Urban History, 37, 3 (2010) 

C Cambridge University Press 2010

doi:10.1017/S0963926810000556

The via Papalis in early

cinquecento Rome: a contested
space between Roman families
and curials
VA L E R I A C A F À ∗
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, European Sculpture and Decorative Arts,
1000 Fifth Avenue, New York 10028 NY, USA

abstract: On the definitive return of the pope to Rome in 1420, following the
so-called Avignonese captivity, the city underwent major modifications. The
‘romanam curiam sequentes’, the court and administration that followed the
traditionally itinerant pope, settled in the city, leading to Rome’s population
doubling in the space of a few years. Furthermore, with the support of the pope,
the members of the curia came to take possession of spaces, offices, roles and rituals
that had previously been the reserve of the local Romans. This article considers
the reaction of the community of the local nobility (here described summarily as
Roman families) to the encroaching presence of the curia within the specific context
of the development of the built form of the via Papalis. It is argued that the via
Papalis, one of the most important and prestigious streets in Rome, became the
theatre within which these two communities played out their conflict through the
medium of built and ephemeral architecture.

Rome’s busy and congested corso Vittorio Emanuele II, which carves a
route through the city from the Tiber to Largo Argentina and on to the
central piazza Venezia and adjacent Capitoline Hill, largely follows
the route of what is one of the most ancient and important streets of
the city, the via Papalis (Figure 1).1 This article analyses the period which,
∗ I want to express my gratitude to Fabrizio Nevola and Guido Rebecchini for their helpful
comments and friendly assistance, and also to Thomas and Elizabeth Cohen for their
remarks and valuable suggestions on the text. This article is based on a talk given at the
Renaissance Society of America, Chicago (4 April 2008); as such it is not intended as an
academic contribution to the study of Rome in the Renaissance, but as a stimulus for
reflection upon the dynamics of the time.
1 On the via Papalis see F. Albertini, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae et veteris urbis Romae
(Rome, 1510), in R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti (eds.), Codice topografico della città di Roma,
4 vols. (Rome, 1940–53), vol. IV, 535; A. Ceen, The quartiere de’ Banchi: Urban Planning in
Rome in the First Half of the Cinquecento (New York and London, 1977); S. Valtieri, ‘Storie
e architetture intorno ad un antico percorso di Roma: la ‘‘via Papalis’’. Il tratto di via
del Governo Vecchio (I)’, Quaderni PAU, 2 (1992), 9–42. The creation of corso Vittorio
Emmanuele II, between 1883 and 1885, brought about a profound transformation in the
area; see M.G. Cimino, M.G. Massafra and M. Nota Santi (eds.), Corso Vittorio Emanuele
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 435

Figure 1: The main streets and urban interventions in Rome between

the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (from M. Tafuri, “‘Roma
instaurata” Strategie urbane e politiche pontificie nella Roma del primo
‘500’, in C.L. Frommel, S. Ray and M. Tafuri, Raffaello architetto (Milan,
1984), 69): A. via Papalis; B. via dei Pellegrini; undertaken during the
pontificate of Sixtus IV (1474–81) C. via Sistina; D. via Recta; E. ponte
Sisto; undertaken during the pontificate of Alexander VI (1492–1503) F.
via Alessandrina; undertaken during the pontificate of Julius II
(1503-1513) G. via della Lungara; H. via Giulia; J. canale di Ponte; L. via
di Ripetta; M. apse of Santa Maria del Popolo; N. Belvedere Courtyard;
O. Vatican Logge; P. palazzo dei Tribunali; Q. widening of the
Cancelleria Vecchia; R. St Peter’s.

more than any other before the nineteenth century, contributed to defining
its appearance, between the end of the fifteenth century and the Sack of
Rome (1527). During these years, the via Papalis became a theatre for the
conflict between two distinct communities which competed for building

II luoghi e personaggi (Naples, 1997); M.G. Cimino and M. Nota Santi (eds.), Corso Vittorio
Emanuele II tra urbanistica e archeologia. Storia di uno sventramento (Naples, 2000).
436 Urban History
sites along its route. On the one hand were the local nobility, the so-
called Romani cives (Roman citizens), who had long been settled along its
route, and on the other were the members of the curia, who had recently
arrived en masse in the city to satisfy the needs and requirements of the
pontiff.
The via Papalis, which was the only Roman street that had a specific
name and, by extension, a specific identity from as early as the Middle
Ages, was one of the most desirable and prestigious streets on which
to live or to have a business.2 This was in part on account of the fact
that in name and fact it was the ‘the street of the pope’, the route that the
pontiff traditionally took after having been elected, in the solemn ceremony
known as the ‘possesso’, but also on the occasion of official visits, during
the ostentation of relics, and also in his everyday movement about the city.3
In addition, the street was the most effective and rapid route that connected
the principal sites of secular and religious power in Rome, from the
basilica of St Peter’s, to Castel Sant’Angelo, the Capitoline Hill, the seat of
Rome’s municipal government, and on to St John in the Lateran. The street
also traversed a number of the city’s vital hubs and commercial nodes –
the canale di Ponte and Banchi districts, where bankers clustered near the
papal Zecca (Mint) – and permitted easy access to the most frequented city
markets on the Campo dei Fiori and piazza Navona. Despite being narrow
and winding, at no point wider than five metres, the street was actually
among the busiest in Rome and thus assured its residents great visibility.
As far as we know, