1987. Stele romane con imagines clipeatae in Italia, 1986. Scultura e calchi in gesso. Storia, tecnica e conservazione, 1987. Gli scavi dell’oppidum preromano di Genova, 1987. Le terrecotte figurate di Cuma del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, 1987. continua a pag. 174

Susan M. Dixon

Archaeology on Shifting Ground:

Rodolfo Lanciani and Rome, 1871–1914

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

SuSan M. Dixon Archaeology on Shifting Ground: Rodolfo Lanciani and Rome, 1871–1914

© Copyright 2019 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Via Marianna Dionigi, 57 00193 - Roma www.lerma.it

Layout «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Copyright © 2019 by «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review. Printed in Italy

Certificazione qualità UNI EN ISO 9001:2015 On cover Atrium Vestae, looking East, photograph, from Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1888), 133.

Susan M. Dixon Archaeology on Shifting Ground: Rodolfo Lanciani and Rome, 1871–1914 / Dixon Susan M. - «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2019 - 180 p. ; ill.; (Studia Archaeologica ; 231) ISSN 0081-6299 ISBN 978-88-913-1874-9 (cartaceo) ISBN 978-88-913-1876-3 (digitale) CDD 930.1

taBLe oF contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.

7

Introduction

9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .»

cHapter 1: A Career in Archaeology Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portus and Magliana . . . . . . . . . . Pietro Rosa, Sopraintendenza . . . . . Giuseppe Fiorelli, Direzione Generale The Accademia dei Lincei . . . . . . . Commissione Archeologica Comunale

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.» .» .» .» .» .»

15 17 20 26 29 30

cHapter 2: What Was Found: 1868–86 The Capitoline Hill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Palatine Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In and Around the Tiber River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Around the Colosseum and the Oppian and Celian Hills The Eastern Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Servian Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Around the Pantheon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Large Baths of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ostia and Tivoli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the region of the Alban Hills and elsewhere . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

.» .» .» .» .» .» .» .» .» .» .»

35 36 42 43 46 47 56 58 62 63 66

cHapter 3: Lanciani and America: 1886–87 Contacts with Americans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Notes from Rome” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cicerone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lecture Tour in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Travelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fundraising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engaging with the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.» .» .» .» .» .» .» .»

69 75 78 80 84 85 86 88

5

cHapter 4: Rome, after America: 1887–90 Houghton Mifflin & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries The Boston Museum of Fine Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advice on Collecting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Art Institute of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claims and Counter-Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

.» .» .» .» .» .» .»

91 92 95 96 101 102 104

cHapter 5: A Reputation in Flux, post-1890 At the University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forma Urbis Romae . . . . . . . . . . . . Storia degli Scavi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . More English-language Publications . . . A Successor in the Forum: Giacomo Boni Shifting Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.» .» .» .» .» .»

111 113 117 119 126 131

cHapter 6: Rounding out a Career: 1903–1911, and beyond Displays at the Capitoline Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » The 1911 Mostra Archeologica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .»

133 135 139

appendices aBBreviations BiBLioGrapHy

143 151 153

6

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .»

acknowLedGeMents

Two seminal events, both funded by the National Endowment of the Humanities, sparked this investigation of Lanciani and his published work. The first was a Summer Seminar entitled “Archaeology and Ideology,” led by Stephen L. Dyson, the Parks Professor of Classics and SUNY Distinguished Professor at the University of Buffalo, and held at the American Academy in Rome. The other was a summer of research funded by an NEH Stipend, which allowed me to delve deeply into the subject. In addition, research leaves and grants from two institutions, The University of Tulsa and La Salle University in Philadelphia, a former and current employer, helped propel the project forward. I am grateful to these organizations for their support. Some individuals deserve my special thanks. Prof. Dyson, as well as John A. Pinto, the Howard Crosby Butler memorial Professor of Art and Archaeology Emeritus at Princeton University, Nicola Camerlenghi, Associate Professor of Art History at Dartmouth College, and Klare Scarborough, Director and Chief Curator at the La Salle University Art Museum, provided me invaluable encouragement throughout the research.

Acknowledgements

7

introduction

No serious study of ancient Rome’s topography can be undertaken without consulting some of the vast scholarly production of Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929) (Fig. 1). As the city of Rome was upended in the decades after 1871 in order to be shaped into Italy’s new capital, Lanciani was there to identify, record, and interpret the remains of ancient Rome. Most of those remains were only partially or temporarily revealed before their removal or destruction. His desire to capture what was found and what was then often lost was his primary driving force; his secondary was a long-held determination to succeed brilliantly as a way to discredit those who attempted to taint his reputation. In 1871, Lanciani began his career in the new national archaeological service in Rome and soon thereafter was given major responsibilities. He became director of the excavations of the Roman Forum, whose level from the Capitoline to the Colosseum, and from the Palatine Hill to the adjoining fora, was brought down to its current state. Concurrently, as secretary of the city of Rome’s commission on archaeology, Lanciani oversaw inspections of finds on private and municipal land. Thus, Lanciani had a near complete picture of all recently found evidence of ancient Rome. Well versed in classical literature and trained as an engineer, Lanciani had the right set of skills for the task. During the two decades in which he held these positions, he issued hundreds of publications: short scientific notices in the state’s journal Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, and longer essays in the city’s Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma. Furthermore, as a valued member of the Accademia dei Lincei, he produced well-researched expositions on specific monuments. Among these publications are seminal works, including his studies of the aqueducts, the harbor of Portus, the Servian Wall, and Hadrian’s Villa. Although after 1890 he was no longer in the archaeological service, he retained a professorship of ancient Roman topography at the Università di Roma, and his publications continued. He was responsible for two major reference works: Forma Urbis Romae (1893–1901), the large map of all that was known of ancient Rome superimposed on a sketchy outline of modern Rome; and Storia degli Scavi (1902–10), a multi-volume collection of notices of archaeological activity in papal Rome, from 1000–1870. Meanwhile, he wrote many articles and books in English. By 1876, “Notes from Rome,” an occasional column, appeared often in the London journal The Athenaeum, and from 1889 until his death, he issued seven books for an American audience. These English-language writings were popular in tone but no less informative about ancient Rome than his works in Italian and today scholars treat them as rigorous sources. Lanciani’s achievements were herculean in the midst of the tumultuous upheavals of late 19thcentury Italy. Rome underwent a sea change in all ways: politically, socially, physically, economically, Introduction

9

Fig 1. Rodolfo Lanciani, with a group of women, photograph. Photo credit: The John Rylands Library, The University of Manchester, Album Rome 1883/1894, Capt. J. Douglass Kennedy Collection.

and culturally. In 1871, the constitutional monarchy unseated the papacy as the political power in Rome and its territories, and indeed, in all of Italy. It established bureaucratic procedures to enact reforms in many areas, including public education, under which the archaeological service fell. Tensions among social groups, including between those loyal to the king and those to the pope, and between those of the old aristocratic families and those of the new bureaucratic classes, infused most workplace situations, including Lanciani’s. Additionally, each new political election brought the potential for a reorganization of the offices in which Lanciani worked. Meanwhile, the city’s topography was altered dramatically. With Rome as the center of national operations, the population grew exponentially. Whole areas of Rome that were once undeveloped fields were turned into residential districts, and modern urban infrastructure was constructed to support them. Ministry headquarters, hospitals, banks, and other large institutional buildings marked their presence in the cityscape. Burgeoning technologies, such as the railroad and electric supply lines, left significant footprints in the city. The ancient seven hills of Rome were reshaped, as some valleys between them were filled in, to accommodate the workings of the new capital. The practice of archaeology likewise underwent pronounced change. In general, ancient remains were now interpreted with more attention to the material evidence than to the primary texts. New methods of excavating, beyond the rescue archaeology of old, were required. This included

10

Susan M. Dixon

deciphering information from the position of an artifact in the earth’s strata and within a broad topographic context. Lanciani was not trained as an archaeologist, and in fact, it was not a profession available in the academic curriculum at the time he entered the field. But he worked alongside those who were eager to use the new methods and to craft training programs for the discipline. Alongside these transformations were heated cultural and political discussions about who got to own and display the nation’s cultural patrimony. In addition to Lanciani’s many positions, he held the directorship of the state museums and the oversight of new collections at the city’s museum on the Capitoline Hill. Beyond the task of collections management, which was an onerous task given the sheer quantity of objects being unearthed at this time, Lanciani found himself among contentious parties, each staking a claim on the objects. There were state officials planning to build a national museum, city politicians scrambling to expand the Capitoline collections, private landowners aspiring to make a personal profit from artifacts found on their property, impoverished aristocrats hoping to sell their art collections, and foreign collectors and museum professionals dreaming of shipping classical art to their home countries. Despite the strife, however, there were moments of great achievement in Lanciani’s career. He reconstructed and hung the Severan Marble Map fragments in the Capitoline Museum, rearranged the galleries dedicated to the remains of the ancient Roman horti in the same museum, and in particular, designed and realized the Mostra Archeologica, part of the 1911 Esposizione Internazionale, held in the Baths of Diocletian. Furthermore, even as the state worked to curtail foreign practice of archaeology on Italian soil, foreign attention to what was happening in Rome at this time intensified. Easy travel and communication in the modern age intensified this interest. Lanciani worked at the nexus of an international community of scholars, dilettantes, tourists, antiquities dealers, and museum curators, all of whom showed curiosity about the new information and material goods from Italian finds. There was no restraint on them staking a claim in the discourse surrounding archaeological practice, and at times, on the antiquities it yielded. With his excellent English-language skills, Lanciani had strong connections with the British and the Americans, and made use of them in attempting to further his reputation, something for which he was recriminated by his Italian employer. Amid such upheavals, Lanciani’s approach to ancient Rome was deemed old-fashioned and incompetent in short order. He was forced to resign his positions in late 1890 for perceived unethical behavior in the archaeological service: providing unofficial access to sites, and dealing antiquities to American museums, even in the age before strong antiquities protection laws. Additionally, some of his methods of operation were deemed not scientific enough, as he was too eager to consult the ancient textual evidence for interpretation of the remains rather than allowing them, and their context, to speak for themselves. (This, of course, one can do in the field of classical archaeology, and not in the study of prehistory.) He was noted for being too positivist, often naïve, in his assumptions about history. We see this best in his insistence of the Alban tribes as the first inhabitants of Rome, or the location of the graves of Sts. Peter and Paul. Some colleagues in the state archaeological service approached his work with skepticism and even ridicule. Some foreigners, like Richard Norton, the director of the American Academy in Rome, did as well, refusing to recommend one of Lanciani’s English-language handbook for students as a source. This biography provides a narrative of Lanciani’s working life with attention to all these forces. It relies on Domenico Palombi’s 2006 comprehensive biography, Rodolfo Lanciani: l’archeologia a Roma tra l’Ottocento e Novecento, the first monograph on the archaeologist and scholar. Palombi scoured the Italian archives for plentiful evidence of the various phases of the scholar’s career. His account is particularly groundbreaking in treating Lanciani’s years as a university professor and as a dignitary in the Parliament and the Municipal Council. My contribution to the story of Lanciani’s Introduction

11

life, in this second biography, is to focus on his scholarly production; I mesh the facts of Lanciani’s tumultuous career to his vast and assorted publications. For example, he published frequently in two very different types of Italian journals, each with different purposes. In the state’s journal, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, the monthly entries in the main were highly objective observations of the archaeological discoveries; in the city’s Bullettino della Commissione Archaeologia Comunale di Roma, the essays were longer and allowed for more synthesis of bits of information and thus interpretation. In addition, his English-language “Notes from Rome” were diary-like entries that appeared on an occasional basis in the London Athenaeum. These, along with his books for American audiences, delivered a popularized version of ancient Roman scholarship. They reveal Lanciani’s desire to educate and appeal to British and American citizens, and to communicate to them what he conjectured was relatable or notable about ancient Roman culture. Although the kernel information in all venues might have been the same, Lanciani demonstrated that he knew how to identify and write for a specific audience. This trait, a chameleon-like ability in approaching people, comes through in his writings, as it did in person. Lanciani was extremely gregarious. The book also aspires to allow Lanciani’s personality to emerge. He was charming and eager to be the center of attention. His tours in the Roman campagna were well attended and remembered, as were his lectures. At the same time, he was socially ambitious. He was not born into an aristocratic family but rather into one that was attendant at the papal court. Nonetheless, he had aspirations to live the courtly life, and eventually married into the class at age 75. Because his social mores were impeccable, he was the johnny-on-the-spot to attend to foreign dignitaries who came to the city to see the ancient Roman sites. For the same reasons, his colleagues, especially those in the state archaeological service, found his behaviors irritating. His ego was large, and his obsequiousness to those in the old-world hierarchy was obvious. His gregariousness was somewhat at odds with his keen abilities as a researcher. He was superb at collecting and organizing data on ancient Roman topography, and the pursuit of such data drove him to complete large-scale projects. His passion to accrue topographical information was undiminished throughout the tumult in his career, and in the city. The Forma Urbis Romae (1893– 1901) the large map of a reconstructed ancient Rome, and the Storia degli Scavi di Roma (1902– 10), the collection of historical notices of archaeological discoveries in Rome, demonstrate his steadfastness in amassing vast amounts of information. His fascination in particular was with the ancient city’s infrastructure – its roads, its walls, its aqueducts – on which to hinge the topographic monuments. His methods of gathering data were unwaveringly methodical. He began with the textual sources, then consulted the visual sources – maps and views of ancient Rome throughout the centuries – to which he later added the tangible remains, the archaeological records of late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Rodolfo Lanciani and his scholarship demands some attention now. Despite the quality and quantity of his accomplishments, they were overlooked after his death, even as his publications were routinely consulted. He resigned his last position, that of university professor, at the age of 77, just months before the March on Rome. Lanciani’s contribution to the field of archaeology was thereafter diminished, overshadowed by the strong personalities among the next generation of archaeologists, those of the Fascist regime (some of whom were Lanciani’s pupils). Furthermore, in the century between Lanciani’s death and today, some of his many pronouncements or conclusions have been the subject of revision or criticism. I will give just a few examples. Jan Stubbe Østergaard traced Lanciani’s comments on the Licinian Tomb, from

12

Susan M. Dixon

different published sources, only to find them frustratingly inconsistent.1 David Karmon takes offense at Lanciani’s attention to gathering up evidence of the destruction of Rome during the Renaissance, as opposed to any of the age’s attempts at preserving the ancient.2 And Katherine von Stackelberg finds Lanciani’s unfavorable comparison of rigidly planned ancient Roman gardens to the “romantic naturalism” of the English garden to impede the appreciation of the former.3 These scholars are correct in taking Lanciani to task. My book, however, aims to give them some framework to understand the nature of his published statements, including the chaos in which archaeological finds were recorded, the desire to preserve that which would be lost, and his predilection for gearing some of his writings to his foreign audience. Lanciani has been getting more scholarly visibility in the past four decades or so. In this time, Lanicani’s scholarship has been edited or translated, and re-issued frequently. In 1988, Anthony Cubberley collected and edited Lanciani’s English-language journal entries from the London Athenaeum, allowing us to read all the entries from 1875 to 1914 in one place.4 In the early 1970s, Lanciani’s popular English-language books were made available in Italian. Furthermore, efforts to make public Lanciani’s archival materials began in earnest in the early 1990s. To the Vatican Libraries, he had donated sketches and personal notes on major monuments, many accumulated during his employment in the archaeological service. After some wayward notes were found and catalogued with the originals, Marco Buonocore edited and published five volumes of a majority of the items.5 Now, without going to Vatican City, one can see what Lanciani recorded about, e.g., the Servian Wall. After Lanciani’s death, the Biblioteca dell’Istituto di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte purchased Lanciani’s collection of visual evidence of ancient Rome that was captured by artists, architects, and archaeologists of centuries past, but the inventory was published only in 1991.6 And recently, approximately one third of those prints, drawings and photographs have been digitized and are available online.7 And if that is not enough, a team of scholars from three universities are updating Lanciani’s Forma Urbis Romae with archaeological finds made in the following century, and creating interactive links to the citations related to the illustrated topographical feature.8 Lanciani’s scholarship has never been more accessible. Those who love the topography of ancient Rome, or who have been engrossed in the pages of one of Lanciani’s texts, will enjoy learning about the man behind the extraordinary scholarship. They will get a fuller sense of this charismatic and ambitious individual, who despite great obstacles in his life and career, left much behind for us to contemplate and to build upon.

kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2003, 55–60. karMon 2011, 8. 3 von stackeLBerG 2009, 3–4. 4 cuBBerLey 1988. 5 Buoncore 1997–2002. 6 MuzzioLi and peLLeGrino 1991–92 and 1994. 7 https://exhibits.stanford.edu/lanciani 8 http://mappingrome.com/NFUR/ 1 2

Introduction

13

cHapter 1

a career in arcHaeoLoGy

BeGinninGs According to Rodolfo Lanciani, his interest in archeology was stirred at a young age. His earliest years were spent in the care of a wet nurse, whose cousin was the famous self-taught geologist and paleontologist, Abate Carlo Rusconi (1814–68).1 Rusconi took the young Lanciani into the local campagna to hunt for fossils.2 These outings awakened Lanciani’s fascination with exploring the earth for old things with rich histories. They also kindled the passion to understand the topography and history of the campagna, a project he would embrace fully in the last decades of his life. During those early years, Lanciani lived in Montecelio, the land of his ancestors, where the Lancianis had owned property on which stood some remains of Corniculum, the stronghold of Servius Tullius, sixth of the ancient kings of Rome.3 This familial association shaped Lanciani’s desire to elucidate early Rome’s history using material evidence. As a child, Rodolfo Lanciani was the youngest in his extended family who resided together in a palace on via di Ripetta in Rome, near the Tiber River. His parents, Pietro Lanciani and Lucia Galardi de Jugellis, were both in their mid-40s when he was born. The household also included three adult half-brothers from Pietro’s earlier marriage, some older paternal relations, and his sister Carlotta, five years his senior. Carlotta and Rodolfo remained close all their lives.4 Since the 16th century, Lanciani family members had distinguished themselves, excelling at medicine, jurisprudence, and science, among other professions.5 Rodolfo’s father Pietro was no exception. He was an engineer, and eventually a hydraulic engineer, at the papal court, from 1826 to his death in about 1868. He produced two very important publications on methods of managing sperandi and petrara 1993, 167. Francesca was Guadenzio’s cousin. Guadenzio was the prior and consellor of the commune of Montecelio, when Pietro worked there. Gaudenzio’s wife Giacinta was Lanciani’s mother’s godmother. Carlo Rusconi was Francesca’s cousin (although unclear if he was also Gaudenzio’s cousin). Rusconi’s collections were recently exhibited: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/en/archive/news/year-2014/rusconilegit-the-rediscovered-collection. 2 piccoLini 1929-30, 436–437. 3 paLoMBi 2006a, 37–38, and especially n. 20 and 21. 4 sperandi and petrara 1993, 171. Lucia Galardi de Jugellis (b. 1801) married the widowed Pietro (c. 1800–c. 1868) in 1839. Rodolfo’s half-brothers – Filippo (b. 1818), Camillo (b. 1821) and Cesare (b. 1823) – were adults by the time he was born. 5 sperandi and petrara 1993, 173–176, citing the work of A. G. Picchetti. 1

A Career in Archaeology

15

the flow of rivers, and specifically the Tiber River.6 Rodolfo as well would conduct intense research on water flows in Rome early in his studies. Rodolfo followed very closely in his father’s career footsteps. From 1865 to 1868, he studied mathematics, earning credentials as a civil architect in 1867, and as a civil engineer in 1868, from the Scuola speciale degli ingegnieri, at La Sapienza. 7 Pietro encouraged him in this pursuit by employing him as a teen to help measure the steep thoroughfares of Montecelio.8 Given the family roots in that hill town, Pietro served as its communal engineer. At Pietro’s death, just as Rodolfo was finishing his schooling, he assumed his father’s position, holding it until 1878 when his responsibilities in Rome became so laborious that they required all his attention.9 Water and earth, rivers and mountains, the art of measuring and the pursuit of ancient objects: these are the things that preoccupied the young Lanciani. Archaeology was not a profession that Lanciani studied at university, because it had not yet become a sanctioned field of study.10 Prior to his training in civil architecture and engineering at university from 1865–68, he was a well-read classicist who earned a degree in philosophy from the Collegio Romano in 1863. This solid training shaped Lanciani’s archaeological practice as much as his mastery of engineering. He brought to the investigation of the physical remains of ancient Rome an acute understanding of literary sources. Like Poggio Braccolini or other Renaissance humanists,11 he visited many European libraries throughout his life. In them, he sought and found written and visual evidence of ancient through medieval Rome’s topography and monuments. Family connections also aided Lanciani in his career. He easily found work among his father’s colleagues at the papal court. Count Virginio Vespignani (1802–82), a papal architect and an erstwhile illustrator of archaeological texts, including one of the excavations at Pompei, was his sister’s father-in-law.12 Furthermore, Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822–94), a papal archaeologist best known for his investigations of the Christian catacombs, mentored Lanciani while he was still a student. De Rossi, referred to as the father of Christian archaeology, compiled three volumes of plans of the catacombs and a corpus of Christian inscriptions.13 In the late 1860s, de Rossi explored the ancient site of Portus, with Lanciani at his side. 6 paLoMBi 2006a, 36 and n. 14. His works include: Pietro Lanciani (with Verne L. Roberts), Del Ponte Senatorio, ora ponte Rotto (Rome: Puccinelli, 1826); Pietro Lanciani, Sulla necessità di rimuovere l’impedimento al corso del Tevere formato dallo scarico delle immondezze alla penna… (Rome, 1829); and Pietro Lanciani, Puntone ad Aratro, macchina per lo spungo de’ porti, ecc., 4 vols (Rome, 1837). In 1829, he wrote of the need to clear the Tiber river of its alluvial deposits, and in 1837, of the methods and instruments needed to clear ports of debris. 7 paLoMBi 2006a, 41, and n. 27. The Collegio Romano, the Jesuit college, was suppressed in 1871, and La Sapienza, the papal university, was transformed into the University of Rome. 8 sperandi and petrara 1993, 168–169; Lanciani 1924, 88. 9 In this role, Lanciani was involved in designing of the chapel that today stands in the cemetery of Montecelio. It is of Neoclassical design. See sperandi and petrara, 169, and Tav. XLV and XLVI. He kept the family house on via del Sole until 1894, often renting it out. The Lanciani family had made Rome their primary residence about a century before Lanciani’s birth. 10 BarBanera 1998, 55–77. 11 GreenBLatt 2011, on Bracciolini’s 1417 discovery of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. For a list of libraries Lanciani visited, see paLoMBi 2006a, 290–291, and n. 459. 12 Arguably, Vespignani is best known as the architect responsible for the 1869 rebuilding of the church San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome. His son, the architect Count Francesco Vespignani (1842–99), was Lanciani’s brother-in-law.

BauMGarten 1892. De Rossi’s publications include: La Roma Sotteranea Cristiana, v. 1, Rome, 1864; vol. 2, 1867, and vol. 3, 1877; and Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, vol. 1, Rome, 1861; vol. 2, 1888. This series was continued by others after de Rossi’s death. 13

16

Susan M. Dixon

portus and MaGLiana Portus was one of the major ports that served ancient Rome, conceived and constructed under the Julio-Claudian emperors. Located on the Tyrennhian coast, just north of Ostia, it was intended to alleviate some of the traffic through the neighboring port. In the post-antique centuries, Portus had been the property of the papacy. In the Renaissance period, it was a site of interest because of the artistic treasure and the reusable building materials it yielded. In Lanciani’s day, the Torlonia family owned the site, after Prince Alessandro, the second prince of Civatelli-Cesi (1800–86), and papal banker, purchased it. It was mined primarily for ancient sculptures and other artifacts to enhance the famous Torlonia collection.14 As part of the process, trenches were opened and then back filled, once the treasure was extracted. Between 1863 and 1867, the papal archaeologist Pietro Ercole Visconti (1803–80) supervised this work. Visconti was a third-generation papal archaeologist, and served as prefect of antiquities under the papacy from 1836 to 1870.15 Under de Rossi’s mentorship, Lanciani published an account of what he believed to be a major find on the site, the Xenodochio, or hospice for early Christian pilgrims mentioned in the letters of St. Jerome.16 Lanciani identified the apsidal wall of the building, located within the confines of ancient Portus and at its southernmost point. As an aside, Lanciani noted that the wall appeared to be that of a basilica or Christian triclinium; in fact, today the building is identified as a Christian basilica.17 He argued that the building was constructed or possibly reconstructed in the first half of the fourth century, and was inhabited until about the end of the ninth century. The bricks it was built from provided evidence for his position, as did the coins, lamps, and other material evidence found on site. He also collected and interpreted the epigraphic evidence, both near the site and elsewhere, including an inscription from a late eighth- / early ninth-century restoration of the building by Pope Leo III (750–815). In a subsequent essay, Lanciani accounted for the topography of ancient Portus (Fig. 2). It was published in the 1868 issue of Annali dell’Istituto di Correspondenza Archaeologica, the scholarly journal of the eponymous institute.18 This organization was founded in 1823 for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information about archaeological discoveries among scholars from all parts of the world, but most of the scholarship came from France and Prussia.19 In the essay, Lanciani built on the scholarship of de Rossi and Wilhelm Henzen (1816–87), a pre-eminent German expert in Latin epigraphy and philology.20 Because the Portus site had been plundered for centuries and it was therefore difficult to clear and to measure, Lanciani relied heavily on historical documents. Substantial visual evidence of the topography and monuments of Portus was available in the maps and drawings of past centuries. These included the 16th-century maps of Baldasarre Peruzzi and Salvestro Perruzi, Pirro Ligorio, Sebastiano Serlio, Antonio Labacco, and visconti 1883. ridLey 1992b, 149–150. 16 The Xenodochio was said to be built by Pammacchio, the late 4th-century Roman senator, and friend and correspondent of St. Jerome. See Lanciani 1866; Jerome Letter 77:10. 17 https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archaeology/research/impact/the_portus_project.page 14 15

18

Lanciani 1868a.

dyson 2006, 30–5, 43–44, 100. The institute was dissolved, and from its membership emerged the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut under the sponsorship of the Prussian (1871) and then after the unification of Germany, the German (1873) government. In 1886, the Annali was replaced by Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Römische Abteilung. 20 dyson 2006, 43–44; BarBanera 1998, 29 and n. 132. 19

A Career in Archaeology

17

Fig. 2. Ancient Portus, plan, from Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1888), 245.

Stefano Dupérac. Lanciani also consulted written descriptions of 19th-century archaeologists Carlo Fea, Antonio Nibby, and Luigi Canina.21 In particular, Lanciani garnered much information from an important written description of the site in a comprehensive 17th-century hydraulic engineering document on the topic of making the Tiber navigable.22 In ancient times, Portus was created to supersede Ostia as the more effective port. The efficiency of Portus’ design allowed it to handle the increasing number of ships from Greece and the East in early Imperial times. It was outfitted with two harbors, constructed nearly on axis with one another. The outer basin, built under the emperors Claudius and Nero, was separated from the sea by breakers, and the inner hexagonal basin, constructed under Trajan, could be accessed from it by well-designed manmade canals and islands. In Lanciani’s day, they both had long been filled in with alluvia, and the workings of the connection between the two basins was not clear. Lanciani contributed to the scholarship by demonstrating how a shipping vessel could move from one basin to the other. 21 Perruzi’s unpublished document dated to before 1536 and a publication to before 1537. Ligorio’s map dated to 1554; Serlio’s, to c. 1554; Labacco’s to 1567; and Dupérac’s to 1574. Fea’s written description dates to 1824; Nibby’s work was issued in 1819, 1827, and 1849; and Canina’s in 1830, 1837 and 1856. 22 Lanciani 1868a, for references to Cornelius Mayer’s “L’arte de restituire a Roma la traslaciata navigazione del suo Tiber.”

18

Susan M. Dixon

Furthermore, Lanciani established the positions of the port’s principal buildings. These include the imperial palace with its sumptuously decorated atria, porticoes, and gardens, as well as the bath, which had originally been located by Antonio Nibby (1792–1839). He also identified the general location of the theater,23 and placed the port’s warehouses on the reconstructive plan, along with their attendant temples and fire stations. The publication showcased Lanciani’s careful research skills. The essay reveals not just the breadth of his knowledge of historical maps but his command of classical literary sources. He included anecdotes from history to make the ruins come alive, such as the second-century philosopher Aulus Gellius’s tale of Favorinus monitoring a debate on the shores of Ostia, and an account of Augustine attending to his Fig. 3. Temple of Dea Dia, reconstruction drawing, from W. dying mother St. Monica in the city. Scavi nel Bosco Sacro del Fratelli Arvali (1868), tav. In 1868, working again with Hen- Hentzen, 4. Courtesy of the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (85zen, Lanciani created illustrations of a B24460). reconstructed temple of Dea Dia, for the German scholar’s exhaustive essay on the subject (Fig. 3). 24 The Brethren of the Arvales, one of the oldest institutions of ancient Rome, built and dedicated the temple to their patron goddess. The group, along with the Vestal Virgins, had been charged with keeping the early rituals of Rome alive. They worshipped Dea Dia, a goddess Henzen believed was related to Ceres, in order to guarantee a good harvest in the young settlement in Rome. Tradition held that the first brethren were the sons of Faustulus, the shepherd who nurtured Romulus and Remus. Always twelve in number, they met at the Regia in the Roman Forum, and once a year travelled to the wooded site along the Tiber River to offer sacrifice to the goddess. The brotherhood became inactive and their rituals fell out of use during the last centuries of the Roman Republic, but were revived in the early Empire under Augustus. Henzen had discovered a temple dedicated to Dea Dia and other buildings at La Magliana, a site between Rome and Portus. The excavations were conducted at the behest of the king and queen of Prussia, Wilhelm I (1797–1888) and Augusta (1811–90), who had obtained papal permission to excavate there. Henzen found the location of various buildings dating to the late imperial period at the site, including the temple, a bath, and a circus. There were also a considerable number of The location of the theater has only recently been securely established by excavators at the University of Southampton. See n. 17 above. 24 Henzen 1874; von HesBerG 2014. 23

A Career in Archaeology

19

inscriptions on the site, including fragments of the Acts of the Brethren of the Arvales, which provided invaluable information about this curious religious group with prehistoric origins. As Lanciani completed his education and made some inroads into a scholarly career, the papal court’s role as custodian of ancient Rome was coming to an end. Indeed, papal Rome was in its last days. Lanciani was likely too young to remember the events of the 1849 battle near Porta San Pancrazio, when the Risorgimento leaders attempted to establish a new Roman Republic. That battle temporarily displaced his father’s employer, Pope Pius IX (reigned 1846–1878) from the city.25 But as a young adult, Rodolfo surely could not have ignored the wave of republican, and thus anti-papal, sentiment in Italy. In 1860, some students at Lanciani’s university demonstrated by refusing to sign a promise of devotion to the papacy, which led to their expulsion.26 Thus, it is unclear if Lanciani was surprised or dismayed when the papal institutions where he would have sought future employment were disempowered in 1871, after Rome was sieged again, this time at the Porta Pia. At this time, Vittorio Emanuele II, the Savoy duke and self-proclaimed King of Italy, claimed the city as the capital of the new unified nation of Italy.27 This momentous event provoked many changes, including efforts to transform the sleepy town into a modern city and the creation of bureaucratic offices to oversee and care for one the city’s most valued assets, the antiquities of Rome.28 Lanciani subsequently was asked to work for the national government in its archaeological service.

pietro rosa, sopraintendenza Lanciani’s first major employment, then, was with the Italian state. In early 1871, he was hired as an inspector of excavations in the office of the Sopraintendenza per gli Scavi di Antichità, part of the Ministry of Public Instruction. Cesare Correnti served as its minister from 1870 to mid-1872. Correnti’s immediate goal was to assume control over all archaeological sites throughout Italy. He planned to do this by segregating the practice of archaeology from the private academies (including the papal academy), and thus taking it out of the hands of those he deemed amateurs. He opined that these amateurs were only interested in building private collections of antiquities. He also wanted to eliminate excavations by foreigners, who for centuries had gained excavation licenses from the various sovereigns of pre-unification Italy, then arranged for antiquities to be exported out of the country. Instead, Correnti wished to wed archaeological practice to public museums, ensuring that archaeological finds made their way into national museums, and were thus used for public instruction.29 The office of Sopraintendenza was established by royal decree soon after the Savoy troops entered Rome. Pietro Rosa, the first and only appointed superintendent, was responsible for setting the agenda for archaeological excavations in Rome and its provinces, and for caring for the goods gained from them. He was obligated to investigate and examine all artifacts found serendipitously on state-owned property (e.g., during construction) in order to identify items valuable for the new nation’s public use. Lastly, he was charged with creating national museums in which the excavated material could be displayed.30 HiBBert 1985, 244–273. dicey 1911, 142–148. 27 HiBBert 1985, 271–272. 28 dyson 1998, 16. 29 BarBanera 1998, 37. 30 BarBanera 1998, 34. 25 26

20

Susan M. Dixon

Rosa had trained as a painter and an architect, but because of his abilities as a draftsman, he was recommended in 1861 to oversee excavations of a portion of the Palatine Hill, the Orti Farnesiani. At that time, Napoleon III owned the property.31 The Orti Farnesiani constituted a significant portion of one of the preeminent historical sites in Rome. The Palatine was rich with associations with the founding of Rome; it was believed that Romulus established his colony on this hill. In 1870, the new Italian government recognized that ownership of this site of cultural identity was essential in establishing its authority. Rosa convinced the French to sell the property to the state government. For this service, Rosa was given his office in the national government, and eventually named Senator.32 The Orti Farnesini property had been long abandoned when Rosa first approached it. The messy site had been under the control of the 16th-century Farnese family, who ravaged it in search of building material and antiquities for its collections. Rosa’s investigations were most likely as thorough as the situation could allow. He discovered the location of the Temple of Jupiter Stator, on the slopes of the Capitoline Hill, and teased out its connection to Via Sacra. The tablinium of the palace of the Domitian (the Flavian palace) had been visible for some time, but he uncovered more of the structure, including some of its peristyle and triclinium (Fig. 4). He did not probe as far as the cryptoportus. Rosa also found a nearby nymphaeum, and to the south, a library and a schoolroom. His work on the south/south western side of the hill included isolating the site of Temple of Apollo (although he identified it as the Temple of Jupiter Vincitore), and discovering the House of Livia and the Temple of Mater Matuta (which he referred to as the Auguratorium). 33 He worked on the site as far to the southwest as the Scala Caci, coming short of the Casa Romuli.34 In 1870, when the state took ownership of this site, and then expanded it by purchasing or seizing other private property on the Palatine Hill,35 Rosa’s explorations continued mainly to the northeast, towards the Velian Hill.36 He believed he had located the Porta Mugonia, one of the major gates of the Roma Quadrata, thought to be the walls constructed by Romulus.37 Rosa had a rigorous work ethic. He employed a lean crew of nine people, one of whom was a child. Under his management, they worked quickly and efficiently. He spent considerable effort educating the public about his work, and he opened the site to visitors on Thursdays. The excavations were widely popular, and their progress was reported in the newspapers. For the public’s benefit, he did “restorations”— reconstructing columns from marble fragments, and collecting fragments from the site and displaying them as creative “candelabra.” To these creative structures he added signage.38 In what had been the Uccellerie Farnesiniane, he established an on-site museum, the Antiquarium, to display artifacts obtained there; these buildings were torn down in 1882.39 toMei 1999, 1–19. toMei 1990, 102–103. 33 toMei 1990, 62–99; also see toMei 1999. 34 iacopi 1997, 17–29. 35 iacopi 1997, 24–25. 36 iacopi 1997, 25. 37 iacopi 1997, 20–21. 38 toMei 1990, 70–71, 89–91; and toMei 1999, 341–346. The site was visited by male foreigners, who brought their wives, something which surprised the Romans. Rosa’s progress on the site was also followed closely in the newspapers. As for the restorations, the candelabra were vandalized and dismantled by 1900; the fragments were moved to the Antiquarium. 39 When the Uccellerie, which housed the Antiquarium, were destroyed, the artifacts were then taken to the Baths of Diocletian. They are now on display in the Museo Palatino located on the Hill. 31 32

A Career in Archaeology

21

Fig. 4. Palatine Hill, foldout plan, from C.L. Visconti and Lanciani, Guida del Palatino (1873), drawing by Alessandro Zangolini.

The office of the Sopraintendenza did not employ any of the papal archaeologists with experience digging in Rome. These men, including Lanciani’s mentors de Rossi and Visconti, refused to work in the state service, or more accurately, they refused to sign documents of allegiance to the state as terms of employment.40 Upon entering Rome in September 1870, agents of the national government immediately suppressed the pontifical commission on archaeology and shut down its archaeological expeditions. One such site was a property on the Palatine Hill adjacent to where Rosa worked. The tension between Rosa and the old papal archaeologists — especially P.E. Visconti — was thick. But even before 1870, Rosa felt these men had disrespected him by not taking seriously his scholarly interpretation of the finds.41 In Roman society at large in the first decades of the Italian nation, antagonism was great between those who were loyal to the pope and those who were loyal to the constitutional monarchy. As the BarBarera 1998, 36; dyson 2006, 40–41. toMei 1990, 70, 74–77, on a shouting match between Rosa and P.E. Visconti during a session of the Accademia dei Lincei. 40 41

22

Susan M. Dixon

national government disempowered the papacy in all secular matters, it upset and marginalized Roman Catholics. Estranged Catholics formed a movement against the government, the Black Party. The opposing party, the Whites, supported the new liberal and republican government, voicing resentment for the years the papacy and clergy ruled with authoritarianism and corruption. Pope Pius XI, angered at his treatment in post-unification Italy, and secluded in the Vatican as a prisoner, mandated that the Black Party, and indeed all Roman Catholics, not participate in elections nor engage in service for what was deemed an illegitimate government.42 Well before 1870, the Neapolitan Rosa’s anti-clerical sentiments were well-known. Nonetheless Rosa recommended Lanciani for the civil service position of inspector engineer, despite the fact that Lanciani always identified as a devout Roman Catholic, and had great respect for de Rossi and the other papal archaeologists.43 Rosa and Lanciani had a social connection; both were members of the Alpine Club of Italy, and in 1868 they may have explored Monte Gennaro near Tivoli together.44 In the early years of the nation, new civil servants were expected to be men of high ideals. They were to possess a good work ethic and loyalty to their employer. Yet they had few job protections. Their appointments could vary with changes of ministers, who were appointed by the Prime Minister after every new election. Furthermore, salaries were not standardized by position. Civil servants relied heavily on bonuses and special allowances, doled out by a central administration that was predictably slow.45 There were few rules for tenure, dismissals, and pensions. No bureaucratic infrastructure to deal with internal labor disputes existed at this time. Trouble between Rosa and Lanciani began with a disagreement about the nature of Lanciani’s position. Beginning in early 1871, Lanciani was paid for ad hoc tasks. The ministry soon decided it needed full-time inspectors, and had solicited nominations for these positions in May of that year. Rosa had submitted Lanciani’s name.46 This salaried position appears not to have been officially offered nor accepted. Lanciani, however, was under the impression that he was performing the tasks of a full-time inspector, and that he deserved a salary for that work. He believed this, he reported, because of the way Rosa spoke to and treated him. In October 1872, when no raise had appeared in Lanciani’s paycheck, he filed suit for back wages and fees against Rosa, representative of the Office of the Superintendent. The suit was messy, given the state’s immature bureaucracy, and took four years to resolve. In the end, Lanciani received only a small portion of the remuneration he sought. By 1875, the government officials were in the process of changing the structure of the Ministry of Public Instruction itself.47 The episode reveals something of Lanciani’s work ethic, as the older Rosa understood it. Rosa felt that Lanciani was a difficult employee and in a letter noted that he considered Lanciani to be lazy, completing tasks on his own schedule, and temperamental, taking offense easily. He frequently misinterpreted things Rosa said, understanding them as sinister remarks.48 Rosa also felt Lanciani disrespected him in public. Rosa revealed that Lanciani quit the position but later returned to it. Upon Lanciani’s sMitH, H.K. 1898, 95; tannenBauM and noetHer 1974, 261-264. This and subsequent references to Lanciani’s titles and salaries are found in ACS, Direzione generale Antichità e Belli Arti, MPI, Dir. Gen. AA.BB.AA, 1860-1892, Div. arte antica, personale busta 18. 44 sperandio and petrara 1993, 167, n. 12. 45 cLark 1974, 55–57. 46 ACS as in n. 43: Report from Rosa to Minister, October 1872, citing a letter of 9 May 1871, in which Lanciani’s name was proposed for this position. 47 ACS as in n. 43: Negotiations between Lanciani and the various ministries involved in the dispute is captured in correspondences between 19 January 1873 and 19 June 1874. 48 ACS as in n. 43: Letter from Rosa to Minister, October 1872. 42 43

A Career in Archaeology

23

return, however, Rosa noted behavior he took to be progressive laziness: refusing to go to an excavation site or to respond to Rosa’s inspection requests, sending other inspectors such as Angelo Pellegrini to do the work.49 Furthermore, Rosa – an indefatigable journal writer – complained that Lanciani left neither drawings, sketches, nor notes of his inspections with the office.50 Lanciani, for his part, claimed he was indeed excavating, overseeing excavations, inspecting finds, and directing restorations throughout the city. He listed the far-flung sites that he had visited, including some on the Palatine Hill, and areas outside the Porta Salaria and Porta Maggiore, on site of the Stazione Centrale and along via Nazionale, and near the church of San Nicolo da Tolentino in the area of the Horti Sallustiani. The various reports related to the suit characterize Lanciani as thin-skinned, someone who felt his work and expertise were undervalued. They reveal Rosa as combative, and having an unclear understanding of his duties in the new state bureaucracy. Rosa’s manuscripts from his excavations on the Palatine Hill reveal that he was a highly organized, tireless, and detailed administrator. However, he had the tendency to be presumptuous and assume that he was put-upon by others. According to a recent biographer, he professed to be humble but actually exhibited narcissistic behavior. He could be both easily insulted and mercilessly insulting to others.51 Beyond the clash of strong personalities, however, this lawsuit episode tells us something more. Rosa’s critique of Lanciani’s work signals something larger about the changing ethics of archaeological practice. What did the oversight of an archaeological site entail in the new bureaucratic state? Rosa suggested that unsupervised workmen, monitored by an excavation inspector who only visits periodically, can hardly be expected to keep accurate notes about their finds. A more rigorous oversight by professional archeologists was required. Furthermore, Rosa had criticized the papal archeologists for excavating a sgrotto, i.e., digging a cave or hole into the ground in a haphazard way to retrieve what was hidden in the earth. Rosa employed a type of proto-stratigraphy in which he inserted a tube into the earth in order to ascertain the depth of any remains before planning an excavation strategy.52 Rosa also wanted full control over information from the excavation, a major departure from the standard practice in papal Rome. Under the papacy, the scholar assigned to or associated with the excavation owned the knowledge from the site, and could publish it and present it to their patron, or to fellow scholars at a private academy such as the Accademia dei Lincei. But post 1870, Rosa believed, the material yielded from the work, including sketches of the sites, belonged to the state. This clash of habits marks a sharp growing pain in the discipline of archaeology. Rosa never did publish the results of his remarkable and extensive discoveries on the Palatine Hill.53 As his biographer writes, he could not put down the shovel for the pen.54 Instead, in 1873, Carlo Ludovico Visconti, Pietro Ercole’s son, co-authored with Lanciani a history and guide to the remains of the Palatine Hill.55 The volume was published by the royal court’s press, Fratelli Bocca in Turin. It was most likely commissioned by the Accademia dei Lincei, which was just at this moment being placed under the patronage of the new nation’s constitutional monarch, King Vittorio Emanuele II. ACS as in n. 43: Letter from Lanciani to Rosa, 26 November 1872; Rosa’s response to Lanciani’s lawyer’s brief, submitted on 19 June 1873. 50 ACS as in n. 43: Letter from Rosa to Minister, October 1872. 51 toMei 1990, 62, n. 8, and 103. 52 toMei 1990, 106. 53 capodiFerro and piranoMonte 1990, 109–110. 54 toMei 1990, 105, n. 257. 49

55

24

visconti, C.L. and Lanciani 1873.

Susan M. Dixon

The Accademia dei Lincei was the oldest scientific academy in Europe, founded in the early 17th century in the age of Galileo Galilei.56 It was well known for producing innovative scholarship in astronomy, physics, and botany. After floundering for a time, it was subsumed as a pontifical academy in 1847. Because of the academy’s historic prestige, it was not suppressed by the new state in 1871, as other papal institutions were. Rather, it became the vehicle of the state. In 1874, it was renamed the Accademia Reale dei Lincei under the direction of Quintinio Sella (1827– 84), the renowned scientist and statesman from Piedmont. The academy was reorganized into two major branches, or classe, of scientific investigation. The study of the remains of the ancient past, including epigraphy, fell under the physical sciences classe. 57 The Lincei retained many of its members from its days as a papal academy, including the papal archaeologists and foreign scholars. Given Lanciani’s exemplary scholarship of the late 1860s, he was invited early on to be an associate at the Lincei. But he had ambitions to become an active, official member, or socio correspondente. His dream was to sit and work alongside his mentors de Rossi, P.E. Visconti, and Henzen, as well as Theodor Mommsen (1817–1904), the renowned scholar of ancient Rome, and the founder and organizer of the Corpus Inscriptionem, the comprehensive list of ancient Roman inscriptions.58 After Lanciani’s publication on the Palatine Hill, he achieved full membership in March 1875.59 The preface of Lanciani and Visconti’s Guida outlines the historical events that led to the new government’s procurement of the land and command of excavations on the Palatine Hill. They carefully outline how the majority of the land on the Hill, once belonging to many private parties, came to belong to the national government. Rosa’s role in acquiring the land was lauded. After a description of the geological aspects of the hill and its general topography, a substantial first section of the book relates what classical sources had to say about the site. Within this section, the material is presented chronologically, from the story of Romulus and Remus and the founding of the site, to the occupation by the ancient kings, to the late Roman emperors. It relates accounts of citizens like Cataline and Cicero, anecdotes about their lives that provide some insight into the history of this seminal site. The narrative omits or downplays Renaissance interventions, including those of the Farnese family, who so violently unearthed artistic treasures they hopelessly muddled the site for future archaeologists. The second part of the book is a written description of the topography of the site, including information from the recent archaeological finds. The section is arranged by section of the site, and then by major buildings occupying that section. The two parts of the book do not mesh. Given the complex nature of the site and its occupation and destruction over the centuries, much that was mentioned in the classical literature was not accounted for in the ruins, and conversely, monuments whose archaeological records are described in the second part have little reference in the classical sources. Nonetheless, the publication served as a reference work for generations. After this publication in 1875, Lanciani succeeded in settling his lawsuit against Rosa. This victory happened to coincide with a reconceptualization of the national archaeological service and a downgrading of Rosa’s position within it. With his supervisor’s career in decline, Lanciani’s fortunes rose, as we will soon see. In 1874, Rosa had disastrous results while attempting to unearth the Colosseum’s substructures. The monument’s foundations, known as the hypogenium, were covered under about 40 feet of 56 57 58 59

MorGHen 1972, 7–31. MorGHen 1972, 37–43.

http://cil.bbaw.de/cil_en/dateien/forschung.html Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, s. 2a, 3 (1875): 129–131.

A Career in Archaeology

25

earth. For more than a century, the arena above had been used as an outdoor chapel, whose main elements were a tall crucifix and tabernacles of the Stations of the Cross. Rosa was committed to demolishing the chapel in order to reveal the workings of the ancient amphitheater. The idea for the excavation was not new; in 1813, there had been an attempt to excavate. But that campaign was thwarted because of flooding due to high groundwater. The flooding was exacerbated because the excavators were unable to find and therefore clear the ancient drainage lines.60 In 1874, Rosa committed 281 laborers to the Colosseum project.61 His results were the same as those of his early 19th-century predecessors: invasive flooding. The site remained under water for over a year, exacerbating the failure of Rosa’s campaign.62 Events beyond Rosa’s misstep at the Colosseum, however, caused his demotion as Sopraintendenza. In 1873, national government elections brought change in the appointment of the Ministers, and with that, changes in many bureaucratic offices.63 Ruggiero Bonghi replaced Correnti as Minister of Public Instruction. Born in Naples, Bonghi was a trained philologist and had served as a professor of ancient and modern literature at various Italian universities. More importantly, he was a skilled politician who had new ideas on how to conduct archaeology. In September 1874, he invited Giuseppe Fiorelli (1823–96), a valued and like-minded colleague from Naples, to head the archaeological service.64 This shift had a significant impact on the practice of archaeology in Italy. Bonghi directed Fiorelli to reorganize the offices in charge of excavations. The Sopraintendenza, with Rosa in charge, was suppressed. In its stead, the Direzione Generale degli Scavi e dei Musei was instituted as a body with larger responsibilities, including more tightly centralized control of excavations and museums, and the authority to apply export laws more rigorously.65 (In 1881, this body was renamed the Direzione Generale per le Antichità e Belle Arti.) For his significant work, however, Rosa retained an honorary office until 1880.66

Giuseppe FioreLLi, direzione GeneraLe Under Fiorelli’s tenure as director of the Direzione Generale, the administrative offices in charge of excavations were restructured, creating a structure for defined work assignments and clear

ridLey 1992a, 116–123, 217–237. deLpino and duBBini 2011, 402, n. 12. 62 Contemporaries weighed in on the disaster, including Filippo Barnabei (BarnaBei and deLpino 2011, 130– 132) and Ferdinand Gregorovius, (GreGorovius 1991, 356–357, 371). 63 sMitH, H.K. 1898, 27–33 and 96–108. In Italy’s constitutional monarchy, the Prime Minister was chosen by the Parliament, one of two elected bodies; the other was the senate, whose members were appointed by the King. Two parties vied for control in the Parliament. The Destra, a political alliance leaning right, maintained control in the first six years of the government. The party was best known for its affiliation with Northern Italy, with the aristocratic classes, and with a tight centralization of power in government. The Sinistra’s gains in parliamentary elections in 1876 loosened the strong control of the Destra. The Sinistra was most often affiliated with Southern Italy, with the bourgeois classes, and with greater suffrage and more social services. 64 BarBanera 1998a, 61. 60 61

65

Bruni 2001, 777; and de carro and Guzzo 1999, 101–134.

Bruni 2001, 781, n. 26, notes that in 1880, Rosa and his brother Salvatore were commissioned to create a project for the national museum of antiquities in the Bath of Diocletian; this project did not materialize. 66

26

Susan M. Dixon

communication.67 In addition, he established standard excavation methods, and strove to more securely connect the museums to the excavations.68 Fiorelli gained fame for his work at the excavations of Pompei. He is best known for devising a method of taking plaster molds to preserve the impression of the organic material at the site, a technique especially useful for gathering information about the people killed at the site by a volcanic eruption. He insisted on a method of digging layer-by-layer and of using stratigraphic analysis to garner information, a practice used in other countries.69 To Rome he brought his methods of securing good record-keeping by organizing a site into areas before excavation began. This method of creating divisions in a site was easily transferred, using Rome’s ancient rione for regions.70 Under his direction, notices of the excavations were published monthly; Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità was established in late 1877. These and other rules are laid out in his Istruzione generali sulla condotta degli scavi. In general, Fiorelli’s 118 rules on how to conduct an excavation advance the idea of archaeology as a method useful for not only liberating ancient materials, but also reconstructing history.71 When Italy’s premier physician, surgeon, and statesman, Guido Baccelli (1830–1916) was ushered into office as the new Minister of Public Instruction in 1881, he retained Fiorelli, and expanded his duties.72 Fiorelli held the office until 1891, when at age 68, he resigned because of ill health. Baccelli and Fiorelli made bold plans for excavating larger areas of Rome’s prime archaeological sites. One need only follow the 1881 to 1886 Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità entries for Rome, Regione VIII, the section that included the Roman Forum, to get a sense of their ambition. By 1882, the Forum was cleared so that the entirety could easily be traversed, on one level, from the Capitoline Hill to the Colosseum, and by 1883, the ancient connections between the Forum and the Palatine Hill were laid bare. This productive time, with Baccelli and Fiorelli in office, corresponded with a significant increase in new construction in Rome, and with it a rise in the number of random archaeological discoveries. In 1881, funding was finally legislated to fully implement the Piano Regolatore of 1873 (Fig. 5). The plan called for the creation of infrastructure for the new capital city – vie Nazionale, Cavour, Tritone, Arenula, among others. The Stazione Centrale and the railway lines were part of this initiative. Some state ministry buildings had been begun along via XX Settembre, including the Ministries of Finance and of War. The Tiber embankment was also underway. But more development in the rapidly growing capital city was needed, and in 1883, a modified Piano Regolatore was developed and approved. It allowed for new living quarters and new institutional buildings: the Palace of Justice, the national hospital, and military barracks.73 Oversight of the digging in these areas was part of Fiorelli’s expanding responsibility. In 1875, Fiorelli chose Lanciani as the agent for his goals, and throughout the next decade, LeHoerFF 1999, 79, 90. eMiLiani 1999, 101–134; – 1999, 85. 69 de caro 1999, 5–23. 70 After a few issues (i.e., beginning in March 1878), the discoveries from the city of Rome were recorded by area, or regione, in the issues of NSc. 71 BarBanera 1998, 46 and n. 234. 72 LeHoerFF 1999, 80. 73 cuccia 1991, 15–33, 55–77. 67 68

A Career in Archaeology

27

Fig. 5. Piano Regolatore della città di Roma, 1873. Photo credit: Archivio Storico Capitolino, Piante e Vedute di Roma, fondo Capitolino, Stragr 733 (II).

Lanciani’s responsibilities and fortunes increased. His state employment records show that in June 1877, he was made second class engineer of excavations, with a salary of 2,000 lire. In addition, he received a housing stipend of 270 lire. After the birth of his daughter, his housing stipend increased to 520 lire in 1878. In July 1881, as he began concentrated work in the Roman Forum, he received a promotion, put in charge of excavations and monuments, as well as museums and galleries. By 1 December 1885, his salary had been increased to 3,000 lire.74 In 1875, Lanciani also became the vice-director of Museo Kircheriano, which came with a 1,500 lire salary and 300 lire stipend.75 The Museo Kircheriano was the only state-owned museum at this time. It held the eclectic collection of the 17th-century Jesuit polymath Father Anastasius Kircher, ACS, as in n. 43. First Lanciani received 370 lire, i.e., an additional 170 to cover housing accommodations for his wife; and then before his daughter was born in September 1878, the allogia fee was upped to 520, i.e., he was given an addition 150 to support her. 74 75

28

Susan M. Dixon

which had been preserved and housed by the order in the Collegio Romano, and was usurped by the state after the enforcement of national laws suppressing religious corporations.76 The collection included an assortment of meraviglie, such as fossils, optical instruments, Latin inscriptions, and Egyptian scarabs, among other things.77 In sum, it was not sufficient to represent the nation of Italy’s cultural heritage, especially as the nation was acquiring a wealth of newly unearthed art and artifacts. Lanciani’s charge was to collect and organize newly found artifacts into museums or magazines, even if they were only temporary. Most of these new museums were located near major excavation sites, such as the Colosseum, the Forum, and the Palatine. By late 1879, the Tibertine Museum on the Lungara was open to the public, though only for a short time.78 It held artifacts from the Tiber River and its banks, including the spectacular villa frescoes now in the Museo Nazionale Romano in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme. After much discussion, Parliament decided in 1889 to allocate two locations, the Terme di Diocletian and the Villa Giulia, for the objects under state jurisdiction.79 In addition, Lanciani was responsible for publishing monthly in Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, the state’s record of archaeological discoveries, on findings in and near Rome. Lanciani wrote brief monthly entries on finds in the city, and in the span of a decade wrote almost 200 entries. We will explore those findings in Chapter 2. tHe accadeMia dei Lincei After Fiorelli entrusted Lanciani with new responsibilities in 1875 but before those responsibilities were increased in 1880, Lanciani was very much engaged in research on one of his passions: investigating the water systems of ancient Rome. He showcased his expertise in ancient hydraulic engineering for the Accademia dei Lincei’s distinguished members, giving presentations that discussed the use of the inverted siphon by the ancient Romans, and evidence of drainage tunnels in Rome and in the campagna.80 In 1880, Lanciani published a commentary on the ancient author Frontinus’s work on the aqueducts of Rome, positioning them within the topography of the city and its surroundings.81 In I Commentarii di Frontinus intorno le acque e gli acquedotti, Lanciani analyzes Frontinus’s text in relationship to what was still visible of the aqueduct system in Lanciani’s day, and what he understood from other sources had been altered over the intervening centuries. Using Frontinus as a model, Lanciani listed the various sources of the ancient waters, including rivers, springs, wells, and fonts, both in the Roman campagna and within the city. He then embarked on a description of each of the aqueducts, in order of their construction, making note of both ancient and modern scholarship attesting to their existence. This included the insights of John Henry Parker (1806–84), an amateur archaeologist from England, who had photographed some of the remains of the system in the early 1870s.82 cuccia 1991, 56; the law was passed 1873. Bruni 2001, 778, n. 11. 78 cuBBerLey 1988, 70, 72. 79 Bruni 2001, 780–781. 76 77

80 81 82

Lanciani 1878–79; also Reference to Lanciani 1876–77, 1878–79b, 1878–79c. Lanciani 1879–80.

raMieri 1989, 23-30.

A Career in Archaeology

29

Of particular note are Lanciani’s appendices to his commentary. They showcase his gift for assembling and organizing information. One appendix is a list of 104 inscriptions, most of them found on lead pipes. They are sorted by their find location as well as by their location in Lanciani’s day, be it a museum or a private collection. He derived a great deal of information about the aqueducts from studying these inscriptions, as his text makes clear. (Throughout the 1880s, in his position as director of excavations, Lanciani often made note of newly found inscriptions.) Lanciani also includes short descriptive essays on the nature of the ancient Roman offices in charge of ancient hydraulic engineering, the architecture of the aqueduct system – which is illustrated – and the laws governing and the costs associated with running the aqueducts. In this, he expanded upon Frontinus’ text. It is an extraordinarily useful reference, and was praised and expanded upon by Lanciani’s dedicated student Thomas Ashby Jr. and others. The larger goal of Lanciani’s work was to produce a topographic map of ancient Rome. As he neared completion of that map, the Forma Urbis Romae (1893–1911), he noted that he began the project in 1866, with his father, and continued with the support of the Lincei.83

coMMissione arcHeoLoGica coMunaLe While tending to his scholarly reputation in the Lincei and being employed by the state’s archaeological service, Lanciani was also working for the municipal government. Since its inception on 24 May 1872, the Commissione Archeologica Comunale engaged Lanciani as its secretary, at a beginning salary of 2,170 lire. 84 The commission was instituted to take on the vast responsibility that the national government granted it: the oversight of the archaeological finds on city or suburban property. Lanciani reported that this included about one third of the ground within the city walls, and an inestimable area outside them.85 The sites under city jurisdiction included streets and sewers, whose construction was mandated by the Piano Regolatore. In practical terms, the committee had to deal with material coming from construction sites in Rome and its suburbs, to inspect and record the discoveries, and to enforce the somewhat complex and problematic laws regarding the ownership of the discoveries. Depending on the nature of the find, the material could be remanded to the owner, or the state could be allowed first right of refusal of purchase. However, if it was decided that the material was relegated to the city’s ownership, a last resort, this commission decided if it should be conserved and stored by the city in the municipal museum or sold on the open antiquities market. At this time, the only city museum for antiquities was the Capitoline Museum. The commission was comprised of de Rossi, both Pietro Ercole and Carlo Ludovico Visconti, Virginio Vespignani, and Augusto Castellani (1829–1914), best known as a member of the family of creators of archaeologically inspired jewelry and director of the Capitoline Museum beginning in 1873.86 All five were sympathetic to the papacy. The city’s mayor, the marchese Francesco Nobili Vitelleschi (1829-1906) served as the commission’s president. Rosa also sat on the commission, as representative of the state. The body intended to hire three inspectors, but initially the budget 83 84

Lanciani 1893–1901, preface; see also Reference to Lanciani 1875–76. Lanciani 1872–73a, 3. His salary was later raised to 2680 lire. See Barnabei and Delfino 1991, 459, for salary

of his employees, the inspector Giacomo Marsuzi: 150 lire per month. 85 Lanciani 1888f, x. 86 davis 2004, 23–29; waLker 2004, 517; MaGaGnini 2004, 293–298.

30

Susan M. Dixon

allowed for only one, Giovanni Venanzi. In the 1880s, as the activity in the city increased, three others – Giacomo Marsuzi, Anselmo Gasparini, and Giuseppe Gatti – were made inspectors. The commission undertook an onerous task with limited personnel and financial resources.87 In the commission’s estimation, it was burdened with the enormous and nearly impossible responsibility of keeping tabs of the copious amounts of archaeological material being unearthed during the construction of the capital. In addition, the state often asked the city to foot the bill.88 There was much conflict between the city commissioners and those in the state offices in charge of archaeology. In the state’s estimation, the city put up many obstacles to thwart the government’s control of archaeological activity and in particular, of archaeological finds. Rosa complained that the commission did not supply him with detailed information. He claimed that specific find spots – information crucial for deciding who had ownership of any found object – were sloppily recorded.89 Rosa calculated that the number of the antiquities leaving the country under the city’s watch, from 1871 to 1873, increased by 800% over the period from 1859 to 1869. He vociferously blasted the commission for selling away the nation’s patrimony.90 Lanciani’s role in both of these institutions must have caused considerable annoyance to Rosa. It would vex others in the state bureaucracy, after Rosa’s departure. Lanciani’s position as secretary required that he collect field notes from the inspectors, oversee the registration of objects from the sites, and in particular keep track of their fate. He also was charged with recording finds in order to suss out the topography of ancient Rome, a task he took very seriously.91 Furthermore, Lanciani was responsible for many features of the commission’s journal, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, first issued in 1872. Lanciani compiled some of its recurring features: the commission’s notes of the meetings, or atti; as well as lists and charts of objects found or acquired by the city through sale or donation, and thus placed, for the most part, in the Capitoline Museum collections.92 From 1878 to 1886, Lanciani published in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma a list of newly found Latin inscriptions that related to the history of Rome. Lanciani’s reporting would become part of an ambitious publishing project, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), a multi-volume compendium of inscriptions from ancient Roman times. The project was the brainchild of Theodor Mommsen of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science and Humanities.93 Beginning in 1852, Mommsen oversaw the collection of inscriptions from the entirety of the ancient Roman Empire, publishing them arranged by the geographical area to which the inscribed text pertained. Although Mommsen himself directed the production of many of the volumes – 15 of them appeared in Mommsen’s lifetime and he wrote five of them himself (vols. 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10) – other scholars were involved in the project. Mommsen collaborated with a number of experts in epigraphy to verify all known inscriptions before they were added to the CIL. De Rossi and Henzen compiled the 6th volume, Inscriptions urbis Romae Latinae, which contained all known Latin inscriptions of the city of Rome.94 Lanciani aided de Rossi and Henzen, and listed de niGris 2007. Bruni 2001, 775–787; paLoMBi 1998, 57. 89 Bruni 2001, 777, n. 7. 90 deLpino and duBBini 2011, 403, n. 15. 91 dixon 2020 (forthcoming). 92 The Atti were accompanied by lists and charts. 93 carter 1904, 174–177; see also caLdeLLi 2014. 94 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), v. 6: Consilio et auctoritate, ed. Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borus87 88

A Career in Archaeology

31

over 1,200 entries in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, in advance of their incorporation into the CIL volume. 95 Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma also contained essays on aspects of Rome’s history as revealed in past and present archaeological investigations. The contributors were conservative scholars, many of them with associations with the papal court, such as de Rossi; Visconti; Orazio Marucchi (1852–1931), director of the Christian and Egyptian sections of the Vatican museums; and Contessa Ersilia Caetani Lovatelli (1840–1925), an art historian and the first woman to attain membership in the Lincei. The Bullettino articles were often full arguments about the archaeological discoveries in and near Rome, with references to the texts of classical authors and information from ancient inscriptions. The journal also published quite a few philological investigations of place names. The Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma completed a full critical review of previous scholarship. In this, the journal differed from the brief and more technical entries in Notizie degli Scavi, which often presented new information with little interpretation. Lanciani’s Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma essays vary in focus. The majority of them account for new finds that helped provide a fuller understanding of the city’s topography. The first and most remarkable of his Bullettino essays declared the location of the long elusive Temple of Jupiter Optimus Massimo on the Capitoline Hill.96 However, the majority of the finds are from the eastern part of the city, which Lanciani attempted to analyze and interpret. They pertain to things newly discovered in the areas most overturned in this period of new construction of Rome: the hills to the east, including the Quirinale, the Viminale, the Esquiline, and parts of the Oppian and Celian. These include several tracts of the Servian wall, and some nearby prehistoric graves.97 Other entries elaborate on the remains of some monuments or structures referred to in the classical literature and newly found. For example, he discusses one of the three Temples of Fortuna Primagenea within the walls of ancient Rome and the sixth century B.C. Altar of Verminus – the god known to ward off disease in cattle – giving full analyses of their contexts in Roman history.98 Throughout the 1870s, Lanciani’s essays primarily deal with minor structures crucial for developing a topographical reconstruction of ancient Rome. These include a school, most likely for gladiators, and the baths of Nerazio Ceriale.99 Using information he garnered from his work in the national archaeological service, he published by the 1880s several essays on buildings in the Forum, such as on the location of the church of Sts. Cosmos and Damian within the Temple of Romulus, and on the Palatine, including the history and location of the Temple of Apollo Palatinus and the Temple of Victory.100 In addition to publishing occasionally in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma from late 1872 forward, and in Notizie degli Scavi from late 1877 forward, Lanciani issued information about archaeological finds in “Notes from Rome,” his column for the fine art journal London Athenaeum. His columns appeared randomly from 1876 to 1913, and their frequency reflects what was happening in his life: absent during periods of travel and appearing often during sicae, was compiled and edited by Huelsen and Eugene Bormann. Part 1 was issued in 1883; part 2, 1884; part 3, 1886. The publication has issued more parts over the years. 95 Lanciani 1878b, 1880b, 1881a, 1882c, 1883d, 1884c, 1885a, 1885c. 96 Lanciani 1872–73d. 97 Lanciani 1872–73b; 1872-3c; 1875a; 1875b; 1875d, for example. 98 Lanciani 1876b. 99 Lanciani 1874a, for example. 100 Lanciani 1883c.

32

Susan M. Dixon

periods of work stoppage in Rome. The short writings are both informative – relaying what was being found in Rome – and polemical, responding to growing criticism from foreigners about how the excavations were being conducted and interpreted. Within one column, Lanciani moved from one topic to another easily. These English-language entries were designed for an audience of educated British interested in Rome, the armchair amateur historian. These columns also came under increased scrutiny by those embracing the increasingly professionalized field of classical archaeology, a fact that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. In early 1891, after Lanciani no longer was employed in the national service, and his work for the municipality of Rome was also curtailed, his production for these publications changed. His Notizie degli Scavi entries stopped completely; his contributions to Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma became less frequent. The “Notes from Rome” continued, but the topics on which he expounded were substantially different, often marginal to the recent finds in Rome, given that he no longer had first-hand access to and intimate knowledge of them. From these sources, from 1872 to 1890, however, we can construct a significant picture of the major discoveries in Rome in the two decades when the city was his workplace.

A Career in Archaeology

33

cHapter 2

wHat was Found: 1868–1886

tHe capitoLine HiLL In 1872 and 1873, while Lanciani was inspector of excavations, crews working along the Salità di Tre Pila uncovered the foundations of the ancient Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, dedicated to the triad of Capitoline gods – Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. This happened while the city was digging in the area to create additional exhibition space for the Capitoline Museum. Lanciani’s team identified a wall of tufa blocks without mortar as part of the eighth-century B.C. foundations of the first manifestation of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill.1 With this discovery, Lanciani solved what for centuries had been a matter of intense speculation: the location of the temple, and thus the site of other buried ancient monuments on the Hill. Investigations went no further at this time, however. The Palazzo Caffarelli, a 16th-century palace that housed the embassy of the new nation of Germany, occupied the ground above the rest of the temple site. In fact, the remains of the last reconstruction of the temple, which dated to the late imperial period but largely destroyed in the sixth century, were incorporated into the palace’s walls. In 1874, just after this discovery, the Palazzo Caffarelli became the seat of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.2 As private owners of the palace, the Germans could excavate on the land if granted permission from the Italian authorities. They did so periodically, although with strict oversight by the city, in accordance with laws governing ownership of antiquities.3 Only in 1925 was the property handed over to the city of Rome. In 1876, a torrential rain in Rome brought down some of the walls supporting the Aracoeli convent’s gardens. This exposed the Arx, the side of the Capitoline Hill artificially cut by the ancient kings to secure the site. Thrilled to discover the location of this topographical feature, Lanciani noted “[n]obody had hitherto thought of disturbing or seeking for [it].”4 Years later, and after much deliberation, the northern slope of the Capitoline was chosen to house a monument to Vittorio Emanuele II, the first king of unified Italy. As is well known, the creation of the monument brought about the destruction of parts of medieval Rome, including the Aracoeli convent, as well as the 16thcentury Torre di Paolo III, once connected to the Palazzo Venezia (then the Palazzo di San Marco). Lanciani 1872–73d; 1875c. See also cuBBerLey 1988, 1, where the date is misrecorded. https://www.dainst.org/en/dai/standorte/geschichte 3 paLoMBi 2006a, 220–225. 4 cuBBerLey 1988, 10. 1 2

What was Found: 1868–1886

35

Already by 1883, Lanciani had expressed great disapproval of this destruction in his Englishlanguage publication.5 Typical of Lanciani’s style, however, he attempted to ingratiate himself with those responsible for the destruction – his employer, the national government – by noting the good that would come of the destruction, such as the accidental discovery of archaeological information during such projects. In 1885, Lanciani presented his qualified criticism of this and other acts of destruction in Rome to the Accademia dei Lincei, addressing his statement to the King and Queen.6 The published essay reads much like a praise-and-blame exercise taken from the humanists’ handbook, designed ultimately to flatter the patron. At the same time, Lanciani’s intentions to respond to the international community’s criticism and assuage their anger about the extreme alteration of old Rome was apparent.

tHe roMan ForuM The Roman Forum was one of the few areas in the city that the national government owned nearly completely. Lanciani took charge of the excavations there as early as 1875. The most significant activity under his direction happened in the first half of the 1880s. When Lanciani began overseeing work at the Roman Forum site, only slight changes had occurred since the work of French Roman Republic excavators in the late 1790s.7 The level had been taken down in the western section, exposing the base of the Arch of Septimus Severus and the area in front of the Temple of Antoninus Pius and Faustina. After 1814 and the restoration of the papacy, the archaeologist Carlo Fea (1753–1846) pushed further at this boundary, clearing the area at the foot of the Capitoline Hill. Here he identified the Temple of Concord.8 The two other temples adjacent to this structure – the Temples of Vespasian and Titus, and of Saturn – were also securely identified although they were only partially exposed. In the early 1870s, Rosa had brought the level down in the area at the base of the Palatine Hill, around the Temple of the Castor and Pollox, and at the eastern part of the Forum, in the area between the Colosseum and the Temple of Venus and Roma.9 Lanciani’s great chore when he inherited the site was to lower the Forum to a consistent level and to expand its boundaries (Figs. 6–9, in sequence to illustrate the progression of the excavations from c. 1868–86). A sizeable embankment ran roughly north/south across the space, from the portal of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina towards the Palatine Hill, separating the eastern and western parts of the Forum nearly in half. On the north, a row of private buildings hemmed in the Forum, covering land that held adjacent fora, particularly that of Julius Caesar, and obscured the still unexplored Comitium and the Basilica Aemilia. On the south, the slope of the Palatine Hill was hidden beneath the Renaissance structures of the Orti Farnesiani. Lanciani worked to expose the entire Roman Forum from the slope of the Capitoline to the Colosseum, and to liberate the bases of the buildings that lined the northern and southern boundaries. In 1876, the stairs leading to the pronaos of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina were exposed. In the seventh or eighth century, the church of San Lorenzo in Miranda had been built cuBBerLey 1988, 126–127. Lanciani 1885–86. See also Lanciani 1888f, IX–XXIV; Lanciani 1901f. 7 ridLey 1992a, 137–152. 8 ridLey 2000, 187–196. 9 ridLey 1989, 71–90. 5 6

36

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 6. Roman Forum, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1902), tav. 29.

Fig. 7. Roman Forum, photograph, 1872. Photo: Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Rome, fondo Lanciani, inv. 17058, Roma XI.4.V.33.

What was Found: 1868–1886

37

Fig. 8. Roman Forum, as seen from the Tabularium, photograph. Photo: Archivio Storico Capitolino, Archivio Fotografico, numero progressivo 1796 (formerly 65D).

into the temple cella, and it remains there today. Beginning in April 1878, more earth was removed from the area in front of this temple. The excavators then moved eastward, along the southern flank of the Basilica of Constantine, exposing a good portion of the Via Sacra, albeit a later imperial version of the road.10 By early 1879, the basilica was fully freed from some modern buildings which had made use of the structure. Thus, its interior layout, including the apse, was revealed, as was an unexpected access stair to the building’s roof. In 1880 and 1881, excavators took away the centuries’ accretions of buildings around the fourth century Temple of Romulus located between the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina and the basilica. Legal challenges made it difficult to extricate the church of Sts. Cosmos and Damian from its position within temple. However, the medieval porch which obstructed the temple front was eventually removed. During this work on the northern part of the Forum, a portion of the Regia was also uncovered. Ancient literary sources had placed the structure in this area, and its construction of archaic stones secured its identity. Although the excavators hoped to find fragments of Fasti consulares or Fasti triumphales in the area—these inscriptions had been known to don the walls of the Regia—they did not linger (and so missed finding the Temple of the Divine Julius). Rather, they moved northward, 10

38

In the process, an ancient cloaca was found underneath it.

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 9. William J. Stillman, Roman Forum, as seen from the west, photograph. Photo: Union College, Special Collections & Archives, William James Stillman Albums Collection, album 1, 5.

toward the remains of the Forum of Peace, to an area which had not been worked on before. Here Lanciani hoped to discover more fragments of the ancient map of Rome, the third-century Forma Urbis Romae, or Severan Marble Plan, which had hung on this forum’s walls. Throughout these years, fragments of this marble map had been found, often far afield, as inscribed marbles made excellent building materials and were frequently carted away in the post-antique centuries from their original, ancient location. Nonetheless, Lanciani’s drive to search in this area was fueled by his determination to gain the topographic information he needed to understand sites the excavators throughout the city were revealing. In the last months of 1879 and into early 1880, modern buildings between the Via Sacra and the Forum of Peace were purchased and demolished. In 1882, the footprint of the Fornix, or Arch of Fabianus, was located, but was immediately destroyed. But Lanciani found no fragments in this area at this time. Later in his lifetime, however, he did retrieve quite a few of them.11 In early 1882, the excavators then turned their attention to the eastern portion of the Roman Forum. At this time, the Roman Forum was still mostly divided into two areas, with the western exposed to ancient levels, and the dirt embankment running on an axis between the churches of San Lorenzo in Miranda and Santa Maria Liberatrice, located at the foot of the Palatine. The 11

Cubberley 1988, 248–256.

What was Found: 1868–1886

39

embankment accommodated everyday traffic between two vital parts of the city. Thus, plans for its obliteration caused some consternation in the city. As work progressed, alternate routes for traffic were considered, including the construction of a suspended bridge. But eventually a passageway running in front of the Temple of Concord and the Temple of Saturn at the base of the Capitoline Hill was created as an alternative route. Thus, even in the fairly secluded Roman Forum, daily life of the modern city impinged upon excavations, even if only temporarily. Lanciani’s campaign proceeded and he noted that 10,200 cubic meters of rubbish and dirt were removed from the eastern part of the Roman Forum between February and April 1882.12 Excavators then concentrated efforts on the southern edge of the Forum, along the slope of the Palatine Hill. The Direzione Generale, with Baccelli’s support, decided to tear down the post-antique structures on the north slope of the Palatine. The plan at the time was to demolish Santa Maria Liberatrice, which would enable excavators to expose the remains of a more ancient church beneath, the fifth century Santa Maria Antiqua.13 Because of legal complications, the plan was not implemented at this time. However, Lanciani did remove other historical buildings in order to liberate the slope. He demolished what was known as the Renaissance architect Vignola’s masterpiece, the structures of the Orti Farnesiani. This included a built terrace with staircases, statues, fountains and bird houses (the Uccellerie Farnesiani). Beneath them, Lanciani’s team discovered ancient connections between the Palatine and the Forum, including 35 meters of what was believed to be the Via Nova. Lanciani thought that the small buildings flanking that road on the one side were shops, or taberne. He also discovered evidence of the Porticus Margaritaria, an expansive gate structure mentioned in the ancient literature as located near a commercial area of the Forum. At this same time, Lanciani opined on the site of the Temple of Augustus, a building that would be unknown “but for an occasional mention in classical texts.” Situated south of the Temple of the Castors, and thus between the edge of the Palatine Hill and the Basilica Julia, its roof formed part of a walkway between Caligula’s palace and the Capitoline Hill.14 The obliteration of the structures of the Orti Farnesiani allowed for Lanciani’s greatest discoveries: the buildings of the Vestal Virgins. In 1883, the footprint of the destroyed Temple of Vesta, which had survived since Roman times but was disassembled for building materials in 1549, was uncovered.15 This tholos temple, with 20 Corinthian columns, sheltered the hearth of sacred fires the Vestals were trusted with tending as a portent of the city’s vitality. From late 1883 into the spring of 1884, Lanciani uncovered the Atrium of Vesta, the residence of the chosen Virgins, nestled under the slope of the Palatine. He first reported finding the large basin in the atrium’s center, and eventually, surrounding the atrium, the pedestals on which statues of the most famous Vestals stood (Figs. 10–11).16 Lanciani was alarmed at how unhealthy the building must have been for the women, given its position. It likely had little natural light or cross ventilation. In 1885, excavators removed a medieval granary behind the building, thus isolating the monument from all post-antique accretions and giving it a rightful place in the Roman Forum. Cubberley 1988, 108. Santa Maria Antiqua, whose plan is not in strict alignment with the church above it, was discovered in the 18th century. 14 lanCiani 1892e, 60–61. 15 The reconstructed temple in the Forum today dates to 1930. 16 lanCiani also discovered a full-sized statue of a male, which he believed to be of Praxtextatus, a 4th-century senator whose wife, Fabia Aconia Paullina, conferred to the organization, along with a statue of Caelia Concordia, the Abbess of the Vestals. See lanCiani 1889f, 169–170. 12 13

40

Susan M. Dixon

Fig 10. William J. Stillman, Roman Forum with view of Atrium Vestae, as seen from the southwest, photograph. Photo: Union College, Special Collections & Archives, William James Stillman Albums Collection, album 1, 7.

Fig. 11. Atrium Vestae, plan, from Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1888), 159.

What was Found: 1868–1886

41

In 1883, just before the discovery of the Atrium of Vesta, Lanciani turned back towards the Basilica Julia. He took down some medieval buildings between the still half-buried front of the Temple of Saturn and the fully isolated Column of Phocas.17 In the process, teams made more attempts to fully expose the temples at the base of the Capitoline Hill. At the southwest corner of the Forum, a tract of the very ancient road as discovered. This was the Vicus Jugarius, sonamed, it was thought, because saddlers’ shops lined the road. Finding the thoroughfares in the Palatine Hill area was an exciting discovery, as the classical literature often placed structures in relation to them. By the beginning of 1884, after Lanciani’s great excavation campaign, huge swaths of ancient Rome were visible: the zones around the Colosseum, a good portion of the Roman Forum, the Palatine, the Velabrum – an area between the Capitoline and along the western edge of the Palatine – and the Circus Maximus.18 Since his election as Minister of Public Instruction, Baccelli had begun to formulate plans to tie these areas together. He envisioned a great park, the Passeggiata Archeologica, to display all of Rome’s great history in one place. In 1884, the makings for the park were within reach. The Italian legislature approved the project on 7 July 1889, but acquiring approval for funding was slow. The plan was at last inaugurated in 1917. Lanciani’s work in the Forum was completed by 1885, but a few other significant, related projects were enacted there before the end of the decade. Heinrich Jordan (1833–86), the German archaeologist, had received permission to explore the Regia, and digging in that area proceeded from April to May 1886. Archaic period tufa blocks were fully uncovered there.19 In 1888, at Huelsen’s suggestion, the ministry worked in front of the Temple of Castor to make visible the footprint of the Arch of Augustus.20 In 1889, a severe economic crisis brought to a standstill much building activity, and with it, all archaeological activity. The next campaign in the Forum did not begin until 1898, under Giacomo Boni (1859–1925). As we will learn in Chapter 5, the Comitium area in particular yielded the next most important discoveries. But the success of that campaign relied on Lanciani’s contributions to an understanding of the Comitium before Boni’s tenure. As early as 1882, Lanciani had offered proof of the location and appearance of the Curia, delivering his arguments at the Lincei. In 1885, he oversaw the clearing of a street between the Curia and the Basilica Aemilia.21 Furthermore, in the late 1870s and early 1880s, Lanciani had attempted some brief investigatory work in the other fora – those of Caesar, Augustus, and Trajan – but much of the area was in private hands and inaccessible for digs. Thus, the findings were incomplete.

tHe paLatine HiLL As we have noted, the Palatine underwent excavation under Pietro Rosa in the 1860s and early 70s, and many monumental buildings were explored. Lanciani oversaw a little additional work at the coareLLi 2004, 63. Later, Boni would liberate the substructure of the Temple of Saturn. Meanwhile, the column of Phocas had been unearthed as early as 1811–13, although not fully exposed until later in the decade; see ridLey 1992, 123–126; and ridLey 2000, 191–193. 18 The Circus Maximus had been cleared in 1877–78. 19 coareLLi 2004, 61. 20 coareLLi 2004, 61. 21 ridLey 1989, 84. 17

42

Susan M. Dixon

site. From April to July 1877, and then again in early 1878, he picked through the mass of broken marbles covering the stadium of Domitian and revealed the location of the two metas.22 In the main, however, Lanciani’s contributions to an understanding of the Palatine were in making visible the ways in which it was connected to the Forum and the Velabrum. There were very few planned excavations of ancient sites beyond the confines of the Roman Forum or the Palatine Hill. However, as we’ve noted, because of construction activity in the city, many random discoveries of the ancient past occurred that fell under Lanciani’s purview in his role as a state or city employee.

in and Around tHe tiBer river The Tiber flooded on 28 December 1870, just months after Rome was established as the nation’s new capital. Although Rome had seen many damaging floods in its long history, this one was exceptionally disruptive. Nearly immediately, the municipal and national governments coordinated efforts, creating a commission with members from their ranks to seek out solutions to this perennial Roman problem. Their efforts led to legislation to build a new embankment and dredge the river, which was passed in June 1876, and funding was immediately allocated.23 During the Tiber embankment construction, some discoveries of archaeological note occurred. Lanciani was there to witness and record them. In 1878, a series of rooms from the warehouse of a winery, the Vinariae Nova et Arruntiana, were identified on the left bank near the Villa Farnesina (Fig. 12).24 At nearly the same time, in an adjacent area, the remnants of a villa with remarkable frescoes and wall stuccoes were found. Their survival astounded the archaeologists, given that the structure was well below the water table and the river waters contained contaminants. By October 1879, excavators began removing the frescoes and stuccoes, in some 1,000 pieces. Work excavating the villa continued on and off until 1885.25 Meanwhile, the national government, which claimed ownership of the architectural decorations and other artifacts from the site, wanted to display them. They were first placed in a temporary museum, thereafter called the Museo Tibertino, located in the Palazzo Salviati alla Lungara near the Orti Botanici. The frescoes were installed there in the fall of 1879, and put on view for the public. However, because of some legalities, the palace was almost immediately made unavailable for the museal display.26 The frescoes were then moved to the Baths of Diocletian, where state authorities had hoped to house the first national museum of antiquities. Throughout this affair, Lanciani worried about the preservation of the frescoes. They are currently in excellent condition, and on display in the Palazzo Massimo, a stunning highlight in a museum with many marvels (Fig. 13). In 1881, and again through 1885–86, a team found some ancient warehouses along the right bank of Tiber in the area under Monte Testaccio, the ancient city’s artificial hill comprised of broken amphora used as storage vessels for oil. One of these structures was identified as the Horrea Galbana. Some of the rooms still contained salable goods, the most astounding being ivory. 27 capodiFerro and piranoMonte 1990, 110; cuBBerLey 1988, 52. coareLLi 2004, 112; cuccia 1991, 33, 61 24 cuBBerLey 1988, 63; coareLLi 2004, 113. 25 coareLLi 2004, 113–114. 26 cuBBerLey 1988, 70, 74. 27 coareLLi 2004, 93; cuBBerLey 1988, 180–182. 22 23

What was Found: 1868–1886

43

Fig. 12. Archaeological remains near Villa Farnesina, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1902), tav. 20.

During the laying of the new Corso Vittorio Emanuele, by the river bank near San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, an altar structure, much like that of the Ara Pacis, was revealed. The discovery happened while Lanciani was in America during the winter of 1886–87. From the portions that were saved from the excavation, Lanciani believed that they constituted part of the Altar of Dis and Prosperpina. This monument to the infernal gods had been located near the Tarentum, a pool fed by sulphur springs, in the Campo Marzio. Because the springs had disappeared, the altar’s location had been elusive over the centuries. Thus, the discovery was a boon to Lanciani’s attempts to reconstruct the ancient city’s topography. In the same area, in 1890, many inscriptions of the Ludi Saeculares, the ritual games dedicated to the gods, and sometimes to Dis and Prosperpina, were retrieved from the walls of post-antique buildings.28 In general, the river provided a continual source of material for Lanciani’s publications. As structures were demolished along the river to make way for the new embankment, there were quite a few discoveries about the old bridges and ancient construction, including roads. For example, during the 1878 destruction of a platform near the first pilon of the Ponte Sisto, an arch of an eighth-century bridge was found. In 1880, excavations revealed a fragment of a fourth-century bridge from the age of Valentinian. In 1885–86, as teams tidied up of the ruins of the Ponte Rotto and began construction of the nearby modern bridge, the positions of some ancient roads were 28

44

Lanciani 1892e, 46–51.

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 13. View of the frescoes of cubicle “B”, from Villa della Farnesina. Photo: Luciano Romano. Museo Nazionale Romano (Palazzo Massimo alle Terme), Rome. Photo credit: Scala / Luciano Romano / Art Resource, NY.

indicated.29 Such discoveries helped Lanciani significantly with his attempts to make sense of earlier maps of Rome and to tease out the puzzle of the ancient city’s landscape. Vast quantities of objects – cippi, coins, architectural and sculptural fragments – were extracted from the river and its banks as well, as the many Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità entries indicate. Some of the more fascinating ones are the innumerable terracotta votive figurines: “millions of specimens” were discovered near the Ponte Fabricio, while a sewer was being installed. Lanciani ascribed these to the worship of the god of healing at the ancient Temple of Aesculpius, in the Frastevere in Rome, because the ex-votos were found near both its sanctuary and Tiber-side shops.30 He noted that this was one of two places in the city of Rome – the other being near the so-called Temple of Minerva Medica – where such deposits of terracotta figurines were found.31 More spectacular was the lifesized bronze Bacchus, found in the river bed in spring of 1885 when the foundations of the Ponte Garibaldi alla Regola were being set. This Bacchus sports long curly hair, a crown of leaves inlaid with copper and silver, and eyes of a yellow stone. Because Lanciani’s father had taught him so much about hydraulic engineering, he felt he could predict the behavior of objects in the river, even if they had coareLLi 2004, 114. Lanciani 1885d, 156; 1886c, 114; 1892e, 42. See also pensaBene 1984, 72–75. 31 Lanciani 1892e, 40–44. There were three such deposits found outside of Rome: one near the Temple of Hercules located just outside the Porta San Lorenzo, another at Nemi, and a third at Veii. 29 30

What was Found: 1868–1886

45

been ensconced in the river bed for centuries. However, Lanciani expressed great surprise at the fact that this statue was found not in horizontal position, but vertical and head down.32

around tHe coLosseuM, tHe oppian and tHe ceLian HiLLs In 1878, Lanciani discovered a major drain in the Valle Colosseo, buried deeply some six to eight meters under a road running at the base of the Clivo di Scauro. It continued toward the Circus Maximus, running beneath it and exiting at the Tiber, from an opening larger in diameter than that of the Cloaca Maxima.33 This drain’s centuries-old blockage caused so much trouble during the previous excavations, including Rosa’s attempts to dig out the Colosseum.34 In that clog were centuries of items from the Colosseum, including some busts of the imperial family, terracotta lamps, portions of the marble Colosseum seats inscribed with the names of their owners, and masses of bones from wild and domestic animals.35 Ancient sources had all placed the Temple of Claudius atop the Celian Hill. In 1880–81, the substructures of this temple were revealed during the new construction of via Claudia, the major street running southward from the Colosseum over the Celian Hill. One can still see these ruins today. Nearby, where from 1885 to 1889 there was a protracted campaign to build a new military hospital, many surprising and fabulous structures were unearthed. Frequent entries in Notizie degli Scavi provide ample evidence of grand villas and more modest houses in the area, outfitted with decorative mosaics and frescoes.36 There were some significant finds near San Martino ai Monti, the early Christian church on the slopes of the Oppian Hill. While many new streets were laid, including via dello Statuto and via Merulana, quite a bit of dirt was overturned. Near the church, a well-preserved house with a lararium, a mithraeum, a library – one of only two domestic libraries found in Rome – and a small attached bath, was discovered in 1884 (Fig. 14, center). Explorations of the expansive site were undertaken until 1887. The property was acquired by the city and conserved.37 At nearly the same time, a large prehistoric necropolis was discovered by the church. This was one of a few prehistoric finds within the city. They all caused great excitement because of their novelty, and what they revealed about the history of early Rome. Lanciani interpreted this particular necropolis with its signature terracotta urns as evidence of early Alban settlements within the city walls.38 The national government purchased property in the zone east of the Colosseum, on the Oppian Hill. In 1881, there were plans to transform the land into a public park.39 However, a few remains of the Baths of Titus and of the larger Baths of Trajan lay in this area. Parts of the tepidarium and the caldarium of the smaller of the two thermae were revealed during construction of the park in 1883, and again in 1885.40 Some effort was made to restore the baths’ extant walls as nodes in Lanciani 1888f, 307–309. Lanciani 1888f, 53–57. 34 coareLLi 2004, 11; cuBBerLey 1988, 45. 35 cuBBerLey 1988, 62. 36 cuBBerLey 1988, 352. The entry was written in 1901. 37 coareLLi, 2004, 15–16. 38 Lanciani 1888f, 26. 39 cuBBerLey 1988, 81, 88. 40 coareLLi 2004, 15; cuBBerLey 1988, 15. 32 33

46

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 14. Archaeological remains near the Chiesa di San Martino ai Monti, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1902), tav. 23.

the park (Fig. 15). However, that was the extent of the interest in the site. In 1888, some of land that sat above both baths were given over for the creation of a much-needed new housing quarter that extended south along via Merulana. With the cession of land, it was understood that no more efforts would be made to recover the thermae.41 In late 1885 and early 1886, excavators happened upon evidence of the Caserma degli Equites Singolares along via Tasso, parallel to and east of via Merulana. This was one of a small number of ancient barracks for military service men on the Celian Hill, and one of seven located throughout the city.42 To Lanciani, the most exciting discoveries were the numerous inscriptions on altars and plaques set up by the servicemen. The written sentiments provide a great sense of these men’s lives: who they worshipped, what they cared about.43

tHe eastern HiLLs The eastern part of the city, including the Pincian, Quirinale, Esquiline, and Viminale Hills, was an area that contained the garden parks of late Republican and early Imperial Rome. In ancient times, these horti – Maecenatiani, Lamiani, Liciniani, Lolliani, Sallustiani, Acilorum, among others – had cuBBerLey 1988, 205–206. Lanciani 1889a, 223–229. 43 coareLLi 2004, 19; and Lanciani 1885a; 1886f, 11–22, 49–51. 41 42

What was Found: 1868–1886

47

Fig. 15. Archaeological remains of major apse of Baths of Titus and Trajan, photograph. Photo by Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Rome, fondo Lanciani, inv. 19725, Roma XI.22.III.8.

been furnished with massive amounts of sculpture, as well as elaborate architectural structures decorated with figural stuccoes, mosaics, and frescoes. The garden estates were abandoned or left underdeveloped in medieval times. But by the 16th century, the land became covered with villas of the aristocracy and church hierarchy (Fig. 16). Thereafter, the sites were mined for the art and building materials. The sculptures, in particular, were transported to different collections around the globe. In the 19th century, this section of the city held the villas of the Massimo, Ludovisi, Torlonia, and Wolkonsky families, among others. These aristocratic families from both old and new (as in the case of the Wolkonsky) Roman society often did not fare well in the modern world. Most were crippled financially by the new Italian government’s punitive property tax laws, making them very willing to sell off their property for a profit. Much of the land once occupied by the ancient horti, then, was ripe for development after 1870.44 The Piano Regolatore of 1873 had identified this area for significant new construction (Fig. 5), and thus it saw the most dirt overturned in the period from 1870 to 1890. This included building for the infrastructural and institutional needs of the new capital. Specifically, the railroad lines and the Stazione Termini – begun in Pius IX’s time – was developed here. Also planned for this area were various governmental headquarters – the palaces of the Ministries of Finance, War, and Justice – as well as other institutional service buildings – the Banca d’Italia, the Post Office, the hospital, the university, and the Palazzo dell’Esposizione. Futhermore, this area was slated for the most development because the need for new housing was great, as the population more than 44

48

The exception is the Pincian Hill, which escaped extreme urban intervention at this time. coareLLi 2004, 55.

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 16. G.B. Nolli, La topografia di Roma (Rome: Ignazio Benedetti, 1773). Photo: Archivio Storico Capitolino, fondo Vico, Cart. XIII, 16.

doubled in this period, from 200,000 to about 500,000. New roads, sewers, and electric lines were needed to service it all. Some of the land fell under the city’s jurisdiction, and some, the state’s. New construction always raised the likelihood that antiquities would be exposed, and inspectors from both archaeological services were called up when this happened. The point of inspecting construction sites was to record any building remnants in order to compile a complete picture of the topography of ancient Rome, as well as to retrieve any objects suitable for the educational purposes of museums of antiquity. Given that there was so much activity, it was difficult for city and state inspectors to visit sites, let alone record well what was being uncovered. Lanciani’s entries in Notizie degli Scavi and “Notes from Rome” provide evidence of his attempts to sort through and process the information he received. The entries are fragmented, however, and at times could be contradictory or difficult to decipher, foiling any attempt to gain a complete understanding of the ancient topography.45 Furthermore, those who discovered these stellar finds were not always motivated to report them, for various reasons. When building remains were found, the impulse to destroy or simply rebury them was great, in order to meet construction deadlines and hence to reap financial rewards. When significant antiquities were found, most knew that alerting the proper authorities meant losing the opportunity to sell them at a great personal profit. In this environment, it is not surprising that recovery of information and objects was extremely difficult. As we’ve noted elsewhere, the existing rules in the late 19th century regarding who had control over antiquities found in or near the city were sometimes unclear and difficult to implement. 45

See, for example, kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2012, 46–51.

What was Found: 1868–1886

49

Dating back to the Edict of Pacca of 1820, they state that the find spot of the antiquity dictated what action should be taken. If an object was found on state-controlled land, it belonged to the state. If it was found during the construction of roads or streets, work undertaken by the city, it would be relegated to the Capitoline Museum. But if it fell on private property, the owner had to report the find to the state within one week. The state, then, had the right to confiscate it or refuse purchase. If they did not want to buy it and the owner wished to sell it, the owner could do so, but had to pay a 20% tax on proceeds from the sale and, if applicable, an export fee.46 In the rush after 1881 to complete housing projects, some owners cut special deals with the authorities.47 In general, the Edict of Pacca had little teeth in the post-1870 world. Increasing pressures from the international collecting and museum markets (especially the numerous new museums in the United States) enticed those who had access to the antiquities to disregard these rules. Antiquities dealers abounded, and foreign collectors and museum curators sometimes established close connections with them in Rome.48 Also problematic were property owners with family or strong social ties to those in the archaeological service, who could help them get around the rules. In quite a few famous cases, land managers were also art dealers, with financial motives to be less than honest with the inspectors. And old aristocratic landowners, such as the Ludovisi, were in need of cash in the new post-1870 world.49 But not only the elite benefited from the chaos. Lanciani reported workmen stealing antiquities and contractors excavating clandestinely at night, in attempts to circumvent the system. To complicate the situation, the official inspectors were overworked as the pace of excavations increased especially after 1881. Additionally, because the land was largely slated for development, who legally owned a parcel of land could be muddy. Ancient ruins buried deep in the ground sometimes lay across 19th-century property lines, as in the case of the Licinian Tomb along via Salaria.50 Furthermore, the single landowner was not usually the one doing or managing the digging. Banks and loan companies purchased land, or loaned money to speculators and land managers, who then employed subcontractors. These various parties brokered deals so that development work could be completed quickly. The dealings between parties became quite complex. In 1871 on the Celian Hill, for example, Genoese bankers purchased land, then immediately mortgaged it to construction companies, who then employed subcontractors. When significant antiquities discovered on the land under subcontract were not processed according to the regulations, the city (in this case) initiated a prolonged and messy legal battle.51 In these circumstances, only some remains of the ancient horti that lay beneath this land were recorded. In 1873–74, an important horti was found and excavated, the Horti Maecenatiani, or the Gardens of Maecenas, Augustus’ political adviser and ally known as a generous patron of the arts, including of the poets Horace and Virgil. The first evidence was discovered on the de toMasi 2013, 151–152; kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2012, 13-4. For more on the Edict of Pacca, see Ridley 2000, 101–123. 47 Hartswick 2004, 27; Joseph Spithoever (1813–91), a German book dealer who owned much property on the Quirinal Hill by the late 19th century, cut a deal with the city, in the person of the mayor Torlonia. The archaeological service of the national government was unhappy with the arrangement. 48 An interesting case is that the German archaeologist and scholar Wolfgang Helbig, who helped stock the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek with superb Roman antiquities (MoLtesen 2012). Lanciani mentioned many of these dealers in his correspondence with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (see Ch. 3). 49 Hartswick 2004, 27–29. 50 kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2012, 14–17. 51 ManicioLi 1983a, 156–162. See also Guzzo 2001. 46

50

Susan M. Dixon

Esquiline Hill on private land during a home renovation, and during construction of new roads. An inscribed pipe helped identify the site, as did ancient authors’ descriptions of its location.52 But the more spectacular find was a particularly intact building identified as the Auditorium, a rectangular hall with an apse at the short side, decorated with frescoes (Fig. 14, lower right). The excavators revealed two strata; the upper was from the third century A.D., and the lower one, where the mosaic floor was revealed, dated to Augustus’ reign. Other structures were discovered nearby, including a small bath. Some speculated that the famous Tower of Maecenas (where, legend holds, Nero fiddled while Rome burned) once stood in this area, but the building was not found. The city purchased the land on which the Auditorium stood, creating a small piazza off via Merulana. At Lanciani’s insistence, the city proceeded to restore it, rebuilding a wall and roofing the entirety. During this period, the city did not undertake many restorations of ancient buildings, because the work took time and funds from other projects. The other city-funded restoration took place in the nearby Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II. There, the Nymphaeum, or the Castello di Aqua Giulia, ancient remains of a third century distribution building for one of the aqueducts (either the Aqua Claudia or the Anio Novus), was similarly restored thanks to Lanciani’s strong intervention. After building activity became more frenzied beginning in c. 1880, restorations such as these were not possible. Other buildings associated with the Gardens of Maecenas that were not as fulsome as the Auditorium were destroyed or covered over. From 1874 to 1878, evidence of the Horti Laminiani, gardens of the consul Lucius Aelius Lamia (c. 43 B.C.–33 A.D.), was found adjacent to the Horti Maecenatiani. An inscribed pipe confirmed its identity, bolstered by the ancient sources that placed these two gardens adjacent to one another. The excavators in this case were the building contractors, the Società Fondiaria Italiana, who were creating new high-end housing in the area, specifically around two new squares, the Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II and Piazza Dante. As per their contract, the organization contacted the city officials. Lanciani recorded the remains of a long portico or cryptoporticus and some bath structures belonging to the garden (Figs. 17, lower left, and 18, upper left). But the builders were in a hurry to complete the work, so only a rescue operation was performed. But what was rescued was stunning. Some of the extraordinary alabaster flooring, and many medallions, cameos and gems – which Lanciani believed to be incrustations from furniture – are now in Capitoline Museum in the Horti section. Exquisite statues found in the area include Commodus as Hercules with the Tritons group, and the Esquiline Venus. Well before the 19th century, historians believed the Horti Liciniani, estate of the plebian family Lincinia, was indicated by the location of the so-called temple of Minerva Medica on the Esquiline Hill, which had been visible throughout the centuries. Despite its name, it was in Lanciani’s day already commonly believed to be a nymphaeum from the garden rather than a temple.53 In 1877, excavations of post-antique accretions to or near the building revealed many ancient statues, some fragmented and some nearly intact (Fig. 17, right). This statuary had been used as construction filler to build up new walls or to raise a floor. According to Lanciani, evidence throughout the city suggests that this reuse of materials was a fairly typical practice that began in antiquity and continued into the medieval period and beyond. In the late 1870s through 1881, continued digging in the immediate area for the via Principessa Margherita revealed more structures, including a five-room private house The sources note that it was built atop the Servian wall and covered an ancient necropolis. In fact, Lanciani found indications of the location of the Temple of Minerva Medica elsewhere in the city, near the church of Sts. Peter and Marcellino. Lanciani 1892e, 62. 52 53

What was Found: 1868–1886

51

Fig. 17. Archaeological remains of the Horti Laminiani, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1901), tav. 24.

with a bath. In 1881, a castello, or water distribution center for the garden’s irrigation, was located.54 These structures were later all destroyed or built over. The city claimed material goods from the sites, including a fourth century mosaic of a hunting scene and statue fragments pulled from the Temple of Minerva Medica. The mosaic and the reconstructed statues of Seated Girl and the two Magistrates are now displayed in the municipal collection at the Centrale Montemartini. The largest ancient garden complex in the eastern hills belonged to Sallust, the independentminded historian and politician of late Republican times. His garden, on an extensive plot of land purchased with wealth he accumulated during his military service, covered much of the Quirinale and a portion of the Pincian Hill. Its location and some of its monuments had been continually known since antiquity, as its reputation was so great. But by the late 1880s, visual evidence of the garden was nearly non-existent (Figs. 19 and 20). The dramatic long line of construction between the Pincian and Quirinale Hills, once a favorite vedute subject for 18thcentury printmakers, was covered up in the early 1880s, as the valley it framed was filled in to create a more manageable construction site for housing (Fig. 21).55 The temple most identified with the Horti Sallustiani, the tholos Temple of Venus Erycina, was known from 16th-century records, but its location was not certain. Lanciani, on his Forma Urbis Romae, deduced its placement as in the northeastern part of the garden (Fig. 19, lower left), although his placement 54 55

52

coareLLi 2004, 31. Hartswick 2004, 27, 58–60.

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 18. Archaeological remains of the Horti Laminiani, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1901), tav. 31.

is not widely accepted.56 Today, all that remains from Sallust’s time is the so-called Nymphaeum, now believed to be an elaborate vestibule, which forms the centerpiece of Piazza di Sallustio (Fig. 20, upper left).57 The platform of the Temple of Fortuna, another temple which historians place in this garden, was thought to have been found in the 1880s.58 However, it was immediately dynamited because it impeded construction plans. Nearly two decades late, Lanciani mentioned an 1886 discovery of a building decorated with caryatids in the area, although he provided no documentation.59 Later, Lanciani lamented in a 1906 article about the loss of topographical knowledge of the garden by noting that “the year 1881 signaled the end of the archaeological existence of the Orti Sallustiani.”60 In sum, very little evidence from the Horti Sallustiani area was discovered and recorded during the building frenzy of the 1880s. How did that happen? Since 1872, the land that the ancient garden occupied was in the main owned by the German book dealer Josef Spithoever, Hartswick 2004, 68–82. Hartswick 2004, 37–51. 58 This was the third such named temple in Rome, Coarelli 2011, 52. 59 coareLLi, 52–53. 60 Lanciani 1906a, 170. 56 57

What was Found: 1868–1886

53

Fig. 19. Archaeological remains of Horti Sallustiani, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1901), tav. 3.

and portions by the Boncampagni Ludovisi family. In 1883, the city’s mayor Torlonia struck a deal with Spithoever to allow for much needed and rapid development of housing in the area. It stipulated that Spithoever would not have to follow established protocol, and that all artifacts found during construction on his property would be his.61 In 1886, a similar deal was struck with Rodolfo Boncompagni Ludovisi.62 Thus, construction was allowed to happen quickly and often violently. Mere rescue archaeology was often done without documentation. Occasionally, notices of some of the statuary finds were issued, but their context was not recorded or not recorded well. The situation was rife for valuable antiquities to escape the oversight of both the city and the state archaeological services. Statues from the Horti Sallustiani found at this time include the Niobid group.63 Spithoever in particular had strong connections to Wolfgang Helbig, a consultant/dealer for Carl Jacobson (1842–1914), the wealthy Danish beer manufacturer and art collector. Jacobson was eager to acquire antiquities for his museum. Thus, quite a few statues from the ancient garden are now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen.64

Hartwick 2004, 27. coareLLi 2011, 51–52. 63 Hartswick 2004, 84-146; coareLLi 2011, 52-3. 64 MoLtesen 2012. 61 62

54

Susan M. Dixon

Fig 20. Archaeological remains of Horti Sallustiani, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1901), tav. 10.

Fig. 21. Archaeological remains of the Horti Sallustiani, photograph, from Lanciani, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome (1897), 418, fig. 162.

What was Found: 1868–1886

55

tHe servian waLL In 1871, Lanciani published in the Annali of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica an account on the oldest set of walls in Rome, the sixth-century B.C. Servian wall and its gates.65 Employing the methodological approach that he had crafted elsewhere in his earlier scholarship, he drew on ancient and more modern literature regarding the topography of ancient Rome, and brought it to bear on recent archaeological evidence—in this case, the 1868 discovery of a stretch of wall near the Stazione Termini.66 Lanciani’s essay verifies that even before the recent discovery, he had a fairly clear sense of the imprint of the fortifications built by Servius Tullus, the sixth king of ancient Rome. Its profile was distinctive even then, when the city was in the midst of rapid modernization. He understood that the upheavals caused by construction in Rome, especially in the eastern part of the city, provided a window of opportunity to find additional material traces of the wall.67 Lanciani described the composition of wall: set within the side of a hill, forming a cliff, and constructed of large blocks of yellow-gray stone, from Grotta Oscura (Figs. 22 and 23). The blocks were assembled without mortar, laid in courses alternating vertically and horizontally. In some stretches of the wall was a shorter, inner-side supporting wall. On the exterior side of the fortification was an agger: a ditch and an accompanying embankment. He believed the wall’s composition was nearly consistent throughout the city, a notion that was not universally accepted. As more archaeological evidence was found, he modified his views.68 Initially Lanciani believed the extant walls were built in the age of the kings (before the sixth century B.C.), but he eventually conceded that the excavated walls dated to the late fourth century B.C. His rationale was that the blocks came from Grotta Oscura in the ancient territory of Veii, early Rome’s enemy. Since Rome conquered Veii in 396 B.C., that year provided a terminus ante quem for the wall construction. Lanciani noted that a section of the wall nearest to the Stazione Termini was built from a smaller stone, cappellaccio (Fig. 23). (In the decades to follow, scholars would date that section to the late Roman Republic.69) Much of the publication is devoted to clarifying the position of the gates. The Porta Esquilina was located on the site of the Arch of Galliena, the gate-cum-triumphal arch fashioned for the third century emperor whose name it bears. During construction of the Stazione Termini in the early 1870s, the Porta Viminale was located. In 1881, the Porta Collina was found to its north, during a building campaign around the Ministry of Finance office complex on via XX Settembre.70 Lanciani further recorded that the agger, which was most consistent in the area between these three gates, held many surprising antiquities. Given the differing levels of the ditch and the embankment, these finds were dated to various epochs. Furthermore, the agger had sometimes been filled in at various times during the 25 intervening centuries and the infill came from varied sources. In fact, the dirt pile over some of the agger was so tall that it had a topographical name: Monte di Giustizia. Its infill was largely dirt and debris displaced during the construction of the late third-century Baths of Diocletian. To accommodate the late 19th-century 65 66

Lanciani 1871a, 40–85. Lanciani 1874a, 60–42, recounts the discovery of the wall and the efforts at conservation of a section of

this section of the wall, after an earlier discovery was destroyed. coareLLi 2011, 99–110. Lanciani 1897c, 62. 69 coareLLi 2011, 99–100; Lanciani 1897c, 60–66. 70 candiLio 1984, 19–20. 67 68

56

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 22. Section of the Servian Agger, from Lanciani, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome (1897), 62, fig. 26.

plans for the city, this mound was flattened. In short, the provenance of antiquities gleaned from the area around the Servian Wall was difficult to ascertain. Funerary monument finds were not unexpected outside the wall. In 1873, excavators uncovered various funerary monuments outside Porta Collina, and in 1884, a prehistoric necropolis on the Quirinale Hill, close to the Porta Esquilina was found. There were also some unanticipated discoveries in 1876, including some imperial houses and the Ara di Verminus, located near the Porta Viminale.71 At times, archaeologists worked to preserve evidence of the wall. Around 1870, Rosa, representing the new state, had to intervene to retain the remains of the fortifications near the Stazione Termini, and to assert ownership of the antiquities unearthed around it.72 During discoveries from the early 1870s, some Grotta Oscura blocks found near the Arch of Galliena were set aside to not impede new construction. They sat in the cloister of a Cluniac convent on via Mecenate. In late 1884, when the convent was tagged for demolition, the blocks were slated to be broken up for use as construction material. Lanciani wrote to argue for their preservation. Five years later, some of these blocks were transferred to the Forum of Augustus to be used as part of a reconstruction project there.73 Largely, the remains of the wall were considered a nuisance. In 1879, some Grotta Oscura blocks had been sitting for a long time in the Piazza Manfredo Fanti, to the west of the Stazione Termini, because building contractors could not find a re-use for them.74 As a topographer striving to compile a reconstruction of ancient Rome, Lanciani clearly had great interest in the Servian Wall. He kept most of his paper trail of evidence about the wall out of 71 coareLLi 2011, 103, 134; on the Ara Vermino; see Lanciani 1888f, 51–53; on tombs, see aLBertini 1983, 141–142. 72 BertoLotti 1983, 123–124. 73 BertoLotti 1983, 127–128. 74 BertoLotti 1983, 125, n. 48; coareLLi 2011, 108.

What was Found: 1868–1886

57

Fig. 23. Servian Wall near Porta Viminale, photograph. Photo: Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Rome, fondo Lanciani, inv. 34001, Roma XI.62.7.

the state or city archives; his records can now be found in the Vatican Libraries.75 He may have felt a personal connection with the wall’s creator, Servius Tullus, as Lanciani’s family owned property in the territory of ancient Corniculum, the domain of this early king of Rome.

around tHe pantHeon The Campo Marzio section of Rome had been most consistently inhabited from ancient to modern times. In the early years of the Italian nation, leaders decided that the build-up of the structures around the narrow, winding streets made traffic in the modern city difficult. More importantly, it made access to the Pantheon challenging. One of the great and most well-preserved monuments of antiquity, the Pantheon was destined to be frequented by tourists visiting the capital city, especially as the new nation’s royalty began to be interred there. After the king’s death in 1878, it held the tomb of Vittorio Emanuele II, and eventually became the final resting place of his successor Umberto I (1844–1900) and Queen Margherita (1851–1926). In 1881, Baccelli ordered the building’s isolation from its urban context.76 From the beginning of this operation, Lanciani was concerned that information about the 75 76

58

Buonocore 1997–2001. dixon 2007.

Susan M. Dixon

topography of ancient Rome in this area would be lost. He understood that any new archaeological evidence would provide clues to solving the mystery of the Pantheon, including why the structure did not match classical authors’ descriptions of Agrippa’s Pantheon.77 Thus, Baccelli asked Lanciani to publish an essay on all that was known to date about the Pantheon. Lanciani’s “Il Pantheon e le terme di Agrippa” was issued in the Notizie degli Scavi in two parts, in the October 1881 and August 1882 issues. Part I is an accounting of the illustrations of the building from the 15th century forward, including the prints of Palladio, Serlio, Labacco and Desgodetz, and the drawings of Sansovino, Peruzzi, the Sangalli, Raphael and others.78 Additionally, he described the adjacent ancient structures: the fronting piazza, the Arch of Pietatis, the Baths of Agrippa. Part II provides a review of the literature on the Pantheon, from ancient authors to modern scholars, including Carlo Fea (1753-1836), Luigi Canina (1795-1856), and in Lanciani’s day, Henry Jordan (1833–86).79 Lanciani pointed out the contradictory assessments, not just of the building proper, but of its attendant parts. Lanciani’s thorough research laid out but did not resolve all questions about the monument. Meanwhile, at the behest of Baccelli, Lanciani oversaw the clearing in the area. While obtaining and demolishing private property had been a challenging issue in efforts to access the Roman Forum, the process was far more embattled in this area. For centuries, homes and shops shared structural walls with the Pantheon. And for centuries, the popes, particularly Alexander VII (reigned 1655–67), had attempted to demolish the post-antique buildings leaning against it, but had not quite succeeded. With some sense of accomplishment, Lanciani reported that in 1881, the last of the attached buildings, a problematic bakery on the via della Palombella, was removed. In early 1883, the Pantheon was stripped of the two bell towers at the corners of the façade pediment, 17th-century additions designed by the architect Gianlorenzo Bernini. The removal of the “donkey ears” as they were known, and the heavy iron railings in the portico, returned the façade to its original state, albeit without the marble embellishment or the bronze lettering on the pediment.80 Digging in the immediate vicinity in order to lay sewer lines and widen streets exposed parts of an ancient travertine pavement extending north, in front of the Parthenon building, and eastward, toward the church of il Gesu.81 Those finds were recorded, although they did not lead to any systematic archaeological probe of the area. Instead, the state developed plans to open up the square in front of Pantheon, removing some structures so the small square in front of the church of La Maddalena could be incorporated into the area, but that was not accomplished. As for investigation of the Pantheon itself, little was completed at this time. As Lanciani’s 1881 and 1882 essays reveal, much remained unknown about the Pantheon, including how to reconcile what ancient literature stated about it with what all could see in the extant monument. During the period Lanciani was working to isolate the building and investigate the surrounding area, most believed the Parthenon to be Agrippa’s original creation. The disconnection between the ancient literature and the physical evidence nagged at scholars and fueled differing interpretations of the monument’s history. Only in 1891 did researchers conduct a systematic investigation of the brick stamps marking the dome’s masonry. Georges Chédanne, a student at the French Academy in Rome, received permission to probe the dome, and thereafter stated that the cupola was Hadrianic. Furthermore, Lanciani 1897c, 474. Lanciani 1882a. 79 Lanciani 1882a. 80 cuBBerLey 1988, 133. 81 coareLLi 2011, 76–77. 77 78

What was Found: 1868–1886

59

Fig. 24. Statue of bronze Seated Boxer, in archaeological remains of the Baths of Constantine, photograph. Photo: Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Rome, fondo Lanciani, inv. 32636, Roma XI.53.20.

after examining the substructures, he deduced that the entire building also dated to that age.82 The Italian government, clearly not wanting to be outsmarted, quickly commissioned Luca Beltrami, an architect and historian, to test the results. Unfortunately, they were not published until 1898.83 Soon after Chédanne’s discovery, however, Lanciani wrote an article entitled “Le Controversia del Panteon,” in which he conservatively noted that “the veil of mystery in which the monument was shrouded had by no means been lifted by these last researches.”84 At this point, Lanciani was no longer an employee of the state archaeological service, and his article appeared in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma. In it, he accepted that the rotondo was Hadrianic but urged caution in declaring the entire structure as not of the Augustan age. In 1894, his now former employer Baccelli ridiculed the Frenchman’s claims and ordered the restoration of the bronze letters of the Agrippan inscription from the Pantheon’s pediment. It would take a few more decades before it was commonly accepted that the design of the Pantheon is Hadrianic.85 Another monument that received considerable attention between 1870 and 1890 was the Basilica of Neptune or the Neptunium, now more commonly known as the Temple of Hadrian.86 Much of the original building was standing in Lanciani’s day – 11 columns on the north side and GuiLLauMe 1892; dixon 2007, 250–251. BeLtraMi 1898. 84 Lanciani 1892c, 150; see also Lanciani 1897c, 474. 85 dixon 2007. 86 coareLLi 2011, 78; cLaridGe 1998, 199–201. 82 83

60

Susan M. Dixon

the cella walls. It had been incorporated into a palace in the 17th century, and in the succeeding century, it housed a dogana, or custom’s house. Over the centuries, the site been quarried for building materials and antique treasure, and hence the square in front of the temple was called the Piazza di Pietra. The temple had been decorated with the bas-reliefs depicting the many Provinces then under Hadrian’s rule.87 They were positioned beneath each of the temple’s columns, alongside representations of trophies. At various times throughout the centuries, the reliefs had been located, and fell into the hands of different owners. Thus, in Lanciani’s day, they were scattered among many sculpture collections throughout the city and beyond. For example, in the 16th century, the Farnese family claimed four Provinces; of these, one fragmented relief remained in the Palazzo Farnese in Rome while three were transported to Naples in the early 19th century. A few more of the Hadrianic bas-reliefs were discovered in the 17th century, during different papacies. Of these, two were donated to the Capitoline Museum, while a few remained in private collections.88 In 1876, Lanciani oversaw the discovery of six more provincial figures during the renovation of a medieval church, where they had been repurposed, laid figure-side down to serve as pavement tiles. These six were deemed to be under the city’s jurisdiction, and therefore they were placed in the Capitoline Museum. In 1882, three more of the reliefs were found during the repair of sewer lines in the Campo Marzio. The national government claimed these and they are now in the Museo Nazionale Romano in the Palazzo Massimo.89 In a newspaper opinion piece, Lanciani suggested that all the bas-reliefs be gathered and displayed in one place, and a reconstruction of the temple made.90 However, in Lanciani’s lifetime (and still today) the sculptures remained scattered among different museum in different cities. And Lanciani’s wish to restore the Temple of Hadrian was not granted, as the state had already made plans to transform it into a modern borsa, or stock exchange building, for the capital city. The project was begun in 1879–80, with the neoclassical architect Virginio Vespignani (1808-82) directing the work.91 Lanciani spurred on other investigations in the Campo Marzio, largely rescue archeology projects. He understood that historically, this region had yielded many Egyptian sculptural finds because the Temple of Isis or the Iseum was located in an expansive area beneath the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. He also knew that the stones used by the Egyptians were very hard and would not have been broken down as easily as marble. Thus, they would have escaped the lime kilns of the centuries between the ancient and modern periods. 92 The Museo Nazionale Romano in the Palazzo Altemps now houses some of the results of his operations. One of the most important finds was the red granite obelisk of Ramses II, unearthed near the Piazza del Collegio Romano in 1883. It was relocated to the piazza in front of the Stazione Termini, and thereafter moved a short distance northward, to its current location just south of the Piazza della Repubblica.93 Beginning in 1876 and continuing for more than a decade, excavators unearthed various ornate architectural fragments, some quite large, in the extensive area between the Campo 87 Lanciani believed there were 36 Provinces; scholars currently believe there were about 25. Today 24 have been found. 88 Lanciani 1892e, 60. 89 cuBBerLey 1988, 128–129. 90 Lanciani 1880f; see also Lanciani 1897c, 488–490. 91 During the construction, some archaeological evidence was found, including remains of the temple’s internal exedra; coareLLi 2011, 78. 92 cuBBerLey 1988, 135–136. 93 cuBBerLey 1988, 137–138.

What was Found: 1868–1886

61

Marzio and the base of the Quirinal Hill. These discoveries happened sporadically in this zone during new construction of the Post Office in the old convent of San Silvestro in Capita and of major streets such as the via del Tritone. 94 Topographically, the discoveries did not jibe easily with earlier maps or ancient descriptions of Rome. Only in the mid-1890s, in published correspondence with Huelsen, did Lanciani attempt to identify the monuments in the region, including the positions of the Temple of the Sun and the Temple of Serapis. Archaeologists are still unsure about what lay in the area.95 In February 1887, during the construction of the national theater on via IV Novembre, at the foot of the Quirinale Hill, crews discovered a gilt bronze statue, the majestic Hellenistic Prince. At the time, some of the excavation crew moved the statue in an attempt to hide it from city and state inspectors. Authorities were alerted, however, and the statue recovered. But the exact find spot could not be ascertained, and some seminal information was lost. In the same area the following month, the bronze Seated Boxer was discovered buried under many meters of dirt between two foundation walls of a temple platform (Lanciani identified it as the Temple of the Sun) (Fig. 24).96 It was meticulously set on a marble capital, a fastidious placement that puzzled Lanciani, and led him to conclude that it was deliberately concealed to evade theft or destruction by marauders. Both statues were claimed by the state, and are now in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.

tHe LarGe BatHs oF roMe A small portion of the Baths of Diocletian, the largest of its type in ancient Rome, remained visible in the modern period, so its location was never lost. Since the 16th century, the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli stood within the remains of its frigidarium. From 1876 through 1889, other parts of the extensive baths were revealed as post-antique buildings created from parts of its structure were destroyed to make way for modernization of the area. This included the creation of the open spaces in front of the Stazione Termini, the Piazza della Repubblica, and a portion of the via Nazionale. One of the last major demolitions of the Baths occurred in 1888, when the exedra at its most southwestern corner, near the site of the Palazzo Massimo, was razed.97 Nonetheless, Lanciani was content to have garnered secure topographical evidence of the baths’ entire footprint. As of late 1879, he confirmed that the building conformed to Palladio’s record of the plan.98 The early 3rd-century Baths of Caracalla, also referred to as the Baths of the Antonines, were – and remain – the best preserved of this building type in Rome. The state purchased the land with the intention of removing post-antique accretions and shaping it into a public park.99 Although Rosa had done some clearing there in 1870, excavations began in earnest in November 1878 under Fiorelli, with Lanciani as director. First, the frigidarium was uncovered. In late 1879, the caldarium, coareLLi 2011, 55. coareLLi 2011, 6, citing Torelli 1992. 96 Lanciani 1888f, 297–307; Lanciani credited Guiseppe Gagliadi, a retired inspector, for warning him to be attentive to this area. 97 coareLLi 2011, 47. 98 cuBBerLey 1988, 88. The building underwent more destruction and some renovation in preparation for the 1911 Mostra Archeologica, which was held in this structure. 99 cuBBery 1988, 88. 94 95

62

Susan M. Dixon

then partially visible, was fully revealed as layers of dirt were cleared away. Crews removed the debris of the bath’s fallen vault, revealing the caldarium’s extraordinary mosaic pavement, and the furnaces in the subterranean structures were dug out. In 1881, the state concentrated its efforts on exposing the palestra. Economic troubles brought the nearly complete work to a halt for a period; excavation started anew only in 1901.100 Any survey of Lanciani’s work during these two decades would be incomplete without touching on certain features he frequently mentioned: prehistoric graves, as noted above, as well as evidence of Rome’s water system, including indications of the aqueduct system and inscribed pipes. His assessments also regularly note the existence of numerous mithraea that were found and recorded at this time.101

ostia and tivoLi In Lanciani’s day, the land that held the ancient port of Ostia and the Villa of Hadrian in Tivoli had both been subjected to extreme rescue archaeology, most extensively at Tivoli. After the unification, the state attempted to acquire both properties. Ostia was acquired fully, but only 2/3 of the site of Hadrian’s Villa was secured from multiple private owners who ceded their parcel to the state.102 The purchases meant that pillaging, which had gone on for centuries, at last ceased on these sites. Hadrian’s Villa was the subject of four excavation campaigns, beginning in January 1878 and ending in 1884. Overall, excavators concentrated efforts on the Imperial Palace and the buildings to its south; the area around the Academy was still in private hands. In January 1878, Rosa meticulously cleared the area on the western terraces called the valle di Tempe, where Fiorelli hoped but failed to find a basilica, as had been suggested by the early 19th-century archaeologist Canina. The three subsequent campaigns — in 1881, 1883, and 1884, respectively — focused more intensely on the area around the Imperial Palace (Fig. 25). This zone had been investigated and recorded by 18th-century excavators, but not systematically. The Ospitali, the Biblioteche and the maritime theater, or Island Enclosure – the oldest parts of the palace – were cleared, and their levels brought down to the pavement. In the process, some 16th-century accretions were removed. Lanciani joined the 1883 campaign, moving the excavations toward the Pecile.103 The campaign came to an end before he was able to reach the Stadium Garden, the Smaller Baths, or the Canopo. These structures were investigated in the following decades.104 For a site so well mined since the 16th century, a surprising amount of quality sculptural work was found during these campaigns, including nearly complete statues and many statue fragments. These were temporarily stored at the Villa, and then moved in 1890 to Rome’s newly established national museum. The archaeological service alternated work between the two extra-urban sites; when the excavation crew was not in Tivoli, they were in Ostia. A campaign in the ancient port city began in the early 1870s, with Rosa directing the operations. Lanciani assumed oversight of Ostia excavations after 1878, and led a campaign in the later 1880s. The major discoveries there were east of the Forum, which had already been cleared, and along the Decumanus Maximus, the city’s coareLLi 2011, 87. Lanciani 1888f, 164–168; Lanciani 1901f, 192–197. 102 MacdonaLd and pinto, 1995, 314; Lanciani 1906a, 9. 103 reGGiani 1984, 106–107. 104 MacdonaLd and pinto 1995, 314; reGGiani 1984, 109–111. 100 101

What was Found: 1868–1886

63

Fig. 25. Hadrian’s Villa, foldout plan, from Lanciani, La Villa Adriana, guida e descrizione (1906), foldout plan.

Fig. 26. Ostia Antica, plan, from K. Baedeker, Central Italy and Rome, 15th edition (1909), 491.

64

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 27. Warehouses at Ostia, drawing, from Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1888), 249.

major thoroughfare that fed into the via Ostiense, the road to Rome (Fig. 26). The crews excavated around the Temple of Vulcan, as Lanciani identified it, and inside the Piazzale delle Corporazione, a large porticoed area with a small central temple. Then, moving westward, the excavators worked on the sizeable warehouses adjacent to the Forum (Fig. 27). Finally, they cleared the firemen’s barracks, the caserma degli vigili, located to the east of the Piazzale. Lanciani’s investigations were most intense west of the amphitheater, an area dense with ancient buildings. Located here were four small temples that faced the Decumanus Maximus. And wedged behind them and the amphitheater at the short end of the Piazzale, Lanciani discovered the house of L. Apuleio Marcello, with a mithraeum. This mithraeum had been revealed by earlier explorers, although its connection to the house had not. Lanciani’s work revealed the port city’s ancient topography in a manner that archaeologists before him had not attempted. The museal finds from the campaigns were kept on site in a temporary museum until 1890, when they were transferred to national museums.105 Lanciani published a short essay to accompany a reconstructive map of Hadrian’s Villa created by engineering students in 1906.106 As for Ostia, he never issued any type of comprehensive study, rather sharing the information piecemeal. He published the plan of the house of L. Apuleio Marcello in Notizie degli Scavi in 1886, and soon thereafter delivered a paper in the Rendiconti dei Lincei on the inscriptions found at the caserma degli vigili.107 Lanciani 1878d, 37-38, 67-68, 138; 1879b, 142-144, 334; 1880d, 55-56, 82-83, 229; 1886g, 56-57, 82, 126127, 162-165; 1888e, 233-234, 738-745; see also: www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/excavations/excavations.htm 106 ortoLani 2017. 107 Lanciani 1886g, 161; Reference to Lanciani 1889b. 105

What was Found: 1868–1886

65

in tHe reGion oF tHe aLBan HiLLs and eLsewHere One of the most interesting extra-urban finds was an ancient villa complex not mentioned in the classical literature, that of Quinto Pollione Voconio (Fig. 28). In 1884, it was found on private property in Marino, south of Rome in the Alban Hill area. By Lanciani’s day, most of these types of villas had long been pillaged and extant ruins were few. But this site yielded fresh information about the composition and decoration of Republican Roman villas. Given the slack patrimony laws, the complex was almost immediately destroyed after its discovery and its decorative elements dispersed. Because of this, Lanciani’s records remain as a valuable source of information about ancient Roman villas.108 An earlier incident in the area foreshadowed the fate of the villa because it signaled great confusion about who was in charge of archaeological finds on extra-urban properties. In November 1881, a plot of land near Marino traditionally used as pasture was slated to have new rail lines from Rome laid across it, so digging plans were prepared. Prince Marcantonio Colonna owned the land, but at this moment rented it to property speculator Bernardo Tanlongo. Tanlongo – who later played a role in Italy’s financial crisis of the late 1880s – had no doubt anticipated making a profit off the land in some manner. Indeed, Tanlongo reported that he believed he discovered the remains of an ancient city on this land. The report went to the prefect of the province with jurisdiction over Marino. Tanlongo asked for permission to rescue what could be found – presumably antiquities for the market – and then to demolish any building ruins that remained.109 This province was under the jurisdiction of the state at the time, and Lanciani, as their representative/inspector, checked these remains. He recorded them, in plan, and published them, before the site was demolished. On a nearby plot also owned by Colonna, the remains of the heart of a villa were found in early 1884. The land was contracted to Luigi Boccanera, a noted art dealer, who would later be associated with the sale of antiquities from the Temple of Diana in Nemi, then owned by Prince Filippo Orsini. Boccanera went directly to the state’s archaeological service to ask for permission to excavate and to sell what he found, giving the state the first right to purchase, as required by law, should they find the antiquities of national interest. Boccanera and Colonna had crafted a contract so they both would benefit from such a deal. If an ancient object brought in a large sum, the two parties would split the money nearly evenly, but for smaller finds Boccanera would get the lions’ share. The very busy Lanciani was called out again to Marino to record the archaeological discovery of this villa. At this time, he was occupied with the last of his major discoveries in the Forum, while attempting to oversee the intense activity in the eastern part of the city. Nonetheless, the villa was a spectacular find and he traveled to the site a few times. During his third or fourth visit, Lanciani found an inscribed lead pipe that identified the original owner of the garden, Quinto Pollione Voconio.110 He recorded and published plans of the villa complex, as well as descriptions of its three stages of development across centuries, from the Republican era to the third century A.D.111 Significantly, some exquisite statues were found, among them a Marsyas, a life-sized bronze athlete, and a bearded man in the manner of Laocoon. Boccanera offered to sell these and other sculptural works to the state for 16,000 lire. The Minister of Public Instruction hesitated for quite some time regarding the proposed sales. He assembled a commission that included Lanciani to evaluate the work, and eventually decided to not purchase the pieces. In the meantime, Rome’s aGLietti and rose 2008, 79–105. aGLietti and rose 2008, 83–86. 110 aGLietti and rose 2008, 86–90; aGLietti 2011. 111 Lanciani 1884b, 141–171. 108 109

66

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 28.Villa Quinto Pollione Voconio, plan, from Lanciani, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma 2, 12 (1884), tav. XIV. Courtesy of Marquand Library of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University.

What was Found: 1868–1886

67

municipal authorities, keen to acquire the finds, made a case that the property was under the city’s jurisdiction. Indeed, oversight rules established by the state archaeological service were unclear when it came to extra-urban properties.112 It seems likely that Lanciani, serving as both a representative of the municipal archaeological commission and an investigator for the state, was attempting to orchestrate the sale of these works to the city in order to keep them in Italy. But that purchase did not take place. Some of the sculptures are currently in Karlsruhe, after passing through Helbig’s hands, and some are in the Vatican. When a second group of statues from the site were put up for sale, the state acquired four and placed them in the Museo Nazionale Romano.113 For a brief period after the discovery of the villa, Colonna entertained the idea of reconstructing it, and the state seemed fully in favor of this plan.114 The project, however, was never implemented. In 1885, this villa site was covered over with dirt. In 1892, the villa and gardens were destroyed after a land swap in the area. Colonna ceded the land to another party, and with that transaction, the property thereafter eluded the attention of the archaeological services.115 This account of the significant finds in the provinces during the period Lanciani had broad oversight of ancient Roman discoveries is not exhaustive. For example, in the Albano region near Cività Lavinia on property owned by the English ambassador Savile, he recorded the remains of a Republican building found in 1884-85 and a villa found in 1889.116 The site held special interest for him because its early history was interwoven with early Rome’s.117 Likewise, at about the same time, Lanciani inspected an excavation on another of Savile’s properties from the vicinity of the sanctuary of Diana near the Lago di Nemi. He recorded various finds, including many terracotta votive figures, black-and-white vases, architectural antefixes, bronze statuettes, coins, lead pipes, and some inscriptions. This site had fallen prey to much destructive rescue archaeology in the mid-19th century. Nonetheless, Lanciani teased out the topography, and noted the delimiting wall around the sanctuary, with niches and pilasters, and the road leading to the lake. In December 1888, he recorded the discovery of two buildings east of the sanctuary.118 But in the wake of modernization, the character of towns in the Roman campagna was fading quickly, and with it, not only traces of the settlements of tribal rivals to the Latins who inhabited Rome, but also villas of the late Republican and Imperial Roman periods. In the last years of the 1880s, Lanciani was called to Veii, north of the city, to investigate an important find on property owned by the Empress of Brazil, Teresa Cristina di Borbone. There, excavators discovered a tumulus tomb, which formed part of an Etruscan necropolis, and many objects within those tombs. This inspection was one of Lanciani’s last tasks as state inspector. By 1889, Lanciani was aware he was under investigation for professional improprieties. Given his imminent dismissal from the service, and the chaos surrounding the Duchess of Brazil’s political fate – the monarchy was ousted when the First Brazilian Republic was established in that year – many of the objects from the tombs have disappeared.119 Bruni 2001, 775–777; see also deLpino 2014, 13–18. vaLenti 2011, 225–228; 114 aGLietti and rose 2008, 89–90. 115 aGLietti and rose 2008, 100–2. 116 Lanciani 1884e, 239–40; 1885e, 192; 1886g, 26; 1889e, 227–228. 117 Lanciani returned to this part of the campagna in the latter part of the 19th Century and into the early 20th, to record the remains. See LiLLi 2001, 10, 12, 21, 38, 49, among other places. His sketches and notes form a major part of Cod. Vat. Lat. 13045. 118 Lanciani 1884e, 238–239; 1885e, 159–160, 192–193, 227–228, 254–255,317–321, 478–479; 1889e, 20–22. 119 Liverani 2004, 267–280. 112 113

68

Susan M. Dixon

cHapter 3

Lanciani and aMerica: 1886–87

contact witH aMericans Late 1890 marked a dramatic shift in Lanciani’s life. He was forced to resign from his work with the Direzione Generale di Antichità e Belle Arti – in 1881, the agency Direzione Generale degli Scavi e dei Musei had been renamed – and he had stepped down from his position as secretary of the Commissione Archeologica Comunale. We have already noted the various ways in which his two major employers, the state and the city governments, had been at odds throughout the entirety of his employment, and how the state believed that Lanciani favored the city’s bid over the state’s. The tensions reached a breaking point soon after a dramatic economic crisis in Italy, and Europe-wide, in 1887. A trip to America, however, precipitated the change. In 1886–87, Lanciani engaged in an academic-year long tour, mainly in the northeastern part of the United States. The experience provided Lanciani with certain benefits, chief among them his securing contracts for Englishlanguage books with the publisher Houghton Mifflin & Company. But it also ushered in misfortune. He returned to Rome in mid-1887 only to have his professional behavior scrutinized. The idea for a long stay in the United States was sparked when Lanciani was offered a Lowell Lecture position for the fall of 1885. The timing was serendipitous because his work as director of excavations in the Roman Forum was slowing down, even as it was heating up too intensely and chaotically in other parts of Rome. He was no doubt at the height of his career in the city, with intimate and expansive knowledge of the archaeological activity there. Throughout his time as director, Lanciani was a magnet for many people with varied motivations for wanting a share in his knowledge. These people included many foreigners, whom the Italian government had marginalized, if not completely banned, from archaeological investigations on the peninsula. Some were scholars of antiquity, while others were interested amateurs. These individuals also included art dealers and collectors, and among the latter, a growing number of museum professionals. And Americans were among them. Since the 18th Century, the age of the Grand Tour, Europeans – British, Germans, French – had long flocked to Rome, thirsting after knowledge of the ancient culture and eager to gather up some of its art and artifacts. The Americans, however, were late in discovering Rome, arriving in significant numbers only in the 19th Century, and particularly postCivil War. With the availability of rail travel in Europe after mid-century, Americans from diverse economic, social and ideological positions, sought new experiences in Rome.1 Those interested 1

Gyr 2010, 16–23; see also aMFitHeatroF 1980, 82–92; vance 1989.

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

69

in its ancient history, culture, and art, became aware of the knowledgeable, affable, and Englishspeaking Lanciani. He was well-known for acting as a cicerone or guide around the city and in the Roman campagna, or countryside. Throughout his career, English speakers commented on Lanciani’s excellent language skills, although some referred to an accent.2 With his charming manners, he was especially appealing to the educated American woman (Fig. 1). 3 Lanciani had committed to learning the English language as a young adult. Anne Hampton Brewster, the American novelist who left the United States to become a long-time resident of Rome from 1868 to 1889, claimed that she instructed the 24-year-old Lanciani in the language. He first met Brewster, an erstwhile French teacher, circa 1868, while she was in Frascati, in one of her temporary residences outside Rome. 4 She inferred that his speaking skills were not very advanced when they began. As part of his lessons, they read one of the British archaeologist Austin Henry Layard’s books on Nineveh. She stated that Lanciani quite enjoyed the lively account of the remains of the Assyrian city. Anne Hampton Brewster settled in Rome because it afforded her an independence from the expectations set by her family, and especially her brother. This move gave her the freedom to remain unmarried and to convert to Roman Catholicism. Because of this, however, her family inheritance was limited. Furthermore, because she produced no more publishable novels in Italy, her earnings were not great. To support herself financially while in Rome, she wrote articles for various American and British newspapers and journals.5 The topics were mainly about Roman culture, including its history, art, literature and music. To aid in this task, she established an informal salon in Rome, which Lanciani frequented as a young man. She most likely introduced Lanciani to those at her salon. They included a wide range of Americans and Britons who were visiting or residing in Rome, among them visual and literary artists. Quite a few were known for their progressive social ideas, something which seems to have had an impact on Lanciani’s understanding of American culture, as we will explore. There were writers of all sorts. Numbered among them were Helen Hunt Jackson (1830–85), poet and activist6; Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–82), poet and abolitionist7; Julia Ward Howe (1819–1910) author, abolitionist, and suffragette8; as well as visual artists William Wetmore Story (1819–95), sculptor9; Elihu Vedder (1836–1923) painter10; Emma Stebbins (1815–1882;

On his accent, see NYT, 3–19–87, 2; paLoMBi 2006a, 114–5, n. 154; HuMpHrey 1918, 7. HUH, bMS Am 1083 463, letter dated 4 MarcH, no year; and addaMs 1910, 77. 4 COLC, part 2, ms 0156, box 2, folder 23a. Brewster thanked Jackson for the opportunity to make Lanciani’s acquaintance, citing an incident of a lost key, presumably in reference to Lanciani’s help in gaining entry to her seasonal lodgings, the Villa Murte (?) in Frascati. 5 LarraBee 1992, 24–31. 6 Helen Hunt Jackson had left Rome by 1869, and had settled in Colorado, working on behalf of Native American populations to improve their conditions. Jackson continued her correspondence with Brewster. 7 BurGard 1995, 2. He was in Rome in the winter of 1868–69, where Edmonia Lewis drew his features in order to create his portrait bust. 8 Ward Howe was in Rome in 1868 and 1878–79, as well as 1897–98; see ricHards and eLLiott 1916, v. 1: 267–71 and v. 2: 28–33, 236–57; see also vance 2004, 220 and 264–265. 9 Story had resided in Rome since the late 1840s; aMpitHeatroF 1980, 58–59, and 76–81, 10 Vedder settled in Rome by 1866 and, like Story, is buried in the Protestant Cemetery in Rome. https:// americanart.si.edu/artist/elihu-vedder-5138; soria 1970, 46–89. 2

3

70

Susan M. Dixon

sculptor11; Thomas Buchanan Read (1822–72), poet & painter 12; and Edmonia Lewis (1844–1907), sculptor of African and Native American heritage.13 Frequent visitors included ex-patriots living in Rome: Louisa Cutler Ward (1823–87), Julia Ward Howe’s sister, and mother of Francis Marian Crawford (1854–1909), the Italian-born novelist;14 and Luther Terry, painter (1813–1900) and Louisa’s second husband. Lanciani traded skills with Brewster. While she helped him with his English, he supplied her with information about the archaeological activity of the day. In 1868, after he issued Guida del Palatino with Carlo Ludovico Visconti, she translated the text into English, with the hope of publication. She believed Lanciani would help in this endeavor. Her translation did not get published and the manuscript remains with her papers in Philadelphia. She was offended that Lanciani did not fulfill an unstated promise to aid her and it soured their relationship for some time.15 In the late 1870s, however, he critiqued one of her journal articles that was destined for Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. It explored the museum of the Torlonia family, then located at the Palazzo Torlonia on the via Lungara.16 With his connections to Prince Alessandro Torlonia, Lanciani likely helped Brewster gain access to the famous collection, which was very difficult to acquire at this time.17 Meanwhile, by 1872, Lanciani was also in close contact with the American Protestant community in Rome, which had been under the stewardship of Reverend Robert Jenkins Nevin (1839–1906) since 1869. Only after the national government of Italy shut down the secular powers of the Papacy was the Protestant community allowed to build a house of worship within the city walls. In November 1872, ground was broken for the construction of St. Paul’s Within the Walls along the new via Nazionale. The English architect George Edmund Street designed the church, of which Edward Burne-Jones, among other artists, furnished mosaics and other decorative arts. During construction, workers had to dig deep in order to lay the foundations. In the process, they found archaeological material dating to Nero’s reign. Lanciani, in his role as inspector, was called in to investigate and record that evidence. In the absence of an on-site supervising architect, Lanciani oversaw the building of the foundation walls and the laying of the cornerstone. This occurred on 25 January 1873. Nevin stated that Lanciani was “representing (the absent) Mr. Street” during the early stages of construction.18 The Episcopal establishment in Rome was referred to as the American Church because it was associated with many denominations of American Protestants. By 1876, it served as a welcome Stebbins learned to sculpt marble in Rome, and had resided there off and on between 1859–1870; see MiLLroy 1994, 5–9. 12 dickason 1953, 26–32. Read had spent the last four years of his life, from c. 1868–72, in Italy. An interesting connection between Read and Lanciani’s mother is that the painter gave her a copy (one of many) of his famous Sheridan’s Ride (an image that accompanied his poem of 1864), which Lanciani later tried to sell in the U.S. (BMFA, Lanciani to Loring, 8 January 1888). 13 Lewis was in Rome from 1866–68. 14 Francis’ father was the sculptor Thomas Gibson Crawford (d. 1861). Crawford was in Rome before 1879 and after 1883, when he made Italy his permanent home. 15 Madden 2016. 16 Brewster 1879, 70–87; and Larrabee 1992, 27. On the Torlonia’s collection, see visconti 1883; and on its location, see carpanito 1991, 509. 17 cuBBerLey 1988, 12, 83–86. 18 MiLLon 1982, 28–9. After the laying of the cornerstone, the Swiss architect Henri Kleffer supervised the construction. 11

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

71

center for nearly any expatriate or tourist from the United States, including Roman Catholics. By the early 20th Century, some outside the congregation noted that 3/4 of those attending the American Church had close ties to the Catholic Church, as spouses, children, and friends.19 Lanciani made fruitful contacts at this time within the community. Among them was one of the church’s major funders, Junius Spencer Morgan, the Connecticut banker and father of J.P. Morgan, both staunch Episcopalians. Throughout his life, Lanciani had cordial relationships with three generations of the Morgan family.20 In any event, this American community at St. Paul’s Within the Walls may have provided Lanciani the opportunity to meet his first wife, the American Mary Ellen Rhodes (1842–1914). She was likely raised an Episcopalian – one of her brothers was married in that Church – although she was a practicing Roman Catholic during their marriage.21 At this time in Italy, marriages between Italian aristocrats and American women were enough of a social phenomenon to be described and discussed in current newspapers and to be a trope in literature. Commentators noted that the socially and financially enervated aristocrats of the new Italy, who had been taught English from the crib by their foreign nannies, were attracted to the energy and money that American women could bring to the marriage. Others noted that although many American women bucked at the social restrictions placed on them in 19th-century Italian society, they were also open to new experiences and therefore they were temperamentally a good match for the noblemen. In addition, it was noted that any such Italian-American marriage could fail without too many complications.22 Lanciani was not an aristocrat, although all his life he expressed aspirations to that lifestyle and he associated himself with the Roman aristocracy. His marriage to an American woman was de riguer. On 9 January 1875, in Paris, he married the Mary Ellen. Elena, as she was known, hailed from Providence, Rhode Island.23 Her father Peleg Aborn Rhodes was a high-level employee of Merchants Bank of Providence. When he died in May 1852, he left his children with considerable holdings in real estate and cash, to be administered by their mother Eliza Avery Rhodes, until the children came of age.24 When Elena was in her early 30s, she was an unmarried independently wealthy woman. She travelled through Europe. She may have met Lanciani in Rome, or it may have been nearly vance 1989, 268–272; NYT, April 14, 1907, C1. MiLLon 1982, 36. Morgan funded the church’s mosaics, which were created between 1885 and 1907. On Lanciani’s connections to Morgan, note that Lanciani stayed at the Morgan’s daughter’s house at 34th and Fifth Avenue in April 1887, right before returning to Italy after his lecture tour in the United States (Lanciani to Loring, 26 April 1887, BMFA). See also cHiLd, 1925, 191. 21 She is buried in Verano Cemetery. Mary Ellen Rhodes’ eldest brother William Henry was married by an Episcopal Rector. See Rhode Island Marriages, 1853–1900, v. 1859, 680–681. He married Adeline M. Fletcher in 1859 in Providence, Rhode Island; he died young, without children, on 24 September 1861 (Rhode Island Deaths, 1853–1900, v. 1861, 1006–7. 22 aMFitHeatroF 1980, 48, 50, 57 and 106–108. 23 ACS, MPI, Dir. Gen. AA.BB.AA, 1860–1892, Divisione arte e antica. Personale, busta 18, Rodolfo Lanciani. 24 Peleg died on 14 November 1852 in Providence, Rhode Island (Death Records of Rhode Island, 1853–79). On April 1854, his surviving wife Eliza Avery (died 16 November 1864) became the guardian of her seven children, then all minors between the age of 18 and 5 (Docket A7122, Providence, Rhode Island Probate, 1648–1889). She was to remain guardian until they came of age. Since Peleg’s estate at his death was worth $34,131 (calculated as equivalent to almost $1 million in 2006), and the wealth was distributed equally, each child received $3024.71 worth of real estate and an average of $11,000 in personal estate. See Death Records of Rhode Island, 1853–1879 and Docket A7122, A7252 and A7253, Providence, Rhode Island Probate, 1648–1889; I would like to thank the staff at New England Historical Genealogical Society for their work on finding this information. 19 20

72

Susan M. Dixon

anywhere on the continent. Lanciani visited many European cities during his research trips in the early 1870s, meeting with a variety of professional scholars and studying in many libraries and collections of ancient works. He noted that he had travelled to Paris and London in 1870, and to Milan and Florence in 1871, and later to St. Gall, Einsiedeln, Basilea, Bruges, Leiden, as well as other places in France and Germany, to Paris twice more, and then to Simancas, Escurial, Berlin, Turin and Verona.25 Elena’s siblings may have provided the social network which overlapped with Lanciani’s. Since 1872, her youngest brother Wallace Eugene (1849–c. 1901) worked for Henry Tiffany & Company, a position that had him travelling worldwide, trading in gems and jewelry. By 1876, Wallace and his growing family had moved permanently to Florence.26 Tiffany & Company dealt with the Castellani family business for its design and production of jewelry inspired by ancient prototypes. At this time, Wallace may have been in contact with either of the two Castellani brothers: Alessandro (1823–83) or Augusto (1829–1914). The elder Alessandro ran highly successful international businesses at this time, with shops in London and Paris, as well as Rome.27 Since 1872, Lanciani served on the municipal archaeological commission with Augusto. He knew both brothers, as they were antiquities collectors and dealers, even though they had distinct collecting interests, and were engaged in this activity at different times in their lives. It also may have been that the Torlonia family provided the means by which Elena met Rodolfo. As we’ve noted, Lanciani was known to Prince Alessandro Torlonia because of his archaeological work at Portus. At the same time, one of Elena’s older brothers, Frank Avery Rhodes (1837–1912), had business connections with the Torlonia. Her brothers followed in Peleg Aborn’s footsteps and engaged in international trading. Frank Avery worked in Providence as a cotton merchant, and cotton was one of the goods which the Torlonia traded.28 In Rome, the Torlonia held many social affairs for international merchants. In particularly, every 6 January, on the feast day of the Epiphany, during much of the 19th Century, the Torlonia held a well-known gala at one of their palaces in Rome, to which they invited the foreigners with whom they had business connections.29 The Torlonia family occupied an unusual position in Italy after the Unification. They had become exceedingly wealthy in the late 18th Century when, under the Napoleonic occupation of paLoMBi 2006a, 289–291, n. 456. Wallace Eugene, sometimes referred to as Eugene W. married a Mary F. Reggio of Boston on 5 June 1872, and went abroad. He then entered the Tiffany firm of New York on 1 January 1873. Since 1876, he lived abroad, mainly in Florence. Of their six children, in Boston, Mary Frances was born on 27 June 1873 and Eliza Beatrice on 21 November 1874; in Nice, Wallace Eugene Jr. was born on 9 November 1878; in Bonn, Genevieve Josephine on 21 November 1880, and in Florence, Carmelita Mariannina Florentina was born on 3 June 1882 and Nicholas Reggio on 2 April1885. (Eighth Report of the Secretary of the Class of 1871 of Harvard College (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1896, p. 86.) On Lanciani’s relationship to Elena’s brother, see BibAng, Carte Barnabei 279–8, letter from Elena to Barnabei, 16 April 1883. 27 waLker 2004, 51–67, as well as MaGaGnini 2004, 297–301, on the conflicted relationship of the two brothers, brought on in part by their different political positions regarding Rome’s governance (davis 2004, 1–32), as well as on their related businesses: antiquities dealing and the production of “archaeological” jewelry. 28 Frank Avery Rhodes was the second of the Rhodes children. Frank married Abby W. Gooding in Providence in 1850 and they had three children: Eliza Avery, Isabelle M. and Peleg Aborn, and worked as a cotton goods and/ or yarn broker (Rhode Island Births, 1636–1930, v. 1859, p. 654–656; Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2000; and Rhode Island Censuses of 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900 and 1910; and Rhode Island Deaths, 1853–1900, v. 1912, p. 161–162). 29 QuintavaLLe, 2008, 5–7. 25 26

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

73

Rome, Giovanni Torlonia (1754–1829) served as the Roman ambassador to France. From there, he established businesses with all the major bankers in Paris and London, including the Rothschilds. By the early 19th Century, Giovanni had acquired the title of first prince of Civitella-Cesi, which was passed on to his heirs. After the establishment of Rome as the capital of the nation in 1871, the new Italian government did not revile the Torlonia as much as they did other Roman aristocrats who had ties to the papacy. Perhaps this was because they were not one of the long-privileged and landed nobility. They had worked for their wealth, as early as the 16th Century in the cloth business, and thereafter as bankers. By the early part of the 20th Century, they had invested in agricultural products such as tobacco, grain, and cotton. The 19th-century Torlonia family, and especially Giovanni’s son Alessandro (1800–86), were very much interested in archaeology in and around in Rome, in the main to secure ancient marbles for their private collection. They were the last of the great families of Italy to use the acquisition of antiquities “as an assertion of legitimacy.”30 In whatever manner Lanciani met Elena, his American wife was an asset to his career. In one of the few photographs that capture her likeness, she reveals as a beauty, with high cheekbones and delicate features.31 She loved to travel and to keep in touch with people they had visited, thus securing invaluable personal and professional contacts for her husband. Her letters contain news about the family, her husband’s health, their daughter’s achievements, and about the various places they had travelled and the many people they met.32 Given that Lanciani’s great asset was his gregariousness, they must have presented as a companionable couple. She also was the one who straightened things out when Lanciani’s business transactions became complex, or when some financial matter gone awry needed to be fixed. In this, she exhibited considerable skills in business matters.33 At times during her married life, she corresponded with Arnold Green (1838–1903), a renowned lawyer in Providence.34 Green was her liaison in the United States, in charge of overseeing her financial accounts. He was also a man of culture, on the board of trustees at Brown University, and a scholar of Roman law.35 After the couple married in 1875, Elena settled in Rome and wholeheartedly embraced Italian culture. Their only child Marcella was born in September 1878. The couple took up residence in the newly developing residential section of Rome just north of the Stazione Termini, initially in an apartment at via Babuino 107, and by the early 1890s, at via Gioto 2.36 In February 1914, Elena died during an influenza epidemic in Italy. The family had taken refuge from Rome, either in the Villa Careggi outside Florence, or perhaps at the nearby Villa Orsini alle Masse.37 The entire family was there during the winter, all suffering from the flu. This included Marcella, her husband Adolfo dyson 2006, 39; see also FeLisini 2004, 163–165 and 178–185. BSR Digital Collection, ppn 0904. 32 AIC, William M.R. French Papers, letter from Elena to Mrs. Hutchinson, August 26, 1892; UStA, letter from Elena to Mrs. Donaldson, various, undated (but from c. 1900–3); PML, Misc American, letter from Elena to Dr. Baldwin, 24 January 1901. 33 BMFA, letter from Elena to Loring, 13 December 1889; letter from Ad. Roesler Franz to Elena, 27 July 1888. 30 31

HUH 1925 (1040), folder 2, letters dated 9 February 1892 and 1 November 1897. On Arnold Green, http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rigenweb/articles/206.html. Nonetheless, Lanciani denied that Elena’s family had connections to Brown University (PML, Knight Collection, letter from Lanciani to William Angus Knight (1846–1929), undated but likely February 1901). He stated this in reply to Knight’s request for help with securing an invitation to lecture at Brown. 34 35

ACS, MPI, Dir. Gen. AA.BB.AA., Divisione arte e antica. Personale, busta 18, Rodolfo Lanciani. When their only child, Marcella, was born in 1878, a further increase in his lodging stipend. As an employee with a wife, he was eligible for an increase for his lodgings from the government, an increase of nearly 1/6, or 17%, of his salary 37 Lanciani to Donaldson 16 July 1911, UStA ms 6776. 36

74

Susan M. Dixon

Orsini, and their three children Isabella, Lavinia and Ranieris.38 They were reportedly living quite meagerly at the time.39 Elena’s death was unexpected.40 In her obituary in The New York Times, it was reported that Elena translated Lanciani’s writings on archaeology. A few times during her life, it had been insinuated that she was his editor. The remark was intended as a barb against Lanciani’s abilities rather than a complement to Elena’s.41 However, her letters do not portray any keen interest in Roman archaeology or classical literature and she did not receive any college education. An extant manuscript for one of Lanciani’s articles is written in his distinctively small and neat script and any marginal edits are also in his hand, and not in her larger, more open, and slanted script.42 Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the first Englishlanguage publication was issued in 1875, immediately after their marriage, in The New York Herald. It was a short piece, much in the manner of those produced by his teacher Brewster, on the treasures found in the Tiber River, i.e., things he discovered during his work in the archaeological service. Thereafter, Lanciani’s essays began to appear in great number in a British journal. Lanciani’s occasional works, entitled “Notes from Rome,” were casual but informative essays on all things archaeological in Rome and its environs. They appeared periodically from February 1876 to September 1913. They stopped nine months before Elena’s death. This coincidence suggests that she was at least a force behind this publication, if not the author.43

“notes FroM roMe” The “Notes from Rome” were styled for the Athenaeum, Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, a weekly periodical published in London. Lanciani wrote 139 entries over 47 years, creating as many as nine entries per year. There were hiatuses in the entries during major events in his life or career.44 They deal with many issues related to Rome, but most often inform the readers about the discoveries of its ancient past in and around the city. Initially, the tone of Lanciani’s writing was popular but it no doubt appealed to an educated reader. In fact, the literary style resembles that which he used in his later English-language monographs. There were some major shifts in the character of Lanciani’s prose over time, 38 Marcella and her husband are buried with her father and mother in Verano Cemetery. On exterior wall of Pincetto Vecchio, under a little arch in a straight stretch of perimeter wall comprised of fifteen arches; it is under the 11th arch from a major entrance into a newer part of Verano, (Archetto.11.P.V.). The tombs are engraved as follows: “Pietro Lanciani Architetto Equiti Torquato Priscae Fidei Atque Integritatis Atro Philippus * Camillus * Caesar * Rodulphus * Karola // Patri “Dilectissimo cum Lacrimi Posvere Lucia Galardi Suo Consorte” ; “Rodolfo Lanciani Senatore del Regno Archeologo Preclare m. il 26 maggio 1929 // sua diletta consorte m. il 14 feb. 1914”; “Generale di Divisione Adolfo Orsini 1881–1948 Grande Ufficali della Corona d’Italia Ufficale Mauriziano 2 vole decorate al valore / Dio * Patria * Familia / Le luci perenni della sua fede le fiamme ardent della sua passion L’arma di cavalleri il suo orgoglio / un prece Marcella Orsini Lanciani riunita ai cari esterni il 8.12.1961.” 39 HUH 1925 (1040), folder 2, letter dated 1 September 1914. 40 NYT, Feb. 18, 1914, 5; see also NYT, Jan. 4, 1914, C3, which put Elena at a social event near the American Academy in Rome about 6 weeks before her death. 41 wiseMan 1985–86, 134, n. 113 [translated into English with some omissions in the footnotes, including n. 113.] 42 PML, Misc. 43 One of the early entries refers to Lanciani in the third person. cuBBerLey 1988, 5. 44 cuBBerLey 1988, xi–xiv.

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

75

however. At the height of the archeological activity in Rome from 1883 to 1886, it changed slightly, when he abandoned the somewhat superficial delivery of information for a more academic discourse. Another shift occurred from 1887 to 1890, during the time that the Italian government was investigating him for unethical practices. Here the subject changed, straying from the archaeological discoveries. The biggest shift, however, happened after 1891, the year after his dismissal from the national archaeological service, when he lost first-hand access to the excavations. The subjects became more diverse and they concentrated less on matters of archaeology or even of ancient Rome. The entries from the first few years, 1876 to 1883, follow a set pattern. They read very much like letters to a friend, with information on a certain subject delivered in short spurts – a paragraph or two on a news item. In any given entry, Lanciani covered about five or six different types of topics. Usually, there was something about a destruction in Rome, e.g., the deliberate removal of the 17thcentury towers on the Pantheon, the demolition of the ancient Roman towers near the Porta del Popolo, the removal of the ancient apse of San Giovanni in Laterano, or the destruction of the Arx during a torrential rain storm.45 He also recounted the nature or operations of the excavations, e.g., the number of skeletons uncovered, the eclectic things found in drains, and how ancient statues were most often found reused as building materials in ancient Rome.46 Readers learned that every month in 1880, 1200 ancient coins were found in the Tiber River.47 They discovered that Lanciani found an ancient pocket knife belonging to a circus driver lying in full sight on the ground near a construction site.48 And they received insight into the ways in which the profile of the Servian Wall in the city, with its high peaks and its low ditches, was used as a dumping ground over the centuries, and therefore why archaeologists working in the city around the agger could not rely on the interpretation of strata to make sense of what they encountered.49 Lanciani also related problematic issues of archaeological activity, e.g., the incidences of on-site theft or attempted fraud regarding antiquities, the struggle to accommodate urban traffic around archaeological sites, the pause in a campaign because of unusual events such as harsh weather or impromptu celebrations for visiting dignitaries.50 Quite a few entries deal with the strained interactions between private owners of houses on ancient sites, or custodians of artifacts that are deemed museum-worthy, and the bureaucrats in the national government.51 In addition, “Notes from Rome” informed readers about social or cultural events in Rome having to do with its archaeological past. Lanciani kept the readers updated about the temporary museums set up around the city.52 He notified people about the rare opening of one of the major aristocratic collections, that of the Torlonia, to the public. They came to know that the municipal government in Rome was investing in collecting historical maps of Rome, an activity to which Lanciani was also extremely dedicated.53 cuBBerLey 1988, 131, 133; 20, 47; 18, 24; and 10, respectively. cuBBerLey 1988, 10–11, 44; 45, 62; and 6, respectively. 47 cuBBerLey 1988, 70. 48 cuBBerLey 1988, 21 49 cuBBerLey 1988, 127. 50 cuBBerLey 1988, 15–6, 68, 81, 95, 101, 114; 34, 106, 131–132; and 17, 36, 108, respectively 51 For example, cuBBerLey 1988, 34, 71, 81, 104–105. 52 cuBBerLey 1988, 5, 9, 70, 74. 53 cuBBerLey 1988, 98. 45 46

.

76

Susan M. Dixon

Lastly, and most importantly, there was information about the discovery of ancient Rome. These entries began as short explanatory blurbs on some of the more newsworthy finds. These included some of the significant monumental or artistic finds, e.g., the pottery and artifacts from various prehistoric necropoli on the Esquiline Hill, the relief sculptures of the Provinces near the Temple of Hadrian, or the jewels thought to bedeck furniture from some of the buildings in the Horti Lamiani, or the now famous Seated Boxer. 54 They also related finding items that would tickle the fancy and provoke some commentary at society parties, e.g., the morbidly disfigured bones in an amphora, the statue of a hermaphrodite on property near the Teatro Nazionale, or the Altar of Verminus, the god who destroys parasites.55 On the latter, which was found near the railway station, Lanciani teased the reader, stating that this “must have been a good protecting boys from the consequences of eating too much candy and cake.” Because of the conversant asides and the exclusion of some of the more technical facts, Lanciani’s entries in general read very differently from the concise entries he wrote for Notizie degi Scavi di Antichità, beginning in late 1878. By 1883, as Lanciani’s work in the Roman Forum reached a peak, many of the entries become lengthier and tend to replicate the technical and academic writing in Notizie degli Scavi. Perhaps his schedule as director of the excavations no longer afforded him the time to shape the information about the finds for the “Notes from Rome” audience. These types of entries include material on the great discoveries of the day: the Atrium of the Vestal Virgins, the Villa of Quinto Voconio Pollione near Marino, and the Sanctuary of Diana at Nemi.56 Despite the more serious tone, his enthusiasm for these discoveries is evident. In some cases, he revealed more information about these monuments in “Notes from Rome” than he did in the objective entries in Notizie degli Scavi.57 After the mid-1880s, the entries provide insight into Lanciani’s thoughts about his practice of archaeology and museology. For example, he intuited that there will be many Egyptian works of art to be found in Rome in the topographical area around the ancient Temple of Isis, whose location in the Campo Marzio area he was attempting to fix securely. Indeed, he did find an obelisk of red granite, and gloated that his ability to determine the ancient topography was better than a Vatican librarian, Constantin Maes, who had argued that the obelisk would be found buried elsewhere in the city.58 He also noted that many of the Temple of Hadrian’s bas-reliefs that depicted the Provinces had been unearthed but that they were scattered in various museums across Italy. He urged owners to work to display them in one place.59 Some of his commentary at this time addressed the British criticism of the extreme destruction of ancient monuments in Rome because of new building in the capital city. In March 1883, after the destruction of a good portion of the Capitoline Hill in order to build the Vittorio Emmanuel II Monument, he stated unequivocally that the move was “a national calamity.”60 Ever the diplomat, however, he noted that the “only consolation which is possible to foresee in such a catastrophe is the probability of important discoveries…[which will] enable us to fill up existing gaps in the

cuBBerLey 1988, 119, 49, 129, 67, and 177–178, respectively. cuBBerLey 1988, 6, 61, 11, respectively. 56 cuBBerLey 1988, 146–147, 160–162, 157–156, and 168–170, respectively. 57 BernaBei and deLpino 1991, 454. 58 cuBBerLey 1988, 118–119, 135, 144. 59 cuBBerLey 1988, 128. He had made the same argument two years earlier in the Italian newspapers; see Lanciani 1880h. 60 cuBBerLey 1988, 126–127. 54 55

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

77

archaeological map of the Capitol.”61 His entry of 10 December 1887 similarly expressed sadness and remorse over the destruction of old Rome, while also defending what has been gained by the demolition.62 This argument echoed a speech he delivered to the King and Queen of Italy in 1885, at an assembly of the Accademia dei Lincei.63 But in “Notes from Rome,” his condemnation of the catastrophic obliteration of much of ancient Rome, even if qualified, might have been received differently by his Anglo-American readership, many of whom were critical of the excavations. He articulated the idea again in the preface of his first English-language monograph of 1889, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavation, written for an American public.64 One wonders if his criticism of the state of affairs to audiences outside of Rome had some role to play in Lanciani’s diminished standing among his colleagues in Rome in advance of his dismissal from the national archaeological service. In the years between late 1887 and early 1890, while he was under investigation by that service, his entries read very differently. No archaeological discoveries are reported. In part, this was because the severe economic downturn in Italy at this time halted much of the archaeological work. Instead, Lanciani used “Notes from Rome” to elaborate on the overall structure of ancient Rome, including the locations of the 14 ancient rione, or regions of the city, and the routes of the aqueducts.65 This suggests that his attentions had turned to his large mapping project of ancient Rome, Forma Urbis Romae, as indeed they had. The content of the “Notes from Rome” changed again after 1890, when Giacomo Boni became the new director of excavations in the Roman Forum, which we will discuss below in Chapter 5.

CiCerone From very early on, Lanciani served as a cicerone for many international visitors to Rome interested in archaeology, including guest heads of state and diplomats, and professional as well as amateur scholars of antiquity. The impressive list also includes many Americans. For example, he acted as guide of the city’s or the campagna’s antiquities to William Henry Waddington, ex-minister of France, and his American-born wife Mary King, in 1880.66 He also met with people who helped him shape his lecture tour to America. These include George Williams, professor of geology at Johns Hopkins University, in 1880,67 as well as Martin Brimmer (1829–95), the founder and president of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and Edward Robinson (1858–1931), who became curator of antiquities at the BMFA. Brimmer and Robinson were in Rome before 1884.68 It is likely Lanciani also knew Arthur Frothingham Jr., art historian and archaeologist, while he was a student in Rome from 1868–81, and perhaps encountered Allan Marquand, art historian and curator, who cuBBerLey 1988, 127. cuBBerLey 1988, 193–195. 63 Lanciani 1885i. 64 See also Lanciani 1901a. 65 cuBBerLey 1988, 202–207, and 199–200, respectively. 66 waddinGton 1905, 6, 44, 63–64, and 88. 67 JHU, letter from Anna Williams to Gilman, 26 March 1886. George Williams had travelled in Italy in the summer of 1880. He then taught at Johns Hopkins as professor of Inorganic Geology from 1882 to his death in 1894. 68 Brimmer travelled extensively in Europe. Robinson graduated Harvard in 1879, and spent until 1884 abroad, mainly in Berlin for three semesters of study and Greece. 61 62

78

Susan M. Dixon

was in Rome in 1883.69 Shortly after his return from the lecture tour in the United States in early May 1887, Lanciani continued his contacts with Americans: Andrew Dickson White (1832–1918), who had just retired from his position as president of Cornell University, in 188770; E.L. Godkin (1831–1902), the Irish-born American journalist and the editor of The Nation, in May 1892;71 William M.R. French (1843–1914) and Charles L. Hutchinson (1854–1924), the director and the founding president, respectively, of the Art Institute of Chicago.72 Lanciani also served frequently as a guide for members of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome. In 1865, a group of British amateurs established a forum to meet regularly to attend lectures on archaeological subjects. If permission could be obtained in late papal Rome, they also undertook excavations in and around Rome. By the late 1860s, they were joined by Americans, and thus was founded the British and American Archaeological Society. The lay character of the organization distinguished it from the Istituto di Correspondenza Archeologica. This institute was initially formed in 1829 as an international group of scholars – German, French, and Italian – under the patronage of the Prussian Prince Friedrich William.73 In 1871, in part because the practice of archaeology became more professionalized and in part for political reasons, the institute was reshaped into the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Rather, the British and the Americans retained the amateur organization and created separate professionalized ones to undertake the study of classical archaeology in Rome. In 1901, the British School at Rome was founded. In 1894, the American School of Classical Studies in Rome was established, later merging with the School of Architecture to become the American Academy in Rome in 1913.74 The British and American Archaeological Society of Rome was under the leadership of the ancient Roman enthusiast, amateur archaeologist and photographer John Henry Parker (1806– 84).75 Parker resided in Rome from 1864 to 1877, taking photographs of the archaeological sites as well as the famous monuments in the city. Lanciani worked with him closely in the 1870s, while the British scholar was compiling his two-volume Archaeology of Rome, issued in 1874 and 1876.76 In 1872, Lanciani was made an honorary member of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, and he continued his association with the group through the turn of the century. He was regularly asked to lecture to members, often on site at the latest archaeological find. The Journal of the BAASR, the society’s periodical, contains multiple references to Lanciani’s tours throughout the city and the Roman campagna.77 The members embraced him with enthusiasm. After a guided tour of the Palatine Hill, it was reported that “[the Society’s] party was under the guidance of Commendatore Lanciani, whose name has a charm in it to draw strangers from all parts to his lectures.”78 de puMa 1996; Lavin 1983, 8–9 and 14–18. wHite 1905, 418. He was in Rome during from late 1886 to mid-1887. 71 oGden 1907, 209. 72 AIC, William M. r. French’s 1889 Travel Notebook at http://aic.onlineculture.co.uk/ttp/ttp. html?id=8dec950a-8936-4a80-ac88-e15ddd334ec2&type=book 73 dyson 2006, 31–35, 42–43. 74 wiLMers 2005, 43, n. 17. The merger with the School of Architecture was not supported by the major donor at the time J. P. Morgan, Jr. 75 einaudi 1978, 8–12; BeccHetti 1994, 23–25; MarGiotta 1989. Parker left Rome and returned to Oxford in 1877. 76 parker 1874, 1876. 77 See References to Lanciani 1887, 1889c, 1890–91a, 1890–91b, 1891–92a, 1891–92b, 1892–93a, 1893c, 1893–94a, 1893–94b, 1894–95, 1895–96, 1896–97, 1898–99, 1899–1900, 1901–1902, 1902–1903, 1904–1905. 78 Reference to Lanciani 1887, 101. 69 70

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

79

Lecture tour in aMerica Thus, Lanciani’s network with Americans in late 19th-century Rome was extensive. They were aware of his knowledge of ancient Rome and his talent at public speaking, in English. Thus, Lanciani’s engagement on a lecture tour in the United States was not unsurprising. From November 1886 through April 1887, he spoke in various places along the northeastern coast, delivering at least 80 lectures. He had crafted a repertoire of 12 lectures, which were illustrated using the latest visual technologies: a stereopticon and glass slides.79 The topics were on various aspects of ancient Roman history and culture, and were prompted by the material uncovered during his recent archaeological activity in the Forum and elsewhere. The lectures were well publicized in the American press and they were well attended. As early as 1884, immediately after the discovery of the Atrium Vestae, his last discovery in the Roman Forum, Lanciani received an invitation from the Lowell Institute. It wished him to lecture the following winter on the subject of Roman archaeology. On 19 July 1885, The New York Times (NYT) noted that the Roman archaeologist would lecture in the coming winter, not only in Massachusetts for the Lowell Institute but also before several distinguished but unnamed “societies” in the United States.80 In the run up to those scheduled appearances, Lanciani attempted to secure other invitations to speak. However, by late spring 1885, Lanciani asked to postpone the trip to Massachusetts by a year. He reported suffering “nervous depression and exhaustion from overwork” as overseer of excavations for both the national and the municipal governments.81 As we have seen, although the archaeological campaign in the Forum had wound down in 1885, the pace of excavations throughout the city of Rome was intense.82 Development of urban infrastructure, institutional buildings, and housing, particularly in the eastern part of the city, churned up “two hundred and seventy million cubic feet” since 1872.83 The national office granted Lanciani a leave of absence from his position at this time.84 It is unclear how Lanciani came to the Lowell Institute’s attention in the first place. The Institute was founded by John Lowell, Jr. (1799–1836), a businessman and philanthropist, for the purpose of educating the American public. It established lectures that were free to the public, on both popular and scientific topics. According to Lowell’s wishes, the lecturers were chosen by the sole trustee, a Lowell descendent; his second cousin Augustus Lowell was that trustee from 1881 to his death in 1900.85 Lanciani’s associations with Americans in Rome, as we have seen above, and his contacts with renowned scholars from all parts of Europe, were broad. Anyone may have brought him to Augustus Lowell’s attention.86 79 HC, 23 November 1886 (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1886/11/23/prof-lancianis-lecture-a-large-audience/); Lanciani to Gilman, 5 December 1886, JHU; and BE, 25 February 1887, 1.

NYT, 19 July 1885, 10. Lanciani to Gilman, 9 February 1885, JHU. 82 di Martino 2012, 471–489. Bank credit availability disappeared in Rome in 1887, after the government imposed tariffs on international goods. The situation had roots in the early 1870s, when inflation gripped the economy from 1873 through 1887. It had echoes in economic crises in 1889 and 1893. See also Isolera 1971, 64–69; Cuccia 1991, 28; kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2003, 13–14; Hartswick 2004, 27–28. 83 Lanciani 1889a, ix. 84 Lanciani to Bernabei, 13 or 16 May 1885, BibAng 279.8, 9, regarding “a vacanza nel personale semi-voluntario provvisione-straordinario.” Lanciani was sent as a temporary supervisor of excavations in Sorrento and Metaponte; see Williams to Gilman, 16 February 1886, JHU. 85 sMitH, H.K. 1898, 17. 86 LarraBee 1992, 27. Her circle included John Russell Lowell, poet, who was a distant relative of Augustus. 80 81

80

Susan M. Dixon

During the postponement, Lanciani attempted to fill his schedule for the entire academic year of 1886–87. He secured an assignment for a course of 10 lectures at Johns Hopkins University. In this, both Elena and Anne Hampton Brewster aided him. Elena asked Brewster to petition Anna Williams to persuade the University’s President Daniel Coit Gilman (1834–1901) to procure Lanciani an invitation to lecture at the Baltimore institution.87 Between 1 December 1 1884 and early 1885, Brewster corresponded with Anna Williams, the wife of George Williams, who had enjoyed one of Lanciani’s tours in Rome. Gilman was persuaded after he checked Lanciani’s credentials with Johns Hopkins professor of classical philology Basil Gildersleeve (1831–1924). Gildersleeve in turn had inquired about Lanciani from Arthur Frothingham Jr., his colleague at the time. Frothingham characterized Lanciani as someone “with an intimate knowledge [of] the topography of ancient Rome,” and who had a perfect knowledge of English.88 Lanciani eventually committed to arriving in Baltimore on 31 December 1886, and staying for four weeks to conduct his course.89 Lanciani believed he had been promised a lecture course for fall 1886 at Harvard University as well. From communication with Brimmer and Robinson, possibly while these men were in Rome, Lanciani understood that Charles Eliot Norton (1827–1909) approved this action. Norton was a professor of art at Harvard, as well as the founder of the Archaeological Institute of America (hereafter AIA).90 By March 1886, Lanciani became uneasy because no formal written agreement had been extended from Harvard. On 24 June 1886, just four months before he set sail, Lanciani wrote to Norton directly, prompting an official invitation from him. Lanciani finalized the details of the Harvard engagement, with Norton requiring some modification to the course.91 In the meantime, the AIA secured lectures from Lanciani in early 1887, 92 to be held in New York City, most likely to avoid audience saturation in the Boston area. The AIA was established in 1879, in Boston. It was a group of men, headed by Norton, whose goal was to promote the profession of archaeology in the United States.93 They very soon established chapters in various cities, first in New York, and eventually in Baltimore and Philadelphia, among other places.94 Another aspiration was to organize and provide funding for archaeological expeditions. (Until 1906, when the government of the United States chartered the organization, the AIA’s funding was dependent on private donors.) From the beginning, the AIA membership was divided over where it wanted to concentrate its efforts: the Mediterranean world, or the southwestern part of the United States.95 The classical expeditions were more problematic to undertake because in Williams to Gilman, 1 December 1884, 26 March 1886, JHU. I thank James Stimpert of Johns Hopkins University for this reference. 88 Gildersleeve to Gilman, n.d., JHU; and Frothingham to Gilman, n.d., JHU. 89 Lanciani to Gilman, 1884–86 (various), JHU. After Lanciani requested that the trip be postponed by a year because of illness, Gilman recommended a visit in late December 1886, with a stay over the New Year in Baltimore. Lanciani then asked Gilman if it might be possible to delay the visit until later in the spring of 1887. He initially wanted to cancel the Baltimore trip, but Elena and Anne urged him to refrain from deciding until he heard from other institutions. 90 wiLL 2002. 91 Lanciani to Norton, 24 June 1886, HUH bMs Am 1088 (4124). 92 Lanciani to HMC, 1 April 1887, HUH bMS AM 1925 (1040), folder 1; and NYT, 27 February 1887, 7; NYT, 4 March 1887, 3; NYT, 19 March 1887, 2 (this article gives date at Friday, 24 March when in fact, it was 25 March); NYT, 2 April 1887, 8; NYT, 6 April 1887, 5. 87

93 94 95

They instituted a journal in 1885, established an official lecture program in 1895 and annual meetings in 1898. aLLen 2002a, 217. aLLen 2002a, 9–11.

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

81

most cases, they could be costly and they entailed getting permission from foreign governments in which classical ruins were found. But even among those chapters with an interest in classical archaeology, there were different fundraising priorities in the latter decades of the 19th Century. For example, Boston and Baltimore were interested in excavating in Turkey or the Magna Grecae, whereas Philadelphia’s chapter was most involved with exploring the ancient Near East.96 The AIA’s stated goals were never to bring goods into museums, but rather to gain knowledge. That said, the founding members were pragmatic enough to know that any financial backers would be interested in seeing material goods shipped to the United States. Lanciani’s lectures in New York were sponsored by members of the Boston office. Thus, these lectures served in part as fundraisers for the building of the School of Classical Studies in Athens, which was already established in 1882 but needed funds for completion. In the end, Lanciani’s schedule became very busy (Appendix 1). For the Lowell Institute on the MIT campus97 and for Harvard University on its campus,98 he delivered 12 lectures each. At Johns Hopkins University, he was contracted for at least 10 lectures,99 and for the AIA held in New York City, another 10. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, he likely gave 10 lectures.100 He secured engagements with the University of Pennsylvania for 12 lectures,101 Bryn Mawr College for three,102 Long Island Historical Society for two,103 Vassar College for two,104 Princeton University for two,105 Columbia College Law School (for the Berkeley School for Boys, a private college preparatory school founded in 1880), for two; 106 and Brown University for more than one and probably two.107 Lanciani also lectured at Wellesley College three times before Christmas 1886, 108 and once at a private home in Fernwood, New Jersey, near Seton Hall University, sometime before 26 January 1887.109

aLLen 2002b, 63–92. sMitH, H.K. 1898, 22–26. 98 HC, 23 November 1886, 30 November 1886, 1 December 1886, 9 December 1886, 14 December 1886, 21 December 1886. 99 Lanciani to HMC, 27 January 1887, HUH bMS AM 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to Gilman (telegraph), 31 January 1887, JHU; Lanciani to Gilman (in Elena’s handwriting), n.d., JHU. 100 BMMA 5, no. 3 (March 1910), 63–4, refers to Lanciani lecturing in a hall that had been available to the Museum and operational from 1872–1902 – presumably Chickering Hall; Cesnola to Astor, 10 May 1886, MMA, L 4975, Lanciani to Cesnola, n.d. [but likely between late November and late December 1886], MMA, L 4975. See also Barnabei and Delpino 1991, 476. 101 DP, 11 January 1887, 234. 102 Ames 1909, 2: 332; see also http://www.brynmawr.edu/library/exhibits/BreakingGround/depthistory.html 103 BE, 18 February 1887, 25 February 1887. I thank Elizabeth Call at the Brooklyn Historical Society for this reference. 104 VasM, April 1887, 263–4. I thank Dean M. Rogers at Vassar College for this reference. 105 Lanciani to Marquand, 27 December 1886, PUL, Box 14, folder 45. I thank Charles E. Green at Princeton University for this reference. 106 NYT, 6 December 1886, 3, notes that his lecture would be at Centennial Hall at Columbia College, NY, on 13 April 1887. However, that date was moved up to 25 March; see NYT, 18 March 1887, 3. 107 Brun 20, no. 16 (9 April 1887). I thank Gayle Lynch at Brown University for this reference 108 paLoMBi 2006a, 120 n. 20. I thank Wilma R. Slaight at Wellesley College for checking the University archives for evidence of this lecture. 109 Lanciani to Gilman (in Elena’s handwriting), n.d., JHU. 96 97

82

Susan M. Dixon

Other institutions wanted him to speak as well. 110 On 28 January 1887, Cornell University publicized his upcoming visit.111 However, by the end of March, Lanciani claimed to be exhausted and called off the trip to central New York state, in turn cancelling or declining an offer for lectures at Cayuga (perhaps Hobart College). He further turned down invitations to lecture in Connecticut at New Haven (Yale University), Hartford (Trinity College), and Middletown (Wesleyan University).112 All of the educational institutions that Lanciani had intended to visit had strong academic programs in classics, and it is noteworthy that some – Bryn Mawr, Vassar and Wellesley – were colleges for women. He also cancelled plans for engagements at the Smithsonian Institution and the Art Institute of Chicago. However, he traveled to Washington, D.C. in late February, returning through Baltimore to New York City on 23 February 1887, but the purpose of the trip is unknown.113 Elena’s sister Virginia and her family lived in Chicago and surely they were part of the attraction for Lanciani to travel so far afield from the northeastern coast.114 On the eve of sailing home to Europe, he wrote that he had given 79 lectures in five months and attended many social events.115 At home, in a report to his supervisor at the University of Rome, he related that he delivered 84 lectures in 154 days.116 The topics for a full 12-lecture course were as follows: A: The Early Renaissance of Archaeological Studies in Rome B: The Foundations and Prehistorical Life of Rome C: The Hygenic Laws and Sanitary Conditions of Ancient Rome D: The Tiber and Maritime Trade of Rome E: Roman Parks and Public Gardens F: The Campagna G: The Police and Garrison of Rome H: Ancient and Medieval Public Libraries I: The Palace of the Caesars J: The Discovery of the House of the Vestals K: Same subject, continued L: Treasures Found in the Excavations In 1886, Frothingham published the lecture topics in the AJA. The article was distributed in published in newspapers as far away as midwestern United States.117 As noted above, Lanciani 110 Lanciani did not mention the Metropolitan Museum lectures in his letters to his employers in Rome (paLoMBi 2006, 120–122, n. 163–165). This omission was not characteristic, as he was always one to tout a significant achievement. Perhaps his wariness of Cesnola explains this silence. For evidence of his long-held antagonism towards Cesnola, see BIASA, ms. 134, 10, 12–14, 17, 19–20, 28, 30, and below. 111 CornDS 7, no. 69, 28 January 1887, 1; CornDS 7, no. 112, 21 April 1887, 2. I thank Evan Fay Earl for these references. 112 Lanciani to HMC, 27 March 1887, HUH bMS AM 1925 (1040), folder 1. 113 paLoMBi 2006a, 121–122, n. 164–165; Lanciani to Gilman, 31 January 1887 (telegraph), 23 February 1887 (telegraph), JHU. 114 Lanciani also knew Charles L. Hutchinson and William R. French, president and director, respectively, of the Art Institute of Chicago. 115 Lanciani to HMC, 25 March 1887, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1. 116 paLoMBi 2006a, 121–122. 117

Frothingtham 1886, 232; JHUN 5, no. 49 (May 1886), 99; see also MilS (12 July 1886), 4.

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

83

sometimes delivered fewer lectures at some venues, and occasionally only one or two. He may or may not have designed an additional four lectures, something he originally offered to Johns Hopkins but later retracted when he realized how packed his schedule had become.118 After the tour, the 12 lectures were edited and repurposed for his first English-language book, as we will explore below.

traveLLinG On 5 October 1886, Lanciani and Elena, with their eight-year-old daughter Marcella (1878–1961), left from LeHavre, France, bound for America on the ocean liner Cephalonia.119 Three weeks later, the Lanciani family was in Providence, Rhode Island, in the residence of Elena’s older brother Frank Avery Rhodes and his family at 10 Barnes Street.120 Lanciani wrote many letters during this tour, and through them it is possible to track his family’s movements. In Boston, from about 15 November through 22 December 1886, they stayed at The Brunswick Hotel at 113 Newberry Street, for a cost of $95 per week.121 They then spent the Christmas holidays in Providence with family.122 The Lancianis were in Baltimore from 22 December 1886 to 24 January 1887, where they stayed at Mrs. Edgerton’s, perhaps a boarding house, at 86 West Monument Street. 123 They then resided at 911 Pine Street in Philadelphia from about 26 January to 4 March.124 Lastly, the Lanciani family was in New York City from early March to 5 April 1887, staying at the Shelburne Hotel located at 5th Avenue and 36th Street. Lanciani acknowledged the hospitality of E.L. Godkin, (1831–1902), founder and former editor of The Nation, during this time.125 After 5 April, Lanciani and his family returned to Providence once again, where he delivered his last lectures at Brown University. By 13 April, when Lanciani cancelled his remaining lectures, the family made plans to leave the United States later that month. His letters during this period state that the tour was very tiring, because these lectures were so tightly scheduled — up to four times per week — and required a good deal of travel, often by train. In addition, he had many social obligations meeting and visiting with Americans. Lanciani’s health did not hold up well; he complained of extreme leg pain.126 By 21 April 1887, he and his family were in New York City, again staying at the Shelburne Hotel. The voyage home was postponed for a few days because Marcella had become ill. During 118 Lanciani to Gilman, 19 May 1886, JHU. The four possible additional lectures were: The so-called destruction or deformation of Rome; The Pantheon, and recent discoveries concerning it; The Bronze Athlete statues lately found; The two centers of Roman religion and of Roman politics: the Capitol and the Curia. 119 Lanciani to Gilman, 18 July 1886, JHU; Brewster, 24 May 1887, PhLC, Box 6, folder 1, 115. Regarding Lanciani’s voyage, see www.theshiplist.com/ships/lines/cunard.html 120 Lanciani to Gilman, 28 October 1886, JHU. 121 Lanciani to Gilman, 8 December 1886, JHU. 122 Lanciani to HMC, 21 December 1886, HUH, bMS AM 1925 (1040), folder 1. 123 Lanciani to Gilman, 5 December 1886, JHU. 124 Lanciani to Gilman (in Elena’s handwriting), n.d., JHU. 125 Lanciani to Godkin, n.d. [probably late March 1887], HUH bMS AM 1083 (464); see also Armstrong 1974, 352, 376 n.1 regarding a letter to James Russell Lowell inviting him to come to dinner on 4 April 1887 with the Lancianis. 126 Lanciani to HMC, 25 March 1887, HUH bMS AM 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to Loring, 16 April 1887, BMFA.

84

Susan M. Dixon

her convalescence, the family stayed as guests of J.P. Morgan in the mansion built for his daughter at Madison Avenue and 34th Street, now the site of the Morgan Library. The family set sail on the Bretagna on 30 April 1887 from the Mediterranean Pier in Brooklyn, headed for LeHavre; they arrived in Rome in early May.127 During the voyage, Lanciani received medical treatment on the ship, including surgery for sciatica or some nervous disorder in the leg. He then consulted doctors in Paris while in transit home, and sought more medical help after his return to Rome. 128 In October and November, he reported that he could not walk.129 Only in early December 1887 did he feel able to walk again, and to resume work at the university.130 For the rest of his life, Lanciani walked with a cane.131

Motivations It is not difficult to speculate what may have motivated Lanciani to embark on the lecture tour in America. It provided a personal benefit, allowing his eight-year-old daughter to meet her American relatives, and his wife to reconnect with family, including her brother Frank Avery Rhodes in Providence, and sisters Camilla in New York City and Virginia in Chicago. Travelling to the United States also provided an opportunity to recharge his career at the moment when his work in the Roman Forum was coming to an end, enabling him to broaden his reputation. Incredibly energetic and ambitious, as the long list of his acquired titles attests, Lanciani surely believed he would excel as a touring lecturer. He no doubt felt at ease in all kinds of society, including high society, whether among the papal court before the institution’s marginalization after 1871, or subsequently, among the royal Savoy family after its establishment in Rome. Because of his gregariousness and charm, Lanciani was often chosen to act as cicerone when a visiting dignitary came to Rome. In some cases, he reminded his superiors in the national service, who often were bureaucratic functionaries, about the importance of social ritual, as when in 1882 he suggested they send a representative – himself – to the tricentennial of the University of Würzburg. Furthermore, Lanciani made broad scholarly connections throughout Europe during his research trips, and reveled in the long list of honorary degrees and memberships he accumulated.132 In addition, the tour promised to be financially rewarding. Each of the sponsoring institutions paid a different honorarium, and the total received was surely a significant number. To his superior at the Università di Roma, he declared that he received “such a fortune that exceeds all dreams of a university professor of Italy.”133 The Lowell Institute was known for offering “[g]enerous remuneration, sometimes larger 127 128

Lanciani to Loring, 21 April 1887, 26 April 1887, BMFA. paLoMBi 2006a, 121–122.

129 Lanciani to HMC (in Elena’s handwriting), 25 September 1887 (in Lanciani’s handwriting), 9 November 1887, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1.

Lanciani to Loring, 11 December 1887, BMFA. For example: Lanciani to Godkin, 27 July 1891, HUH, bMS AM 1083, 462; Lanciani to Knight, between 1899 and 1901, PML, Misc (Italian?) MA unassigned; Elena Lanciani to Mrs. Donaldson, 30 November 1903, UStA, ms. 6769; and Elena Lanciani to Mrs. Donaldson, n.d. but probably 1903, UStA, ms. 6766. I thank Moira Mackenzie at the University of St. Andrews for alerting me to the Donaldson papers. 132 paLoMBi 2006a, 28–32. Lanciani kept various certificates and letters of his achievements; see BIASA ms. 133, throughout. 133 paLoMBi 2006a, 120–121, n. 164. 130 131

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

85

for a single course of lectures than the annual salary of most distinguished professors at any American University.”134 For the 12 Lowell Institute lectures, Lanciani earned $125 per lecture, for a total of $1,500.135 The AIA reported that Lanciani’s lectures were both a social and a financial success. It stated that it gave him $600 instead of the stipulated $500 for the first four lectures, presumably about $900 for the next six lectures, as well as some unspecified amount of the $2,000 profits.136 In the end, the organization noted that it gave him six times what it had originally promised. 137 It could do this because for the first of the 10 lectures, tickets were sold to fill a 300–400 seat auditorium, but for the second and subsequent lectures, the demand was such that the venue was changed to a larger space that accommodated 1,000 people.138 Whatever final sum he received from the AIA, Lanciani must have felt it sufficient that he could donate “a handsome sum of money” for the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 139 In addition, Johns Hopkins University offered him $50 per lecture, for a total of at least $500.140 The director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art considered giving Lanciani $1,000 for a course of 10 lectures for the Metropolitan Museum.141 While Lanciani planned the trip to the United States, the economy in Rome had begun to show weaknesses. Shortly after his return, it collapsed.

FundraisinG By 13 October 1886, soon after his arrival in the United States, Lanciani raised 15,000 lire (then about $5,000 dollars), a portion of the estimated 70,000–200,000 lire needed for a city museum; inflation with the worsening economy caused the costs to rise significantly at this time.142 Lanciani solicited the money for the project from interested Americans, and the news was carried in the Italian newspapers.143 In garnering the subscriptions, Lanciani had the support and approval of Fiorelli, his supervisor in the national service, and of Leopoldo Torlonia, Rome’s mayor, who also served as head of the city’s archaeological commission. Lanciani was looking for subscriptions because Rome lacked adequate storage to house and display the great number of archaeological finds unearthed in the city since 1870. A new municipal museum to supplement the Capitoline Museum was clearly needed. A temporary solution was realized in 1876 when a wooden pavilion was built in the open space in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 29). However, it quickly became inadequate to hold the growing municipal collection.144 Meanwhile, there was no state museum other than the Museo Kircheriano, acquired by the sMitH, H.K. 1898, 22–23. sMitH, H.K. 1898, 30. For currently conversion information, see the inflation calculator at https:// www.officialdata.org/1880-dollars-in-2018 134 135

Ware to Norton, 27 March 1887, AIA, box 3, folder 3.5. Archaeological Institute of America 1887, 38–39. 138 Lanciani to HMC, 2 April 1887, HUH bMS AM 1925 (1040) folder 2. Lanciani stated that the organization cleared $2,000. 139 AIA 1887, 38–39. 140 Lanciani to Gilman (notes on the letter), 12 March 1886, JHU; Gildersleeve to Gilman, n.d., JHU. 141 Cesnola to Astor, 20 May 1886, MMA, L 4975. 142 Bruni 2000, 784. 143 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 467, n. 20. 144 arata and BaListreri, 2010. 136 137

86

Susan M. Dixon

state in 1873. It was an eclectic collection of Latin inscriptions, Egyptian figurines, fossils, stuffed animals and optical instruments.145 In Lanciani’s position for the state, one of his duties was to find suitable places to store and display the vast amounts of materials added to the state’s holdings. The history of these temporary museums is complex. For example, by 1878, the Museo Tibertino was established along the Lungara to house the most precious objects found in the river and its vicinity. As we have seen, the frescoes from the villa found on the grounds of the Villa Farnesina were housed there.146 It opened to the public for a short time, but its contents had to be transferred soon thereafter. Other temporary museums for the state collections included the Colosseum collection, located in the ex-convent of Sta. Francesca Romana, and the Forum, held in the ex-convent of Sts. Cosmos and Damian. Artifacts from the Palatine, once stored in the Farnese garden pavilions, were transferred to the Baths of Diocletian in 1882, when Lanciani demolished the pavilions during his excavations in the Forum. The legislative bodies of the state dealt with the issue of national museums. In 1884, the newly appointed minister of Public Instruction, Michele Coppino, along with representatives of the municipal government, developed a plan for one grand museum. It was to be a shared scheme for both the state and the city, for all the antiquities found in Rome.147 Both state and city officials agreed that this would solve the issue of displaying items that belonged together from an educational point of view, but which were housed in different collections. The projected museum was designed with two distinct sections, one to hold objects related to the city and its suburbs, and the other, objects related to the provinces. To finance such a building, the government agreed to be responsible for 1/3 of the expenses, and the city government to pick up the remaining costs.148 The project was tabled in Parliament in October 1885 after it met with considerable opposition. In January 1887, the body looked anew at the project, and it was revised.149 However, with the appointment of Francesco Crispi as Prime Minister in late July 1887, it was again shut down. In 1888, it was dismissed outright, and Coppino resigned in frustration.150 Only in 1889 was another schema approved, that which was eventually implemented: the Villa Giulia containing art and artifacts representing works from the provinces opened immediately thereafter. The museum in the Baths of Diocletian, housing the state collections of objects from Rome and the immediate suburbs, took a bit longer to execute.151 During the four years that Parliament alternatively deliberated, held up and shunned the proposal for a shared archaeological museum, from late 1885 to 1889, the municipal government made plans for a building to house some of the city’s collections.152 This was the museum that Lanciani had in mind when he solicited money from Americans at the end of October 1886 to buy subscriptions. This project, for a city museum, he believed, had the approval of both city and state authorities. Indeed, he had permission from the mayor Torlonia, as well as from Fiorelli, the director of the Direzione Generale. But only a few weeks after his arrival in the United States, Bernini 1997, 7–9. Bruni 2001, 778–779; cuBBerLey 1988, 68–69. 147 arata and BaListreri 2010: 269–82. 148 Bruni 2001, 783. 149 Bruni 2001, 784. 150 Bruni 1984, 124–125; soMMeLLa 1992. 151 Bernini 1997, 32. For a contemporary account of the debate about the museums in Rome at this time, see BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 182–186. 152 Bruni, 2001, 784–785. 145 146

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

87

Lanciani received a telegraph from Torlonia informing him to stop fundraising immediately.153 The money that had been promised was returned. The fundraising became a political issue because with changes in elected ministers – the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Instruction – came changes in national policy. The state replaced Torlonia with a city official more sympathetic to it goals – a reduced footprint for the city museums in favor of fostering a national museum – and Fiorelli’s health kept him away from his duties, until his retirement in 1891. Only in 1894, years after Lanciani’s removal from the state service, was an annex to the Capitoline Museum built. It was on the Celian Hill, on a stretch of land between the Colosseum and the church of San Gregorio al Celio. The Antiquarium, as it was soon called, displayed epigraphic and sculptural fragments from the municipal collection (Fig. 30).154 Speaking at the inaugural celebration, Lanciani lamented the project’s failure to meet its original expectations.155 At Harvard, Lanciani seized an opportunity to represent the Italian nation at the 250th anniversary of Harvard University’s founding, in a prestigious ceremony on 9 November 1886. The President of the United States Grover Cleveland attended the event. 156 At that time, the Italian government had not yet established an official diplomatic corps in Washington D.C. and Lanciani believed he was helping his government. But some in Italy felt that Lanciani had overstepped his station.157 The Baron Fava (more anon) was Italy’s unofficial representative and he was living in New York City at this time. He did not attend the anniversary celebration. Throughout his life, Lanciani’s unbridled self-promotion at the expense of others was known to anger people.158 Lanciani, for his part, felt he was ensuring that Italy abided by cultural protocols, which his colleagues, the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Public Instruction, often overlooked.159

enGaGinG witH tHe arcHaeoLoGicaL institute oF aMerica (aia) As noted above, Lanciani helped the newly formed AIA with fundraising for the American School in Athens. In addition, he offered the AIA advice on how to facilitate securing licenses to excavate on Italian soil. Lanciani sent Norton a letter on 26 July 1886, as a follow-up correspondence to the letter prompting Norton to send him an invitation to speak at Harvard. Perhaps to entice or convince Norton of Lanciani’s prestige in Rome, Lanciani addressed Norton, as the president of the AIA, on how his organization could excavate successfully in Italy.160 In particular, he detailed the process by which licenses could be obtained. It included: BIASA ms 134, 4–5. soMMeLLa 1992, 146–147. 155 Lanciani 1894a. 156 paLoMBi 2006a, 118–20; HC, 9 November 1886, 1. See also Lanciani to Norton, 31 October 1886, HUH bMS AM 1088 4124. 157 Perhaps not uncoincidentally, a letter from Baron Fava, Italy’s unofficial representative in America, sparked the investigation against Lanciani. 158 paLoMBi 2006a, 119–120. On this behavior, see Mattson 2012, 118–121; BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 180–184. 159 paLoMBi 2006a, 119, on Lanciani’s complaint that there was not a representative sent to Heidelburg for the 500-year anniversary of that city’s University. 160 HUH, bMs Am 1088 (4124), letter of 26 July 1886. 153 154

88

Susan M. Dixon

° Asking permission of the Italian Minister of Public Instruction, and submitting a copy of the request to the American ambassador in Rome, John B. Stallo, or some higher authority in Washington D.C. Making a request under a private name rather than under the AIA ° Identifying a specific site and time of excavation ° ° Submitting the request two weeks in advance of excavation ° Supplying all the materials for the process, e.g., workmen’s salaries and tools, etc. ° Dividing the goods found between the property owner and the excavating party (the AIA surrogate) and using a third-party to mediate any disputes between the two Avoiding any “difficulties for the exportation of antiquities” by involving the US legation, ° which “enjoys the diplomatic freedom [from] duties (or taxes).” Thus, the cooperation of Stallo was necessary. Lanciani must have been aware that some in the AIA had their sights on Taranto, a Magnae Grecae site on the southern Italian coast. This was the opinion that William James Stillman (1828–1901), the American journalist with a strong interest in archaeology of the classical world, openly expressed in 1886.161 After acting as a foreign correspondent in Greece, Stillman moved to Rome, where he lived from 1886 to 1898. With Stillman’s advocation of Taranto in mind, Lanciani strongly warned Norton against establishing excavations there. He strongly counselled Norton against approaching the Italian state about it. The site was near a national military base then under construction and any foreign presence in the area would be suspect. In addition, Lanciani noted that the excavations there had been yielding prehistoric finds, which Lanciani implied were of special interest to the Italian government. Some of this advice, expressed in a private letter, may have already been known to Norton. However, it established Lanciani as a friend of the AIA and its efforts. Lanciani later expressed that friendship in public, in a New York newspaper. One of the last things that Lanciani accomplished before he left the United States in April 1887 was writing a public letter in The Nation, a liberal weekly, owned by his good acquaintance Godkin. While Marcella was recovering from her sickness and the Lanciani family was in residence at the Morgan mansion in New York, Lanciani was provoked to respond to a letter earlier issued in the paper. The authors of the publication were Joseph Thacher Clarke (1856–1920) and Alfred Emerson (1859–1943).162 Clarke was a problematic member of the AIA whose excavation efforts were sometimes ill-advised. In 1881, Norton sent Clarke to Assos, in Turkey, to work at the site of the Temple of Athena. Clarke’s behavior was wildly incompetent and unprofessional in a variety of ways. In particular he was unwilling to deal with local authorities.163 After two campaigns, the AIA received very little for its investment in Clarke, save for a few boxes of antiquities. Even then, the boxes did not contain the specimens the organization had hoped for. Clarke’s beleaguered colleague, Francis Henry Bacon (1856–1940), did, however, provide a complete set of drawings of the site. In the spring of 1887, Clarke was upset because he had recently been evicted from his AIAfunded excavations at the Temple of Juno Lacinia at Croton, in the Magna Graecia, on the edge of the Bay of Taranto. (It appears Norton did not share Lanciani’s advice with Clarke before this stiLLMan 1886; dyson 2014, 177–201. cLarke and eMerson 1887. 163 On Clarke, see aLLen 2002b. For a brief reference to Emerson, an archaeologist, philologist and eventually professor of Greek at Cornell University, see aLLen 2002a, 15. 161 162

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

89

expedition.) The functionaries of the Minister of Public Instruction escorted him from the site, because he had not secured any permissions, and his finds were confiscated. 164 Clarke condemned the action and lambasted Italy’s restrictive policies. Lanciani’s reply to Clarke’s criticism, published in the newspaper just days before he sailed to Italy, was that “no country is more liberal” than Italy in awarding the right to excavate for scientific purposes.165 Foreigners need only to notify the Italian government in advance and thereafter periodically, of their activities. Lanciani noted that the excavators did have some right to the findings and could export them, with proper permissions and fees. However, the Italians retained the right to purchase “what it considers to be of national interest” at a pre-determined price. The letter seems intended to encourage, or at least to not discourage, Americans to excavate in Italy, by announcing that other foreigners were already at work there. For example, he stated that Sir James Savile Lumley dug at Nemi, in the sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis. Lumley’s collection of over 4000 objects from the site is currently in England.166 Lanciani noted that many Germans, Austrians and French easily secured licenses to dig. Although his advice in the open letter is not as detailed as that in his private letter to Norton, Lanciani wrote that he would help secure permissions for Americans by pleading their cause to the proper authorities in the Italian government. He would even put the matter in the hands of Anselmo Gasparini, who had worked with Lanciani as inspector of archaeological sites for the municipal government. Lanciani’s extraordinary interactions with Americans interested in conducting archaeology on Italian soil yielded him some good fortune: a series of publications with an American publishing house and a role as adviser to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Art Institute of Chicago for their collection of antiquities. It also got him into serious trouble at home.

aLLen 2002b, 81, n. 19; dyson 1998, 74–76. Lanciani 1887a, 362. 166 MeLis and ridGway 1887, 218–226. 164 165

90

Susan M. Dixon

cHapter 4

roMe, aFter aMerica: 1887–90

HouGHton MiFFLin & coMpany As was its habit, the Lowell Institute offered Lanciani the opportunity to publish his lectures from the 1886–87 lecture tour. The resultant book, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (hereafter Ancient Rome) with Boston-based Houghton Mifflin & Company established a relationship that continued for decades. Lanciani’s 12 lectures formed the basic structure of the Ancient Rome. There were, however, a few alterations (Appendix 2). As early as December 1886 while Lanciani was still on tour, Houghton Mifflin corresponded with him about how and when he might provide them a copy of his manuscript – no small feat in an age before photocopying or widespread use of the typewriter – and illustrations.1 His initial intention was to leave the manuscript behind and to have the illustrations copied from his earlier publications in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma and Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, presumably in the Boston Public Library.2 However, the illustrations were difficult to secure in this manner. He left America, promising Houghton Mifflin that he would send them the materials soon. He revised the text somewhat, sending it piecemeal to the publisher between July and November 1887. In Rome, Lanciani was able to obtain the illustrations easily, as he had a stock of photos and prints there.3 In addition, the painter Samuel Warren was contracted to produce some new drawings as illustrations. Lanciani asked the publishers to send the proofs to Edward Robinson, his appointed copyeditor in Boston, rather than directly to him in Rome, presumably to save time.4 In a separate communication, Lanciani requested that the editing not be too strict so that his language idiosyncrasies would remain in place, making it clear he was a foreigner.5 In this and other ways, Lanciani demonstrated a concern with how he presented himself. Lanciani understood that one of his target markets for this book were the “ladies” who, he perhaps cheekily averred, made up “4/5 of the literary reading class.” He wanted to make “archaeological research agreeable” to Lanciani to HMC, 1 April 1887, 25 September 1887, 9 November 1887, HUH bMs Am 1935 (1040), folder 1. In 1886–87, the Boston Library held copies of BCAR. It did not hold a subscription to NSc. 3 See BIASA/Stan. 4 Lanciani to HMC, 1 April 1887, HUH 1925 (1040) folder 1. Lanciani used Robinson for other Houghton Mifflin Co. publications; see HMC Contract, 26 February 1892, HUH 1925 (1040) folder 2; HMC Contract, n.d. but soon after 27 September 1923, HUH 1925 (1040), folder 3. 5 Lanciani to HMC, 9 November 1887, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1. 1 2

Rome, after America: 1887–90

91

women.6 He also felt that his point of view, writing about Rome in English as a Roman rather than an American or a Briton, was a selling point. Ancient Rome was issued in 1888, with a vermillion hardback cover.7 The Houghton Mifflin contract stipulated that Lanciani would get 10% of the sales, to be distributed twice a year.8 The book was a financial success, and Lanciani monitored the sales and profits closely. For example, the book was dispensed simultaneously out of Macmillan Press in London, but Lanciani did not care for the quality of the British printing.9 He suggested that Houghton Mifflin consider publishing a German translation.10 Since 1889, the book has gone through many printings, and in the 1960s, it was issued by a different publishing house. Only in the 1980s was it issued broadly in Italian.11 On several occasions, he chided Houghton Mifflin for not being more proactive in promoting the book. He complained that Ancient Rome could not be found in bookstores, or alternatively, its copies were rare and therefore overpriced, in Rome and “in places where my foreign friends live.”12 In one letter, he asked for Houghton Mifflin to supply him with circulars to increase book sales. He often requested gratis books.13 He stated that he was only getting about six copies, but mentioned that friends informed him that 150–200 free books were common.14 At various points, he instructed the publisher to send copies to friends, including his sister-in-law Camilla, as well as the Queen of England.15 It is difficult to piece together how much Lanciani earned from the publication of Ancient Rome, but it was considerable. His average annual royalty income in the early years was about $900. While discussing the terms of the contract for one of his subsequent books for Houghton Mifflin, he asked if the publisher would consider buying the manuscript outright for $8,000 instead of sending royalties over time.16

content oF AnCient rome in the Light of reCent DisCoveries Ancient Rome is peppered both with broad cultural concepts and personal anecdotes from the past, and in that sense is not different from the “Notes from Rome.” The reader moves dizzyingly Lanciani to Godkin, 4 March (no year), HUH bMs Am 1083, 463. wiseMan 1992, 131. The book was issued in late 1888. 8 Lanciani to HMC, 21 December 1886, 8 January 1887, 27 January 1887, 25 March 1887, 1 April 1887, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1. A stipulation of 15% of sales was typical of his subsequent books with Houghton Mifflin Co. 9 Lanciani complained of the poor quality of the London printings as compared to those of Boston. See Lanciani to HMC, 17 February 1888, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to HMC, 1 November 1897, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 2. 10 Lanciani to HMC, 22 February 1889, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1. 11 Lanciani 1970: Lanciani 1971; Lanciani 1980; Lanciani 1985; as well as Lanciani 2004; Lanciani 2006a; Lanciani 2006b. 12 Lanciani to HMC, 1 January 1889, 17 February 1889, HUH, bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 1. Lanciani to HMC, 23 January 1922, 5 March 1922, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 2, as well as other letters in HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folders 3–5. 13 Lanciani to HMC, 1 January 1889, 4 March 1889, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 1. 14 Lanciani to HMC, 22 February 1889, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1. 15 Lanciani to HMC, 1 January 1888, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to HMC (in Elena’s handwriting), 11 June 1923, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 3. 16 Lanciani to HMC, 11 February 1892, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to HMC, 22 February 1892, HUH bMs AM 1925 (1040), folder 2. The offer was not accepted by Houghton Mifflin. 6 7

92

Susan M. Dixon

from one to the other, as well as across huge swaths of time. They are led from prehistoric Rome to the eighteenth century, back to imperial Rome, and then into more modern times, all in a matter of pages. Overall, the arguments hinge primarily on classical or other literary sources, and engage with the new archaeological evidence as a supplement. They reveal Lanciani’s command of the city’s broad history, and his keen storytelling ability to popularize the subject. The preface and the first few chapters, polemical in nature, stand apart from the rest of the book. Returning to an argument he made in “Notes from Rome,” he responded to the crescendo of criticism from foreigners regarding the great alteration of post-unification Rome as it was transformed into a modern city. The city known to these foreigners, including Americans, was a “pleasant, sleepy, papal Rome” in which knowledge of the ancient city “could be left to the imagination.”17 That city was being obliterated. Lanciani defends the transformation, of which he was in part an agent. He argues that Rome is a living city, and that the destruction of ancient monuments had been happening for many centuries, not just in his time. The first chapter, which deals with the foundations of Rome, has a similarly polemical tone, and it too returns to a topic Lanciani addressed earlier.18 Here Lanciani disputes the Scottish scholar John Henry Middleton’s controversial thesis that the Etruscans colonized Rome in the prehistoric period, i.e., before the eighth century B.C. and the establishment of the kingship of Italy. This view, which was embraced by some German scholars and spread to the English-speaking world, was rejected by many Italian scholars, including Lanciani, because it undercut an Italian national identity. It suggested that Tuscan rather than Latin ancestors were responsible for the first settlements of the city of the Empire.19 Pointing to the pottery and cinerary urns discovered in May 1867 on the northwest spurs of the Alban Hills, evidence from the Latin tribe, Lanciani notes that they were similar to thousands of objects from archaic cemeteries found on the Esquiline and Viminale Hills, which Lanciani himself uncovered. He argues that the Alban shepherds, escaping from volcanic activity in the Alban Hills, founded Rome in the Bronze Age. Lanciani’s subsequent chapters mostly treat broad themes related to ancient Rome and its infrastructure or institutions rather than specific monuments, e.g., its handling of water and waste issues, public safety including policing and fire prevention forces, public park lands, as well as the institutional role of women in government (Appendix 2). These topics allowed Lanciani to expound upon recent discoveries in Rome, e.g., the Cloaca of the Circus Maximus (or Vallis Murcia), the barracks of the Equites Singolares, the ancient horti on the eastern hills, and the Atrium Vestae, respectively. The choice of topics also was tailored to address concerns of post-war Americans, especially in the northeast, who were striving to develop urban infrastructure and institutions to deal with growing populations, using the latest science and technology when applicable. And to scholars like Norton, informing middle class Americans about classical history and culture would enhance their minds, to circumvent the gross materialism and individualism of the age.20 There are other ways in which Lanciani demonstrated his ability to shape his scholarship for an American public. For Julia Ward Howe, who was in Rome organizing meetings for women to address issues of social justice, he agreed to deliver talks for them on the following topics: houses and housekeeping in ancient Rome, and the Sibyls of Italy, as well as women in Greek drama.21 dyson 1998, 16. cuBBerLey, 1988, 185–186, as well as 123 and 165. 19 MiddLeton 1885. 20 winterer 2002, 115. 21 ricHards and eLLiott 1916, 2: 245–246. 17 18

Rome, after America: 1887–90

93

When writing Ancient Rome, a book he knew would have a primarily female audience, he composed an entire chapter on a part of his scholarship of considerable interest to women, the Vestal Virgins. Their role in ancient Roman society, which they assumed from a young age until about the age of 40, was to keep the most sacred items of the city’s foundation safe and its survival secure.22 In return, they received certain privileges, such as reserved places of honor at public events. However, a breach of contract, including evidence that they abandoned their virginity, brought corporal punishment or a painful death, including being buried alive. His chapter highlights the Vestal Virgins’ strong foundational role in Rome’s history and their participation in its governance, while at the same time dwelling on the maudlin and gruesome tales of fallen or accused Virgins.23 This no doubt appealed to both the American woman of a more melodramatic Victorian sensibility as well as to women in the suffrage movement, which was in full swing in the United States at this time.24 To further this discussion, Lanciani presented a lengthy description of the Atrium Vestae, arguably his greatest discovery in the Roman Forum, located at the foot of the Palatine Hill. At this time, he also found some statues of the Virgins as well as various inscribed statue plinths honoring them. At end of the chapter, Lanciani notes that the end of Roman Empire coincides with the end of the institution of the Vestals, implying their intrinsic identification with the culture’s existence. Women in America were drawn to these arguments, as they were drawn to his lectures.25 Lanciani also promoted the study of the discipline of classical archaeology in the United States. Most likely at the urging of Norton or others associated with the AIA, he noted, both in his lecture and at the end of Chapter Two on the history of archaeology, that American men should be drawn to the discipline. They have the temperament, he suggests, as well as proclivity for technical achievement akin to those of ancient Rome. He elaborates: Archaeology is a science which, different from others, begins at once to replay the zeal of the student with deep moral satisfaction without obliging him to serve a dull, tiresome apprenticeship. It is a science so noble and fascinating that it helps wonderfully to form the character of intelligent youths; and so protean in form, in its various aspects and branches, that it can suit any taste, any inclination. To the young men of America, however, to whom these pages are especially dedicated, these elements have been supplied even more liberally than is the case, perhaps, with other nations.26 Furthermore, he argues, the AIA’s investigation at Assos, and the organization’s establishment of the journal, “prove that American students can bring to the antiquarian field the same amount of successful enterprise which has made them take the lead in many other fields of science.”27 And he hopes to “entice a greater number of bright young men into the ranks of our sympathetic brotherhood.”28 dyson 2010, 64–65. Lanciani 1888f, 136–147. 24 American women achieved the vote nationally in 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. But the women’s suffrage movement was long underway when Lanciani was in America. 25 E.g., aMes 1909, 2:332; addaMs 1910, 77. 26 Lanciani 1888f, 25; Lanciani also spoke in support of the establishment of an American School in Rome (BibAng, Carte Barnabei 279, 12 June, 1887) even as he noted that the AIA’s Clarke was a “great charlatan.” 27 Lanciani 1888f, 25. 28 Lanciani 1888f, 25. Note that women were not included in Lanciani’s call for Americans to study archaeology, even as women were entering the field; see aLLen 2002a, 16–18. 22 23

94

Susan M. Dixon

This general appeal to the American middle class, or swaths of it, can be identified in most of the later Houghton Mifflin publications. Lanciani noted that he was asked to lecture for the Lowell Institute in the late 1890s, but he did not return to the United States.29 This was not the last time that Lanciani published in English, however. With Houghton Mifflin, he published six more books in the same popularizing tone, the first in 1892 and the last in 1924.30

tHe Boston MuseuM oF Fine arts After his return to Rome, Lanciani became a liaison for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts in their purchase of Italian antiquities. Lanciani’s connections to the museum, Robinson and Brimmer, were both active members of the AIA, and had been instrumental in arranging the archaeologist’s American lecture tour. Lanciani’s correspondence demonstrates that he recommended and attempted to persuade the then director, General Charles G. Loring, to invest in available art and artifacts in Rome. Lanciani completed the sales with dealers in Rome, thereby acting as an agent; he spent over $2000 for about 350 objects. 31 The objects range in chronology from prehistoric to late Imperial Rome, and include a few Greek items. There are 21 marble busts or heads representing ancient Roman emperors, citizens, or mythological figures – three of which are no longer in the collection, and one of which was deemed a late Renaissance forgery. A majority of the objects are terracotta, ranging from fragmented architectural relief sculpture, whole vessels (cups, pots) and shards, lamps, figurines including votive figures, from sites such as Cerveteri, Marino and Nemi. There are some smaller bronze objects as well: some personal use items, lamps, and figurines. Nearly half of the objects are coins. In addition, there are six inscriptions, from tombs. Two dozen painted Greek vases round out the group of items; four are no longer in the collection, and one was deemed a 19th-century forgery (Appendix 3). In general, the museum was very happy with Lanciani’s purchases, and only in one case expressed dissatisfaction with his choices.32 Founded in 1870, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is the oldest art museum in the United States; it vies with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for that title. Brimmer, the institution’s founder and first director, believed that American museums should house collections comparable in value to those that were once the property of European sovereigns. He felt that “no opportunity should be neglected to procure for our museums works of [an] original and permanent value.”33 The collections in the first two decades of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ existence were eclectic. They consisted of American paintings, some “early modern” European paintings and decorative arts, and a good deal of Egyptian art. The museum aspired for classical collections. In 1872, it issued a catalogue of the collection, of items “given or loaned to the Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts, at Boston,” consisting mostly of works on loan. This included some of 29 Lanciani to HMC, 1 November 1897, HUH bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 1; Lanciani to Knight, 5 February 1899, PML Misc. 30 Lanciani 1892e; Lanciani 1901e; Lanciani 1901f; Lanciani 1906e; Lanciani 1909; Lanciani 1924. Lanciani 1897c, also published with Houghton Mifflin, was a handbook for students and travelers, and thus of a different tone. He wrote one more book in 1925 (Lanciani 1925), for the Marshall Jones Co.; it was a book designed for the American youth reader. 31 Loring assumed the position of Director from Brimmer in 1876. de toMasi 2017; dixon 2016a, 4–5. 32 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 6 April 1889. 33 wHiteHaLL 1970, 7-13; naGy 2018, 11.

Rome, after America: 1887–90

95

the 349 works from a collection of works from the island of Cyprus,34 as well as 40 Greek vases from Etruscan and Campanian tombs. But classical sculpture was represented by plaster casts.35 The situation changed after 1885 when Robinson was given significant roles in the department of Classical Archaeology.36 The museum acquired antiquities from Assos – 156 sculpted or inscribed fragments of marble and stone, and over a 1000 other objects (pottery, glass, metal) – which the AIA had brought home from its excavations there; Robinson had a role in that campaign.37 According to Whitehall, the museum’s historian, this was “the most important single gift made to the museum since its foundation.”38 It was followed by some other extraordinary acquisitions. In 1884, an Etruscan sarcophagus in the collection of J.J. Jarves and George D. Maquay was purchased. Before the acquisition, the sarcophagus had been on display in the museum alongside another Etruscan sarcophagus; this latter object was on loan in 1884, and purchased only in 1975.39 Then in 1887, as Lanciani was headed to America, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts bought two more items: a marble male figure, and a small bronze Athena. These exquisite sculptures overshadowed the cast collection and precipitated its decline in popularity.40 Their appearance in the art museum suggests a trajectory for its collection policy, one into which Lanciani entered. The plan to have Lanciani purchase classical antiquities for the art museum was most likely in place before the archaeologist left the United States after his lecture tour in spring of 1887. From New York, his departure city, Lanciani corresponded with General Loring about his procurement of Native American blankets and stoles, from the collection of Clarence E. Pullen, for the new prehistoric museum in Rome.41 In January 1888, as soon as Lanciani was able to walk again after his trip, Loring allocated him 2500 lire to spend on objects for its collection.42 Lanciani’s first recommendations were for the purchase of seven marble busts, some terracottas from CaereCerveteri, and a coin collection documenting the history of ancient Rome’s rulers. Lanciani continued with the work until spring of 1889. His efforts were stemmed by early 1890, when Lanciani was aware that he was under investigation for antiquities dealing.

advice on coLLectinG Lanciani offered the museum the possibility “to obtain original ancient works to supplement the museum’s large collection of plaster casts.”43 In the process, he educated them on the antiquities market in Italy. The advice is captured in his correspondence to Loring, which Robinson surely read as well. The museum staff hoped to collect certain types of antiquities, and Lanciani counselled them on what was These were owned by General Cesnola. wHiteHaLL 1970, 30–31. 36 He was given the title of curator of classical antiquities in 1895, and remained in that position until 1902, when he assumed the directorship of the museum. In 1906, he moved to the Metropolitan Museum of New York. 37 aLLen 2002b, 76–78. 38 wHiteHaLL 1970, 64. 39 naGy 2018, 11–15. 40 wHiteHaLL 1970, 64–66. 41 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 16 April 1887. Clarence Pullen (1850–1902) was the surveyor general of New Mexico. He was educated at MIT, and became a well-known newspaper and magazine contributor, often writing about southwestern America. 42 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 6 January 1888. 43 naGy 2018, 16. 34 35

96

Susan Dixon

realistic. For example, he noted that some things were impossible to obtain at the time – inscriptions, statues, bronzes and mosaics – mostly likely because state officials would not grant export permission because of their cultural value. Given the plentiful numbers of their type on the market, other objects were more prevalent, e.g., terracottas, busts and coins.44 Thus he directed their attention to these, asking them “would you not like the idea to get in the museum the finest collection of busts in Europe and America, Italy excluded? Or else the finest collection of terracottas?”45 Elsewhere, he opined that in selecting terracottas for them, “I was guided by the thought that the Boston Museum means to become one of the most complete, and rich, and representative” in this area.46 In his pitch to the art museum, he described the works by noting their fine qualities such as the rareness of the subject, the superiority of the marble, or the top-notch state of preservation. To bolster the desirability of the objects, he sometimes cited the expertise of others, for example, when he noted that Dr. Peterson, the Director of the DIA “admired [a bust of Mercury] exceedingly, as a work of Greek artist, …for its beauty and for its preservation.”47 He sometimes prodded the museum staff to decide on a purchase quickly by informing them of that there was competition for the objects in the market, as when he expressed concern that the director of the Art Institute in Chicago was spending quite a bit of money on Greek vases.48 Lanciani remembered that excavating in Taranto, in Magna Grecae, had been elusive to the AIA and he knew that Robinson was an active member of the organization. In February 1888, when 42 boxes of objects said to be terracottas from Taranto were presented to him by dealers Pietro Pennelli and Pio Marinangeli, he alerted Loring.49 Among the objects were life-sized heads, modelled in clay by hand, and said to be by Greek artists. There were also statues, statuettes, and bas-reliefs. Loring and Robinson quickly approved the purchase. 50 But Lanciani also as rapidly changed his mind about the transaction. The dealers offered him first right of refusal and a very low price, something which raised Lanciani’s suspicions. By the end of May, Lanciani informed Loring that the arrangement was a fraud.51 The objects were not from Taranto, nor were they found in one place. Neither was the majority of the objects worked by hand but rather they were cast from a mold.52 The incident illustrates how purchasing antiquities in Italy was fraught with problems at this time. However, at a later date, Lanciani tantalized the Boston staff, knowing the appeal of antiquities from Taranto for them, when he offered terracotta objects from Caere-Cerveteri. He BMFA archive, letters from Lanciani to Loring, 28 February and 30 May 1888. Between February and May, Lanciani notes that terracottas have become more difficult to get. 45 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 16 February 1888. 46 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 30 May 1888. See also Nagy 2018, 17–25; and Nagy 2008. 47 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 3 December 1888. In the case of the terracottas from Cerveteri, he reports that he consulted Mr. Stillman, Sir John Savile and Mr. Greenough (BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 6 January 1888.) 48 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Robinson, 9 April 1889. 49 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 27 February 1888; letter from Robinson to Loring, 15 Februay 1888 and telegram from Loring to Lanciani, 16 February 1888. 50 BMFA archive, copy of excerpt of letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 1 February 1888; note from Robinson to Loring, 14 February 1888; telegram from Loring to Lanciani, 15 February, 1888. 51 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 30 May 1888. The collection was put up for public auction, but not before Lanciani took a few pieces, “which I shall keep until a new expedition takes place.” He reveals that the collection was offered by Colonel Alessandro Calandrelli, an artillery leader and engineer for the papal forces in mid-19th century and an Italian patriot whose bust is one of 52 that were installed on the Janiculum Hill, who was a collector of “very little judgment,” and who had tried to sell Lanciani the collection when he was in the United States. Lanciani reported that the Colonel had since died, “of sheer hunger.” See naGy 2018, 19, n. 14. 52 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 30 May 1888. 44

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

97

compared them favorably, particularly the Tangra-like figurines, to those from Taranto.53 These objects are currently in the Boston collection. Lanciani held the American psyche, or at least what he understood of it, in mind, when he crafted his persuasive arguments to Loring. In one particular instance, he advised the museum on how one of the busts for sale would bring in visitors. Regarding the “Head of a Negro,” either a “pet-slave” or a freedman from north Africa, he suggested that “by letting the negro population of New England know that the portrait bust of one of their ancestors, some 2000 years old, has just arrived from Italy. My lord! What crowds will assemble in the Museum.”54 In 1887, in postCivil War New England, and particularly in Boston, which was more progressive than many cities in crafting policies to educate recently freed slaves, Lanciani was signaling that the statue would attract curious African-American visitors. Lanciani was well aware of America’s social issues from his close connections to many American progressive thinkers, including anti-abolitionists, in Rome and in the U.S., and thus this sentiment was mostly likely shaped with sincerity.55 In addition, he characterized archaic pottery found between Castelgandolfo and Marino as worthy of a “comparison with the pre-historic American pottery, to which they bear a strong resemblance.’56 Lanciani provoked some of American’s deep love of the southwestern part of the United States, particularly as understood by the AIA members, by fostering an evaluation of the Alban tribes, the first settlers of Rome from which came the likes of Romulus, as equal to the Native American peoples. Lanciani also liked flaunting his knowledge of object conservation and display. In his letters, he informed Loring of how to care for the new purchases. For example, he elaborated on how one should clean bronzes.57 He recommended that the marble bust of Ajax should be displayed on a plush velvet,58 and that of Mercury, “place[d] a little sideways, with the face turning towards the right of the observer [because t]he light must strike him from the left.”59 As director of many museums in Rome, his advice came from his own knowledge of contemporary museal practice in Italy. Throughout his correspondence with the museum, Lanciani made clear that the market at this time was difficult, “partly because the financial crisis has stopped private works (and thus private as opposed to government-run excavations), and partly because the dealers have been frightened from buying.”60 He noted that the Italian government was investigating and punishing any impropriety, and targeting both dealers and buyers. He related the Castellani-Borghi affair. The dealer Eliseo Borghi – with whom Lanciani was working at this time – had bought some coins “second or third hand” and then sold them to Augusto Castellani, antiquities collector and dealer, and Lanciani’s colleague on the city archaeological commission.61 Claiming that the coins were stolen from the construction site 53 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 6 January 1888. Lanciani invokes Savile’s and Stillman’s opinions on the figures as evidence of their similarity to Tanagra figures. 54 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 30 May 1888. 55 On the art museum’s admission policy for this age, see wHiteHaLL 1970, 40–41. An admission fee was not required at all times, and the museum was open on Saturday and Sunday, suggesting that they appealed to all visitors, including African-Americans. 56 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Loring, 30 May 1888. 57 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 28 February 1888. 58 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 30 May 1888. Lanciani was much taken with the velvet used in the displays of the Torlonia collection, recently moved to the Palazzo Corsini in Rome; cuBBerLey 1988, 83. 59 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 3 December 1888. 60 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, Epiphany 1888. 61 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, Epiphany, 1888; see also Nagy 2018, 17–18.

98

Susan M. Dixon

for the monument to the Vittorio Emanuele II, and therefore they were government property, the government brought both the dealer and the buyer before the court. Thus, people in the business of buying and selling antiquities in Rome became quite cautious. To Lanciani’s advantage, however, the tight market made them “ready to accept honest prices.”62 Dealers were indeed under scrutiny during the Prime Ministry of Francesco Crispi (1813–1901) and the oversight of the Minister of Public Instruction Paolo Boselli. Key to understanding the angst of the market is an awareness of the complex and difficult to enforce regulations regarding to whom objects belong after they are found, and thus who had permission to sell the objects. In general, the rules were as follows: an object’s find spot determined its fate. The state reserved jurisdiction over all ancient objects found on its property, including on land acquired for the construction of ministry buildings and the river embankment. The city claimed ownership over its finds on its property, including what it had appropriated from private owners to implement urban infrastructure, such as roads, rail lines and sewers. Private owners retained any antiquities found on their holdings, but only after giving the state the first right of refusal to purchase. If an owner retained the object but then wished to sell it, he had to abide by export laws and tax requirements. These rules were derived from the Edict of Pacca of 1820, and remained in place until new legislation was passed in 1909. These laws were in place while Lanciani was working with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, even as new regulations were being debated in Parliament.63 There were some exceptions to these rules, specifically in the case of the large landowners who created special arrangements with the city, or who crafted deals with the big construction and sometimes utility companies who wished to develop their land. 64 The state was often displeased when the municipal government worked outside regulations, and particularly about a deal made in 1883 with Josef Spithoever, owner of the property on the Quirinale Hill, located over the ancient Horti Sallustiani. Many significant works of art from the ancient gardens were exported.65 Because the dealers were wary did not mean that the enthusiasm from foreigners diminished. As Lanciani reminded Loring often, there was considerable competition for the antiquities because foreigners were restricted from excavating and thus had to rely on the market to add works to their collections.66 Foreign museum curators and collectors, among them Americans, were scouring for good buys. Some collectors secured agents who knew how to manipulate the market. The most notorious example is the German archaeologist Helbig, Lanciani’s associate at the Lincei and secretary of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, who was a highly successful purchasing agent working for Carl Jacobsen after 1888, helping him grow the Ny Carlesberg Glyptotek collection. Its fine works include the portrait bust of Pompei the Great.67 Furthermore, antiquities, or any work of art, from private collections were also subject to government regulation. In general, the sale of important collections was prohibited, a fact that made some impoverished aristocrats, or their heirs, unhappy, as they were eager to unload some art to stay afloat financially.68 The Ludovisi collection fell under this regulation (and today forms BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, Epiphany 1888. Bruni 2001, 775–777; eMiLiani 1999. 64 QuiLici 1873, 49–50; ManicioLi 1983a, 156–162. 65 Hartswick 2004, 83–146. 66 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, Epiphany 1888; from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 27 February 1888; from Lanciani to Robinson, 8 April 1889. 67 MoLtesen 2012. 68 Hartswick 2004, 21–25, 28–9; MoLtesen 2012, 183–184. 62 63

Rome, after America: 1887–90

99

part of the Museo Nazionale Romano at the Palazzo Altemps).69 Nonetheless, because owners had incomplete inventories and dealers were willing to obscure art provenance, some parts of collections were dispersed. Thus, significant antiquities left Italy by various means for museums throughout Europe and Russia through a network of individuals in Rome who manipulated the weak antiquities exportation laws. On the supply side, the network included small-scale property owners and laborers who found objects and concealed them from authorities.70 More significant operatives were the shop dealers who would obscure an object’s provenance if they so desired. Some notorious characters were also in the network, including Pietro Pennelli, who was accused of forging an Etruscan sarcophagus in 1865, and Anselmo Gasparini, who had been an inspector of excavations employed by the Commissione Archeologica Comunale under Lanciani.71 To assure Loring, Lanciani stated that he was looking beyond dealers for good purchases. There were many excavations on private property outside of Rome, from which small but important objects would likely be cleared for sale. He mentioned Boccanera’s excavations in Nemi, on lands belonging to Prince Filippo Orsini, and the Caere-Cerveteri necropolis being unearthed by the “municipal townclerk” and the city’s church canon Mariano Lazzari on Prince Ruspoli’s grounds.72 The campaign at Marino, on the property of Prince Marcantonio Colonna, also belongs in this list.73 Thus, the letters in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ archives suggest Loring’s drive to know and Lanciani’s anxiety to convey as much as possible about the find spots or provenance. For example, Lanciani noted with some precision that on June 1886, a portrait bust of Caligula and fragments of its pedestal were found in a basement of a privately owned house located at the corner of via Cavour and the Piazza dell’Esquilino.74 In other cases, he reminded Loring of how easily the Italian government can interfere as when he stated that he could have sent a bust of Plato, but it was confiscated because it was thought to have been stolen from the Villa Albani.75 To circumvent too much government intervention, Lanciani advised Loring not be too precise in the museum records in some problematic cases. For example, in spring of 1888, in regard to the head of Ajax, Lanciani instructed Loring to state that it was not discovered in the Tiber, as he had earlier reported, but near the left bank “or something like it.”76 By changing the location of the find, from the river bank, which was public property, to a more nebulous location, the object would likely avoid any scrutiny at the export office. Likewise, in late October 1888, Lanciani informed Loring that the famous Ludovisi collection had moved to a new building, and some items were being put up for sale. He suggests the purchase of four busts. Lanciani elaborated on how one dealer, Pirani, had seen these objects from the street, through the open windows into the palace basement, “where any passerby could peep in.”77 To get around this rule and help sell the objects from the Ludovisi collection, the dealers claimed nebulously that they were found “in some cellar of an old building.”78 As noted above, the government needed to approve any sales Hartswick 2004, 29. cuBBerLey 1988, 16, 68, 81, 114 71 andrén 1986, 69–69; BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 455–456. 72 BMFA archive, letters from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, Epiphany 1888 and 17 February 1888. 73 Bilde 1998, 36; aGLietti and rose 2008, 88–90. 74 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 16 February 1888 75 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 3 December 1888. 76 BMFA archive, inventory of Groupe VIII, 7. 77 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 6 April 1889. 78 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 31 October 1888 69 70

100

Susan M. Dixon

from the Ludovisi collection, given some of the objects’ importance to the nation. Lanciani did not feel the explanation Pirani supplied would allow the busts to leave Italy without scrutiny. Therefore, he implored Loring not to mention that the busts in question were in an “arsenal” of the Ludovisi collection, and rather say they are “said to come from the Ludovisi villa,” i.e., from an undocumented site.79 Not knowing the find spot meant that it would be impossible for the state to argue for its right of first refusal in the sale. Lanciani tried to encourage Loring in the purchase by stating that buyers such as Professor Hale of Cornell University, bought such items from this stockpile without any recrimination from authorities.80 As for his motivations, it is unclear, other than he was surely enjoying himself as he showcased his knowledge to Loring and Robinson.81 There seems to have been no remuneration for his labors, and there is nothing in his or the museum’s accounting that indicates that he was paid for his services. It may have been that he received some kind of kickback from dealers, but that is pure speculation. It may have been that he was trying out a new career as purchasing agent, and liking it. He noted that as a corollary benefit to his work for Boston Museum of Fine Arts was that he got to know the dealers, and this was useful in gathering more information about the topography of Rome. He lamented that when he identified himself as a government worker, the dealers would withhold information from him. But as an interested collector or purchaser, “no more an official of the state, a public Inquisitor,” they were full of information about the finds, and “don’t lie [to me] any more about the origin and the provenance of their objects.”82 Thus, he felt that he had gained some dealers’ confidences. Some he characterized as honest – Massimiliano Pirani and Pio Mariangeli – others as clever – Alessandro Fausti and Augusto Valenzi.83 And in correspondences with the museum, the names of a number of dealers are revealed (Appendix 3).

art institute oF cHicaGo Lanciani also provided assistance to William R. French (1843–1914), the director of the Art Institute of Chicago since 1882, who in 1889 was seeking to make purchases of original ancient works of art to supplant their casts.84 French and Hutchinson were introduced to Lanciani by Virginia, Elena’s younger sister. She had settled in Chicago with her husband, the lawyer Richard Waterman, since before 1870.85 French and the Art Institute’s founding president Charles L. Hutchinson (1854–1924) travelled to Europe in the spring of 1889. They purchased over 30 ancient Greek vases, as well as some Roman sculptures, from various individuals in Italy. While in Rome in April 1889, Lanciani advised the men on their purchases, as did a variety of people, including dealers Alberici and Mariangeli.86 In December 1889, French published a catalogue showcasing these new works to BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 3 December 1888. BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 6 April 1889. 81 BMFA archive, letter from Elena Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 13 January 1889 82 BMFA archive, Epiphany 1888 and 6 April 1889. 83 BMFA archive, letter from Lanciani to Gen. Loring, 6 April 1889. 84 aLexander 1994, 7. 85 I thank D. Joshua Taylor of the New England Historical Geneaological Society for this information. Virginia Pauline Rhodes was born in 1843. A reference to Lanciani’s Lowell lectures appeared in The Daily Inter Ocean, a Chicago paper, on Oct. 23, 1886, 11. See also BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 473. 86 aLexander 1994, 8–9 on the many individuals in Italy involved in the sales of over 40 vases. For French’s 79 80

Rome, after America: 1887–90

101

the collection. In it, he acknowledged Lanciani’s advice on the acquisitions.87 However, by spring of 1890, French became aware that honoring Lanciani in this way was causing distress for the archaeologist in Rome. In correspondence with the officials investigating Lanciani, the museum director then clarified that Lanciani’s help in securing works for the Art Institute of Chicago was limited.88 French then destroyed any uncirculated copies of the exhibition catalogue.89 Meanwhile, Lanciani’s correspondence with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts about more purchases came to a halt by summer of 1889, when it was contacted about the illegal purchase of antiquities from Italy. In October 1889, Lanciani was still attempting to secure purchases including that of a sarcophagus found near the Porto San Lorenzo, for Hutchinson. But very soon thereafter, Lanciani returned money that Hutchinson had left in a Rothschild-Cerasi bank account for such acquisitions. 90

disMissaL While in the United States, and certainly immediately after he arrived home in May 1887, Lanciani was aware that his position in Rome was under threat.91 Beginning in June 1889, his state employer investigated him for certain unprofessional behaviors. Although he was never formally charged, Lanciani was forced to resign from his position as inspector for the state in December 1890. Earlier in that year, he felt pressured to give up his position as secretary on the municipal commission.92 He retained his university professorship, although his bid for promotion was delayed a few years, for reasons associated with the resignations.93 Lanciani’s great successes in the United States, both in terms of scholarly reputation and financial gain, no doubt evoked some jealousies among his professional colleagues in Rome. In addition, his long hiatus from the position – it was over a year before he returned to work – and the absence of Fiorelli, his immediate supervisor, protector and supporter, made him vulnerable to criticism within the Direzione Generale di Antichità e Belle Arti. Added to this situation was the political shift in Italy under the reformist Prime Minister Crespi, as well as the economic crisis which brought many industries, including new construction, to a standstill in Rome, and the result was that Lanciani’s career was in jeopardy. The investigation was prompted when Baron Saverio Fava (1832–1913), Italy’s unofficial diplomat in the United States from 1881 to 1893, sent a letter of complaint to the Minister of External Affairs on 10 May 1889.94 Fava’s concerns were with illegal antiquities trades which resulted in Italian property in the hands of American collectors. He listed various cases in which he Notebook of their travels, see AIC, William M.R. French Archives, his 1889 Travel Notebook, 1889, 20–34. http:// aic.onlineculture.co.uk/ttp/ttp.html?id=8dec950a-8936-4a80-ac88-e15ddd334ec2&type=book. On Hutchinson, see HiLLiard 2010. 87 The Art Institute of Chicago, 35. 88 BIASA, ms. 134, 17–19; paLoMBi 2006a, 134–135, n. 192. 89 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 464, 473. 90 AIC, Box 1, Folder Lanciani, letter from Lanciani to Hutchinson, 3 March 1890 and letter from Elena Lanciani to Hutchinson, 2 November 1890; de toMasi 2015. 91 Brewster, 24 May 1887, PhLC series II, box 6, folder 1, 115; Ware to Norton, 27 March 1887, AIA, box 3, folder 3.5. 92 dixon 2016a. 93 paLoMBi 2006a, 150–178. 94 cavaterra 1995.

102

Susan M. Dixon

believed such activity was taking place. Lanciani’s involvement with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts was only one such case, and arguably a minor one, mentioned almost as an afterthought in the letter. The letter was forwarded to Lanciani’s supervisors.95 An investigation of Lanciani’s behavior ensued. Throughout, Fava sent updates to the Direzione Generale on further suspected illegal activity in the United States that involved Lanciani directly.96 On 31 January 1890, he reported that during Lanciani’s American tour, while in New York, the archaeologist approached Henry Marquand, trustee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and offered him his services as a dealer. He opined that Lanciani would not have taken part in approaching Marquand if it had not been for his close friendship with Marquand’s son Allan, as well as Frothingham. Fava then noted that he was particularly concerned because Allan Marquand had purchased $4000 worth of illegal items from Italy for the Princeton Museum of Art. The objects included a bronze statue of the emperor Gaeta, an Etruscan chariot from Orvieto, and gold armor and other items of Langobard manufacture. To this list of Lanciani’s friends and coconspirators in selling off Italy’s patrimony, Fava added Helbig, Augusto Castellani, and Giuseppe Giacomini, the dealer best known for liquidating much of the Borghese collection.97 Fava’s source of the information on Lanciani’s solicitation of Henry Marquand was General Luigi Palma di Cesnola (1832–1904), the first director of the Metropolitan Museum. Fueled by Fava’s claims, Felice Barnabei, Lanciani’s colleague in the archaeological service, quickly assembled a brief for the Minister of Public Instruction Paolo Boselli. In it, he outlined in great detail Lanciani’s activities with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, listing most of the works they had acquired on Lanciani’s advice and outlining the ways in which Lanciani may have violated Italian law. More importantly, he suggested that Lanciani violated two codes of ethics governing his positions as supervisor of museums and of excavation sites. One was article 35 of the regulation regarding service in the state museums of antiquities (approved by royal decree on 18 April 1878, n. 4359, series 2), which prohibited involvement in the sale or trafficking of antiquities; the other was a regulation regarding service in excavations (approved by royal decree on 18 January 1877, n. 3660, series 2).98 He also continued with suspicions of other offenses.99 Thus, Felice Barnabei (1842–1922) became intricately involved in the process of firing Lanciani. He approached the profession of archaeology through the study of ancient Greek and Latin, and quickly developed a talent for envisioning ways to improve its practice.100 In 1875, Fiorelli summoned him from Naples to Rome to work as his secretary in the state offices, and in 1880, he was made an inspector of excavations. He worked closely with Lanciani. In some ways, he was Lanciani’s superior.101 He took charge of the Direzione Generale when Fiorelli was absent from his position for health reasons, beginning in the spring of 1887.102 Barnabei was like Lanciani in a manner. He was a skilled classicist and epigrapher, fluent in English, and politically savvy. He was also notoriously prickly, although in a different way from 95 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 453. Others include the attempted sale of two Raphael paintings, one to the Academy of Fine Arts in New York, and one to the Metropolitan Museum. 96 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 463–464, dated 31 January 1890; and 471–2, dated 8 April 1890. These letters were sent directly to the Minister of Public Instruction Boselli. 97 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 463–464; see also 471–2, with another update from Fava on 8 April 1890. 98 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 454. 99 BarnaBei and deLpino, 1991, 453–457. 100 peLLati 1964; BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 13–26, 30–31. 101 BibAng, 279, 8, letter 16 April 1883. Lanciani requested the leave of absence from Barnabei. 102 BarBanera 1998, 69–72.

Rome, after America: 1887–90

103

the fastidious Lanciani.103 Born into poverty, Barnabei was disdainful of the aristocratic class and of those affiliated with the papacy. Thus, he was suspicious and critical of the operations of the municipal government, and specifically of the archaeological commission, including the mayor Leopoldo Torlonia, Marchese Francesco Nobili Vitelleschi, de Rossi and Vespigniani. One of Barnabei’s major preoccupations was stemming the flow of antiquities out of Italy, and as such, he was contemptuous of scholars posing as art dealers, including the Castellani and Helbig.104 Lanciani particularly annoyed Barnabei.105 Although neither aristocratic nor particularly wealthy, Lanciani belonged to the older order of Italy, with strong connections to the papal court, and to the royal court after Umberto I took the throne in 1878.106 To Lanciani, the investigation was a personal attack, and in early 1890, he wondered what he had done to make Barnabei his enemy for the past two years.107 Fava’s charges, reshaped and augmented by Barnabei, were sent to the police, who in September 1889 found that the sales to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts did not constitute illegal activity.108 After further investigation, and the gathering of evidence from two of Lanciani’s colleagues in the state service, as well as two of his associates in the United States – Robinson and Brimmer109 – the revised charges went to an ad hoc three-person commission. It was directed to recommend appropriate action to Boselli. 110 Barnabei’s archives contain two very similar versions of the charges against Lanciani. One is the report signed by the commission, which was clearly authored by Barnabei; the other is Barnabei’s letter sent directly to Boselli.111 Eventually Boselli sent the reports to the Prime Minister. Lanciani responded to the accusations, but he eventually resigned from his position.112

cLaiMs and counter-cLaiMs There were four major charges aimed at Lanciani, all related to perceived violations of codes of behavior mentioned previously. One charge was that he acted without authorization when he collected subscriptions from Americans to fund the construction of a new municipal museum. This act was not authorized, stated the report, and furthermore, it brought shame to the government. However, as noted above, at the moment that he began fundraising efforts, Lanciani did believe he had permissions from the mayor of Rome and from his superior in the Direzione Generale. The situation changed when the cerasuoLo 2003, 25–27. BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 109–116, 165–175. 105 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 179, 239, n. 54; also Pellati 1964. 106 paoLoMBi 2006, 25–54. 107 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 464, 474. 108 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 457. 109 They are Giuseppe Gatti, who replaces Lanciani in many of his duties after 1890, and Giacomo Mansuzi, and inspector for the city commission, who worked under Lanciani. BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 458–62. Mansuzi’s letter, in particular, was full of venom against Lanciani, and reveals much the mundanity of archaeological practice at this time. 110 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 468–471. The 3 members were Giovanni Guarrasi, Calcedonia Inglilleri and M. Vario, representatives from the “corte di cassazione, the state counsel’s office, and the court dei conti.” 111 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 465–468, for Barnabei’s letter of February 1890; and 468–471 for the commission’s letter. 112 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 473–476 for Lanciani’s response. 103 104

104

Susan M. Dixon

political winds shifted in Rome, which occurred just as Lanciani docked in America. The second charge was related to Lanciani’s advice to foreigners, as outlined in his 28 April 1887 open letter in The Nation. Therein, he offered help to the Americans wishing to excavate on Italian soil and export objects abroad. Lanciani noted that other foreigners were already at work there, including Sir James Savile Lumley at Nemi.113 He continued that many Germans, Austrians and French easily obtained licenses to dig. But most damningly, he had offered the services of a city employee, Anselmo Gasparini, to help Americans obtain such licenses. The report, however, claimed that Lanciani was wrong, and that no foreign permissions were given. By his letter, Lanciani incited Americans to excavate illegally because it had stated an untruth. But more importantly, it condemned his actions as lacking in integrity for one in his position as a state employee. Lanciani’s reply to this charge was that it was not sound. He noted that his advice was Fig. 31. Portrait of a Man. Roman, Imperial Pecorrect and that the state was being dishonest riod, A.D. 195-205. Marble. Museum of Fine if it claimed that it did not approve licenses to Arts, Boston, Everett Fund, 88.349. Photogforeigners.114 However, foreign excavations in raphy: © 2019 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Italy were becoming increasingly curtailed in Rome’s new political climate in the late 1880s, in an effort to stem the significant flow of cultural patrimony out of the country.115 A third and more serious issue was that Lanciani acted as dealer for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and possibly the Art Institute of Chicago. He was not solely an adviser, as was claimed, and this was a violation of his office. Additionally, some of the objects were not legally cleared for sale or export. As we’ve noted, Lanciani expressed some concerns to Loring about the provenance of some objects, including the marble busts from the Ludovisi collections and the head of Ajax found in the Tiber, and indeed, these objects were targets of concern in Barnabei’s report. However, the sale of a particular head was an unequivocal example of Lanciani’s illegal behavior (Fig. 31). The state prohibited the separation of different parts of one sculpture, or any artwork. Barnabei argued that Lanciani sold the Boston museum a head, which he identified as that of Caius Memmius Caecillus Placidius, knowing that the body of the sculpture was in Rome. Lanciani had reported in Notizie degli Scavi that in June 1886, near Piazza dell’Esquillino and via Cavour, part of a cippus Savile’s collections are now at the Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery. BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 476. 115 MoLtesen 2012, 71. The history of the antiquities exports out of Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before more stringent export laws were put in place in 1909, has yet to be written. 113 114

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

105

Fig. 32. Fragment of a relief. Roman, Greco-Roman Period. Terracotta. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Benjamin Pierce Cheney Donation, 88.568. Photography: © 2019 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

inscribed with a commemoration to Caius Memmius Caecillus Placidius was discovered. Very soon thereafter the headless body of a statute of a male was found.116 At the time of the sale to Boston, Lanciani informed Loring that the head of the male was found at or near the spot where the cippus was located, and therefore that he assumed that the head was that of Memmius. This was recorded in the museum’s records. Lanciani may or may not have been correct about the identification of the head as a portrait. His assertion to Loring was part of a sales pitch. An ancient bust was more valuable to a collector if its identification was known with some surety. Nonetheless, Barnabei took Lanciani’s argument to Loring at face value, and claimed that Lanciani deliberately caused parts of a statute to remain separated because of the sale. A few groups of objects sold under suspicious circumstances, according to the report, provided indisputable proof of Lanciani’s corruption. They included five prehistoric vases from a tomb in the Servian Agger, near the intersection of via di San Martino ai Monti and via Cavour. Terracottas from the area around Lago Albano, including prehistoric tomb vases, as well as architectural decoration from the destroyed Villa of Quinto Voconio Pollione near Marino, were among the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ purchases (Fig. 32). Ex-voto terracottas from near Cerveteri and objects from the sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis at Nemi were also sold to them (Fig. 33). These items were deemed important to the national interests because of their 116

106

Gatti 1887, 179–80; BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 465–466.

Susan M. Dixon

great antiquity and rareness.117 They might bring some clarity to Rome’s history during the times of the kingship and the Republic, of use to forming a national identity. Barnabei insinuated that Lanciani used his office to bypass regulations by hiding these objects from state officials and arranging for their sale and exportation.118 Lanciani replied that he did not believe that his actions were wrong. He noted that he secured the proper licenses, running them by the official three-person commission, and shipping them through the firm Roesler Franz, which collected the tax fees.119 Lanciani also stated clearly that he did not, as Cesnola reported, make a pitch to the older Marquand, as he only met him briefly during a reception of 200 people at the Metropolitan Museum.120 He accused Cesnola of lying about the matter because the museum director held in disdain those accompanying Lanciani, the members of the AIA who arranged for the lectures in New York. In fact, there is evidence that this was true, and that there were extremely tense relationships Fig. 33. Figurine of Diana. Roman, Late between Cesnola and the Archaeological Republic Period. Bronze. Museum of Fine Institute of America members. The Institute Arts, Boston, Benjamin Pierce Cheney wished to solicit funds for the completion of Donation, 88.613. Photography: © 2019 the School of Classical Studies in Athens, or for Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. expeditions on classical sites. Cesnola preferred that the New York City donors whom the Archaeological Institute of America was targeting instead would fund a new Cyprus expedition. Cyrpus was the location where Cesnola had made his fortunes by extracting antiquities during excavations in the late 1860s/early 1870s, and where he clearly hoped to do so again. Among the letters in the Institute’s archives is one from William Ware (1832–1915), architect and founder of the schools of architecture at MIT and Columbia University, to Norton. It reveals that he and Frederick J. de Peyster (1838–1905), a lawyer, both then residing in New York City, believed that Cesnola was derailing the AIA’s efforts. He wrote: “…Cesnola is actively hostile to all our undertakings, and that he is intent in [opposing us] where he should naturally look for sympathy. The success of the Lanciani lectures in our hands, instead of his, would not mitigate his ill will … I have no doubt that he feels that the society (AIA) has slighted him, on purpose, and is ready to avenge himself. Indeed, he began thus, by BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 469. For a larger context to the state’s concern with objects from Nemi, see De Tomasi 2013, 165–179. 119 BMFA documents, letters 16 February 1888, 27 February 1888, 30 May 1888, 27 July 1888. 120 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 474. 117 118

Rome, after America: 1887–90

107

anticipation, a year ago, in advising Lanciani to have nothing to do with us. I am afraid his presence in New York is an even greater evil than appeared. It certainly is so, if Mr. de Peyster is right.” 121 Lanciani obviously did not take Cesnola’s advice regarding the AIA, as his agreement to lecture for the organization revealed. Nonetheless, in 1890, he wondered why Cesnola had attempted to taint his reputation in the matter of the procurement of antiquities. Lanciani noted that he believed that he himself had been more than gracious to Cesnola; he had not counteraccused Cesnola, who, Lanciani inferred, had been involved in a few scandals related to dubious antiquities sales himself.122 Indeed, Cesnola was a problematic character. An Italian-born American citizen of questionable character, who had obtained the directorship of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1879 by selling the institution his collections of items from Cyprus. It included terracotta figures, and a collection of gold, silver, bronze and alabaster. Although as early as 1880 there were questions about the works’ authenticity, and the highly creative nature of the restorations undertaken on them, Cesnola defended his reputation. However, in 1885, The New York Times declared that no one believed that what was once the Metropolitan Museum’s core collection – the collection that bears Cesnola’s name – was worth much, and indeed, by 1888, its popularity had waned, supplanted by other collections.123 There is other evidence supporting the fact that Cesnola was aggressive in his pursuit of information to derail Lanciani’s career. In March 1890, fairly late into the investigation into Lanciani, Cesnola contacted French, attempting to solicit evidence for Fava about Lanciani’s role in securing antiquities for the Art Institute of Chicago. Furthermore, he wrote Fava suggesting that Lanciani was not just engaged in dealing objects, but he was also selling art found in the excavations of the Roman Forum.124 Instead, it agitated the museum staff at Chicago, and eventually those at Boston, prompting them to defend both themselves and Lanciani. Brimmer wrote a letter to the Italian authorities, addressing and countering all the charges involving the Boston and Chicago’s art museums, and in particular, lambasting Cesnola’s role in the accusations.125 Much later, Lanciani revealed that he heard Cesnola was jealous of him because he was a competitor for his position at the Metropolitan Museum, something which he commented could be true, even if it seemed absurd.126 In general, throughout his career, Cesnola was known for vengeful and erratic actions when he felt that people were disloyal to him. Nonetheless, despite attempts by several new members of the board of trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to oust him on 11 February 1895, Cesnola retained his office as director until his death in 1904, for the most part because of the unwavering support of J.P. Morgan and the elder Marquand.127 Meanwhile, in Rome, Lanciani did not assume personal responsibility for his actions, although it did thwart any further involvement in helping Americans with antiquities sales. He held a grudge against Cesnola for a long time.128 Furthermore, he wondered why his former warm colleague Barnabei began to treat him as an enemy beginning in 1888. Lanciani gleefully saved evidence of AIA, Box 3, folder 3.5, letter from Ware to Norton, 27 March 1887. BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 465, 472. 123 McFadden 1971, 184–190, 240. 124 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 471. 125 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 464, 472–473; and BIASA, ms. 134, 17–19. 126 BIASA, ms. 134, 19. 127 McFadden 1971, 242–244. 128 BIASA, ms. 134, 12–19, 28–30. 121 122

108

Susan M. Dixon

the destruction of Barnabei’s reputation when the Neapolitan was charged with tampering with archaeological evidence.129 Lastly, the report claimed that Lanciani deliberately failed to submit his data of the excavation sites to the state archives, and instead withheld them for his own purposes. Sometimes he did this by publishing in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma rather than in Notizie degli Scavi. Other times he published for personal profit and fame, as the report noted he did in his English-language essays in “Notes from Rome” and the recently issued book for Houghton Mifflin. This claim also referenced site drawings, many of which were in Lanciani’s possession at his death.130 We will explore this more in Chapter 5. On 10 December 1889, perhaps in recognition that he was in significant trouble with the Direzione Generale, Lanciani resigned his position as secretary of the archaeology commission.131 Nevertheless, he was reinstated in a provisional municipal office, one in charge of research of Ancient Rome Topography. He held it until April 1891, when at the state’s insistence, the office was forcefully eliminated.132 No trace of the investigation against Lanciani exists in the Ministry’s files and therefore there is no official dismissal document from the central office. But by early January 1891, Lanciani was no longer on a member of the state archaeological service. After that time, he had to make due primarily on his professor’s salary.133 His English-language publications provided supplemental income, and he would continue with this activity. After being freed from his daily employment, Lanciani had considerable free time to invest in larger research projects which had been pending.

BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 464; BIASA, ms. 134, 122–3. On this latter, see also MoLtesen 2012, 77–82. dixon 2016a, 7–8. 131 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 464. Giuseppe Gatti replaced Lanciani in this office; De Negris, 4, n. 15. 132 de neGris 2007, 3–4; BIASA, ms. 134, 9; see also paLoMBi 2006, 140–141, n. 196 for the circumstances of the elimination of Lanciani’s position. 133 ACS Direzione Generale Antichità e Belli Arti, MPI, Dir. Gen. AA.BB.AA, 1860–1892, Div. Arte antica, personale busta 18; BIASA, ms. 134, 9. 129 130

Rome, after America: 1887–90

109

cHapter 5

a reputation in FLux: post–1890

at university On 3 January 1891, after Lanciani left his office in the Direzione Centrale, he received a letter from Boselli, the Minister of Public Instruction. It stated that his bid for promotion to professore ordinario on the faculty of Letters and Philosophy at the Università di Roma had been approved to move forward.1 The approbate came from the constitutional monarchy, the head of the state, who had oversight over the national university. The position of professore ordinario was the highest rank of professorship at the University. To be bestowed, the consent of certain parties at the University were needed. These were the Faculty Council – a gathering of faculty of an advanced rank – as well as the Preside, or Dean, and the Rector, the most senior position at the University.2 Boselli’s letter signaled the beginning of Lanciani’s promotion process. Lanciani had worked his way in an appropriate manner through the university system. In 1878– 79, he first was assigned to a teaching position at the lowest grade, with a senza legale contract. At the time, Lanciani argued for a higher title, a teaching position with a con legale contract, and he did receive that rank after a few years. In 1882–83, he started the process to obtain the next level of professore staordinario. Baccelli, then Minister of Public Instruction, prompted the action by putting Lanciani’s name before the Faculty Council. Lanciani was promoted at the time, but it was not without difficulty. Although he was excavating in the Forum at this time and publishing regularly, his credentials met with some criticism. However, some of Lanciani’s supporters were appointed to a subcommittee and they eventually assured that his advancement was granted. Typically, a subsequent promotion happened three years after one’s appointment as professore straordinario. Thus, in 1891, Lanciani was overdue for promotion to the highest level. During this time, there were growing pains in the University in general, and especially among the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy. The University had arisen from the remains of La Sapienza, the suppressed papal university, although few faculty were retained from that institution. Finding the appropriate professors was difficult initially. Furthermore, University administration aimed to modernize the institution. They aimed to hire faculty in positions of chairs dedicated to very specific research specialties, with highly developed modern methodologies. Faculty teaching, then,

1 2

BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 476; BIASA ms. 134, 20.

paLoMBi 2006a, 158–160 for the list of professors.

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

111

was expected to be in rigorous alliance with faculty research.3 This had implications for the teaching of archaeology. For example, in the thinking of the new University, the then current field of Greek and Roman antiquity was so broad as to be useless or confusing to the students.4 A discipline such as classic literature, therefore, was parsed into different branches, and the study of law and of numismatics was segregated out from the literature. In this, the University administration looked to German scholars to fill positions. This move to modernization happened against the wishes of some in the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy. The move towards increased faculty specialization gained ground in the years of Lanciani’s promotional bids. For example, despite Lanciani’s expertise in epigraphy and philology, in 1882–83, he was designated the chair of ancient Roman topography. Furthermore, topics which Lanciani felt were his specialties were parsed out to other faculty members. In 1889, the University administration hired Emanuel Löwy, an Austrian scholar, as the professor of the archaeology of art, or a history of figural art.5 His expertise was interpreting artful objects, using the material and visual aspects of the art of the ancient past as a source for knowledge of its culture. In practice, this entailed that the study of epigraphy was separated out from the study of ancient Roman art objects. Löwy’s field no doubt overlapped with Lanciani’s interests and skills. Thus, Löwy assembled the cast museum of Roman sculpture at the University, the Gipsoteca. After Löwy left the University in 1915, Lanciani assumed curatorial jurisdiction over it, a fact that suggests the significant overlap of the two scholars’ fields of study.6 Only in January 1895 was Lanciani granted the title of professore ordinario. The process was long impeded in the Council. In part, it was a matter of numbers. The ministry set a number of slots for each rank, and Löwy’s case proved to be Lanciani’s competition for that slot. Palombi’s meticulous archival work on the promotion process reveals the alliances and rivalries among faculty that were fueled by egotistical behavior and perceived personal slights that made decisions regarding who would enter their ranks tense affairs.7 Lanciani felt that the state archaeological service, in the person of Felice Barnabei, was behind the failure of his case to progress quickly, although a colleague at another university informed him that this was not the case, and that there were others on the Council who objected to his promotion. Palombi admits that the real story behind the tardy advancement might never be known.8 Lanciani responded to the tense situation by not attending the Faculty Council meetings very often. Between February 1891 and June 1895, he was present at only 11 out of 60 assemblies. The tactic of avoiding his faculty duties, however, did have some ramifications. When Lanciani wanted to teach a course of his choosing in 1892–93, the Council denied his request. Although his level of involvement in the University politics was minimal, he did hold some leadership positions after his final promotion. In the academic year 1895–96, he was appointed as President of the Steering committee of the Reale Scuola Italiana d’Archaeologia, the program within the University dedicated to archaeological training. Its establishment was first advocated to the members of Parliament in paLoMBi 2006a, 158–162. BarnaBera 1998, 57–64. 5 BarnaBera 1998, 72–77. 6 paLoMBi 2006a, 161–162. 7 paLoMBi 2006a, 167, n. 254. In a letter written on 12 June 1893, Luigi Cremona, a professor of geometry 3 4

at various universities in Italy, and a member of the Accademia dei Lincei, informed Lanciani that he believed it was not Barnabei nor his professional allies who were thwarting Lanciani’s promotion; rather it was two other people. 8

112

paLoMBi 2006a, 166–167.

Susan M. Dixon

1875 when Fiorelli wished to transfer the institution from Pompei to Rome; the program was realized by royal decree in 1878.9 The subjects taught included Lanciani’s ancient topography, Löwy’s archaeology of art, as well as Greek epigraphy, Roman epigraphy and paleontology.10 Lanciani retained the position for another 27 years, retiring in spring of 1922. The University’s policy mandated retirement at the age of 75, but Lanciani, who was always squirrelly when recording his age, was 77 years old. As Palombi notes, 1922 was also the year of the March on Rome, and Fascist ideology was progressively having an impact in the University.11 While Lanciani’s political position is difficult to ascertain in these latter years, among his pupils were some who were leading archaeologists under the Fascist regime. He did, however, spend a considerable amount of time travelling, particularly in England, in his last years, until he fell ill. The structure of Lanciani’s lecture course generally parallels the chapter layout in his Englishlanguage text, Ruins and Excavations of Rome, published in 1897.12 The lessons began with an analysis of the geography and climate within the region, and continued to a description of the manner in which water flow shaped the city. After a description of the common construction materials and methods used in ancient Rome, the course undertook study of the major infrastructure, including the defensive walls. Lastly, students were led through the 14 regions of Rome, somewhat comparable to the ancient rioni, investigating the major monuments in each. A course was typically subscribed with 20 students. The individual teaching sessions met three times per week, twice in the classroom, and once outside the classroom. He prized punctuality.13 He often took them on field trips, both in the city and especially into the campagna.14

formA Urbis romAe While Lanciani’s promotion case was being decided at the University, he was pursuing robust, long-term research plans. Between 1893 and 1910, Lanciani issued two major reference works: Forma Urbis Romae and Storia degli Scavi. In addition, he published an additional eight Englishlanguage monographs, as well as highly academic and less academic articles in both Italian and English. The Forma Urbis Romae is a tour de force in reconstructive maps of Rome, in a sea of such maps.15 Among other traits, its size is remarkable: it was printed on 46 sheets that were issued from 1893 through 1901. When the sheets are assembled, it measures 4.6 x 7 meters. It is large enough to convey sufficient detail for a deep understanding of what was then known about individual monuments.16 Today it serves as a major reference work for those engaged in the topic of the monuments and topography of ancient Rome.17 In 1875, Fiorelli wanted the Scuola to be independent of the university, however the decree, as approved, mandated that it is part of the larger institution. 10 paLoMBi 2006a, 173, n. 267–268. Lanciani assumed the position again in 1912–13 and 1913–14; see also BarBanera 1998, 57–70, on history of program of archaeology at the University. 11 paLoMBi 2006a, 168–189. 12 ACS, AA.BB.AA, 1860–1892, Div. Arte antica, personale busta 18; Lanciani 1897c. 13 LuGLi 1945–46, 36–37. 14 paLoMBi 2006a, 172, n. 265. 15 paLoMBi 1962. 16 paLoMBi 1962, v. 1, 94. 17 For a just a few of many examples, see kraGeLund, MoLtesen and ØsterGaard 2003; Hartswick 2004. 9

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

113

Lanciani’s accomplishment in the Forma Urbis Romae is striking for a few reasons. For one, it gathered and captured all the archaeological evidence throughout the city, up until the map’s issuance. This was significant because much of what was caught in print had been exposed in the frantic construction activity in the decades after 1870, but that evidence had been destroyed or reburied. Although information about the individual finds had been recorded in the various journals issued by state and city archaeologists, and they were sometimes accompanied by drawings, the Forma Urbis communicated those finds in a comprehensive fashion. It freezes the state of archaeological knowledge of Rome after that great configuration of the city into a modern one, up until the first year of the 20th century. Secondly, in terms of method of assembly, the Forma Urbis Romae is noteworthy. To aid in the formation and placement of ancient buildings lost or only partially known, Lanciani incorporated evidence gleaned from historical maps and plans as a supplement to the information from classical literature. As early as 1875, he had expressed the wish to create a map of ancient Rome using the evidence of earlier centuries, including the Einsiedeln map created by a medieval scribe; Raphael’s description of his lost reconstruction of Rome; and the maps of Pirro Ligorio, Stefano du Perac, and Luigi Canina.18 A cluster of presentations and publications with the Lincei and the Bullettino della Commissione Archeological Comunale di Roma represents how dedicated Lanciani was to the task. To attain this information, he spent a good deal of time travelling to consult and copy maps and other cartographic references in libraries throughout Europe.19 He no doubt was behind the municipal government’s efforts to collect such maps.20 Thirdly, it acknowledged the passage of time in the map’s graphic conventions. It placed the ancient monuments in a then contemporary context, acknowledging both the extant postRenaissance outlines of the city, but also the modern city then under construction. It also indicated the various phases of ancient Rome: the pre-historic monuments as distinct from the Republican and Imperial ones.21 Lanciani was responsible for creating and enforcing the conventions for Forma Urbis Romae; the draftsman Francesco Collo executed the map.22 The historical periods indicated on the map are as follows: The Earliest Period: The remains of early Rome of the regal and early Republican periods held great interest in the late 19th century, as the new nation under the direction of a constitutional monarchy established power and looked to its most ancient history for legitimization. The most ancient structures are indicated in plan by thick pink lines. These lines define the width of the wall thickness, which is then filled in with hatching. For example, the Temple of Jupiter on the Palatine Hill and nearby the so-called House of Romulus are so indicated (Fig. 6, lower). Some portions of the sixth-century B.C. wall of Servius Tullius are also represented in pink, and areas of the wall left clear in those sections where it was assumed the wall would have existed in ancient times (Fig. 20). The Imperial period: The monuments of this age, which includes some late Republican as well as early medieval works, are rendered in black lines. In general, the density of the color black seems to indicate the surety of the remains of ancient Rome, the darkest being the most securely Reference to Lanciani 1875–7. For example, see Lanciani 1882e; Lanciani 1890–2; Lanciani 1891c; Lanciani 1894b; Lanciani 1895a; Lanciani 1895d; and Reference to Lanciani 1881–82b. 20 cuBBerLey 1988, 98. 21 Lanciani 2007, preface, n.p. There was no map legend accompanying the original of 1893–1901, although in some of the contemporary reviews of the publication, the conventions are explained. 22 BibAng, Carte Barnabei, 279/8–10, letter dated 1882. 18 19

114

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 34. Archaeological remains around San Carlino, plan, from Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (1893-1901), tav. 16.

located, and the lightest, the least. A thick black line – the thickness of a wall rendered in outline and fully filled in with black ink – indicates the walls of ancient built works. It defines monuments which had been visible to Lanciani, either because their remains were extant or because they had been uncovered in recent excavations. A wall thickness that is filled in with black-line hatching marks those built works whose existences were fairly certain, perhaps because they were partially underground, partially extant, or incorporated into a more modern building. A wall thickness left clear of any hatching indicates that Lanciani reasonably speculated that such a built work existed there in ancient times. Although there was little or no significant tangible evidence to suggest a built work, its presence was deduced from a formerly published source, be it literary or visual (Fig. 20, Baths of Diocletian). Often plans of structures on Forma Urbis Romae are comprised of all three types of lines; this is the case of the famous thermae, such as the Baths of Trajan.23 The Early Modern period: The features dated to this period, from the late medieval to the establishment of the nation of Italy, are indicated in a deep red outline, slightly different in hue than the pink assigned to the earliest age. In general, this period reads as a ghostly presence on the map. The features include streets, exterior stairs, and fountains. Major buildings such as churches are Black lines identify other features as well. The topography of the major hills is indicated with hatched lines, curved to mark where the elevation of the hill changes significantly. In addition, ancient roads are rendered in black outline, and in those cases where the original paving blocks were known to exist, they are outlined. 23

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

115

rendered in ground plan, with the thickness of the wall indicated but not filled in. Good examples of early modern monuments on Forma Urbis Romae are located on the Quirinal Hill. They include the Church of SS. Apostoli, the Palazzo del Quirinale, the Palazzo della Consultá, and San Andrea al Quirinale. However, some monuments are elided when ancient buildings occupy the same site. For example, the Temple of Gens Flavia and its adjacent street, ad malum punicum, obscure the famous Borromini Church of San Carlino (Fig. 34). In other words, the footprints of the ancient buildings sit above and obliterate that which was amassed atop them. The Modern period, from publication in 1893–1901 and into future time: Thin blue outlines on the map mark either newly or yet-to-be built works in the capital city. Most of these works were new streets and squares (Fig. 19). They also include some institutional structures such as the Carcere di Regina Coeli (renovated and opened 1881) and the Stazione del Trastevere (opened 1911). The new embankment along the Tiber River, a major urban intervention in Rome, is also indexed in blue (Fig. 12).24 By incorporating this type of information, Lanciani emphasized the substantial alteration of the capital city in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the very activity that provided so much new archaeological information. A substantial amount of text populates the ichnographic plan. The names of streets, piazza, and built works, as well as major topographical features, are placed near the depiction of that which it describes. The text varies in orientation, following the placement of the work or feature. In general, it is printed in a color corresponding to the historical period to which it belongs. In addition, there are brief citations to archival or published information about the archaeological finds. A typical notation beginning with “Scavi…” reveals the date of the excavation, and the name of the person responsible for that excavation, be it a patron, such as a pope or a landowning aristocratic family, or an excavator. Excavators include the 18th-century archaeologists Francesco Ficoroni, Francesco Bianchini, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi. These notations allude to archival records in the Vatican Library, among various other libraries throughout Europe. Other script on the map refers to published journal articles, including items by Lanciani himself. They include Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, and occasionally the Annali dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Other noteworthy lines of text on Forma Urbis Romae are the references to significant inscriptions that indicate an ancient site, recorded in the ongoing and multi-volumed project, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, or CIL.25 A notable omission are references to Notizie degli Scavi, the journal which he ceased contributing to after his firing. Lastly, its issuance in separate sheets allowed for fairly easy update of information as it became known. This was particularly advantageous for sheets depicting areas of the city in which excavations would be ongoing, such as the sections capturing the Roman Forum. Indeed, by the publication of the last sheet, new discoveries had already been made in that area. No such update ever occurred in Lanciani’s day. The title of Lanciani’s Forma Urbis Romae declares that it is a descendant of the eponymous early third-century map of ancient Rome, the Severan Plan of Rome, inscribed on marble slabs. That marble plan once hung in the Forum of Peace. It has since been shattered into pieces, and those pieces have been dispersed widely. Some fragments of that map were first discovered in 1562, and the search for more of them continued in Lanciani’s day, as his efforts to work towards the Forum of Peace in the Roman Forum illustrated. The Severan Plan’s reconstruction still attracts scholarly 24 25

116

This blue line is not to be confused with the blue indicating bodies of water. Henzen, de rossi, et al. 1885–86.

Susan M. Dixon

attention.26 As it stood in the late 19th century, however, its incompleteness provided a type of model for Lanciani’s map. Additionally, the Severan Plan’s scale, about 1:250, may have prompted Lanciani to present his map at a scale unprecedented in archaeological maps of Rome, at 1:1000.27 The subtitle for Lanciani’s Forma Urbis Romae, consilio et avctoritate Regiae Academiae Lyncaeorvm, was an indicator that the publication was commissioned by an institution of some cultural weight, the Accademia dei Lincei. He noted that the work had been in progress since 1868, an idea set in Lanciani’s mind at his father’s suggestion. Seven years later, he articulated this project to the assembled scholars at the Lincei.28 Lanciani later reminded the investigators who accused him of hoarding site drawings from state excavation sites for his own personal gain that he had retained his site drawings in order to complete Forma Urbis Romae.29 As noted in the previous chapter, this map was the realization of some state officials’ fears about the loss of control of archaeological information. But to Lanciani, it was no doubt a project of a lifetime, as his fascination and collection of information from maps of Rome over decades illustrates.

storia deGLi scavi After Lanciani published the last set of Forma Urbis Romae sheets, he began to issue a series of volumes filled with heretofore unpublished notices related to the history of excavations in and around Rome from 1000–1870, i.e., essentially Rome under the jurisdiction of the Popes. Platner, the author of The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome, deemed them probably the most valuable of Lanciani’s many publications.30 Indeed, Lanciani compiled the documents both written and visual, that future scholars could employ to understanding monuments – ancient and medieval, of built monuments and antiquities – that may no longer be extant. The project had been one that Lanciani pursued since the beginning of his career. He noted that it took him 25 years to accumulate, suggesting he had the work in mind in 1878, when he assumed directorship under Fiorelli, and as he was made a full member of the Lincei. Despite the time investment, however, he ended the project before it was completed. Originally, he had planned to issue one volume per year, but the task was overwhelming and this was not possible. The first was issued in 1902, and the fourth in 1914. He had begun a fifth and sixth volume, but the notes were set aside before they could be refined and published.31 Reference works by Lanciani’s early mentors were held as precedents for this extensive project. The closest in inspiration was that of Giuseppe Fiorelli who had issued many documents related to the history of museums and collections in Italy. Lanciani also had in mind Mommsen’s Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, the extensive compilation of Latin inscriptions from many places. Both provided access to the information with well-constructed indexes.32 The volumes held as many notices as possible of ancient Roman objects and buildings that had been displaced from their original location throughout the centuries, usually after excavation when carettoni 1960; and http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/ pedLey 2012, 284–285. 28 Reference to Lanciani 1875–76. 29 BarnaBei and deLpino 1991, 475. 30 pLatner 1911, 523 26 27

31 32

UStA, ms. 6769, letter from Elena Lanciani to Mrs. Donaldson, 30 November 1903.

GiuLiano 1992.

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

117

they were destroyed, reused, collected or exported. In general, Lanciani organized these written notices, along with visual images, chronologically, for the most part determined by the dates of papal reign, and within that, by location. His commentary contextualizes this information. The entries vary widely in nature. They include written notices of finds made after digging, notes regarding collecting and dispersing of antiquities, and export licenses delivered by the papal office which had been established in the second half of the 16th century. Lanciani informs us that he found the information in a variety of places: in the State archives, the Capitoline archives, the personal archives of former archaeologists Visconti and Vespignani, and in many museums and libraries, among other places. He personally visited libraries and collections throughout Europe, including other parts of Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland and England, for additional notices, and sometimes gathered information through correspondence with librarians and scholars in places to which he could not travel.33 His colleagues noted that he travelled at least once a year, and his correspondences to many throughout Europe seem to bear this out.34 Significantly, he also consulted the Vatican Secret Archives, the section of the Vatican Library which housed papal records. The entire library had been closed to scholars during Lanciani’s early career, as it had been for centuries. Under Leo XIII (reigned 1878–1903), the archives were open to qualified scholars in 1881.35 Although Ludwig Pastor’s 16 volumes of Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (1886–1919) are the reference works most often seen as the good results of the archive’s newly established access, Lanciani’s Storia was also made possible because of it. The availability of the records set the parameters of the chronology presented in Storia degli Scavi. Lanciani begins his history of Rome’s excavations with the 11th century because after the Normans had invaded and set highly destructive fires, reconstructions of churches in the medieval city were undertaken. The rebuilding sparked the discovery of ancient remains. There were earlier accounts of found objects because of tampering with burial sites – the translation of saints, or the reuse of sarcophagi after the barbarian invasions – but these accounts are few.36 More ample evidence was obtainable from the 16th through the 19th centuries. Because the material was vast and the nature of the evidence so varied, Lanciani had a difficult time organizing it. He rethought the book’s format after the release of volume 1 in 1902. In this first volume, the presentation was strictly chronological. In it, he did not separate out notices of excavations from those of antiquities collections and export licenses. However, in this arrangement, he was repeating himself, as the records sometimes concerned the same monument. Moving forward, in volume 2 and beyond, he divided those same notices into three distinct categories: those regarding excavations, those concerning collections, and the export licenses. In addition, for purposes of clarity, he segregated some information into subsections on significant monuments or collections. For example, in volume 2, which relates activity in 16th-century Rome, there are subsections for the Mausoleum of Augustus, the collections of the Capitoline, Hadrian’s Villa, and the Palazzo and Museum of the Farnese. Within this re-organization, Lanciani retooled his role, moving from chronicler to historian, curating the information to funnel the attentions of future scholars by identifying patterns in the treatment of ancient Roman monuments and antiquities.37 Lanciani 1989–2002 v. 1, 11. LuGLi 1945–6, 34–5; and UStA, ms. 6766–6768, letters from Elena Lanciani to Mrs. Donaldson, among others. 35 BoyLe 1993, xvi. 36 Lanciani 1989–2002, v. 1, 15–17. 37 This observation is found in Fausto Zevi’s introductory essay entitled “Lanciani e Roma,” in Lanciani 1989– 2002, v. 1, 1. See also pLatner 1911, 523, for praise of the project. 33 34

118

Susan M. Dixon

In Storia degli Scavi, he showed us his great strength as a scholar, as one who stressed the continuum of Rome’s history, and one who valued the history of archaeology as important to any subsequent growth of the discipline and practice of archaeology. In some ways, it was an oldfashioned sentiment, as many an 18th-century archaeologist would employ historical written and visual record of Rome, albeit often uncritically, as a way to preserve its memory. The generation of archaeologists who came after Lanciani were less bound to interpreting the archaeological evidence with this historical record in mind, as we will read shortly. But we should be glad for his efforts now, as the pendulum has since swung back. And we are grateful, for some of the original records that Lanciani transcribed have been lost as well. Lanciani undertook the project using his own funding and the good will of the printing house Tipographia Salviucci. Initially, he believed that he could issue a volume a year, but that plan proved unsustainable. Volume 3 took four years to compose, and volume 4, another three. After 1910, he halted the project. The work consumed too much time, even with the help of his adult daughter Marcella.38 The unpublished manuscripts for the anticipated volumes 5 and 6 were stored away. Two years after his death, they were sold to Biblioteca del Istituto di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte.39 In 1989, the Institute’s staff, under direction of Fausto Zevi, current Professor of Archaeology at the Università di Roma, re-issued the first four volumes, and edited and issued the remaining two. To this, they added a substantial index for easy access of the material. The books are illustrated as per the originals, and in a manner that retains the page number sequencing in Lanciani’s original publications. The publishing house Quasar retained the vermillion binding for the volumes.

More enGLisH-LanGuaGe puBLications While engaged with his two major reference works, Lanciani continued to publish for an Englishspeaking audience. His 1888 Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries had been a popular book and it was reissued often, providing Lanciani with some remuneration. Lanciani’s next book with Houghton Mifflin was Pagan and Christian Rome, issued in 1892. He conceived of it as a second in a series of books popularizing ancient Roman culture. By including information on early Christian art and culture as revealed in new archaeological finds, he geared the book towards what he believed would be an eager audience: the Catholic immigrant population in the United States. The United States was seeing a wave of immigration from the 1880s into the first decades of the 20th century and a great number of the immigrants were from Italy, as well as from eastern Europe. As in Ancient Rome, Lanciani shaped the thesis to a specific late 19th-century American issue: that early Christian beliefs coexisted within the pagan culture of ancient Rome. The text begins with a disclaimer that not all Christians in ancient Rome were of the lower or slave classes, presenting the example of the extended Acilii Glabriones family, a few of whom were secondand third-century Roman consuls.40 He also warns against the notion that the transformation of Rome from pagan to a Christian city was a sudden event. Rather, the checkered history of toleration of religion in Rome under the emperors prolonged that transformation for over two UStA, ms. 6769, letter from Elena Lanciani to Mrs. Donaldson, 30 November 1903. Misiti 2010. 40 Lanciani 1892e, 3–8. 38 39

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

119

centuries. But he notes that there is not a ruin in ancient Rome that does not bear witness to the great change.41 Lanciani’s historical biases are evident in this book. He noted that “[t]he moral superiority of the new doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a forgone conclusion since the age of the first [Christian] apologists.”42 Furthermore, he discloses a nationalist pride when he states that “the tolerance and mutual benevolences so characteristic of the Italian race” paved the way for the adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire.43 But he also notes the Christian church’s “tact” when accepting the pagan rites and customs that were not offensive to her principles and morality.44 This pragmatism explains why frescoes in the Catacombs of Priscilla, discovered in 1888, illustrate Orpheus as a reference to Christ. After the introductory chapter, the book continues with an analysis of three types of monuments – places of worship, tombs, and cemeteries. The six chapters alternate between an exploration of the specific type of monument from ancient pagan Roman culture and of those same monuments from nearly a concurrent early Christian culture in Rome. Despite the seesawing chapters, the analysis underscores the point that early Christians had a strong presence, culturally as well as materially, within Rome under the emperors before Constantine. This was not a new thesis in the late 19th century. Scholars such as the 18th-century papal commissioner of antiquities Giuseppe Bianchini had illustrated the idea in his Demonstratio Historiae Ecclesiasticae. In this illustrated timeline of Roman history, Bianchini positioned early Christian artifacts in a tandem arrangement with ancient pagan ones.45 Lanciani’s book, however, served to popularize the idea in the United States.46 In 1894, Lanciani was solicited to write an updated introductory chapter on the topography of Rome and its classical antiquities for a revised 15th edition of a very popular English-language travel guide book on Rome. A Handbook of Rome and its environs was issued as part of the series Murray’s Handbooks for Travellers.47 John Murray was a publishing house after the eponymously named 18th-century printer and his sons. John Murray III instituted the guidebook series in 1836, with title listings covering information on travel to Greece, Turkey, Egypt, France, Spain, Central Italy, and even within England.48 Lanciani’s success with his reading audience in London, i.e., those who were fans of his “Notes from Rome”, no doubt brought him to the attention of the publisher. Additionally, his association with the British Archaeological Society of Rome, helped Lanciani secure this writing assignment. Lanciani 1892e, 20. Lanciani 1892e, 19. 43 Lanciani 1892e, 20. 44 Lanciani 1892e, 22. 45 dixon 2016b, 236–240. 46 Lanciani 1902. 47 Lanciani 1894g. The general editor of the handbook was the Rev. H. W. Pullen. The section on Sculpture galleries in Rome was written by A.S. Murray, and that on Picture galleries, Sir A. Henry Layard. The first handbook on Rome in this series was issued in 1836 with the title A handbook of Central Italy including the Papal States, Rome and the cities of Etruria. By 1862, the section on Rome and its environs was portioned off into its own handbook, given the increased interest in the city, and given its own title A handbook on Rome and its enivons. Since 1915, the Murray Handbook series was renamed the Blue Guide series. 48 On this family of publishers, see carpenter 2008. Lanciani worked with John Murray IV (1851–1928), who was the publisher to Queen Victoria. 41 42

120

Susan M. Dixon

As early as 1875, in the 12th revised edition of the handbook on Rome, Lanciani’s name, along with John Henry Parker’s, who passed away in 1884, is mentioned in the Preface as someone who assisted in the complete revision of the book made necessary by the “increasing developments of the city since 1870.”49 It is in August of 1894, about the time of the issue of this book, that Lanciani received an honorary degree from Oxford University.50 Soon thereafter, Lanciani published his own version of a scholarly travel guide in English. In 1897, his University lectures were assembled into a richly illustrated The Ruin and Excavations of Ancient Rome: a companion book for students and travellers, issued by Houghton Mifflin.51 The book seems a logical career step after his participation in the Murray re-edition. He surely felt that the American audience would appreciate and purchase a scholarly guide to the ancient city. And the two primary readers – students and tourists – would both find something of use to them. He noted that “[s]tudents wishing to attain a higher degree of efficiency in this branch of Roman archaeology will find copious references to the standard publications on each subject… while the description of the ruins and excavations will not be found too technical or one-sided for the ordinary reader.”52 The timing of the handbook is noteworthy. It contains information on some sections of the city, most notably the Roman Forum and the Pantheon, whose historical representations were undergoing some change at the end of the century. New evidence discovered during investigations shortly after Lanciani’s book was issued demanded new interpretations. In short, some material in Ruins and Excavations was not up-to-date. Among some American scholars, including Richard Norton, the director of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome, the text’s worth was limited.53 At various times in his life, Lanciani expressed an interest in returning to the United States. He had hoped to return in 1897, for another Lowell lecture series, and perhaps to promote his Ruins and Excavations. When that opportunity was missed, he considered a trip in 1898.54 In February 1899, he reported that he had been asked for the third time to be a Lowell lecturer, but he declined this opportunity as well.55 Perhaps not surprisingly, Lanciani stated that he was afraid to go to the United States, given what happened after he returned from his first trip in 1886-87. At the same time, these offers to travel so far away came during a time when two of his close relatives were both suffering from long illnesses. His brother-in-law Count Francesco Vespignani died in July 1899, and his sister Carlotta became ill the next year and died in 1901.56 Handbook 1875 (12th ed.), preface. Whereas the section written by Parker is marked with the initials JHP, Lanciani’s initials did not appear in the volume. Thus, it is only in 1894 that Lanciani received publishing credit for his scholarly efforts in the handbook. 50 paLoMBi 2006a, 30 and n. 9. I would like to thank Alice Millea for information about the degree, a Doctor of Civil Law, conferred during the long vacation. There are no records of the proceedings in the Council about the proposal and approval of this degree. 51 Lanciani 1897c. 52 Lanciani 1897c, preface. 53 HaLe and peck 1899, 697. 54 HUH, 1925 (1040), folder 1, letter dated 1 November 1897. 55 PML, note to Prof. Knight, dated 5 February 1899. He waited until 15 March 1899 to decline, mostly likely holding out for an offer to be a Gifford Lecturer in Scotland. Knight himself was offered a Lowell lecture soon thereafter. 49

56 See BIASA, ms. 133, 54; Cubberley 1988, 273–274; and UStA, letter from Lanciani to Donaldson, ms. 6771, dated 12 July 1900.

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

121

Despite not returning to the United States, he sustained a relationship with Houghton Mifflin in Boston. While working on Storia degli Scavi in 1901, the third in the series of popular books (although it was his fourth book with the publisher) was issued. Destruction of Ancient Rome elaborates on a point articulated in his first book, and indeed one formulated as early as 1883, i.e., Rome had been subject to destructive forces over the century, but that as a living city, some of the destruction was necessary for the city to meet its inhabitants’ needs. The book serves as a precursor, in English, to the Storia degli Scavi. It outlines the factors that contributed to the destruction – through acts of war or vandalism, or through programs to reuse materials – and the disappearances – through neglect, which in turn allowed for the accumulation of dirt above the monument or artifact.57 The narrative begins in Imperial Roman times and continues up until the 18th century, with about 2/3 of the book dedicated to historical times before the 11th century, which is where Storia degli Scavi commences. The chapters are in the main slim. We learn that two of the major reasons for destruction of older monuments in Imperial Rome were fires and the clearing of land for the large thermae.58 Lanciani takes some established truisms to task. He dissuades the reader of the idea that the fourth century Christians destroyed pagan temples and statuary immediately and argues that the greatest implications for disappearance of antiquities after the Sack of Rome in 410 was not that the Goths destroyed – although they did certainly carry off valuables – but that in anticipation of the invasion, citizens buried bronze statues and goods.59 The thesis, repeated at various intervals, is that the major destruction happened not from invading “barbarians” or other marauders, but rather it was affected by those who lived within the city. This includes those living in the city during the Imperial, medieval and Renaissance periods. Singled out for particular blame are the 16th-century popes and aristocrats, even though they receive only a chapters-worth of attention. 60 In this sense, Storia degli Scavi is a companion to Destruction of Ancient Rome, in that volumes 1 through 3 present in full the records of excavations for materials and antiquity collections from this century. Among the chapters are two notable descriptions of important guides to Rome. One is the late 8th-/ early 9th-century Einsiedeln map, found in a monastic library in Switzerland in the 19th century.61 Lanciani had published a separate long essay on this key source of ancient Roman topography in 1891, for the Accademia dei Lincei.62 The other is a 12th-century itinerary by the monk Benedict.63 The two studied in comparison gave Lanciani great insight into the destruction bequeathed on the city during the Norman-Saracen Sack of 1054, when fires destroyed whole swaths of the city. Lanciani noted, for example, that the residential neighborhood on the Celian Hill never recovered after the 11th century, and was only made habitable again in the 19th. In all, the book reveals how attentive archaeologists of Rome in this age must have been to the actions of earlier excavators at the site, those who disrupted the earth and the ruins it contained, Lanciani 1901f, 4–5. Lanciani 1901f, 13–4. 59 Lanciani 1901f, 35–39; 65–70. 60 Lanciani 1901f, 9, 227–252. 61 Lanciani 1901f, 142–153. 62 Lanciani 1890–2. Lanciani noted that the medieval thoroughfares referred to in the manuscript were the roads of ancient Imperial Rome, thereby making it easy to assess which ancient buildings were still standing at that time. 63 Lanciani 1901f, 174–179. 57 58

122

Susan M. Dixon

and what types of information those disruptions revealed. The mass of local graves in the area around the Colosseum, dated to the medieval period, clarify that the ancient burial sites outside the city were too dangerous to use, and that the state of ancient Roman villas in the campagna testifies that they were not of interest to the city’s many invaders.64 Although reluctant to sail to the United States and remain for an extended time, Lanciani did contract for two short-term lecture opportunities in Scotland in fall of 1899 and fall of 1900. This entailed ten lectures in late October and early November, on a topic regarding the study of natural theology. The lecture opportunity had been set up in honor of Lord Adam Gifford (1820–87), a year after his death. The Gifford Lecture fund allowed for visiting scholars to “promote and diffuse the study of natural theology in the widest sense of the term – in other words, the knowledge of God.”65 The host university could be any of the four major institutions in Scotland – Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Aberdeen. The visiting scholars provided instruction at a time before some of the universities were staffed with professors.66 Lanciani was selected to be one of the first of Gifford Lecturers at St. Andrews. The scholar negotiated a contract with Houghton Mifflin wherein the lectures that he delivered in the fall of 1899 during the Gifford Lectures comprised the book chapters. His inquiry to Houghton Mifflin stated that if the company was not interested in it, the university in Scotland would be obliged to issue it. His motivation for the request may have been that he believed the quality of the American publisher’s books was higher than those produced in the United Kingdom. Because Lanciani’s works sold well, Houghton Mifflin agreed to contract it. However, there was a great deal of back-and-forth between the Boston office and Lanciani before it met the publisher’s satisfaction. This, then, delayed the issue of the tome entitled New Tales in Old Rome to 1901. The topics of Lanciani’s 1899 lectures are not known with certainty, but they most likely were comparable in some measure to the chapter titles of New Tales in Old Rome. 1 - The New Discoveries in the Forum 2 - The New Discoveries on the Sacra Via 3 - The Sacred Grove of the Arvales 4 - The Truth about the Grave of St. Paul (along the Via Ostienese) 5 - Strange Superstitions in Rome 6 - Jewish Memorials in Rome 7 - English Memorials in Rome 8 - Scottish Memorials in Rome67 The first two chapters contain fresh information from the Roman Forum excavations of early 1899, as we will explore anon. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 engage with the topic required of the Gifford lecturers: natural theology. In general, Lanciani elaborates on the practice and the material culture found in archaeological excavations of the Brethren of the Arvales, the early Christian followers of St. Paul, the worshippers of Mithras, and the Jewish community, among other “imported” gods, in and around the ancient city. Chapters 7 and 8 engage in providing his audience with information about their heritage as seen in the city, even if the monuments he cites are post-11th century. His predilection for shaping his material to his foreign audience, as we’ve seen in his earlier English-language books, is at play. Lanciani 1901f, 89, 101–103. https://www.giffordlectures.org/ 66 Anon., Journal of Education (Nov. 1899), v. 21, 707. The lectures were delivered in mid–October 1899. 67 Lanciani 1901e. 64 65

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

123

Letters between Houghton Mifflin and Lanciani reveal that the company required some major revisions from Lanciani. In part, Houghton Mifflin was concerned that the content was not new, and that there was much overlap with information in his other publications.68 And indeed, Lanciani’s new status as marginal to the excavations, then just newly begun in the Roman Forum and in Rome, suggests that this was not an unwarranted concern. They also wanted much fewer illustrations. His first three books with Houghton Mifflin had been “profusely” illustrated, and developments in photography meant that Lanciani had more illustrations available for use. But the publisher wished to curtail the number for this book, asking for half the number of illustrations.69 Despite this, the book contains about 150 illustrations. Lanciani balked at the requests for changes from Houghton Mifflin. The chapters were still not completed to the company’s satisfaction when Lanciani returned to Scotland in fall of 1900 for the next set of lectures. At this time, his frustration with the production of New Tales of Old Rome was high and he informed the principal of St. Andrews, James Donaldson, that he could not consider producing a book based on the second set of lectures. (Like the Lowell Lectureship, the Gifford came with the promise, or offer, of a book publication.) The titles of the lectures were delivered in late October and early November 1900, loosely on the theme of the worship of God in Rome. They were never published, as were his other lectures. However, the first two topics regarding new discoveries in the Roman Forum were incorporated into the chapters of New Tales of Old Rome. Between Lanciani’s first and second set of lectures, the winter of 1899 and that of 1900, the excavations in the Forum were producing startling finds at a rapid pace, as we will find out anon, and thus prompted fresh material for the second lectures. The topics are: 70 1 - New Finds in the Forum, and the religious institutions of the Kings 2 - New Finds in the Forum: Sacra Via, Regia, the Temple of Vesta 3 - New Finds in churches: Sta. Maria Antiqua, Sta. Cecelia, Sta. Saba, Sta. Maria Cosmedin, and the Sancta Santorum 4 - On the Palatine: the Imperial households and the cult of churches serving Byzantium 5 - Christian villas of Latium and Campania 6 - Villas of the Renaissance, including the Farnesina; and the reform of the calendar 7 - Secret Ancient Oracles 8 - Secrets of the Catacombs 9 - The Last games in the Colosseum 10 - The builders of St. Peter’s In the end, the reviews of New Tales of Old Rome were not flattering. Although his usual “charm of style” was noted, Lanciani’s unsystematic presentation of the material, with his penchant for wandering onto unrelated topics, diminished the quality of the book. Furthermore, critics poinUStA, ms. 6772, Lanciani to Donaldson, dated 2 May 1900; ms. 6771, Lanciani to Donaldson, dated 13 July 1900; ms. 6778, Houghton Mifflin to Lanciani, dated 1 August 1900; ms. 6779, Houghton Mifflin to Lanciani dated 30 August 1900; HUH Am 1925 (1040), folder 1, letter from Lanciani dated 13 October 1899. See also Lanciani 1901e, dedication to James Donaldson the principal of the University of St. Andrews. 69 UStA, ms. 6772, Lanciani to Donaldson, dated 2 May 1900. 70 UStA, ms. 6771, Lanciani to Donaldson, dated 13 July 1900. The Scottish university paid for Lanciani’s lantern slides, 200 of them, which accompanied his lectures. 68

124

Susan M. Dixon

ted out that his opinions on the major archaeological finds were out-of-date. In short, his conservative interpretation of those finds was deemed reprehensible.71 Despite the frustrations that the publishing demands imposed, Lanciani enjoyed his time in Scotland. He arrived in August, about a month before the lectures were scheduled, in order to spend time playing golf. His love of the game was well-known.72 Similarly, being at St. Andrews afforded him the opportunity to lecture in other places, e.g., in Dundee in southwest Scotland, and – if his health had held up, for his leg pain flared up again and again – in Glasgow.73 It similarly allowed Elena to socialize with good friends, many of whom she had met in Rome. Among them Mrs. Donaldson, wife of James, the classical scholar, professor, and principal of the University of Edinburgh.74 In fall 1906 and possibly again in fall 1907, Lanciani returned to Scotland for lectures at the University of Aberdeen. 1906 marked the Quatercentenary Celebration of this university’s founding, and the celebrations were elaborate; the guests numbered 2400, among them many foreign dignitaries. Lanciani was one of two professors sent from Italy as delegates to the two-day event in late September; the other was the mathematician Giuseppe Veronese, who, like Lanciani, was a member of the Lincei. On the second day of the affair, Lanciani spoke of “some remarkable excavations under the auspices of Her Majesty the Queen of Italy” on 26 September.75 At this time, Lanciani received an honorary degree, along with many other people, from the University of Aberdeen.76 This was the last of quite a few prestigious degrees bestowed on Lanciani – in person at the University of Wurzburg in 1882 and Harvard University in 1886, and in absentia from the University of Glasgow in 1889 and Oxford University in 1894.77 Subsequently, in 1906, Lanciani published Golden Days of the Renaissance in Rome from the Pontificate of Julius II to that of Paul III with Houghton Mifflin. The subject is the first that marks a clear break from his focus on the excavations of ancient Rome. It is ostensibly an account of the papacy of Paul III Farnese, Julius II, and four of the cultural figures of the day: Michelangelo, Vittoria Colonna, Raphael and Agostino Chigi. The first chapter attempts to lay out a thesis that the Renaissance popes since Gregory XI in 1377 had prioritized beautifying Rome by cleaning up old debris and ruins. Here, there is special attention to the city’s topography, and especially the streets. This theme, however, is not carried through the volume. Instead, it reads as a loose narrative which provides an opportunity for him to expound on documents published in Storia degli Scavi – e.g., the provenance of sculpture in the Farnese collection78 – and to engage with the theme of the Gifford lectures, the history and nature of religious thought – e.g., Colonna’s interactions with Calvinist supporters in Ferrara.79 Overall, the work seems disjointed, and the text a series of digressions. Contemporary reviews anon., The American Historical Review 7, 4 (July 1902), p. 749–750. LanG 1899. 73 For Lanciani’s references to golf, see ward 1918, 200. For his travels to Dunbeatty and plans to travel to Glasgow, see UStA, ms. 6673 from Lanciani to Donaldson, dated 5 August 1900. Also, for an interesting letter from Lanciani to the secretary of the LIncei at this time, see paLoMBi 2006a, 117 n. 157. 74 UStA, ms. 6766–70. 75 anderson 1907, 113, 162. 76 anderson 1907, 149; there were many people receiving honorary degrees that day. 71 72

77

paLoMBi 2006a, 29–30.

Lanciani 1906e, 125–127. In an interesting passage about how the 16th-century papal elite enhanced their art collections, Lanciani refers to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese as the “Helbig of the Cinquecento.” 79 Lanciani 1906e, 214–218. 78

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

125

found the book “overburdened …with the minutiae of scholarship,”80 while another noted that “as in all Lanciani’s books, many things are stated as facts that are not universally accepted as such.”81 How was it that Lanciani’s reputation as a scholar diminished at this time, even as he published two important reference works?

a successor in tHe ForuM, GiacoMo Boni As the book reviews of his English-language monographs demonstrate, the turn of the century marks a decline in Lanciani’s reputation as a well-informed scholar of ancient Rome, despite the fact that he was producing his major academic reference works at this time. One likely reason is that the archaeological work in Rome’s Forum was at this time continuing without him, and great discoveries were made. Lanciani revealed himself as someone not always gracious in admitting the work of others, and specifically of the next director of excavations Giacomo Boni (1859–1925). The excavations in the Roman Forum had remained inactive after Lanciani vacated the position as director in 1889, and thus information on the archaeological activity in Rome had remained for the most part static.82 Nearly a decade later, in 1898, Boni arrived as director of excavations with new methods and new vigor. His discoveries, particularly of the pre-historic remains in the area, generated considerable attention and lively debate as to how to interpret archaeological evidence when there is a dearth of references in classical literature to use as a guide.83 Boni was trained as an architect in Venice, where he participated in the restoration of the Palazzo Ducale. There he investigated the structural integrity of the building, and later, undertook a stratigraphic analysis of the foundations of the Campanile.84 His scientific approach to what lay beneath the surface of the earth lent itself well to archaeology. In addition, Boni had a meticulous and comprehensive manner of documenting the sites, using not plans but axonometric drawings and photography, including aerial photography, which was new to this period.85 That said, history has judged Boni a novelty rather than an innovator in archaeology, in part because his methods were not adopted in his day.86 In 1888, as Lanciani’s case for dismissal from the Direzione Generale was underway, Boni was called to Rome to work for that office.87 As part of Boni’s duties as inspector, he worked with Luca Beltrami, Giuseppe Sacconi, and Pier Olinto Armanini, scholars and architects who were

anon., 1907, American Historical Review 12, 3, 624. pLatner 1908. 82 Lanciani did not publish in the London Athenaeum from 1892 and 1898. Cubberley notes that it was likely he took a break in order to assemble two of his more substantial works, Forma Urbis Romae and Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome; cuBBerLey 1988, 241. 83 de sanctis 1984, 76–82; carter 1910. 84 turcHetti 2004, n. 23. 85 capodiFerro and Fortini 2003; and castrianni and ceLLa 2009. Boni refined these methods, and published a treatise entitled Il metodo negli scavi archeologici in 1901; see de sanctis 1984, 80, n. 12. 86 BarBanera 1998, 82–86, esp. n. 167, citing Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. In addition, despite his rationlist approach to excavation, Boni was known for stating that mystical thinking was a force behind his decisions. Equally problematic was the fact that he embraced fascist ideology at the end of his life. 87 roManeLLi, P. 1970, 75, notes that he was called to Rome to be secretary of the national Calcographia, and only later as an inspector of excavations. 80 81

126

Susan M. Dixon

his colleagues in northern Italy, as they investigated the construction of the Pantheon in 1892.88 This was a moment when the Italian government was looking to confirm a French Academy architect Chédanne’s declaration that the majority of the building was built in Hadrian’s rather than Agrippa’s time.89 However, Beltrami’s publication was not issued until 1898, in part because of Armanini’s premature death. In the vacuum, Lanciani issued his notion of the findings in an article in the municipal government’s bulletin on recent archaeology in Rome.90 This is not the first nor last time Lanciani would publish on an extraordinary find very quickly, either before or in lieu of the primary investigator. It is a behavior of which Boni took note. In 1895–96, Boni was given charge over Rome’s regional office of the Direzione Generale. In his mid-thirties, he was extremely eager to excavate in the Roman Forum. Very early on, he attempted some sondage at the base of the Arch of Septimus Severus with the idea that the monument needed restoration, but a reluctant Minister of Public Instruction, Boselli, halted him for surreptitiously beginning the Forum excavations without proper permission.91 When Guido Baccelli regained the office as minister in 1898, he charged Boni with beginning the excavations in the Forum, picking up the work that had been halted for nearly a decade. The Venetian was a compelling choice for Baccelli because of his interest in reconstruction of the ancient monuments. Boni hoped to recompose some of the most significant buildings in the Forum from surviving materials on the site.92 As we have noted, the goal for Baccelli, articulated as early as 1883 was to create a Passeggiata Archeologica, and the reconstructions would contribute to the effort. Indeed, one of the first projects Boni attempted was to implement a reconstruction of the Temple of Vesta.93 He felt that Lanciani’s excavations in the area had been superficial. Even though Lanciani had found the topographical footprint of the building to confirm its presence, Boni believed he had disregarded the building’s aesthetic presence on the site, doing a disservice to the practice of archaeology. However, very quickly, Boni’s predominant goal shifted from restoration to clearing out the debris of earlier campaigns, including that of Lanciani’s, and to dig more deeply to see what the site revealed. In his personal correspondence and conversations with mainly British and American archaeologists or amateur archaeologists, he harshly criticized Lanciani for his sloppy work. While Boni himself never published this sentiment, those who listened to his vituperous complaints against Lanciani did, as we will see. Before Boni could begin any activity in the Forum, however, all plans had to be run by an advisory commission set up by Bacelli. On that committee was Sacconi, his friend in the service, as well as those who knew the topography of Rome intimately: Christian Huelsen, Giuseppe Gatti, who had replaced Lanciani in the national service during his time in the United States and afterwards, and Lanciani.94 The commission’s charge was to approve and prioritize Boni’s tasks and the associated expenses. Significantly, Boni’s early request for the Temple of Vesta reconstruction

roManeLLi, P. 1970, 75. dixon 2005. 90 Lanciani 1892c. 91 de sanctis 1984, 76; tea 1932, vol. 1, 540. 92 de sanctis 1984, 76–77, and n. 4–5. 93 de sanctis 1984, 77–78; turcHetti 2004, 167, and n. 21. The reconstruction was not completed at this time and was only finished in 1930; cLaridGe 1998, 101. 88 89

94

paLoMBi 2006a, 141, n. 197; tea 1932, vol. 2, 5–9.

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

127

was met with a negative, something which surely galled him.95 His subsequent requests to dig more deeply generated discussions about the destruction of the layers of evidence among the commission’s members, but eventually, Boni’s plans were mostly approved.96 Although Boni held the position as director until his death in 1925, his early years were most productive. He was most active in the western part of the Forum from late 1898 to 1903. His goal was to complete explorations of buildings or features already found before moving to fresh discoveries in the Fora to the north. In short order, Boni revealed a number of heretofore unknown antiquities. The following is a summary of the most important. In January 1899, while excavating in the Comitium area, he discovered the Lapis Niger, the black stone pavement that was situated beneath the exposed surface. It clearly was a monument of great importance, indicating the remains of an early period of Roman history that had not been exposed before. Somewhat of the dramatist, Boni orchestrated a solemn re-enactment of its find on 22 January, for the benefit of an assembled group of experts. In the next few months, investigations beneath the pavement revealed parts of an archaic altar, including a pedestal of one of the stone statues of a lion. By June of that year, Boni had dug nearly two meters into the soil. The most exciting monument to be unearthed was the block inscribed in a very early form of Latin, difficult to decipher. The grouping of monuments, along with others – votive figures and other materials that looked like offerings, the second pedestal – set scholars in a tizzy to decipher the meaning of this configuration of objects, which on the surface seemed to suggest that Boni had happened upon the tomb of Romulus.97 Boni then moved to the area in front of the Temple of Caesar to explore the ancient levels of the Regia, the sacred area thought to date from the kingly period. Its footprint had been revealed years earlier, but it was not fully understood. He exposed the inner chambers, including the rooms sacred to Mars and Ops Consiva, the rooms that were believed in ancient times to house the sacred objects of Rome, including the Palladium. At the same time, he also took down ground levels in the Atrium Vestae to reveal a few finds, including a mutilated headless statue then thought to be of a Vestal Virgin, and a hoard of coins.98 In the meantime, working at the southern edge of the site, he demolished Santa Maria Liberatrice and fully revealed the fifth-century church of Santa Maria Antiqua. The destruction was an attempt to expose more about the network of roads at the base of the Palatine Hill near the Temple of Castor and Pollux. At this time, the Font of Giuturna was explored; the pool of water known as the Lacus Curtius was also uncovered, after a return to the area in 1904–06.99 To the north of the site, a great deal of energy was spent exposing the Curia and the Basilica Aemilia, after the ousting of some recalcitrant tenants in the buildings above these monuments. Much information was gained about the Curia’s Imperial iteration. The ruins from the basilica were less informative; the footprint was revealed for the first time, but there were few decorative architectural pieces to give a sense of its appearance. Lastly, by 1902, Boni had moved further east, excavating along the Via Sacra in front of the Temple of Antonius and Faustina, where he Boni was obliged to publish his excavations notes in Notizie degli Scavi, but did not elaborate in print on the significance of his major finds. 96 de sanctis 1984, 78, n. 6. 97 de sanctis 1984, 79. For an interesting summary of Boni’s excavations, see wiseMan 1992, 119–139; turcHetti 2004, 169–186; and cuBBerLey 1988, 247–376. 98 cuBBerLey 1988, 285, 292; Lanciani 1901e, 58. 99 de sanctis 1984, 79–80. 95

128

Susan M. Dixon

discovered the pre-historic cemetery. This last act was another astounding discovery that made evident Rome’s history in the time of the kings.100 Throughout the frenzy of activity around these new, exciting, and sometimes bewildering finds, scholars from around the world weighed in on their meaning. While the press carried the news as well as popular speculations as to their significance, the official body immediately charged with interpreting the finds was the Accademia dei Lincei. They first met in February 1899, after the Black Stone was found. There was little agreement there. For example, someone expressed that the newly unearthed object was not even stone. Others, including Lanciani, scoffed at the idea that it constituted part of the tomb of Romulus. There were additional meetings for the subsequent finds. The first deciphering of the archaic language text was relegated to Luigi Ceci (1859–1927) professor of glottology, the study of archaic languages, and Lanciani’s colleague at the University of Rome. After Ceci’s report was submitted to the Lincei, there were varying opinions as many academics deconstructed his work.101 Quite a few Italian scholars embraced one of Ceci’s major conclusions, i.e., that the inscription and the attendant monuments proved that the school of thought known as the modern hypercritical school, led by the Germans, but also held by the Scotsman John Middleton, was no longer valid. To many Italian scholars, the stele verified the existence of the history of Rome in the time of the kings. But others, including many foreign scholars, found Ceci’s interpretation unsatisfactory and blatantly slanted. During this time, Boni, who was silent for the most part after the discovery, found the pontificating annoying.102 Although Lanciani was not the only one voice holding forth on interpretations and dismissing others – and to be fair, some of his opinions about the evidence have borne out over time, while others have not – he was a significant target of Boni’s wrath. Boni unleashed a ready store of antagonism that accrued because he felt that Lanciani had done such poor work in the Forum, and that he was a persistent and invasive presence on the excavation site, thus thwarting or complicating Boni’s progress. Boni complained bitterly about Lanciani to those with whom he felt a cultural affinity. For Boni, these were English-speaking colleagues,103 including the British poet and amateur archaeologist Welborn St. Claire Badderly (1856–1945) and the American Richard Norton (1872–1918), son of Charles Eliot Norton and then director of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome from 1899–1907.104 These two men showered Lanciani with criticisms at this time. And Lanciani was an easy target because he was nearly contemporaneously publishing news of the findings in the London Athenaeum and elsewhere. Badderly and Norton sought to expose Lanciani as a less than truthful and reliable interpreter of former and present excavations. In response, Lanciani defended himself. This battle played out in the main in print, in the “Notes from Rome,” from late 1899 to 1902. Lanciani also expressed his analysis of Boni’s finds in the first chapters of New Tales of Old Rome. The criticisms from Boni’s colleagues are varied, but overall, they speak of Lanciani’s earlier work as deficient and his readings of the new finds as naïve or misinformed. cuBBerLey 1988, 372–373. cuBBerLey 1988, 272. 102 wiseMan 1992, 132. Boni knew Latin and Greek but not well enough to be comfortable in the Lincei meetings. 103 Among Boni’s other pen pals were John Ruskin, the art critic, William Morris, the artist connected to the British Arts and Crafts movement, and Philip Speakman Webb, the Oxford-born architect. 104 The American School of Classical Studies was founded by the Archaeological Institute of America in 1895. It merged with the American School of Architecture in Rome to form the American Academy in Rome in 1912. 100 101

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

129

Generally, these men derided Lanciani for stopping his excavations too soon and with clumsiness.105 In his ignorance, they insinuated, he misrepresented the Roman Forum. Initially, Lanciani noted that he was only following government orders to stop excavations at a certain level, thus diverting the blame. But in other instances, Lanciani made clear that his earlier work was valuable and that in many cases he had laid the groundwork for Boni’s discoveries. For example, he noted that he had found the footprint of the Arch of Augustus before Boni had revealed more of its remains.106 And in regard to the honorary columns in the Comitium, which Boni had revealed and restored in the manner we see them today, Lanciani stated that he had discovered them first.107 (Interestingly, Lanciani does not take credit for locating the Curia, although he had anticipated its exact location as early as 1882.108) In a persnickety exchange with Norton, wherein the American claimed that Lanciani was oblivious to the fact that the level of the Via Sacra he revealed was late Imperial, and thus not the road described in some of the early Imperial Roman texts, Lanciani defended his published words on the subject.109 In short, he countered, Norton made claims against him that were not grounded in the evidence. After Norton had dissuaded his students at the American School of Classical Studies in Rome from using Ruins and Excavations as a reference, Lanciani upheld the worth of his textbook. Lanciani averred that “there is not a word to change,”110 despite the new discoveries in the Roman Forum. However, at other times he revealed that the 29th sheet of Forma Urbis Romae, the one illustrating the west side of the Roman Forum, could be updated, and that he himself was using an article about the finds in the Forum as supplemental course material in his Topography course at the University.111 For his part, Lanciani fueled and perhaps even sparked the exchanges. He was not consistently gracious in acknowledging Boni’s work, more often dismissing it as important. He supported and congratulated his successor on only a few occasions.112 After the discoveries in the Comitium, he was scornful that what Boni found was the grave of Romulus, believing instead that the arrangement of odd objects was a tribute to the early founder by Romans of subsequent centuries. Indeed many now hold this opinion.113 However, by stating this in a derisive manner, Lanciani undermined the magnitude of the meaning of Boni’s discovery, that here was evidence of the history of early Rome. Regarding a mutilated statue found as Boni dug more deeply in the Aedes Vestae, something which Badderly believed once belonged on the pedestals of the Vestal Virgin statues and thus was the older archaeologist’s missed opportunity, Lanciani dismissed the claim.114 Likewise, regarding some coins found in the area, which the press touted as a consequential discovery, Lanciani noted that such hoard finds were common in Rome (and indeed he might be true).115 Lastly, Lanciani noted that the uncovering of the Curia and the Basilica Aemilia would take about a year and a half, a claim that Badderly disputed, stating instead it would be earlier. When the clearing took longer than a year and a half, Lanciani reminded his readers of the accuracy of his initial prediction.116 cuBBerLey 1988, 241–242, 262–263, 301–303. cuBBerLey 1988, 259–60. 107 cuBBerLey 1988, 257; Ashby was not all that convinced of the authenticity of Boni’s reconstruction. 108 ridLey 1989, 84. 109 cuBBerLey 1988, 298–303. 110 cuBBerLey 1988, 295. 111 cuBBerLey 1988, 314–315; cuBBerLey 1901e, 87. 112 tea 1932, vol. 2, 19; cuBBerLey 1988, 257. 113 cuBBerLey 1988, 247; cLaridGe 1998, 73–74. 114 cuBBerLey 1988, 285. 115 cuBBerLey 1988, 292. 116 cuBBerLey 1988, 299, 303, 306, 314. 105 106

130

Susan M. Dixon

Even as Lanciani was battling for his honor in the pages of “Notes from Rome,” as well as those of New Tales from Old Rome, his interest was straying from the Forum. They were moving towards the archaeology of the Early Christian period, as he picked up the research of his old mentor de Rossi. Furthermore, the history of the Roman Campagna drew his attention. By 1903, he ceased writing anything substantial on the Forum.

sHiFtinG Ground Boni’s arrival in Rome, with his new methods of excavation – interrogating the earliest stratigraphic layers – signaled a shift in the expectations of the work of archaeologists. Although the British archaeologist Thomas Ashby Jr., with his critical eye, had his doubts about Boni’s work, 117 the Venetian’s tenure in the Roman Forum nonetheless ushered in a change. With the unexpected uncovering of sites and objects from the archaic period, things that were not explained in the classical literary source and that only a reasoned study of the earth from which they hailed could deliver clues, the rules had changed. Lanciani’s skills were not as useful as they had once been. Furthermore, this episode fully revealed Lanciani’s approach to the archaeological evidence as conservative and positivistic. In most matters, Lanciani consulted meaning for what he discovered within the classical sources. He used them as his guide in deciding where to excavate next. But Lanciani did not always consult the texts critically. At other times, he constructed strained arguments to make the evidence tailor to the meaning of the texts. This was particularly an issue in an age when the archaeological practices of the prehistoric and the historical ages were not distinguished in any way.118 These attitudes are spotlighted in the reviews of his English-language books, as noted above. All his life, Lanciani was a devoted Catholic with strong ties to the papal court. Boni took note, as had Barnabei before him. Both these men were adherents of the political view that the papacy was the cause of corruption in Italy. The fact of Lanciani’s Catholicism fueled their disdain for him. During one of Lanciani’s absences from Rome during one of his two trips to Scotland, Boni had fun at his expense by stating to his colleagues that he was free of Lanciani’s oversight because the older man was off converting the Scottish.119 Beyond that, Boni thought Lanciani lacked reason in dealing with early Christian archaeological evidence. And indeed, as Lanciani focused his researches on Early Christian art and culture, he consulted the sacred texts, or texts that relate the mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church, as reliable historical documents. For example, he fixated on locating the graves of Sts. Peter and Paul primarily and uncritically using texts as his guide.120 Some of the readers of Lanciani’s popular books, people such as Maud Howe Eliot, daughter of Julia Ward Howe, found Lanciani’s arguments unconvincing and his search for answers quixotic.121 In 1906, Boni moved his excavation team to the adjacent Fora where discoveries awaited. But by then, Lanciani’s attentions had moved on. His habits of scholarship, crafting broad cultural history infused with the anecdotes of classical literature, archival records and, now and again firsthand information about excavations, were still appreciated by popular readers. But it did not meet the standards of the new archaeological discourse. His long-time interest and expertise in museal display, however, would come to the fore. 117 118 119

turcHetti 2004, 166–167. d’aGostino 1991, 52–55, 59.

wiseMan 1992, 128–129.

Lanciani 1901e, 132–174; Lanciani 1901f, 131–132. 121 eLLiott 1905, 74; and sHriverMan 1924, 462. 120

A Reputation in Flux: post–1890

131

cHapter 6

roundinG out a career: 1903–1911 and Beyond

dispLays at tHe capitoLine MuseuM In 1903, Lanciani undertook two major museum display projects for the Capitoline Museums, which housed the municipal collection of ancient art. The first was an assemblage of the extant pieces of the Severan Marble Plan, or Forma Urbis Romae. This third-century plan, incised on a stone approximately 60 x 32 feet in size, hung in imperial times on an interior wall of the Temple of Peace. Lanciani arranged and displayed the scant remains – less than 10% of the original plan – in an exterior space of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the adjacent courtyard of the Palazzo Caffarelli (Fig. 35). The municipal government had recently acquired this enclosed garden. The display was opened to the public on 21 April 1903 on the celebration of the anniversary of Rome’s founding. In 1924, after it was realized that the marble fragments showed signs of deterioration after exposure to the natural elements, the installation was removed.1 The project had been under consideration since 1898. At that time, in response to the recent archaeological excavation taking place in the area around the Forum of Peace, an effort was made to find as many fragments of the map as possible. As early as the latter half of the 16th century, many parts had been found in the garden of the Church of Sts. Cosmos and Damian, which occupied the site over the temple. These fragments were transferred to the Palazzo Farnese, at the behest of the Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The pieces deemed useless or historically insignificant – as determined by the scholars of the day2 – were stored in the palace’s cellars. During his research for Storia degli Scavi, Lanciani located documents that revealed that an employee of the Farnese reused the marbles as building material for his house located near the palace. His dwelling sat along via Giulia, by the Tiber. With the destruction along the river in order to build the embankment, the house was demolished. Thus, in 1888, 188 pieces of the Severan Forma Urbis Romae were extracted from the debris. A decade later, an additional 451 fragments were found in the same general area.3 In total, Lanciani had 1034 pieces (today there are almost 1200), of varying size, and varying importance in comprehending the monuments of ancient Rome, to sort and place on the garden wall. 1 References to Lanciani, 1903; Lanciani 1907a. See paLoMBi 2006a, 282–285 for the circumstances of the commission. On the map, see https://formaurbis.stanford.edu/ 2 On O. Panvinio’s notes, now in the Vatican Libraries, see http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/docs/ FURbiblio.html#CodVatLat 3 Lanciani 1899a.

Rounding out a Career: 1903–1911 and beyond

133

Fig 35. Palazzo dei Conservatori, plans, from K. Baedeker, Central Italy and Rome, 15th edition (1909), between 272 and 273.

In the task, he collaborated with Christian Huelsen, his fellow Lincean and then second secretary of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Lanciani’s own topographical reconstruction of Rome, which he had titled eponymously after the Severan Map, recently had been completed two years. In 1896, Huelsen had issued his, capturing three historical moments of Rome’s ancient topography, and was about to issue his seminal plan of the ancient Roman Forum and the Palatine Hill.4 The scholars had worked well together in the past, initially with in supplying information to Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, and then in teasing out the location of the Temple of the Sun in the mid-1890s.5 In the same year, Lanciani rearranged about 150 artifacts, mainly sculptural, from the excavations of the ancient Roman horti. These were displayed in the new galleries on the piano nobile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori.6 Since their discovery in the 1870s, the extraordinary sculptures, mosaics and other works had been kept either in a temporary wooden pavilion in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori or in the Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi, one of the highly decorated rooms of that palace, Lanciani 1893–1901; HueLsen and kierpert 1896; HueLsen 1904 (subsequently it was translated into English and other languages). 4

5

coareLLi 2004, 55–56.

Lanciani 1903a. The impetus for the municipal government to renovate the galleries might have been that in 1901, the national government purchased the Ludovisi-Boncompagni collection and housed it in the still incomplete Museo Nazionale housed in the Baths of Diocletian; the sculptures had been displayed in the cloister behind Santa Maria degli Angeli. 6

134

Susan M. Dixon

facing the Piazza del Campidoglio. The galleries occupied a newly constructed wing along the site of the garden adjoining the Palazzo Caffarelli (Fig. 35).7 The display was opened to the public on 11 July 1903. The arrangement was nearly as it appears in the galleries today, i.e., organized by the objects’ find spot, e.g., from the Horti Sallustiani, Maecenatiani, Lamiani, Liciniani, etc. (A renovation in the year 2000 restored the statues, improved the lighting, and added English-language labels. 8) Lanciani cheekily placed the green marble statue of a guard dog found near the Auditorium of the Horti Maecenatani as if it were a sentinel guarding the Severan Forma Urbis Romae display visible through the gallery windows, being alert to the goings-on in the Palazzo Caffarelli, then occupied by the German ambassador and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.9 In the interstice between these 1903 museum projects and his last and most ambitious exhibition, the 1911 Mostra Archaeologica, Lanciani published another English-language book, again with Houghton Mifflin. Wanderings in the Roman Campagna, issued in 1909, dealt with a subject dear to Lanciani. The content was crafted after years of teaching university students and touring interested scholars and amateurs, including Thomas Ashby Sr. and Jr., among many others, through various parts of the countryside.10 It was a timely endeavor, as the campagna was changing profoundly with the development of suburbs brought on by modern means of transportation. Lanciani expressed the idea that his was the last generation to see the campagna as it was in ancient times.11 Scholars today note Lanciani’s significant contribution to the field, including collecting many historic maps and images to aid in understanding that which was lost.12 The book initially situates the readers in the countryside to the southeast of Rome, in the Alban Hills, and with each subsequent chapter, moves them around the city. His text highlights the specific features of these areas, e.g., the lands in which the Alban shepherds resided, as Lanciani argued, before they settled in Rome, and the lands in which Horace’s villa lay. As in most of Lanciani’s books, he transports the readers easily across the ages, from pre-historic times, through the early modern period in which much damage was enacted on villas and temples, and then beyond, to modern times when archaeological discoveries brought some of the ancient world to light. Some reviewers took Lanciani to task for promoting as truth that which scholarship had not tested or which the archaeological evidence did not support; specifically, they referred to Lanciani’s glib description of Italy’s prehistory. At the same time, Lanciani’s compelling style and his ability as a cultural historian to make the past come alive were lauded.13

tHe 1911 Mostra arcHeoLoGica By 1908, Lanciani was occupied with a third museal display. The national government commissioned him to design and coordinate the implementation of the Mostra Archaeologica in Rome.14 This exhibition was part of the 1911 Esposizione Internazionale, which was staged in three locations: 7

cuBBerLey 1988, 361, 380–381; ciMa and taLaMo 2008, 135–144.

Fentress 2007, 265; ciMa and taLaMo 2008, 146. 9 cuBBerLey 1988, 380–381. 10 For example, see wiseMan 1992, 117–123, and iMpaGLia 2017. A full list of those he led through the campagna would be extensive. 11 asHBy 1928, 126. 12 iMpaGLia 2017. 13 For example, pLatner 1908. 8

14

paLoMBi 2006a, 179–81. BarBanera 2007, 173, traces the idea of the exhibition earlier, to Pietro Rosa.

Rounding out a Career: 1903–1911 and beyond

135

Turin, Florence and Rome. The likes of such international fairs were common in this age. Their goal was to highlight recent and projected achievements of the nations in the modern age, as a way to celebrate and advance civilization.15 Italy hosted the 1911’s exhibition in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the unified nation under the kings of Savoy, and the 50th anniversary of the incorporation of Rome as its capital city. Lanciani was director of the project devoted to accomplishments in archaeology, slated for Rome (Fig. 39). His former pupil at the university, Giulio Quirini Giglioli (1886–1957), was a steady collaborator. The archaeological exhibition’s conceptual framework underwent a few phases of development. At first, Lanciani believed that to counter the fact that ancient Roman works of art had been dispersed throughout Europe since the Renaissance, the display offered an opportunity to bring them together in some sense, to create reconstructions of some important sites from which the works hailed. This would be a means to illustrate the greatness of Rome’s past. Three sites were chosen: Hadrian’s villa – for which he had recently just completed a publication; Ostia, a site which Lanciani had not been yet been the opportunity to provide a reconstruction; and Terme di Caracalla, where excavations had stopped short in 1882.16 The venue for the Mostra Archaeologica was the extant ruins of the Baths of Diocletian, the site of the Museo Nazionale di Roma.17 However, the Mostra’s concept transformed fundamentally between 1908 and 1911. Ultimately it was designed to celebrate Roman Empire’s cultural imprint throughout Europe and beyond. Spaces within the ancient Baths of Diocletian were assigned to various portions of the Empire, e.g., France, Spain, Greece, and Romania (Fig. 36). In total, 36 provinces were represented; experts of the art of these ancient provinces assisted Lanciani in curating their portion of the exhibition. The goal was to illustrate the individual art forms that emerged from these provinces as a result of a productive cultural exchange with ancient Imperial Rome. The more prominent message, however, was a demonstration of Rome’s powerful role as a civilizing force in the world. It was validated, for example, in the fact that art typologies such as altars, tomb, triumphant arches, as well as built infrastructure such as roads, bridges and aqueducts, were relatively uniform across provinces.18 The major displays of famous works located in the city of ancient Rome served as a preface to the theme. Newly discovered or refurbished works of ancient art were reconstructed and exhibited, to address three coherent themes: Rome under Augustus, Imperial Rome, and Eternal Rome. In the room dedicated to Imperial Rome, e.g., the recontextualized relief sculptures of the Provinces from the Hadrianeum were presented as an illustration of the breadth of the empire’s reach, as well as the diversity of her subjects (Fig. 37).19 Newspapers picked up the point of the exhibition when they noted that the art and artifacts in the rooms dedicated to the ancient provinces seemed like “act[s] of filial devotion to the ancient mother.”20 The exhibit also promoted the idea of scientific advancements in archaeology. It was most visibly represented in the fact that plaster casts, scale models and photographs – i.e., modern means of reproduction – were proffered as evidence of the archaeological past.21 artHurs 2007, 28–9. ManicoLi 1983b, 52. 17 Bernini 1997, 25–26, 33. The Museo Nazionale was open to the public in 1890, but the last of the state’s collections was not moved there until 1912. 18 artHurs 2007, 31; ManicioLi 1983b, 55–58; stronG 1911. 15 16

19 20 21

136

ManicioLi 1983b, 53–54. artHurs 2007, 31, n. 19.

paLoMBi 2006a, 183–184; BarBanera 2007, 173–174.

Susan M. Dixon

Fig. 36. Plaster Model of the relief sculptures depicting the Provinces on the Hadrianeum, photograph, from Comitato Esecutivo per le Feste Commemorative, Guida ufficiale delle esposizioni di Roma (1911), 30.

Fig. 37. Room of the Gaulish Provinces, photograph, from Comitato Esecutivo per le Feste Commemorative, Guida ufficiale delle esposizioni di Roma (1911), 94.

Rounding out a Career: 1903–1911 and beyond

137

Fig. 38. Zona Monumentale, plan, from La Zona Monumentale di Roma e l’opera della Commissione reale (1917), tav. 6. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library. Columbia University.

In his opening inaugural address to the Mostra, Lanciani expressed hope that the installation would find a permanent home.22 And indeed, many scholars have noted that parts of this exhibition served as a model for the Museo dell’Impero Romano, established after the rise of Mussolini in the old convent of Sant’Ambrogio in 1927. They also note that this museum in turn had echoes in the Mostra Augustea della Romanità of 1937, which clearly framed the archaeological past for Fascist purposes.23 With history as hindsight, Lanciani’s exhibition glimmers with Fasicist undertones, in its triumphal celebration of Latin cultural supremacy.24 Scholars have noted that in 1911, Italy’s colonizing efforts in Libya were underway as sentiments of nationalism surged in the population.25 And in general, they have pointed to Lanciani’s promotion of ancient Rome as the preeminent force in disseminating civilized standards to those it conquered, as evidenced in this exhibition and elsewhere.26 However, as Barnabera has opined, “the spirit of comparison and contrast” between Roman and provincial Roman art, at the heart of Lanciani’s presentation of the archaeological Esposizione Internationale di Roma 1911, 9; ducati 1929, 490. LiBerati 2016. 24 artHurs 2007, 31, n. 17, citing Guida ufficiale delle esposizione di Roma 1911, 202. 25 artHurs 2007, 28. 26 On arguments for Lanciani’s nationalist leanings, see paLoMBi 2009; paLoMBi 2006b; dyson 2019, 153; courtenay 2011. 22 23

138

Susan M. Dixon

evidence, was not preserved in the subsequent displays.27 Lanciani knew how to conceive an exhibition that, “despite evident nationalistic spirit of exalting Roman Empire and by analogy the Italian monarchy, still could include reference to the non-Roman elements upon which the Empire was built.”28 In general, Lanciani had a lifelong penchant for looking outwards from Italy, towards Europe and beyond, for insight into ancient Roman history. To Lanciani, whose reputation had been diminished in the two decades prior to the Mostra Archaeologica, the event was redemptive. Contemporary reviews were full of praise. In addition, it gave Lanciani the opportunity to revisit some of his concerns and fascinations of the late 19th century, including the assemblage of the Province reliefs in one space or reconstructing the sepolchral Tomb of the Platorini, which he had discovered in the Trastervere area in 1880.29 In acknowledgement of his service to the national government, Lanciani was appointed a senator in 1911, a position he relinquished by 1922.30 In 1914, he became a member of the municipal council.31 Lanciani was therefore engaged with the political institutions in Rome in the years before, during, and after World War I. In general, he acted in ways to protect and care for the city’s cultural monuments. Specifically, he was one of a few strong voices in the Senate arguing for the ouster of the Germans from the Palazzo Caffarrelli.32 He also advocated to fund the Zona Archaeologica, the ultimate manifestation of Baccelli’s Passeggiata Archaeologica of the 1880s. The project took years in the main because of funding and land expropriation issues. Lanciani stepped onto the executive committee, under the aegis of both state and municipal governments in Rome, in 1910, after Boni resigned the position because of disagreements in the plan’s direction. Because of Lanciani’s efforts – and he was particularly eager to revisit the excavations at the Baths of Caracalla, which led to the discovery of a nymphaeum – the project was inaugurated in 1917 (Fig. 38).33

postscript In June 1914, just months before the outbreak of World War in Europe, Elena Lanciani died unexpectedly. She had been an extraordinary partner to her husband, and managed his career behind the scenes financially and logistically. Her loss was felt deeply. The 69-year-old Lanciani’s publications become less frequent after her death, and the “Notes from Rome” column ceased all together. In October of 1920, at age 75, he married Teresa Maria Carolina Caracciolo (1855–1935), Duchess of San Teodoro and widow of Marcantonio Colonna, the 15th prince of Paliano, a man Lanciani regarded as his friend. With this second marriage, Lanciani strengthened his connections to the waning aristocratic society in Rome. He had always been socially allied with the city’s elite, and this marriage cemented his association with the Colonna, one of

BarBanera 2007, 174. BarBanera 2007, 175. 29 Lanciani 1880f; see also Lanciani 1897c, 488–90; cuBBerLey 1988, 77–80. 30 paLoMBi 2006a, 199, 208. 31 paLoMBi 2006a, 211. 32 paLoMBi 2006a, 213–219. 33 capoBianco 2010. 27 28

Lanciani and America: 1886–87

139

the oldest aristocratic families of Rome.34 The Duchess was the daughter of an Italian prince and an English mother, and because she spent many years in England, she was a devoted Anglophile.35 In Rome, the newlyweds had a lovely residence in the new housing developments on the Quirinal, overlooking the remains of the Gardens of Sallust in an apartment bordering the Piazza di Sallusto. However, because Teresa Maria had been critical of Italy’s colonization of Libya, and as a consequence was the subject of considerable public criticism, she often shunned Rome for other parts of the world. The couple travelled a few times to England during their marriage.36 At 77-years old, Lanciani expressed the idea of a trip to the United States. 37 Fig. 39. Fratelli d’Alessandri, Rodolfo Lanciani, After the War, the economy of Italy was in portrait photograph, from Esposizione Intershatters as a result of the great debts that the nazionale, Roma: rassegna illustrate della Espomilitary action had extracted. Also, because sizione del 1911 (1910), 22. many Italians felt that the Allies did not honor the efforts of their Italian colleagues in the War, there was general disgruntlement over the nation’s future. In this critical moment of social unrest, Lanciani retired from his university position.38 It was just months before the 1922 March on Rome, a moment before Mussolini’s and the National Fascist Party’s assumption of power. Thus, Lanicani receded from the national stage just as the world was changing radically around him. Among the archaeologists of the Fascist government were his students, including Giglioli. They are renowned for employing archaeology in a blunt and invasive way to support its propaganda. Indeed, by 31 December 1925, Mussolini announced his archaeological plans for the city.39 In 1925, Lanciani published another English-language book, Ancient and Modern Rome. It was part of a series of books entitled “Our Debt to Greece and Rome.” The intended audience was the American youth. Since 1892, Lanciani had been writing in journals for this demographic.40 Despite the series theme, there is much in the book that suggests that Lanciani had not embraced Fascist References to Lanciani 1897b. cariccioLo 1929, 77, 1–4, 7–14, 18–36. Teresa Maria was also the mother of Vittorio Colonna, Duchess of Sermoneta, and author of Things Past, 1919, as well as sister-in-law to Prospero Colonna, Rome’s mayor from 1899–1904. 36 cariccioLo 1929, 77, 92–93. 37 paLoMBi 2006a, 243, n. 389. 38 Lanciani was two years over the mandatory retirement age. Lanciani was not often honest in recording his age, see paLoMBi 2006a, 35. 39 cerderna 2001, 8; dyson 2019, 160. 40 Lanciani 1892h, Lanciani 1894i, Lanciani 1896e, Lanciani 1898, Lanciani 1904b, Lanciani 1908a, Lanciani 1910b. 34 35

140

Susan M. Dixon

beliefs tightly. For example, he noted that ancient Romans were not flawless. The evidence proved that they were not the greatest sculptors, and they lacked forethought in how to preserve library collections. Furthermore, he expressed a broad empathy for humankind. He avvered that modern Romans were concerned with the same mundane things that ancient man, and by implication all men, presumably in other parts of the world – were “not different from us physically and morally,” and were concerned with “the same struggle for life, the same craving for amusements and the same political unrest.”41 The general material of the book was not entirely new. The chapter titles echo topics he referenced in Ancient Rome in Light of Recent Disocver: santitation, water supply, food distribution systems, medical services, and police and fire departments. In an additional chapter on warfare, however, he compares the deeds of Second Punic Wars to “the” World War, and suggests that the universality of the nature of war – the confusion on the battlefield, the propensity of cruelty in the pursuit of victory, and the inescapability of death – weighed on his conscience.42 Lanciani produced another vermillion-covered book with Houghton Mifflin, Wandering through Ancient Roman Churches, issued in 1924.43 This is a book that should have been issued earlier, if the chaotic personal and societal circumstances had not interferred. The material was in large part derived from information found in his pre-war publications. His correspondence with the publisher at this time suggested that he was struggling financially, and this may have prompted the book.44 His daughter Marcella, now married to an Orsini, a Roman artistocratic family, may have finished this work for him. He had relied on her since 1903 to compile some of his major publications. From at least 1926 onward, Lanciani’s health was not good. Thereafter he resided at the Villa San Teodoro on via Guattani. It is a lovely Rococo building located outside the Aurelian walls, off the Via Nomentana. At this time, he had significant problems walking and he often needed long periods of time to recuperate after a fall. He passed away on 21 May 1929.45 His funerary services were held soon thereafter at the neighborhood church, San Agnese fuori le Mura. Giglioli delivered one of the orations, with Mussolini in attendance. Lanciani was buried in Verano Cemetery, with his parents, his first wife, and his daughter and son-in-law. 46 Lanciani produced a huge corpus of published work on the archaeological past of Rome. He provided noteworthy service in publishing reference works and establishing collections for those who wish to delve deepe into the history of Rome’s monuments and topography. Today his scholarship is often consulted and well cited. And as in all scholarship, his findings have been open to criticism over the years. Often that criticism has not taken into account the dramatic personal, social, and political shifts in which Lanciani recorded what he discovered Lanciani 1925, v. Lanciani 1925, 135–143. 43 Lanciani 1924. 44 HUH, bMs Am 1925 (1040), folder 2 of 5, various correspondences. 45 paLoMBi 2006a, 262–263. Ill since 1926, at least, he was at the 1927 opening of the Museo dell’Impero, see Liberati 2016, 224. 46 Lanciani, Elena, Marcella (d. 1961) and her husband Lieutenant Colonel Adolfo Orsini (d. 1946), as well as Lanciani’s parents, are buried in the oldest section of Verano Cemetery. The tombstone is located along the exterior wall of Pincetto Vecchio, under a little arch in a straight stretch of perimeter wall comprised of fifteen arches (Archetto.11.P.V.). The whereabouts of his second wife’s tomb is a mystery; her empty sepulchral monument is located in Pallanza, by the Lago Maggiore. 41 42

Rounding out a Career: 1903–1911 and beyond

141

and interpreted. Cultural and governmental insitutions were conceived and reconceived in his day. Finances supporting his endeavors ebbed and flowed. The boundaries of the practice of archaeology were staked and restaked during his lifetime, and attitudes about the openness of sharing knowledge about archaeological finds were altered as well. In his long life, with his personal strengths and foibles, his desires and intolerances, he weathered the changes, often with grace and sometimes without. This narrative of his life does not intend to excuse Lanciani of his inaccuracies or prejudices. However, it will provide a context for his pronouncements as a means to help scholars critique them with sophistication. This in turn will provide us all a better understanding of the topography and monuments of ancient Rome.

142

Susan M. Dixon

appendices (?) indicates that the information provided is not firmly established

appendix 1: Lanciani’s Lecture tour in aMerica Sponsor:

Dates:

# of Lectures:

Location:

Other:

Lowell Institute, Cambridge, MA

(M) 15 Nov. 1886 (?) (W) 17 Nov. 1886 (M) 22 Nov. 1886 (W) 24 Nov. 1886 (M) 29 Nov. 1886 (W) 1 Dec. 1886 (M) 6 Dec. 1886 (W) 8 Dec. 1886 (M) 13 Dec. 1886 (W) 15 Dec. 1886 (M) 20 Dec. 1886 (W) 22 Dec. 1886 same dates above

12

Huntington Hall in Rogers Building on Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) campus

Free admission

12

Sanders Theater on Harvard campus

1,166 seats in the theater

10, and perhaps more

Peabody Institute on Johns Hopkins campus

Over 200 people turned away from the venue

1

Fernwood, NJ

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Wellesley College, Before 25 Dec. 1886 Wellesley, MA Johns Hopkins (M or T) 3 or 4 Jan. 1887 University, Baltimore, (W) 5 Jan. 1887 MD (F) 7 Jan. 1887 (M) 10 Jan. 1887 (W) 12 Jan. 1887 (F) 14 Jan. 1887 (M) 17 Jan. 1887 (W) 19 Jan. 1887 (F) 21 Jan. 1887 (M) 24 Jan. 1887 (W) 23 Feb. 1887 (?) Private Home On or before (W) 26 Jan. near Seton Hall 87 University, South Orange, NJ

3

Appendices

143

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA Long Island Historical Society Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (?) Archaeological Institute of America

(W) 26 Jan. 1887 (F) 28 Jan. 1887 (M) 31 Jan. 1887 (F) 4 Feb. 1887 (M) 7 Feb. 1887 (F) 11 Feb. 1887 (M) 14 Feb. 1887 (F) 18 Feb. 1887 (M) 21 Feb. 1887 (F) 25 Feb. 1887 (M 28 Feb. 1887 (F) 4 March 1887 (?) (W) 9 Feb. 1887

The Chapel, on University campus

2

(W) 16 Feb. 1887 Week of 14 Feb. 1887 to 18 3 Feb. 1887 (Th) 17 Feb. 1887 2 (Th) 24 Feb. 1887 In Feb. 1887 (?)

Course 1 Venue 1: (W) 2 March 1887 Venue 2: (F) 4 March 1887 (T) 8 March 1887 (?) (F) 11 March 1887 (?) Course 2 (T) 15 March 1887 (?) (F) 18 March 1887 (T) 22 March 1887 (F) 25 March 1887 (F) 1 April 1887 (T) 5 April 1887

144

12

Susan M. Dixon

10

Historical Hall, 128 Pierrepont Street, Brooklyn, NY

Began at 3:30 pm; 50 cents admission fee

From 4:45 to 6:00 pm; Lectures J and L Lectures J, F and I Lecture L

Referenced in Lanciani’s letter to Università di Roma Venue 1: Venue 1: Hotel Held 300-400 Brunswick, 5th Avenue between 26th people; many and 27th streets, NYC had to be turned away; – 1 lecture began at 4:00 pm Venue 2: Madison Square Theater, 24th Street between Broadway and Sixth Avenue, NYC – lectures 2 through 9

Venue 2: Held 1,000 people, began at 4:00 pm

The lectures were split into 2 courses. Lectures A-D comprised the 1st course, costing $3, or $1 for an individual lecture. Lectures E-J comprised the 2nd course, costing $5, or $1 for an individual lecture.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY (?)

On or about (M) 14 March 1887 (?)

10 (?)

Chickering Hall, 437 Fifth Avenue, at 18th Street (?)

Referenced in the museum’s Bulletin, 1910

Columbia College, for Berkeley School, a private school for boys, New York, NY

Between (T) 15 March 1887 and (F) 18 March 1887 (?)

2

Columbia College Law School Lecture Room, on 49th Street, on Madison Avenue campus

Lectures D and I

Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY

(M) 21 March 1887

2

Brown University, Providence, RI

(F) 9 April 1887

(T) 22 March 1887

Before (T) 20 April 1887 (?)

Lectures J and L

More than 1, probably 2

appendix 2: coMparison oF Lecture topics, 1886-87, and cHapter titLes, AnCient rome in the Light of reCent DisCoveries, 1888 Lecture Topic:

Chapter Title:

A: The Early Renaissance of Archaeological Studies in Rome

Ch. 1. The Renaissance of Archaeological Studies

B: The Foundations and Prehistorical Life of Rome

Ch. 2. The Foundation and Prehistoric Life of Rome

C: The Hygenic Laws and Sanitary Conditions of Ancient Rome

Ch. 3. The Sanitary Conditions of Ancient Rome

E: Roman Parks and Public Gardens

Ch. 4. Public Places of Resort

I: The Palace of the Caesars

Ch. 5. The Palace of the Caesars

J & K: The Discovery of the House of the Vestals

Ch. 6. The House of the Vestals

H: Ancient and Medieval Public Libraries

Ch. 7 The Public Libraries of Ancient and Medieval Rome

G: The Police and Garrison of Rome

Ch. 8. The Police and Fire Department of Ancient Rome

D: The Tiber and Maritime Trade of Rome

Ch. 9. The Tiber and the Claudian Harbor.

F: The Campagna

Ch. 10. The Campagna

L: Treasures Found in the Excavations

Ch. 11. The Disappearance of Works of Art, and Their Discovery in Recent Years

Appendices

145

appendix 3: oBJects Lanciani’s assistance Object

purcHased By tHe

Provenance

Boston MuseuM

Notes on Dealer conditions, as found in Lanciani’s letters to BMFA

oF

Fine arts,

Cost in lire

MFA accession number

Head of Tiberius n/a (currently Drusus Senior)

Massimiliano Pirani

400

88.346

Bust of Balbinus (?)

Eliseo Borghi, 11 Piazza Barberini

350

88.347

Eliseo Borghi

300

88.348

Eugenio Scalco, 21 Tordirione

200

88.349

Villa Ludovisi

Bust of Caligula Porta Salaria or youth of Julian family (currently Young Man) Bust of Caius Memmius Caecilianus Placidus (currently Man)

Foundations of private house, at corner of via Cavour and Piazza dell’Esquilino

Inscription found with it, which identifies the subject

Bust of Nero (?), with vitta on forehead (currently Herakles)

n/a

The dealer Jandolo Augusto thinks it is an Valenzi, via del emperor of the Babuino 57 Julian line; others think it is a poet or orator of the Augustan age

200

88.350

Bust of a Goddess or a Lady as a goddess (currently Artemis Colonna)

Near Grottaferrata, on eastern slope of Valle Marciana, found last winter 188788

Features are much battered; with pedestal

145 (bust); 30 (pedestal)

88.351

Head of Diana (?) (currently Sphinx)

n/a

Grey stone with rough surface

Terracottas, 12 pieces

Terracotta Head of Niobid; late 17th century

146

witH

Bought at Lanciani Scalambrini sale donated this

88.352

CaereCerveteri; eight pieces found at S. Maria di Capua Vetere, and four at Venosa

Pietro Pennelli

600

88.353-.364

CaereCerveteri; discovered by Don Marino Lazzari

Alessandro Fausti

50

88.365; deaccessioned

Susan M. Dixon

(but notes indicate Pennelli)

Coins, 164 in total; six are early Italic; 12 or 13, from consular families; four, colonial coinage; the rest, from the Imperial period

n/a

Group I: 12 pieces of pottery, including eight archaic vases

Marino, in a tomb, on northwest slope of Monte Cicero, discovered by peasant

Group I, cont’d: 13th piece of pottery: amphora on a high base

Fossil cemetery in Alba Longa; the rarest piece found

Group II: Five vases (pottery in archaic or prehistoric tomb), and three bronze objects

Rome, within the Servian agger, in the foundations of private home, between via di S. Martino and via dello Statuto

Group III: Seven terracottas, including antefixes, figures, heads, and 16 bronzes, including figures, buttons

Nemi, near sanctuary of Diana; discovered in winter 1887/ spring 1888

Group IV: Terracottas: eight frieze fragments in total

Some are from near Marino, Villa of Voconius Pollo

262.75

88.373-.537; some are no longer in the collection

8 and 60, respectively by dealer

88.538-.541; 88.543-.550

40

88.542

Jandolo (perhaps Filippo)

35

88.551-.555; 88.610-.612

Luigi Boccanera, excavator

150

88.556-.562; 88.613-.628

Four from Alessandro Fausti; three from Piero Pennelli, and one from Luigi Jandolo

90, 46, and 8, respectively

88.563-.570

Group V, cont’d: n/a 12 Roman terracottas and two bronze lamps

Alessandro Faustia nd Filippo Jandolo

35 and 88.571-.582; 44 (?), .629-.630 respectively, for each dealer

Group VI: Three n/a Arezzo ware

Forucci, via Leonina, 27

35

Four from Alessandro Fausti, and eight from Augusto Alberieri Lanciani had to bid against Rome’s state authorities at the Museo Preistorico for it

Published in NSc

88.583-.585

Appendices

147

Group VI, cont’d: One Arezzo ware (a cup in imitation of Arezzo ware)

n/a

Alessandro Fausti

10

88.586

Group VI, con’td: 23 Arezzo ware

Orti Cesarini, Trastibertina

Anselmo Gasparini

160

88.587-.609

Group VII: Two Roman marbles and three inscriptions

Various tombs, some from near Porta Salaria

Luigi Jandolo, 70 via Consolazione

100

88.631, .633.637

Ernesto (?)

25

88.632

Noted to be like a bust of man with beard, republican work, in the Louvre: Sala du Tibre, n. 652

Ferdinando Cherici

150

88.638; currently not in the collection

Bust of Domitian Frascati, among the ruins of the Tusculanum Domitiani family

Formerly in the Municipal collection, Frascati

Alessandro Fausti

160 (this 88.639 and the following Bust of Venus were sold together for 320)

Bust of Venus; a modern forgery

“a kissable little Venus of Greek workmanship”; discovered to be a modern forgery at this time

Alessandro Fausti

160 (this 88.640; and the deaccessioned above Bust June 7, 2013 of Domitian were sold together for 320)

Nose and chin restored in plaster; with pedestal; was out in the open for years and this has darkened marble

Luigi Jandolo

70 (55 for bust; 15 for pedestal)

88.641; currently not in collection

Group VII, cont’d: one marble inscription Bust of one of the Scipios

n/a

Campania

Bust of Julia or Livia

Head of Agrippina the Younger (currently JulioClaudian Girl)

Rome

Nose and chin restored in plaster

Augusto Valenzi

250

88.642

Head of African Slave (currently Young Man)

Rome

Companion head to a African woman in Capitoline Museum

Luigi Jandolo

120

88.643

Head of Ajax

In Tiber, or on left bank of Tiber

Saturninio Innocenti

260 (considered very reasonable)

88.644; currently not in collection

148

Susan M. Dixon

Head of Mercury

Villa Ludovisi

Dr. Peterson thinks is Greek; within the decade, it was found to be a forgery

Saturnino Innocenti and Zavazzi

400 (never paid for)

89.2; deaccessioned Dec. 1898

150 (Gift of class of young ladies)

89.3

“One who has management of moving famous Ludovisi gallery to new building”

250

89.4

Head of Faun n/a (currently Young Satyr) Bust of Maximinus

Villa Ludovisi

Excellent preservation

Bust of a young Domitian

Villa Ludovisi

“

150

89.5

Bust of an older Domitian

Villa Ludovisi

“

150

89.6

Bust of Minerva, with helmet

Villa Ludovisi

“ Point of nose injured; revealed as Late Renaissance fake at the time

175

89.7

Head of a Muse (?), with crown of laurel (currently Ideal Female)

Villa Ludovisi

“

75

89.8

23 pieces, terracottas, mostly antefixes, archaic, and polychrome, some Etruscan, some Early Roman

Isola di San Bartolomeo, Rome in June or July 1888 (?)

[cited in Pensabeni]

Bought in a shop selling ex-votos on the Isola di San Bartolomeo

345 (15 apiece)

89.9-.31; 89.24 is currently not in collection

21 Greek Vases

Corneto Tarquinia

At the time, some known to be forgeries

Pio Mariangeli

5000

89.256-.275; 89.264, .265; 89.271 and .274 are currently not in collection

Two Greek vases

Ruovo (?)

At the time, one was known to be a forgery, dated to 1889

Cesare Cappelli

920

89.561 and .562; 89.562 is a forgery but remains in the collection

Appendices

149

aBBreviations

ACS

Archivio Centrale di Stato, Rome

AIA

Archives, Archaeological Institute of America, Boston

AIC

Trustees Presidents’ Papers, 1883–1924, Institutional Archives, The Ryerson and Burnham Libraries, Art Institute of Chicago

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

ASRSP

Archivo della Società romana di storia patria

BCAR

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma

BE

The Brooklyn Eagle

BIASA

Fondo Lanciani, Biblioteca dell’Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Rome

BibAng

Carte Barnabei, Biblioteca Angelica, Rome

BICA

Bulletino dell’ Istituto di Correspondenza Archeologica

BMMA

Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

BMFA

Archives, William Morris Hunt Memorial Library, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Brun

The Brunonian (Brown University’s journal)

CIL

Königlich Preusslische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Berlin, 1893–

ColC

Helen Hunt Jackson Papers, Colorado College, Colorado Springs

CornDS

Cornell Daily Sun (Cornell University’s newspaper)

DP

The Daily Pennsylvanian (The University of Pennsylvania’s student newspaper)

HC

The Harvard Crimson (Harvard University’s student newspaper)

HUH

Houghton Mifflin Company (HMC) correspondences, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge

JBAASR

Journal of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome

JHUC

The Johns Hopkins University Circular (Johns Hopkins University’s publication)

JHU

Daniel Coit Gilman papers, University Archives, The Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

MilS

The Milwaukee Sentinel

Abbreviations

151

MMA

Archives, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Newb

Charles L. Hutchinson Papers, The Newberry Library, Chicago

NSc

Notizie degli Scavi

NYT

The New York Times

PhLC

Anne Hampton Brewster papers, The Philadelphia Library Company, Philadelphia

PML

Literary and Historical Manuscripts, The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York

PUL

Allan Marquand papers, Manuscript Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library

UStA

James Donaldson Papers, Special Collections, University Library, University of St. Andrews, Edinburgh

VasM

Vassar Miscellany News (Vassar College’s newspaper)

152

Susan M. Dixon

BiBLioGrapHy

Addams, J. 1910.

Twenty Years at Hull-House. New York: Macmillan.

Aglietti, S., and D. Rose. 2008.

“La villa di Quinto Voconio Pollione: le vicende ottocenteschi.” In Tra Alba Longa e Roma, edited by S. Aglietti and D. Rose, 79–105. Ciampino: Città di Ciampino, Assessorato alla Cultura.

Aglietti, S. 2011.

“Ciampino: La villa di Voconio Pollione.” In Colli Albani: protagonisti e luoghi della ricerca archeologica nell’Ottocento, edited by M. Valenti, 144–146. Frascati: Libreria Cavour.

Archaeological Institute Eighth Annual Report presented at the Annual Meeting of Council in New York of America. 1887. City, 14 May 1887. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. Albertini, M. 1983.

“La necropolis Esquilina arcaica e repubblicana.” In Roma Capitale 1870–1911: l’archeologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e scavo, 140–155. Venice: Marsilio.

Alexander, K. 1994.

“A History of the Ancient Collection at The Art Institute of Chicago.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 20, 1: 6–13.

Allen, S.H., ed. 2002a.

Excavating our past: perspectives on the history of the Archaeological Institute of America. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Allen, S.H. 2002b.

“Americans in the East: Francis Henry Bacon, Joseph Thacher Clarke and the AIA at Assos.” In Excavating our past: perspectives on the history of the Archaeological Institute of America, edited by S.H. Allen, 63–92. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Ames, M.L. 1909.

Life and Letters of Peter and Susan Lesley. Vol. 2. New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons.

Amfitheatrof, E. 1980.

The Enchanted Ground: Americans in Italy, 1760–1980. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.

Armstrong, W.M., ed. 1974.

The Gilded Age: Letters of E.L. Godkin. Albany: State University of New York.

Anderson, P.J. 1907.

Records of the Celebration of the Quatercentenary of the University of Aberdeen. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.

Andrén, A. 1986.

Deeds and Misdeeds in Classical Art and Antiquities. Partille: P Åström.

Arata, F.P., and

“L’Antiqarium Comunale del Celio.” In Il Primo Miglio della Via Appia a Roma,

N. Balistreri. 2010.

Atti della Giornata di Studio, Roma, 16 giugno 2009, edited by D. Manacorda and R.S. Valenzani, 269–282. Rome: CROMA.

Art Institute of Chicago. 1889. Preliminary Catalogue of Metal Work, Graeco-Italian Vases and Antiquities, December 9, 1889. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago.

Bibliography

153

Arthurs, J.W. 2007.

“(Re)Presenting Roman History in Italy, 1911–1955.” In Nationalism, Historiography and the (Re)Construction of the Past, edited by C. Norton, 27–41. Washington, D.C.: New Academia Press.

Ashby, T. 1928.

“Rodolfo Lanciani.” ASRSP 51, 1–2: 102–43.

Barbanera, M. 2007.

“The Impossible Museum: Exhibitions of Archaeology as Reflections of Contemporary Ideologies.” In Archives, Ancestors and Practices: Archaeology in the light of its history, edited by N. Schlanger and J. Nordbladh, 167–178. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Barbanera, M. 1998.

L’archeologia degli Italiani. Storia, metodi e ornamenti dell’archeologia classica in Italia. Rome: Editori Riuniti.

Barnabei, M. and F. Delpino, eds. 1991.

Le Memorie di un Archeologo di Felice Barnabei. Rome: de Luca.

Baumgarten, P.M. 1902. Giovanni Battista de Rossi, fondatore della scienza di archeologia sacra, translated by G. Bonavenia. Rome: Tipografia della Pace di Filippo Cuggiani. Becchetti, P. 1994.

“L’opera fotografica di Giacomo Caneva, di Ludovico Tuminello e di John Henry Parker in un pretigioso fondo romano.” In L’immagine di Roma 1848– 1895: la città, l’archeologia, il medioevo nei calotipi del Fondo Tuminello. Catalogo della collezione di Piero Becchetti, edited by S. Romano, 17–31. Naples: Electa.

Becchetti, P. 1978.

Fotografi e fotografia in Italia, 1839–1880. Rome: Quasar.

Beltrami, L. 1898.

Il Pantheon: la struttura organica della cupola e del sottostante tamburo, la fondazione, della rotondo, dell’avancorpo, e del portico avanti degli edifici anteriore alle costruzioni adrianee. Milan: Umberto Allegretti.

Bernini, D. 1997.

“Origini del Sistema museale dello Stato di Roma.” Bollettino d’Arte 82, 6: 7–59.

Bertolotti, R. de A. 1983. “Le mura Serviane nella quinta regione augustea.” In Roma Capitale 1870–1911: l’archeologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e scavo, 119–140. Venice: Marsilio. Bilde, P.G. 1998.

“‘Those Nemi sculptures…’: marbles from a Roman sanctuary in the University of Pennsylvania Museum.” Expedition 40, 3: 36–47.

Boyle, L.E. 1993.

“The Vatican Library.” In Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture, edited by A. Grafton, xi–xx. New Haven and London: Yale University Press/ Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Brewster, A.H. 1879.

“Hidden Treasures: Torlonia Museum.” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 126: 70–87.

Bruni, S. 2001.

“Rapporti tra Stato e Municipio di Roma (1870–1911): L’istituzione di un museo archeologica.” Mélanges de l’École Français de Rome: Italie et Méditerranée 113, 2: 775–87.

Bruni, S. 1984.

“Museo Nazionale Romano: L’istituzione.” In Roma Capitale 1870–1911: Dagli Scavi al Museo come da trovamenti archeologici si construisce il museo, 117–125. Venice: Marsilio.

Buonocore, M. (ed.) 1997–2002.

Appunti del topografica romana nei codici Lanciani della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 5 Vols. Rome: Quasar.

Burgard, T.A. 1995.

Edmonia Lewis and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: Images and Identities. Harvard University Art Museum Gallery Series no. 14. Cambridge: Fogg Art Museum.

154

Susan M. Dixon

Caldelli, M.L. 2014.

“Rome 1863 e dintorni: il Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum attraverso gli Annali e il Bullettino dell’Istituto di Correspondenza Archeologica.” In Archeologia italiana e tedesca in Italia durante la costituzione dello stato unitario, edited by C. Capaldi, T. Frohlich, and C. Gasparri, 95–106. Naples: Naus Editoria

Candilio, D. 1984.

“Il Ministero delle Finanze.” In Dagli scavi al museo come da ritrovamenti archeologici si costruisce il Museo, 19–20. Rome: Marsilio.

Capobianco, Valeria. 2010.

“La Zona Monumentale riservata: storia di un paesaggio urbano.” In Primo Miglio della Via Appia a Roma, edited by D. Manacorda and R.S. Valenzani, 1–12. Rome: CROMA.

Capodiferro, A., Gli scavi di Giacomo Boni al foro Romano, documenti dall’archivio disegni della and P. Fortini, eds. 2003. sopraintendenza archeologica di Roma I.1. Rome: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma/Fondazione G. Poni-Flora Palatina. Capodiferro, A., and

“L’attività di Rodolfo Lanciani sul Palatino.” In Gli Orti Farnesiniani sul Palatino,

M. Piranomonte. 1990.

edited by G. Morgante, 109–119. Rome: École Française de Rome and Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma.

Carettoni, G. 1960.

La pianta marmorea di Roma antica: Forma Urbis Romae. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Carpanito, G. 1991.

I Palazzi di Roma. Rome: Newton Compton.

Carpenter, H. 2008.

The Seven Lives of John Murray: the story of a publishing dynasty. London: John Murray.

Caricciolo, T.M.C. 1929. Memoirs. London: Elkin Mathews and Marrot. Carter, J.B. 1904.

“Theodor Mommsen.” The Atlantic Monthly, 93: 373–378.

Castrianni, L., and E. Cella. 2009.

“Giacomo Boni e il Foro Romano: la prima applicazione della fotographia aerea archeologica in Italia.” AAerea 4: 21–28.

Cavaterra, A. 1995.

“Francesco Saverio Fava.” In Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 45. Rome: Istituto dell encyclopedia italiana.

Cederna, A. 2001.

Roma fascista nelle fotografie dell’Istituto Luce. Rome: Editori Riuniti.

Cerasuolo, S., ed. 2003. Due protagonisti e un comprimario dell’antichistica italiana del secolo XIX: I carteggi Comparetti, Fiorelli, Barnabei. Messina: Università degli Studi di Messina, Dipartimento di filologia e linguistica. Child, R.W. 1925.

A Diplomat Looks at Europe. New York: Duffield & Company.

Cima, M., and E. Talamo. 2008.

Gli Horti di Roma Antica. Rome: Electa.

Claridge, A. 1998.

Rome. Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.

Clark, M. 1974.

Modern Italy, 1871–1982. Longman History of Italy, v. 7. New York: Longman.

Clarke, J.T., and A. Emerson. 1887.

Letter. The Nation, April 21: 341–342.

Coarelli, F., ed. 2004.

Gli Scavi di Roma 1878–1921. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, supplementum II.2. Rome: Quasar

Bibliography

155

Comitato Esecutivo Guida ufficiale delle esposizioni di Roma. Rome: G. Bertero & Co. per le Feste Commemorative. 1911. Courtenay, T. 2011.

“The 1911 International Exposition in Rome: architecture, archaeology, and national identity.” Journal of Historical Geography 37, 4: 440–459.

Crespi, M. 1963.

“Guido Baccelli.” In: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol 5. Rome: Istituto dell encyclopedia italiana.

Cubberley, A.L, ed. 1988. Notes from Rome by Rodolfo Lanciani. Rome: British School at Rome. Cuccia, G. 1991.

Urbanistica Edilizia Infrastruttura di Roma Capitale 1870–1990. Rome: Laterza.

D’Agostino, B. 1991.

“The Italian Perspective on Theoretical Archaeology.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades, edited by I. Hodder, 52–64. London: Routledge.

Davis, J. 2004.

“Rome During the Castellani Century.” In Castellani and Italian Archaeological Jewelry, edited by S.W. Soros and S. Walker, 15–32. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

De Caro, S. 1999.

“Giuseppe Fiorelli e gli scavi di Pompei.” In A Giuseppe Fiorelli nel centenario della morte: Atti del Convegno di Napoli, 19–20 marzo 1997, edited by S. de Caro and P.G. Guzzo, 5–23. Naples: Arte tipografica.

De Caro, S., and P.G. Guzzo, eds. 1999.

A Giuseppe Fiorelli nel centenario della morte: Atti del Convegno di Napoli, 19–20 marzo 1997. Naples: Arte tipografica.

De Nigris, M.T. 2007.

“La Commissione Archeologica Municipale di Roma (1872–1924).” [www.archiviocaptiolino.it]

De Puma, R.D. 1996.

“Arthur Frothingham Jr.” In Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, edited by N.T. de Grummond, 471. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

De Sanctis, A. 1984.

“Gli scavi di Giacomo Boni al Foro romano.” In Dagli scavi al museo: come da ritrovamenti archeologici si construisce il museo, 76–83. Venice: Marsilio.

De Tomasi, F. 2017.

“The Purchasing Activities of Rodolfo Lanciani for American Museums (1887– 1889).” In 150 Años de Historia de la Arqueologia: Teoria y método de una disciplina, edited by M.A. Sanz, G. Mora and J.S. Álvarez, 395–410. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Historia de la Arqueología.

De Tomasi, F. 2013.

“Diplomazia e Archeologia nella Roma di fine Ottocento.” In Materiali per la Storia della cultura articistica antica e moderna, edited by F. Grisolia, 150–198. Rome: UniversItalia.

Delpino, F. 2014.

“L’Archeologia a Roma intorno al 1870: tra cosmopolitismo e contrapposti nazionalismi.” In Archeologia italiana e tedesca in Italia durante la costituzione dello stato unitario, edited by C. Capaldi, T. Frohlich, and C. Gasparri, 11–21. Naples: Naus Editoria.

Delpino, F., and R. Dubbini. 2011.

“Pietro Rosa e la tutela delle antichità a Roma tra il 1870 e il 1875.” In La Fortuna degli Etruschi nella costruzione dell’Italia Unita, edited by G.M. della Fina, 397– 411. Rome: Quasar.

Di Martino, P. 2012.

“‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’: Lobbies, Institutions and Speculation in the 1880s Building Fever.” Urban History 39, no. 3: 471–489.

Dicey, E. 1911.

Rome in 1860. Cambridge: Macmillan & Co.

156

Susan M. Dixon

Dickason, D.H. 1953.

The Daring Young Men: The Story of the American Pre-Raphaelites. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Dixon, S. 2016a.

“Rodolfo Lanciani’s Dismissal.” Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 16, 2, 8: 1–10.

Dixon, S. 2016b.

“Vasi, Piranesi, and the Accademia degli Arcadi: towards a definition of Arcadianism in the Visual Arts.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 61, 219–262.

Dixon, S. 2007.

“The Reattribution of the Pantheon from Agrippa to Hadrian.” In Italian Art, Society, and Politics: A festschrift in honor of Rab Hatfield, edited by B. Deimling, J. Nelson and G. Radke, 244–257. Florence: Syracuse University in Florence.

Dixon, S. 2005.

“Illustrating Ancient Rome, or the Ichnographia as Uchronia and other Time Warps in Il Campo Marzio.” In Envisioning the Past. Archaeology and Image, edited by S. Smiles and S. Moser, 115–132. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.

Ducati, P. 1929.

“Rodolfo Lanciani.” Historia: studi storici per l’Antichità classica (ed. Milan: Popolo d’Italia) 3, 7: 486–491.

Dyson, S.L. 2019.

Archaeology, Ideology and Urbanism in Rome from the Grand Tour to Berlusconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dyson, S.L. 2014.

The Last Amateur: The Life of William J. Stillman. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dyson, S.L. 2006.

In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts. A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Dyson, S.L. 1998.

Ancient Marbles to American Shores: Classical Archaeology in the United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Einaudi, Karin B.-S. 1978.

Fotografia Archeologica 1865–1914. Rome: de Luca Editore.

Elliott, M.H. 1905.

Roma Beata: Letters from the Eternal City. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Emiliani, A. 1999.

“Negli battaglia tra pubblico e private: l’Istituzione della Direzione Generale e Giuseppe FIorelli.” In A Giuseppe Fiorelli nel primo centenario della morte, Atti del Convegno Napoli, 19–20 marzo 1997, edited by S. de Caro, and P.G. Guzzo, 101–134. Naples: Tipografica.

Esposizione Catalogo della mostra archeologica nelle Terme di Diocleziano. Bergamo: Istituto Internazionale di Roma. italiano d’arte grafiche. 1911. Felisini, D. 2004.

“Quel capitalista per ricchezza principalissimo”: Alessandro Torlonia principe, banchiere, imprenditore nell’Ottocento romano. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Fentress, E. 2007.

“Around the Temple: the new galleries of the Capitoline Museum.” AJA 111, 2: 365–369.

Frothingham, A. 1886.

“Lectures.” AJA 2: 232.

Frutaz, A. 1962.

Le piante di Roma. 3 Vols. Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani.

Gatti, Guuseppe. 1887. “Trovamenti risguardanti la topografia e la epigrafia urbana.” BCAR 15: 173–191. Gatti, Guglielmo. 1979. “Il teatro e la Crypta Balba in Roma.” Mélanges l’École Français de Rome. Antiquité 91, 1: 237–313.

Bibliography

157

Giglioli, G.Q. 1929.

“Rodolfo Lanciani.” BCAR 57: 367–384.

Giuliano, A. 1992.

“Rodolfo Lanciani e la ‘Storia degli Scavi’” Xenia Antiqua 1: 155–160.

Greenblatt, S. 2011.

The Swerve: How the World became Modern. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Gregorovius, F. 1991.

Roemische Tagebuecher, 1852–1889, edited by H.W. Kruft and M. Voelkel. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Guillaume, E. 1892.

“Le Pathéon d’Agrippa. A propos de découvertes.” Revue des Deux Mondes 112, 3: 562–581.

Guzzo, P.G. 2001.

“Ostacoli per una legislazione nazionale delle tutela dell’archeologia dopo l’Unità.” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome: Italie et Méditerranée 113, 2: 539–547.

Gyr, U. 2010.

“The History of Tourism: Structures on the Path to Modernity.” European History Online (Mainz: Institute of European History), Dec. 3: 1–38.

Hale, W.G., and T. Peck. 1899.

“Fourth Annual Report of the Managing Committee of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome.” AJA 3, 6: 687–713.

Hartswick, K.J. 2004.

The Gardens of Sallust. A Changing Landscape, Austin [TX]: University of Texas Press.

Heffner, E.H. 1930.

“Rodolfo Amadeo Lanciani.” AJA 34: 64.

Henzen, W. 1874.

Acta fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt. Bertolini: Georgii Reimeri.

Henzen, W. 1868.

Scavi nel bosco sacro dei Fratelli arvali: per larghezza delle Il. Mm. Guglielmo ed Augusta, re e regina di Prussia, operati dai signori Ceccarelli. Rome: Tipografia tibertina.

Henzen, W., and G.B. . Inscriptiones Urbis Romae latinae. Vol. 6 of Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. de Rossi, et al 1885-1886 Bertolini: de Gruyter, 1885–1886. Von Hesberg, H. 2014.

“Il progetto di scavo di Wilhelm Henzen nel santuario degli Arvali e a Monte Cavo (1872).” In Archeologia italiana e tedesca in Italia durante la costituzione dello stato unitario, edited by C. Capaldi, T. Frohlich, and C. Gasparri, 233–247. Naples: Naus Editoria 2014.

Hibbert, C. 1985.

Rome: The Biography of a City. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Huelsen, C. 1904.

Das Forum Romanum: seine Geschichte und seine Denkmäler. Rome: Loescher.

Huelsen, C., and H. Kiepert. 1896.

Forma Urbis Romae Antiquae. Accedit Nomenclator Topographicas. Berolini: D. Reimer.

Iacopi, I. 1997.

Gli Scavi sul Colle Palatino: testimonianze e documenti. Rome: Electa.

Impaglia, C. 2017.

“Rodolfo Lanciani e la rappresentantazione dell’antica campagna romana. Ricerca archeologica tra passeggiate e collezionismo.” Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 72: 291–318.

Insolera, I. 1971.

Roma Moderna: un secolo di storia urbanistica. Turin: Einaudi.

Jameson, J.F. 1902.

“Review of ‘Pagan and Christian Rome’.” The American Historical Review 7, 4: 749–750.

Jordan, H. 1874.

Forma urbis Romae regionum xiiii. Berolini: Weidmannos.

Kannes, G. 1997.

“Giuseppe Fiorelli.” In: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 48. Rome: Istituto dell encyclopedia italiana.

158

Susan M. Dixon

Karmon, D. 2011.

The Ruin of the Eternal City: Antiquity and Preservation in Renaissance Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kragelund, P., M. Moltesen, and J.S. Østergaard. 2003.

The Lincian Tomb: Fact or Fiction? Copenhagen: NY Carlsberg Glyptotek.

Lang, A. 1899.

“Golf from St. Andrew’s Point of View.” North American Review 159, 512 (July), 140–141.

Larrabee, D.M. 1992.

Anne Hampton Brewster. Philadelphia: Library Company of Pennsylvania.

Lavin, M.A. 1983.

The Eye of the Tiger: The Founding and Development of the Department of Art and Archaeology, 1883–1923, Princeton University. Princeton: The Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University.

Lehoerff, A. 1999.

“Pratiques archéologiques et administration du patrimoine archéologique en Italie, 1875–1995: l’exemple des anciens territoires villanoviens.” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Italie et Méditerranée 111, 1: 73–148.

Liberati, A.M. 2016.

“Il Museo dell’Impero Romana: la genesi, l’istituzione, lo sviluppo, la sorte.” Civiltà Romana: Rivista pluridisciplinare di studi su Roma antica e le sue interpretazioni 3: 203–279.

Liberati, A.M. 2014.

“La Mostra Archeologica del 1911 alle Terme di Diocleziano.” In Incontro di Studi Orme di Roma tra Italia e Romania all’insegna di Roma Antica, 80–96. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecco dello Stato.

Lilli, M. 2001.

Lanuvium avanzi di edifici antichi negli Appunti di R. Lanciani. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Liverani, P. 2004.

“Excavations of Etruria in the 1880s: the case of Veii.” In Archives and Excavations: Essays on the History of Archaeological Excavations in Rome and Southern Italy from the Renaissance to the Nineteeth Century, edited by I. Bignamini, 267– 279. London: The British School in Rome.

Lugli, G. 1945–46.

“Rodolfo Lanciani.” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 21: 33–37.

MacDonald, W.L., and J.A.Pinto. 1995.

Hadrian’s Villa and its Legacy. New Haven and London: Yale University.

Madden, E. 2016.

“American Anne Hampton Brewster’s Social Circles: Bagni di Lucca, 1873, and Roman Rodolfo Lanciani.” In Questioni di genere: femminilitàà e effeminatezza nella cultura vittoriana, edited by R. Ferrari and L. Giovannelli, 117–143. Bologna: Bononia University Press.

Magagnini, A. 2004.

“Alessandro and Augusto Castellani: Collecting, Museum History and the Antiquities Market.” In Castellani and Italian Archaeological Jewelry, edited by S.W. Soros and S. Walker, 285–301. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Manicioli, D. 1983a.

“La necropolis Esquilino sulla via Labicana-Prenestina: gli scavi della Compagnia fondiaria.” In L’Archeologia in Roma Capitale tra Sterro e Scavo, edited by G.P. Sartorio, A.M. Ramieri and L. Quilici, 156–162. Venice: Marsilio Editori.

Mancioli, D. 1983b.

“La Mostra archeologica del 1911 e le Terme di Diocleziano.” In Dalla mostra al museo: dalla mostra archeologica del 1911 al Museo della civilità romana, edited by G.P. Sartorio, D. Mancioli, A.M. Liberati, and S.V. Fioravanti, 52–61. Venice: Marsilio.

Bibliography

159

Margiotta, A. 1989.

“John Henry Parker e la sua campagna fotografica.” In Un Inglese a Roma 1864– 1877: la raccolta Parker nell’archivio fotografico comunale, 12–26. Rome: Artemide.

McFadden, E. 1971.

The Glitter and the Gold: A spirted account of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s First Director, the Audacious and High-Handed Luigi Palma di Cesnola. New York: Dial Press.

Melis, F., and F.R.S. Ridgway. 1887.

“Mysteries of Diana: sulla nuova esposizione dei materiali nemorensi a Castel Museum di Nottingham.” Archeologia Laziale, 8: 218–226.

Middleton, J.H. 1885.

Ancient Rome in 1885. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black.

Millon, J.R. 1982.

St. Paul’s Within the Walls, Rome: a building history and guide, 1870–1980. Dublin, NH: William L. Bauhan.

Misiti, M.C. 2010.

“Le collezioni, la storia.” In Le meraviglie di Roma antica e moderna. Progetti nelle raccolte della Bilbioteca di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, edited by M.C. Misiti, and S.P.V. Rodinò, 13–19. Turin: Daniela Piazza Editore.

Moltesen, M. 2012.

Perfect Partners: the collaboration between Carlo Jacobsen and his agent in Rome Wolfgang Helbig. Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glypotek.

Morghen, R., ed. 1972.

L’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei nel CCCLXVIII anno dalla sua fondazione, nella vita e nella cultura dell’Italia unita 1871–1971. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

Muzzioli, M.P., and.. P. Pellegrino, eds. 1991–92 and 1994.

“Schede dei Manoscritti Lanciani.” Rivisti dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 3, 14–15: 399–422, and 3, 17: 225–312

Nagy, H. 2018.

“The Formation of the Etruscan Collections at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: The Strategies of Edward Robinson and Rodolfo Lanciani.” In Collecting and Collectors from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by A. Carpino, T. D’Angelo, M. Muratov, and D. Saunders, 11–28. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Nagy, H. 2008.

“Etruscan Votive Terracottas from Cerveteri in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: A Glimpse into the History of the Collection.” Etruscan Studies: Journal of the Etruscan Foundation, 11: 103–111.

Ogden, R., ed. 1907.

The Life and Letters of E.L. Godkin. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan.

D’Onofrio, C. 1959.

“Un grande archeologo romano: Rodolfo Lanciani, a trent’anni dalla morte.” Capitolium 34, 6: 23–25.

Ortolani, G. 2017.

“Rodolfo Lanciani e Villa Adriana.” Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 72: 269–290.

Palombi, D. 2009.

“Roma 1911. L’Esposition Archéologique du cinquntenaire de l’Unité italienne.” Anabases 9: 71–100.

Palombi, D. 2006a.

Rodolfo Lanciani: l’Archeologia a Roma tra Ottocento e Novecento. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Palombi, D. 2006b.

“Archaeology and National Identity in the Works of Rodolfo Lanciani.” In Archaeology and National Identity in Italy and Europe 1800–1950, edited by N. de Haan, M. Eickhoff, and M. Schwegman, 125–150. Turnhout: Brepols.

Parker, J.H. 1874 and 1876.

The Archaeology of Rome. 2 Vols. Oxford: J. Parker and Co.

160

Susan M. Dixon

Pedley, M.S. 2012.

“Urban map production in the European Enlightenment: Rome in context.” In Piante di Roma dal Rinascimento ai catasti, edited by M. Bevilacqua and M. Fagiolo, 284–292. Rome: Artemide.

Pellati, Francesco. “Felice Barnabei.” In: Dizionario biografica degli Italiani, vol. 6. Rome: Istituto dell encyclopedia italiana. Pensabene, P. 1984.

“Il Tevere: il rinvenimento dei materiali archeologici.” In Dagli Scavi al museo: come da ritrovamenti archeologici si construisce il museo, 72–75. Venice: Marsilio.

Piacentini, Marcello. 1952.

Le vicende edilizie di Roma dal 1870 ad oggi. Rome: Fratelli Palombi.

Piccolini, C. 1929–30.

“La morte del Socio Senatore Rodolfo Lanciani.” Atti e Memoria della Società Tiburtina di Storia Patria 9–10: 435–441.

Platner, S.B. 1911.

The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Platner, S.B. 1908.

“Review of Golden Days of the Renaissance in Rome.” Classical Philology 3, 1: 117.

Quilici, L. 1983.

“La tutela archeologia nei piani regolatori e nella legislazione.” In Roma Capitale tra Sterro e Scavo, edited by G.P. Sartorio, A.M. Ramieri and L. Quilici, 48–84. Venice: Marsilio Editori.

Quintavalle, R. 2008.

Alessandro Torlonia e Via Nomentana nell’800. Rome: Edilazio.

Ramieri, A.M. 1989.

“Archeologia a Roma: gli scavi e le scoperte dal 1864 al 1870. In Un inglese a Roma, 1864–1877: la raccolta Parker nell’Archivio fotografico comunale, 23–30.. Rome: Artemidem.

Reggiani, A.M. 1984.

“La politica degli interventi nell’Agro Romano: il caso di Villa Adriana.” In Dagli scavi al museo: come da ritrovamento archeologici si costruisce il museo, 103–131. Venice: Marsilio.

Richards, L.E., and. M.H. Elliott, eds. 1915

Julia Ward Howe, 1819–1910: A Life and Letters. 2 Vols. Boston, Houghton & Mifflin.

Ridley, R.T. 2000.

The Pope’s archaeologist: the life and times of Carlo Fea. Rome: Quasar.

Ridley, R.T. 1992a.

The Eagle and the Spade: the Archaeology of Rome during the Napoleonic era, 1809–1814. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ridley, R.T. 1992b.

“To protect the monuments: the Papal Antiquarian (1534–1870).” Xenia antiqua 1: 117–154.

Ridley, R.T. 1989.

“The Monuments of the Roman Forum: the struggle for identity.” Xenia 17: 71-78.

Romanelli, R. 1971.

“Paolo Boselli.” In: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 13. Rome: Istituto dell’encyclopedia italiana.

Romanelli, P. 1970.

“Giacomo Boni.” In Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 12. Rome: Istituto dell’encyclopedia italiana, 75–77.

Romano, S., ed. 1994.

L’immagine di Roma 1848–1895: la città, l’archeologia, il medioevo nei calotipi del fondo Tuminello. Naples: Electa Napoli.

Runach, S. 1929.

“Rodolfo Amadeo Lanciani.” Revue Archéologique 30: 128–190.

Shriverman, G. 1924.

Eternal Rome: the City and its People from the earliest times to the present day. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bibliography

161

Smith, C. 2017.

“Thomas Ashby e la topografia della Campagna Romana.” In Dalla camera oscura alla prima fotografia: architetti e archeologi a Segni da Dodwell ad Ashby e Mackey, 61–66. Rome: Quasar.

Smith, H.K. 1898.

The History of the Lowell Institute. Boston: Lamson, Wolffe and Co.

Sommella, A. M. 1992.

“L’Antiquarium comunale e le raccolte Capitoline da ‘Roma Capitale’ ai progetti per la loro sistemazione 1870/1992.” In Invisibilia: rivedere I capolavori, vedere i progetti, edited by M.E. Tittoni, and S. Guarini, 145–150. Rome: Edizione Carte Segrete.

Soria, R. 1970.

Elihu Veddar: American Visionary Artist in Rome (1836–1923). Rutherford, Madison and Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Sperandio, M., and M.T. Petrara. 1993.

“Rodolfo Lanciani e i Lanciani di Montecelio.” Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d’Arte. 66: 165–177.

Stillman, W. 1886.

“Letter.” The Nation (Oct. 28): 351.

Strong, E. 1911.

“The Exhibition Illustrative of the Provinces of the Roman Empire, at the Baths of Diocletian, Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 1: 1–49.

Tannenbaum, E.R., Modern Italy: a topical history since 1861. New York: New York University Press. and E.P. Noether. 1974. Tea, E. 1932.

Giacomo Bni nella vita del suo tempo. 2 Vols. Milan: Casa Editrice Ceschina.

Tomei, M.A. 1999.

Scavi Francesi sul Palatino: Le indagini di Pietro Rosa per Napoleone III (1861–1870). Rome: École Française de Rome and Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma.

Tomei, M.A. 1990.

“Gli scavi di Pietro Rosa per Napoleone III (1861–1870).” In Gli Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino, edited by G. Morgante, 62–107. Rome: École Française de Rome and Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma.

Turchetti, R. 2004.

“Giacomo Boni’s excavations in the Roman Forum as seen in the photographs of Thomas Ashby.” In Archives & Excavations: essays on the history of archaeological excavations in Rome and Southern Italy from the Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century, edited by I. Bignamini, 165–186. London: The British School at Rome.

Waddington, M.K. 1905. Italian Letters of a Diplomat’s Wife. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Walker, S. 2004.

“Founders, Family Members, and the Firm.” In Castellani and Italian Archaeological Jewelry, edited by S.W. Soros and S. Walker, 35–83. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Ward, Mrs. H. 1918.

A Writer’s Recollections. Vol. 2. New York: Harper.

White, A.D. 1905.

The Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White. Vol. 2. New York: The Century Company.

Whitehall, W.M. 1970.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: A Centennial History. 2 Vols. Cambridge: Balnap Press of Harvard University Press.

Will, E.L. 2002.

“Charles Eliot Norton and the Archaeological Institute of America.” In Excavating Our Past: Perspectives on the History of the Archaeological Institute of America, edited by S.H. Allen, 49–61. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Wilmers, G. 2005.

“An American Artist in Italy: Frederic Crowningshield and his ‘Second Patria’.” In: Spellbound by Rome: The Anglo-American Community in Rome (1890–1914) and the founding of the Keats-Shelley House, 37–43. Rome: Palombi Editori.

162

Susan M. Dixon

Winterer, C. 2002.

The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780–1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wiseman, T.P. 1985–86. “Con Boni nel Foro: I diari romani di W. St. Clair Baddeley.” Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, 3, 8–9: 119–149 (Translated into English: Wiseman, T.P. 1992. “With Boni in the Forum.” In Talking to Virgil: A Miscellany, 114–148. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.) Valenti, M., ed. 2011.

Colli Albani: Protagonisti e luoghi della ricercar archeologica nell’ottocento. Città di Monte Porzio Catone: Istituzione ‘Area delle Muse’/Polo Museale.

Vance, W. 1989.

America’s Rome. Vol. 2 (of 2): Catholic and Contemporary Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Visconti, C.L., and R. Lanciani. 1873.

Guida del Palatino. Rome: Fratelli Bocca.

Visconti, P.E. 1883.

Catalogo del Museo Torlonia di Sculture Antiche. 3rd Ed. Rome: Tipografia Tibertina.

Von Stackelberg, K. 2009. The Roman Garden. London: Routledge.

Lanciani’s BiBLioGrapHy This bibliography aspires to be complete. However, about 10 incomplete bibliographic entries that appear in Ashby 1928, 141–142, are not verifiable, and have been eliminated from the following list. They are shorter articles, in English, dating from the late 1890s through 1909.) 1866.

“Porto: rapporto sulle recenti scoperte nell’edificio reputato lo Xenodochio di Pammacchio in Porto.” Bullettino di archeologia Cristiana 4: 100–103.

1868a.

“Ricerche topografiche sulla città di Porto.” Annali dell’istituto di correspondenza archeologica 40: 144–195.

1868b.

“Sugli Orti degli Acilii.” BICA: 119–128.

1868c.

“Iscrizioni portuensi.” BICA: 227–237.

1869.

“Recenti scoperte di Roma e nelle vicinanze.” BICA: 225–237.

1870.

“Recenti scoperte di Roma e nelle vicinanze.” BICA: 14–32, 41–55, and 74–90.

1871a.

“Sulle mura e porte di Servio.” Annali dell’istitituo di correspondenza archeologica 43: 40–85.

1871b.

“Recenti scavi di Roma e contorni.” BICA: 241–249.

1871c.

“Tempio dei Castori.” BICA: 257–272.

1872–73a.

“Prefazione,” BCAR 1: 3–4.

1872–73b.

“Delle scoperte avvenute nel nuovo quartiere Castor Praetorio.” BCAR 1: 520.

1872–73c.

“Delle scoperte avvenute sui colli Quirinale e Viminale.” BCAR 1: 66–90, and 223–254.

1872–73d.

“Scoperte alla salita delle Tre Pile.” BCAR 1: 138–159.

1874a.

“Delle scoperte avvenute nella prima zona del quartiere Esquilino.” BCAR 2: 33– 88, and 195–223.

Bibliography

163

1874b.

“Iscrizione ligoriana di Via Latina.” BCAR 2: 108–112.

1875a.

“Le antichissime sepolture Esquiline.” BCAR 3: 41–56

1875b.

“Di un gruppo di lapidi e di latercoli militari scoperte nell’Esquilino.” BCAR 3: 77–117.

1875c.

“Il tempio capitolino di Giove Ottimo Massimo.” BCAR 3: 165–189.

1875d.

“Decreto edilizio intorno il sepolcreto Esquilino.” BCAR 3: 190–203

1875e.

“The Hidden Wealth of the Tiber.” The New York Herald (29 March).

1876a.

Discorso letto dal Segretario della Commissione Archeologica Municipale il giorno 25 febbraio 1876, in occasione dell’apertura delle nuove sale dei musei capitolini. Rome: Salviucci.

1876b.

“Ara di Verminio.” BCAR 4: 24–38, 121–140, and 165–210.

1876c.

“Elogio di M. Valerio Messalla e notizie concernenti la scoperte di ess.” BCAR 4: 48–53.

1876d.

“Frammenti mediovali venute in luce negli scavi recenti.” ASRSP 4: 375–379.

1876e.

“Results of Recent Excavations.” In: American Cycloaedia: 1698.

1877a.

“Di un busto attribuito ad Antonio di Druso.” BCAR 5: 113–118.

1877b.

“Miscellanea Epigrafica.” BCAR 5: 5–58, 161–183, 253–254.

1877c.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 201–208, 265–273, 311–327.

1877d.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 272, 313.

1877e.

“Delle scoperte avvenute nel cimitero di Domitilla.” Opinione (23 maggio)

1877f.

“Iscrizioni di Cures, lettera al prof. Teodoro Mommsen.” In: Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodri Mommseni scriptserunt amici. Berlin, Weidmann: 411–416.

1878a.

“Scoperte in Piazza di Pietra.” BCAR 6: 10–27.

1878b.

“Supplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Inscr. Lat.” BCAR 6: 93–131, 239–271. (#1– 151)

1878c.

“Scoperte Urbane.” NSc: 33–35, 64–66, 90–94, 131–134, 162–164, 232–237, 340– 346, 368–369.

1878d.

“Scoperte Suburbane.” NSc: 35–38, 67–68, 134–138, 164–167, 259–261, 369–371.

1878e.

“Scavi nel portico di Ottavia.” BICA: 209–219.

1878f.

“Delle scoperte di antichità avvenute in Rome dopo l’anno 1870.” Nuova antologia (1 luglio).

1878g.

“Il monument nazionale a Vittorio Emanuele.” Opinione (23 gen.).

1878–79.

“Di alcune opera di risanamento dell’agro romano esguite dagli antichi.” Memorie (delle Classe delle Scienze fisiche). Reale Accademia dei Lincei. 3, 3: 301–316.

1879a.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 13–15, 36–41, 67–69, 112–115, 139–141, 178–181, 262– 269, 312–315, 330–334.

1879b.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 15–16, 41, 115–116, 141–145, 334.

164

Susan M. Dixon

1879–80.

“Topografia di Roma antica: I commentarii di Frontinus intorno le acque e gli acquedotti.” Memorie. Reale Accademia dei Lincei 3, 4: 215–616.

1880a.

“Iscrizione dell’Anfiteatro Flavio.” BCAR 8: 211–282.

1880b.

“Supplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Inscr. Lat.” BCAR 8: 9–81, 132–152. (#152– 433)

1880c.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 30–33, 51–54, 80–81,127–142, 226–229, 463–468.

1880d.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 54–56, 81–83, 229–230, 469–479.

1880e.

“Recensione di G.B. de Rossi, Piante Icnografiche e prospetti di Roma.” ASRSP 3: 251–255.

1880f.

“I bassorilievo di Piazza di Pietra.” Opinione (6 feb.).

1881a.

“Supplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Inscr. Lat.” BCAR 9: 3–47, 197–204. (#434– 579)

1881b.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 56–58, 89–90, 105, 167–168, 255–294, 319–320, 371– 372.

1881c.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 58–60, 91, 109–120, 137–139, 320.

1881d.

“Sulle vicende edilizie di Roma.” Monografia della Città di Roma 1: 1–50.

1882a.

Il Pantheon e le terme di Agrippa, prima e seconda relazione. Rome: Salviucci.

1882b.

“Gli antichi edifice componenti la chiesa dei SS. Cosma e Damiano.” BCAR 10: 29–54.

1882c.

“Supplementi al vol. VI del Corpus Inscri. Latin.” BCAR 10: 149–172. (#540–604)

1882d.

“Singolare lucerna di bronzo.” BCAR 10: 203–204.

1882e.

“Memorie inedite di trovamenti di antichità fatte dai codici Ottoboniani di Pier Leon Ghezzi.” BCAR 10: 205–234.

1882f.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 216–238, 301, 340–359, 410–413, 432–433.

1882g.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 66–67, 113–114, 265–266, 271–272, 413–417, 434.

1882h.

“Il codice barberiniano XXX ora Barb. Lat. 2016.” ASRSP 5: 223–240, 449–490.

1882–83.

“L’aula e gli uffici del senato romano (Curia hostilia iulia: secretarium Senatus).” Memorie della Classe delle Scienze morale. Accademia dei Lincei. 3a, 11: 3–32.

1883a.

“La basilica Matidies et Marcianes.” BCAR 11: 5–16.

1883b.

“L’Iseum et Serapeum della Regione IX.” BCAR 11: 33–60.

1883c.

“Il tempio di Apolline Palatino; il tempio della Vittoria.” BCAR 11: 185–212

1883d.

“Suppplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Insc. Lat.” BCAR s11: 213–243. (#605–695)

1883e.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 13–15, 46–48, 79–81, 129–131, 207–210, 243–245, 339– 341, 370–372, 420–421, 434–487.

1883f.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 16–17, 49, 82–87, 131–133, 169–174, 210–212, 372– 373, 420–423.

1884a.

“Il busto di Anacreonte scoperto negli orti di Cesare.” BCAR 2, 12: 25–38.

Bibliography

165

1884b.

“La Villa Castrimoeniese di Q. Voconio Pollione.” BCAR 2, 12: 141–217.

1884c.

“Supplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Insc. Lat.” BCAR 12: 3–24, 39–60. (#605–815)

1884d.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 39–41, 80, 102–104, 153–155, 189–193, 220–223, 232– 234, 236–238, 240–241, 308–309, 346–347, 392–393.

1884e.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 17–18, 41–44, 80–85, 104–109, 155–159, 193, 223– 224, 238–240, 347–348, 373, 393–395.

1884f.

“Sull’ Atrium Vestae.” BICA: 145–153.

1885a.

“Gli alloggiamento degli Equites Singulares.” BCAR 13: 137–156. (CIL, 6, #816– 1000)

1885b.

“Di un frammento della pianta marmorea severiana, rappresentate il clivo della Vittoria.” BCAR 13: 157–160.

1885c.

“Supplementi al Vol. VI del Corpus Insc. Lat.” BCAR 13: 94–109, 161–177 (#1001–1100)

1885d.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 41–42, 66–71, 154–158, 186–188, 220–224, 248–251, 316–317, 341–344, 422–424, 473–476, 524–528.

1885e.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 22, 42–47, 71–78, 158–160, 188–193, 227–228, 244– 246, 251–255, 317–321, 476–479, 528–530.

1885–86.

“Sulla conservazione dei monumenti di Roma. Discorso.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei s. 4, 2: 355–369.

1886a.

“Fistole acquarie letterate.” BCAR 14: 102–105.

1886b.

“Notizie del movimento edilizio della città in relazione con l’archeologia e l’arte.” BCAR 14: 27–41, 79–80.

1886c.

“Scoperte recentissime.” BCAR 14: 112–114, 170–172, 215–216. (with Giuseppe Gatti)

1886d.

“Delle scoperte avventute nei disterri del palazzo della Banca Nazionale.” BCAR 14: 184–191.

1886e.

“Trovamenti risguardanti la topografia e la epigrafia urbana.” BCAR 14: 42–48, 81–101, 148–162. (with Giuseppe Gatti)

1886f.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 11–25, 48–52, 80, 121–124, 157–159, 207–208, 229–234, 269–275.

1886g.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 25–26, 52–58, 80–82, 124–127, 159–165, 209–211, 236, 558–560.

1886h.

“Discoveries in Villa Patrizi.” The Esquiline: 52.

1887a. 

“Letter.” The Nation, 28 April 1887: 361–362.

1887b.

“Recent Discioveries of works of art in Rome.” The Century (Feb.) 33, 4.

1888a.

“La Venus Hortorum Sallustianorum.” BCAR 16: 3–11.

1888b.

“Il Campus Salinarum Romanarum.” BCAR 16: 83–91.

1888c.

“Notizie del movement edilizio della città in relazione con l’archeologia e l’arte.” BCAR 16: 127–137, 159–166 (the second with Gisueppe Gatti)

166

Susan M. Dixon

1888d.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 59–64, 132–137, 701, 707–708, 733–737.

1888e.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 6, 61–4, 136–137, 192, 234–235, 285–288, 394, 701, 707–709, 733–745.

1888f.

Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1889a.

“Il Foro di Augusto.” BCAR 17: 26–34.

1889b.

“Delle scoperte avvenute nei disterri del nuovo palazzo di Giustizia.” BCAR, s. 3, 17: 173–180.

1889c.

“Ara dell’incendio Nerioniano scoperta presso la chiesa di S. Andrea al Quirinale.” BCAR 17: 331–339, and 379–391.

1889d.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 31, 65, 68–69, 159–161, 224–225, 361.

1889e.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 10–12, 18–22, 29–31, 37–43, 60–65, 70–83, 105–106, 108–110, 154–158, 164, 226–228, 238–239, 247, 339–341, 365–367, 403.

1889f.

“Recensione di Otto Richter, Topographie der Stadt Rome, 1st ed.” ASRSP 12: 409–413.

1889g.

“Les recentes fouilles d’Ostie.” Mélanges de Ecole Français de Rome 9: 174–179.

1889h.

“The Burial of Rome.” The Chatauquan 10, 2: 125–130.

1890a.

“Ricerche sulle XIV Regioni Urbane.” BCAR 18: 115–137.

1890b.

“La Cloaca Massima.” BCAR 18: 95–102.

1890c.

“Scoperte urbane.” NSc: 184–185, 187–189, 213–216.

1890d.

“Scoperte suburbane.” NSc: 11–14, 33–38, 111–113, 115–121, 156–158, 219.

1890e.

“The Quarries out of which Rome was built.” The Esquiline (April): 275.

1890f.

“A Romance of Old Rome.” North American Review 150: 80–87.

1890–92.

“L’itinerario di Einsiedeln e l’ordine di Benedetto Canonico.” Monumenti Antichi. Accademia dei Lincei 1: 437–552.

1891a.

“Miscellanea topografia.” BCAR 19: 18–36, 132–155, 210–236, 305–329.

1891b.

“Gli statute della compagnia dei Mondezzari di Roma.” ASRSP 14: 165.

1891c.

“Quatre dessins inedits de la collection Destailleur relatifs aux ruines de Rome.” Mélanges de École Français de Rome 11: 159–178.

1891e.

“Underground Christian Rome.” Atlantic Monthly Magazine 68: 14–23.

1892a.

“Gli edifizi della prefettura urbana fra le Tellure e le terme di Tito e Traiano.” BCAR 20: 19–37.

1892b.

“Le mura di Aureliano e di Proba.” BCAR 20: 87–111.

1892c.

“La Controversia sul Pantheon.” BCAR 20: 150–159.

1892d.

“Recenti scoperte di Roma e del Suburbio.” BCAR 20: 271–304.

1892e.

Pagan and Christian Rome. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1892f.

“The pageant at Rome in the year 17 B.C.” Atlantic Monthly Magazine 69: 145– 153.

Bibliography

167

1892g.

“The Pope at Home.” North American Review 155: 196–209.

1892h.

“In the last footsteps of a Roman Emperor.” The Youth’s Companion 65: 358.

1893a.

“Recenti scoperte di Roma e del Suburbio.” BCAR 21: 3–19.

1893b.

“Di un nuovo codici di Pier Leone Ghezzi (nel Museo Brittanico) contenente notizie di antichità” BCAR 21: 165–182.

1893c.

“Il panorama di Roma scolpito da Pietro Paolo Olivieri nel 1583 (nel mausoleo di Gregorio XI a San Francesco Romana).” BCAR 21: 272–277.

1893d.

“La riedificazione di Frascati per opera di Paolo III.” ASRSP 16: 517–522.

1893–1901.

Forma vrbis Romae. Consilio et avctoritate Regiae Academiae Lyncaeorvm. Milan: Hoepli.

1894a.

“Il Magazzino archeologico communale inaugurato il 7 maggio 1894: Discorso.” BCAR 22: 138–157.

1894b.

“Disegni di antichità nella biblioteca di S. Maria di Eton.” BCAR 22: 164–187.

1894c.

“Di un frammento inedito della pianta di Roma antica referibili alla Regione VII.” BCAR 22: 285–311.

1894d.

“Documenti relative allo stato degli ebrei nella antiche province romane.” ASRSP 27: 227–236.

1894e.

“Il Tesoro del Colle Capitolino.” Fanfulla della Domenico 16, 4: 1.

1894f.

“Il Palazzo Maggiore nei secoli XVI-XVIII.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 9: 3–36.

1894g.

“Introduction.” In Manual of Roman Antiquities by William Ramsay, revised, 15th edition. London: Charles Griffin & Co: 1–85.

1894h.

“Vanished Rome.” Pall Mall Magazine 4, 18: 207–217.

1894i.

“How St. Peter’s is cared for.” The Youth’s Companion 67: 592–593.

1895a.

“Il panorama di Roma delineato da Antonio van den Wyngaerde circa l’anno 1560.” BCAR 23: 81–109.

1895b.

“Gli scavi del Colosseo e le terme di Tito.” BCAR 23: 110–116.

1895c.

“Le ‘picturae antiquae cryptarum Romanarum’.” BCAR 23: 165–192.

1895d.

“Maps, plans and views of the city of Rome, with special reference to Palladio’s plan.” Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 3, 2: 645–650.

1896a.

“Varia.” BCAR 24: 233–249.

1896b.

“Recensione di H. Kiepert e Ch. Huelsen, Forma Urbis Romae antiquae.” ASRSP 29: 451–456.

1896c.

“The Mysterious Wreck of Nemi.” North American Review 162: 223–235.

1896d.

“The Skyscrapers of Rome.” North American Review 162: 705–715.

1896e.

“The Royal Family of Italy in their private relations.” The Youths Companion 70.

1897a.

“Varia.” BCAR 25: 143–163.

1897b.

“Il patrimonio della famiglia Colonna al tempo di Martino V.” ASRSP 20: 369–449.

168

Susan M. Dixon

1897c.

The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, a Companion Book for Students and Travellers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1897d.

“Literary Treaure Trove on the Nile.” North American Review 164: 678–684.

1897e.

“The Higher Life of Modern Rome.” The Outlook (4 Sept.): 25–37.

1898.

“The Italian Court.” The Youths Companion 72: 352–353.

1899a.

“I nuovi frammenti della Forma Urbis.” BCAR 27: 3–19.

1899b.

“Scoperte al XIV miglio della via Tiburtina.” BCAR 27: 22–31.

1899c.

“La Villa dei Vibii Vari al Colle si S. Stefano presso Villa Adriana.” BCAR 27: 32–36.

1899d.

“Nuovi cippi iugerali degli acquedotti.” BCAR 27: 37–39.

1899e.

“Scoperte nell’agro Collatino.” BCAR 27: 40–41.

1899f.

“La raccolta antiquaria di Giovanni Ciampolini.” BCAR 27: 101–115.

1889g.

“Le escavazione del Foro: I: la basilica emilia.” BCAR 27: 169–204.

1900a.

“Le escavazione del Foro: I: la basilica emilia; II: I magazzini delle droghe orientali (Horrea Piperataria); III: Le fontane del Comizio; IV: S. Maria Liberatrici; V: S. Maria Antiqua; VI: Il Campo Torrecchiano: VII: IL Fundicus Macellorum de Arcanoe.” BCAR 28: 3–27, 299–320.

1900b.

“Buchellius, Iter Italicum (cenni preliminari e note).” ASRSP 23: 5–66.

1900c.

“Architectural results of the latest excavations in the Forum.” Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 3, 8: 25–35f.

1901a.

“I nuovi frammenti della Forma Urbis e le terme di Agrippa.” BCAR 29: 3–19.

1901b.

“Le escavazione del Foro: VIII: Lo Pantano de Sancto Basilio.” BCAR 29: 20–51.

1901c.

“Lo Monte Tarpeio nel secolo XVI.” BCAR 29: 245–269.

1901d.

“Buchellius, Iter Italicum (cenni preliminari e note).” ASRSP 24: 49–93.

1901e.

New Tales of Old Rome. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1901f.

The Destruction of Ancient Rome, A Sketch of the History of the Monuments. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1902a.

“Le escavazione del Foro: IX: l’ara di Vulcano.” BCAR 30: 125–133.

1902b.

“La via Corso dirizzata e abbelita nel 1538 da Paolo II.” BCAR 30: 229–255.

1902c.

“Buchellius, Iter Italicum (cenni preliminari e note).” ASRSP 25: 103–134.

1902d.

“Recensione di Otto Richter, Topographie der Stadt Rom, 2nd ed.” ASRSP 25: 252–257.

1902e.

“Nel MMDCCLV Anniversario della Fondazione di Roma, 21 aprile 1902.” Associazione Artistica Internazionale, 3–12.

1902–10.

Storia degli Scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezione romane di antichità. 4 vols. (1902, 1903, 1907, 1910) Rome: Loescher.

1903a.

“Il nuovo ordinamento del museo nel palazzo dei Conservatori.” BCAR 31: 317–320.

1903b.

“Le anitchità del territorio Laurentino nella reale tenuta di Castelporziano.” Monumenti Antichi. Reale Accademia dei Lincei 13: 133–204.

Bibliography

169

1903c.

“Recensione di Roma sotterranea. Le pitture della catacomb romane illustrate da Giuseppe Wilpert.” ASRSP 26: 516.

1904a.

“Recensione di E. Rocchi, Piante icnografiche e prospettiche di Roma.” ASRSP 27: 526–529.

1904b.

“Ancient and Modern Farming in the Roman Campagna.” The Youths Companion 78: 143–144.

1904c.

“Fires in Roman Theatres.” The Independent 56: 1374–1377.

1905a.

“Scoperte di Antichità alla Porta Furba.” BCAR 33: 5–7.

1905b.

“Scoperte topografiche ed epigrafiche dal 7 all’11 miglio della Via Latina.” BCAR 33: 129–145.

1906a.

La Villa Adriana, guida e descrizione. Rome: Lincei, 1906.

1906b.

“Il Gruppo dei Niobidi nei giardini di Sallustio.” BCAR 34: 157–185.

1906c.

“Le antichità del territorio Laurentino nella reala tenuta di Castelporziano” Monumenti Antichi. Reale Accademi dei Lincei 16: 241–274.

1906d.

“Ricordi inediti di artisti del secolo XVI.” Ausonia 1: 96–102.

1906e.

The Golden Days of the Renaissance, from the Pontificate of Julius II to that of Paul III. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1906f.

“The Rediscovery of Ancient Rome.” Munsey’s Magazine (Oct.): 37–47.

1907a.

“Discorso sul nuovo ordinamento della Forma Urbis tenuto il 21 aprile 1903.” Atti del Congresso Storico 1, 111–114.

1907b.

“The Buried Treasures of Herculaneum.” Munsey’s Magazine (Sept.): 792–799.

1908a.

“Recent discoveries of Pompeii.” The Youths Companion 82.

1908b.

“Nero as artist and engineer.” Putnam’s Monthly 5, 1: 1–12.

1909.

Wanderings in the Roman Campagna. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1910a.

The Roman Forum. Franck and Co. [13 pages]

1910b.

“How the ancients travelled.” The Youths Companion 84: 375–376.

1911.

“Essay.” In Catalogo della Mostra Archeologica alle Terme Diocleziano, Roma – Rassegna Illustrata dell’Esposizione del 1911, 27 March 1911, 11–12. Bergamo: Ist. Ital. di Arti Grafiche.

1914a.

“VII: I risultati archeologici.” In: La zona monumentale di Roma e l’opera della commissione reale. Rome: Unione Editrice, 55–66.

1914b.

“La collezione statuaria di Cosimo Giustini e le recenti scoperte in Piazza Colonna.” BCAR 42:13–24.

1914c.

“Il Testaccio e il prati del Popolo Romano.” BCAR 42: 241–250.

1915.

“Nota topografia all’articolo di Msgr Biasiotti.” Bollettino d’Arte 9: 28–30.

1916a.

“I risultati arceologici.” In: La Zona Monumentale di Roma e l’opera della Commissione Reale. Rome: Unione Editrice: 55–66.

1916b.

“La zona monumentale di Roma.” BCAR 44: 196–207.

170

Susan M. Dixon

1916c.

“La difensa del confine Veneto-Istriano sotto l’Impero romano.” Rendiconti delle adunanze solenni. Accademia dei Lincei 3: 9–22.

1917a.

“Segni di terremoto negli edifice di Roma antica.” BCAR 45: 3–28.

1917b.

“I portici del Foro Olitorio ed il tesseramento delle derrate nell’antica Roma.” BCAR 45: 168–192.

1918a.

“Il santuario sotterraneo recentemente scoperte ad Spem veterem.” BCAR 46: 69–84.

1918b.

“Disfattismo e resistenza dopo il disastro di Canne.” Nuova Antologia (May 1).

1918c.

“Scavi e scoperte nelle fondazioni del nuovo palazzo delle Ferrovie in via Nomentana.” Rivista technica delle Ferrovie Italiane 7, 14: 115–149.

1920a.

“La memoria apostolorum e gli scavi di san Sebastiano.” Atti della Pontifica Accademia romana di Archeologia 2, 14: 55–112.

1920b.

“A mystery of Early Rome: a secret lodge unearthed.” Illustrated London News (13 March): 414–417.

1922a.

“Studi d’artisti nella Roma antica.” BCAR 50, 3–12.

1922b.

“Gli scavi di Pio VI nella villa detta di Cassio.” Atti e Memorie della Società Tibertina di Storia e d’arte 11: 3–15.

1923.

“Notas topographicas de Burgo S. Pietri Saeculo XVI ex archivis Capitolino et Urbano excerpsit Rodulphus Lanciani.” Memorie. Pontificia Accademia romana di Archeologia 1, 1: 231–250.

1924.

Wanderings through Ancient Roman Churches. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1925.

Ancient and Modern Rome. Boston: Marshall Jones Co.

Lanciani’s enGLisH-LanGuaGe Books, transLated into itaLian: 1970.

L’antica Roma. Rome: Straderini Editore.

1971.

La distruzione di Roma antica. Milano: del Borghese.

1980.

Passeggiate nella campagna romana. Rome: Quasar.

1985.

Rovine e Scavi di Roma antica. Rome: Quasar.

1989–2002.

Storia degli Scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezione romane di antichità. 7 Vols. (orig. publ. 4 vols., 1902–1910). Ed. Leonello Malvezzi Campeggi, Carlo Buzzetti, Paolo Liverani, Maria Rosario Russo, Paolo Pellegrino. Rome: Quasar.

2004.

Roma pagana e Cristiana: la trasformazione della città attraverso I secoli, dai temple alle chiese, dai mausolea alle tombe dei primi papi. Rome: Newton Compton.

2006a.

L’epoca d’oro del Rinascimento a Roma: le trasformazioni, I personaggi e le opera che hanno caratterizzato uno dei periodi più significative della storia moderan della città. Rome: Newton Compton.

2006b:.

Nuove storie dell’antica Roma: curiosità, riti, aneddoti della vita quotidiana dell’Urbe dalla Fondazione all’Ottocento. Rome: Newton Compton.

2007.

Forma vrbis Romae. Consilio et avctoritate Regiae Academiae Lyncaeorvm, orig. publ. Milan: Hoepli. 1893–1901, preface by Filippo Coarelli, Rome 2007.

Bibliography

171

reFerences to Lanciani’s presentations 1875–76.

“Intorno alle grande pianta di Roma antica.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 2, 3: 296–306.

1876–77.

“Sull’uso del sifone rovescio e del drenaggio presso i romani.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 1: 158–159.

1877–78.

“Iscrizione di una lapide trovatta a Lambaese nel 1866.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei, 2: 209.

1878–79a.

“Dei monumenti scritti, scoperte nelle torri laterali alla porta del Popolo di Roma.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 3: 121–122.

1878–79b.

“Delle antichità nascoste nell’alveo Tibertino.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 3: 169.

1878–79c.

“Sui cuniculi di dreneggio studiati in Roma e nella campagna romana.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 3: 216.

1879–80a.

“Sui monumenti eretti in Roma nella prima decade del secolo V.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 4: 123.

1879–80b.

“Il mausoleo di C. Sulpicio Platorino.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 4: 191.

1880–81.

“Ritrovamento del mausoleo di Minicia Marcella.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 5: 150.

1881–82a.

“Notizie sugli scavi che si eseguiscono nel Foro romano.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 6: 212.

1881–82b.

“Studi topografici sulla Roman antica di Baldasarre e Sallustio Peruzzi.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei 6: 238.

1883–84.

“Relazione sulla Memoria di L. Borsari: ‘Il foro d’Augusto e il tempio di Marte ultore.” Transunti. Accademia dei Lincei. 9: 358–359.

1885–86a.

“Communicazione su di un’antica breccia di recentissima scoperta.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 2: 4.

1885–86b.

“Communicazione sul ricongiungimento di parecchi frammenti della pianta marmorea Capitolina.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 2: 55.

1885–86c.

“Scoperte avvenute nei lavori eseguiti lungo le sponde del Tevere.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 2: 227–228.

1887.

“The origins of Rome.” JBAASR 1: 101.

1888.

“Sulla scoperta del Rivus herculanensis.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 4: 301.

1889a.

“Relazione sul concorso ai premi Ministeriali per le Scienze storiche, per l’anno 1887–99.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei. 4, 5: 308–311.

1889b.

“Notizie sullo scoprimento della caserma dei vigili in Ostia castra ostiensia.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 5: 419–420.

1889c.

“The House of Augustus.” JBAASR 6: 210–212.

1890–91a.

“Excursions to Gabii.” JBAASR 2, 1: 33.

1890–91b.

“Excursions to Monte Cavo.” JBAASR 2, 1: 38.

172

Susan M. Dixon

1891b.

“Sulla scoperta delle Mura Sillane di Ariccia.” Rendiconti. Accademia dei Lincei 4, 7: 157.

1891–92a.

“Excursion to Fidenae and Prima Porta.” JBAASR 2, 2: 92–93.

1891–92b.

“The pageant at Rome in the year 17 B.C. (l’iscrizione dei Ludi Saeculares).” JBAASR 2, 2: 93–95.

1892–93a.

“Visit to the Luguri excavations and Villa Quintilli on the Via Appia.” JBAASR 2, 3: 122–127.

1892–93b.

“Account of visit to Palestrina.” JBAASR 2, 3: 138-141.

1893a.

“Di un progetto dell’architetto Fontana per la trasformazione del palazzo e villa Riario-Corsini in Accademia di scienze e di belle arti.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei 4, 11: 839–840.

1893b.

“Di un tesoretto in aurei di Cocceio Vero scoperto sull’Aventino.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei 5a, 2: 251–252.

1893–94a.

“Excursion to the Ancient Harbours of Claudius and Trajan at Porto.” JBAASR 2, 4: 181–186.

1893–94b.

“Opening of new museum on Celian Hill.” JBAASR 2, 4: 216–222.

1894a.

“La pianta di Roma antica e i disegni archeologici di Raffaello Sanzio.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei s. 5, 3: 790–804.

1894b.

“Relazione sul concorso al premio Reale del 1891 per l’Archeologia.” Rendiconti della adunanze solenni. Accademia dei Lincei, 174–178.

1894–95a.

“New Archaeological Museum on the Celian.” JBAASR 2, 5: 249–251.

1895–96b.

“Recent Discoveries at Nemi.” JBAASR 2, 6: 300–308.

1896a.

“Notizie inedite sull’anfiteatro Flavio.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei 5, 5: 1–8.

1896b.

“Su di un documento relativo alle traslazione di due colonne di verde dalla chiesa dei SS. Quattro Santi al Celio.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei 5, 5: 276.

1896–97.

“The Municipal Life of Ancient Rome.” JBAASR 2, 7: 378–391.

1897.

“I busti di Bacchilide e Pindaro nelle ville antiche.” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali.) Accademia dei Lincei 5, 6: 6–8.

1898–99.

“New discoveries of the tomb of St. Paul on via Ostiensis.” JBAASR 3, 1: 5–7.

1899–1900.

“Sport in Ancient Rome.” JBAASR 3, 2: 71–85.

1901–1902.

“Churches of S. Saba, S. Agnese, SS. Giovanni e Paolo.” JBAASR 3, 4: 149–169.

1902–3.

“The Origins of Rome in the light of recent discoveries: Inaugural address.” JBAASR 3, 5: 197–205.

1903.

“Notizie sulla pianta marmorea capitolina,” Rendiconti (della Classe di Scienze Morali). Accademia dei Lincei 5, 12: 87.

1904–1905.

“San Saba, S. Costanza, San Stefano Rotondo.” JBAASR 3, 7: 322.

1905.

“Relazione sul concorso al premio Reale del 1903 per l’Archeologia.” Rendiconti della adunanze solenni. Accademia dei Lincei, 183–187.

Bibliography

173

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 50 - Uhlenbrock, J. P. 51 - cavagnaro vanoni l., Serra ridgway, F. r. 52 - rallo, a. (a cura di) 53 - calcani, g. 54 - Morandi, a. 55 - Favaretto, i. 56 - bonghi Jovino, M. (a cura di) 57 - StrazzUlla, M. J. 58 - BUranelli, F. 59 60 61 62

-

JongSte P, F. B. Medri, M. eqUini Schneider, e. MilaneSe, M.

63 - deichMann, F. w. 64 - ciaghi, S. 65 - renzi, g. c. (a cura di) 66 - Marconi coSentino, r., Ricciardi, L. 67 - Szabò, M. 68 - Calcagni, G. 69 70 71 72

-

Manzelli, V. ScarFì, B. M. Varone, A. Pollak, L. (M. M. Guldan ed.) 73 - CharalaMPidiS, C. P.

74 - Viacava, A. 75 - ModoneSi, D. 76 - Dolce, R., Nota Santi, M. (a cura di) 77 - Barbanera, M. 78 - PUPPo, P. 79 - AMbrogi, A. 80 - CaraFa, P. 81 - PaveSe, C. O. 82 - Cavagnaro Vanoni, L. 83 - RoSSetti Tella, C. 84 - Bellelli, G. M., Bianchi, U. (a cura di) 85 - CaMbitogloU, A., Harari, M. 86 - Bettelli, M.

- The Terrecotta Protomai from Gela: A Discussion of Local Style in Archaic Sicily, 1989. - Vasi etruschi a figure rosse. Dagli scavi della Fondazione Lerici nella necropoli dei Monterozzi a Tarquinia, 1989. - Le donne in Etruria, 1989. - Cavalieri di bronzo. La torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo, 1989. - Epigrafia di Bolsena etrusca, 1990. - arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete al tempo della Serenissima, 1990. - artigiani e botteghe nell’Italia preromana. Studi sulla coroplastica di area etrusco-laziale-campana, 1990. - Il principato di Apollo. Mito e propaganda nelle lastre «Campana» dal tempio di Apollo Palatino, 1990. - Gli scavi a Vulci della società Vincenzo Campanari - Governo Pontificio (18351837), 1991. - The Twelve Labours of Hercules on Roman Sarcophagi, 1992. - Terra sigillata tardo italica decorata, 1992. - Septimia Zenobia Sebaste, 1993. - Genova romana. Mercato e città dalla tarda età repubblicana a Diocleziano dagli scavi del colle di Castello (Genova-S. Silvestro 2), 1993. - Archeologia Cristiana, 1993. - Le terrecotte figurate da Cales del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Sacro stile committenza, 1993. - Monumenti e culture nell’Appennino in età romana. Atti del Convegno. Sestino, 12 nov. 1989, 1993. - Catacombe di Comodilla. Lucerne e altri materiali dalle gallerie 1, 8, 13, 1993. - Archaic terracottas di Boeotia, 1993. - L’antichità marginale. Continuità dell’arte provinciale romana nel Rinascimento, 1993. - La policromia nella statuaria greca arcaica, 1994. - Studi di archeologia della x Regio in ricordo di Michele Tombolani, 1994. - Erotica pompeiana. Iscrizioni d’amore sui muri di Pompei, 1994. - Römische Memoiren, Künstler, Kunstliebhaber und Gelehrte (1893-1943), 1994. - The Dendrites in pre-Christian and Christian HistoricalLiterary Tradition and Iconography, 1994. - L’atleta di Fano, 1994. - Museo Maffeiano. Iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini, 1995. - Dai Palazzi assiri, 1995. - Il guerriero di Agrigento. Una probabile scultura frontonale del Museo di Agrigento e alcune questioni di archeologia «siceliota», 1995. - Le coppe megaresi in Italia, 1995. - Vasche di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, 1995. - Officine ceramiche di età regia. Produzione di ceramica in impasto a Roma dalla fine dell’viii alla fine del vi secolo a.C., 1995. - L’Auriga di Mozia, 1996. - Tombe tarquiniesi di età ellenistica. Catalogo di ventisei tombe a camera scoperte dalla Fondazione Lerici in località Calvario, 1996. - La terra sigillata tardo-italica decorata del Museo Nazionale Romano, 1996. - Orientalia Sacra Urbis Romae. Dolichena et Heliopolitana. - Recueil d’études archeologiques et historico-religieuses sur les cultes cosmopolites d’origine commagénienne et syrienne, 1997. The Italiote Red-Figured Vases in the Museo Camillo Leone at Vercelli, 1997. - Roma. La città prima della città: i tempi di una nascita. La cronologia delle sepolture ad inumazione di Roma e del Lazio nella prima età del ferro, 1997.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 87 - GóMez PallaréS, J.

- Edición y comentario de las inscripciones sobre mosaico de Hispania. Inscripciones no cristianas, 1997. 88 - De CeSare, M. - Le statue in immagine. Studi sulle raffigurazioni di statue nella pittura vascolare greca, 1997. 89 - SPanU, M. - Keramos di Caria. Storia e monumenti, 1997. 90 - Rebecchi, F. (a cura di) - Spina e il delta padano. Riflessioni sul catalogo e sulla mostra ferrarese. Atti del convegno (Ferrara 1994), 1998. 91 - Bonanno, C. - I sarcofagi fittili della Sicilia, 1998. 92 - Sannibale, M. - Le armi della collezione Gorga al Museo Nazionale Romano, 1998. 93 - De FranceSchini, M. - Le Ville Romane della x Regio (Venetia et Histria). Catalogo e carta archeologica del territorio dall’età repubblicana al tardo impero, 1998. 94 - ChrzanovSki, L., ZhUravlev, D.- Lamps from Chersonesos in the State Historical Museum-Moscow, 1998. 95 - Giavarini, C. (a cura di) - Il Palatino. Area sacra sud-ovest e Domus Tiberiana, 1998. 96 - Drago Troccoli, L. (a cura di) - Scavi e ricerche archeologiche dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza», 1998. 97 - Zaccagnino, C. - Il thymiaterion nel mondo greco. Analisi delle fonti, tipologia, impieghi, 1998. 98 - Barich, B. E. - People, water and grain: The beginnings of domestication in the Sahara and the Nile valley, 1998. 99 - ChieSa, F. - Demoni alati e grifi araldici. Lastre architettoniche fittili di Capua antica, 1998. 100- PenSabene, P., Panella, C. - Arco di Costantino. Tra archeologia e archeometria,1999. (a cura di) 101- PenSabene, P. - Le Terrecotte del Museo Nazionale Romano. Gocciolatoi e protomi da sime. Appendice: aggiornamento al catalogo delle Antefisse, 1999. 102- GenoveSe, G. - I santuari rupestri nella Calabria greca, 1999. 103- Morandi, A. - Il cippo di Castelciès nell’epigrafia retica, 1999. 104- MeSSineo, G. - La tomba dei Nasonii, 2000. 105- AgoStiniani, L., NicoSia F. - Tabula Cortonensis, 2000. 106- de’ SPagnoliS, M. - La Tomba del Calzolaio. Dalla necropoli monumentale romana di Nocera Superiore, 2000. 107- Accardo, S. - Villae romanae nell’ager Bruttius. Il paesaggio rurale calabrese durante il dominio romano, 2000. 108- ZaMPieri, G. - Claudia Toreuma. Giocoliera e mima. Il monumento funerario, 2000. 109- taylor, R. - Public Needs and Private Pleasures. Water Distribution, the Tiber River and the Urban Development of Ancient Rome, 2000. 110- Monaco, M. C. - Ergasteria. Impianti artigianali ceramici ad Atene ed in Attica dal protogeometrico alle soglie dell’Ellenismo, 2000. 111 -de’ SPagnoliS, M. - Pompei e la Valle del Sarno in epoca preromana: la cultura delle tombe a fossa, 2001. 112- PenSabene, P. - Le terrecotte del Museo Nazionale Romano. II. Materiali dai depositi votivi di Palestrina: collezioni «Kircheriana» e «Palestrina», 2001. 113 -aMbroSini, l. - I thymiateria etruschi in bronzo di età tardo classica, alto e medio ellenistica, 2002. 114- ognibene, S. - Umm Al-Rasas: la chiesa di Santo Stefano ed il «problema iconofobico», 2002. 115- la greca, F. (a cura di) - Fonti letterarie greche e latine per la storia della Lucania tirrenica, 2001. 116- varone, a. - Erotica Pompeiana. Love Inscriptions on the Walls of Pompeii, 2002. 117- giUdice rizzo, i. - Inquieti “commerci” tra uomini e dei. Timpanisti, Fineo A e B di Sofocle. Testimonianze letterarie ed iconografiche, itinerari di ricerca e proposte, 2002. 118- Söderlind, M. - Late Etruscan Votive Heads from Tessennano. Production, Distribution, Sociohistorical Context, 2002. 119- de’ SPagnoliS, M. - La villa N. Popidi Narcissi Maioris in Scafati, suburbio orientale di Pompei, 2002. 120 -  Pieraccini, l. c. - Around the Hearth. Caeretan Cylinder-Stamped Braziers, 2003. 121- Stibbe, c. M. - Trebenishte. The Fortunes of an Unusual Excavation, 2003. 122- attanaSio, d. - Ancient White Marbles. Analysis and Identification by Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, 2003. 123- zaMPieri, g. - La Tomba di “san Luca Evangelista”. La cassa di piombo e l’area funeraria della Basilica di santa Giustina in Padova, 2003. 124- agati, M. l. - Il libro manoscritto. Introduzione alla codicologia, 2003.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 125 - barreSi, P. 126 127 128 129 -

130 131 132 133

-

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

-

142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

-

161 162 -

- Province dell’Asia Minore. Costo dei marmi, architettura pubblica e committenza, 2003. - L’ager nord-occidentale della città di Mutina. Il popolamento nel carpigiano e corti, c. nella media pianura dalla romanizzazione al tardoantico-altomedioevo, 2004. - Orientalizzante a Chiusi e nel suo territorio, 2004. Minetti, a. de’ SPagnoliS, M. - Il mito omerico di Dionysos ed i pirati tirreni in un documento da Nuceria Alfaterna, 2004. - Archeologia al femminile. Il cammino delle donne nella disciplina archeologica nicotra , l. attraverso le figure di otto archeologhe classiche vissute dalla metà dell’Ottocento ad oggi, 2004. - Struttura ed urbanistica delle città romane. Quaranta casi a confronto, 2004. conventi, M. - La villa di Nerone a Subiaco. Il complesso dei Simbruina Stagna, 2004. di Matteo, F. - De rebus nauticis l’arte della navigazione nel mondo antico, 2004. MedaS, S. - The Art of Praxiteles. The Development of Praxiteles’ workshop and its cultural corSo, a. tradition until the sculptors’ acme (364-1 BC), 2004. - Flora Pompeiana, 2004. ciarallo, a. - Prosopographia etrusca I. Corpus, 1, Etruria meridionale, 2005. Morandi tarabella, M. - Labra di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, 2005. aMbrogi, a. - La Basilica di Massenzio. Il monumento, i materiali, le strutture e la stabilità, 2005. giavarini, c. - L’Ornato architettonico della Basilica di Massenzio, 2005. carè, a. - Patere baccellate in bronzo. Oriente, Grecia, Italia in età orientalizzante, 2005. Sciacca, F. - The Basilica of Maxentius. Monument, Materials, Construction and Stabillity, 2005. giavarini, c. - I sepolcri padovani di Santa Giustina. Il sarcofago 75-1879 del Victoria and AlzaMPieri, c. bert Museum di Londra e altri sarcofagi della Basilica di Santa Giustina in Padova, 2006. bellelli, v. - La tomba “principesca” dei Quattordici Ponti nel contesto di Capua arcaica, 2006. PeSando, F., gUidobaldi, M. P. - Gli ‘ozi’ di Ercole. Residenze di lusso a Pompei ed Ercolano, 2006. - Ceramica in archeologia 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di cUoMo di caPrio, n. indagine. Nuova edizione ampliata, 2007. attanaSio d., brilli M., Ogle, n. - The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles, 2006. bonFante, l., FowlkeS, b. (eds.) - Classical Antiquities at New York University, 2006. - Archeologia in Etruria meridionale. Atti delle Giornate di studio in ricordo di MaPandolFini angeletti, M. (a cura di) rio Moretti, Civita Castellana, 14-15 novembre 2003, 2006. - Palermo San Martino delle Scale, la collezione archeologica. Storia della collezioeqUizzi, r. ne e catalogo della ceramica, 2006. - Camillo Ramelli e la cultura antiquaria dell’Ottocento, (Sentinum II) 2006. Petraccia, M. F. (a cura di) cavallini, M., gigante, g. e. - De Re Metallica, dalla produzione antica alla copia moderna, 2006. (a cura di) - Il mobile a Pompei ed Ercolano. Letti, tavoli, sedie e armadi. Contributo alla de caroliS, E. tipologia dei mobili della prima età imperiale, 2007. - Il tornio, la nave, le terre lontane. Ceramografi attici in Magna Grecia nella secgiUdice, G. onda metà del V sec. a.C. Rotte e vie di distribuzione, 2007. - The Art of Praxiteles II. The Mature Years, 2007. corSo, A. - Vesta Aeterna. L’ Aedes Vestae e la sua decorazione architettonica, 2007. caPrioli, F. - The Four Season of Cyrene, 2007. thorn, D. M. - Water Architecture in the Lands of Syria. The Water-Wheels, 2007. de Miranda, A. - I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia. I, 2007. MelFi, M. - Prosopographia etrusca. II, Studia, 1, Gentium Mobilitas, 2007. MarcheSini, S. - Domus di Forum Sempronii. Decorazione e arredo, 2007. lUni, M. (a cura di) - Ruvo di Puglia e il suo territorio. Le necropoli. I corredi funerari tra la documenMontanaro andrea, C. tazione del XIX secolo e gli scavi moderni, 2007. thorn, D. M., thorn, J. c. F.S.a - A Gazetteer of the Cyrene Necropolis, 2008. - Sentinum. Ricerche in corso I, 2008. Medri, M. (a cura di)

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 163 - Medri, M. (a cura di) 164 - PiSani, M. 165 - todiSco, L. 166 - agati, M. l. 167 - de PUMa, r. d. 168 - PedrUcci, g. 169 - genoveSe, g. 170 - harari, M., Paltineri, S., robino, M. (a cura di) 171 - barich, B.E. 172 - Mannino, F., Mannino, M., MaraS, D.F. (a cura di) 173 - Liberati, A.M., Silverio, E. 174 175 176 177 178

-

Balice, M. P enSabene, P. (a cura di) de Miranda, a. corSo, A. Serra ridgway, F. r.,

179 180 181 182 183 184 185

-

tUSa, S. (a cura di) SPoSito, a. PitzaliS, F. aScalone, e. angUiSSola, a. Montanaro, a. c. laMbrUgo, c.

186 - bellelli, v. (a cura di) 187 - troFiMova, a. 188 - harari, M., Paltineri, S. (a cura di) 189 - wade Meade, c. 190 - corSo a. 191 - cerchiai Manodori Sagredo, c. 192 - todiSco l. 193 - tortorelli ghidini, M. (a cura di) 194 - coarelli, F., dioSono, F. 195 - bianchi, F., brUno, M. 196 - dioniSio, G., JaSink, A.M., weingarten, J. (eds.) 197 - lUni, M., Mei, O. 198 199 200 201 -

- Sentinum 295 a.C. - Sassoferrato 2006. 2300 anni dopo la battaglia. Una città romana tra storia e archeologia, 2008. - Camarina. Le terrecotte figurate e la ceramica da una fornace di V e IV secolo a.C., 2008. - Il Pittore di Arpi. Mito e società nella Daunia del tardo IV secolo a.C., 2008. - Il libro manoscritto. Da oriente a occidente. Per una codicologia comparata, 2009. - Art in Roman Life: Villa to Grave, 2009. - Il culto di Cibele frigia e la Sicilia. Santuari rupestri ed iconografia della dea, 2009. - Nostoi. Tradizioni eroiche e modelli mitici nel meridione d’Italia, 2009. - Icone del mondo antico, 2009. - Antica Africa. Alle origini delle società, 2009. - Theodor Mommsen e il Lazio antico. Giornata di Studi in memoria dell’illustre storico, epigrafista e giurista, 2009. - Servizi segreti in Roma antica. Informazioni e sicurezza dagli initia Urbis all’Impero universale, 2010. - Libia. Gli scavi italiani: 1922-1937: restauro, ricostruzione o propaganda?, 2010. - Piazza Armerina. Villa del Casale e la Sicilia tra tardoantico e medioevo, 2010. - L’Hammam nell’Islam Occ. tra VIII e XIV sec., 2010. - The Art of Praxiteles III. The Advanced Maturity of the Sculptor, 2010. - Pithoi stampigliati ceretani. Una classe originale di ceramica etrusca, 2010. Pieraccini, C. (a cura di) - Selinunte, 2010. - Teatro ellenistico di Morgantina, 2011. - La volontà meno apparente, 2011. - Glittica Elamita, 2011. - Difficillima Imitatio. Immagine e lessico delle copie tra Grecia e Roma, 2012. - Ambre figurate. Amuleti e ornamenti dalla Puglia preromana, 2012. - Profumi di argilla. Tombe con unguentari corinzi nella necropoli arcaica di Gela. 2012. - Le origini degli etruschi. Storia archeologia antropologia, 2012. - Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art. Portraits of Alexander the Great and Mythological Images, 2012. - Segni e colore. Dialoghi sulla pittura tardoclassica ed ellenistica, 2012.

- Seat of the World. The Palatine of Ancient Rome, 2013. - The Art of Praxiteles IV. The Late Phase of is Activity, 2013. - Nettare di Dioniso. La vite e il vino attraverso le parole degli autori antichi, 2013. - Prodezze e prodigi nel mondo antico. Oriente e Occidente. 2013. - Aurum. Funzioni e simbologie dell’oro nelle culture del Mediterraneo antico, 2014. - Il Santuario di Diana a Nemi. Le terrazze e il ninfeo, 2014. - Lucus Feroniae. Mosaici e pavimenti, 2014. - Minoan Cushion Seals. Innovation in form, Style and Use in Bronze Age Glyptic, 2014. - La vittoria di Kasse e l’Augustaeum di Forum Sempronii. Forum Sempronii II, 2014. corSo, A. - The Art of Praxiteles V. The The last years of the Sculptor (around 340 to 326 BC), 2014. - Greek and Latin Inscription at New York University, 2014. Peachin, M. graSSi, B., Pizzo M. (a cura di) - Gallorum Insubrum fines. Ricerche e progetti archeologici nel territorio di Varese, 2014. - Ornamenti e lusso nell’antica Peucezia. Le aristocrazie tra VII e III secolo a.C. e Montanaro, a. c. i rapporti con i Greci ed Etruschi, 2015.

S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A 231 202 - giUdice, e. 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 -

- Il tymbos, la stele e la barca di Caronte. L’immaginario della morte sulle lekythoi funerarie a fondo bianco, 2015. bonino M. - Navi mercantili e barche di età romana, 2015. brUno, M., bianchi , F. - Marmi di Leptis Magna. Repertorio delle pietre bianche e policrome della città, 2015. erPetti, M. - Il sepolcreto al III miglio della via Prenestina. Tituli pedaturae dagli scavi di Lorenzo Fortunati (Roma, 1861), 2015. vitti, P. - Building Roman Greece. Innovation in Vaulted Construction in the Peloponnese, 2016. cerro, a. - Da Cereatae Marianae all’abbazia di Casamari, 2016. - L’Etruria meridionale e Roma. Insediamenti e territorio tra IV e III secolo a.C., PUlcinelli, l. 2016. carUSo, a. - Mouseia. Tipologie, contesti, significati culturali di un’istituzione sacra (VII-I sec. a.C.), 2016. tortorici, e. (a cura di) - Catania Antica. La carta archeologica, 2016. baˇrbUleScU, M. - Potaissa. L’arte romana in una città della Dacia, 2016. Marrone, R. - Necropoli di San Magno, 2016. lo blUndo, M. - Sentinum II. L’area sacra, 2017. agati, M.L. - The Manuscript Book. A Compendium of Codicology, 2017. Marrone, r. - Forme e strutture della religione nell’Italia mediana antica. Forms and Structures of Religion in Ancient Central Italy. III convegno internazionale dell’istituto di ricerche e documentazione sugli antichi umbri, 2016. todiSco, L. (a cura di) - Bari romana, 2017. - Cities of the Apocalypse, 2017. JaStrze¸bowSka, e. liMoncelli, M. - Virtual Restoration. 1. Paintings and Mosaics, 2017. di Franco, l. - I rilievi neoattici della Campania, 2017. Mancinotti, l. - Ermafroditi dormienti. Tipo Borghese, 2017. Piay, a. d. - El priscilianismo. Arqueología y prosopografía. Estudio de un movimiento aristocrático en la Gallaecia tardorromana, 2018. graellS i Fabregat, r. - Corazas helenísticas decoradas.. Opla kala, los “Siris Bronzes” y su contexto, 2018 de Miranda, a. - Fontane a sorpresa nelle fonti antiche, 2018. cerUlli irelli, g. - Il mondo dell’archeologia cristiana, 2018. todiSco, l. - I Leoni funerari romani di Benevento e dell’Irpinia, 2018. di Franco, l., di Martino, g. - Il collezionismo di antichità classiche a Capri tra Ottocento e primo Novecento, 2018. caPPoni F. - I Buccheri (collana Velzna), 2018. endreFFy k., nagy a. M., - Magical Gems In their Contexts. Proceedings of the International Workshop SPier, J. (eds) held in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 16-18 February 2012, 2019. oSanna, M. - Terra incognita. The Rediscovery of an Italian People with no Name, 2019. dixon, S. M. - Archaeology on Shifting Ground: Rodolfo Lanciani and Rome, 1871-1914, 2019.

Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2019 per conto de «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER da Tipolitografia Petruzzi Via Venturelli, 7/b Zona Industriale Regnano 06012 Città di Castello (PG) - Italia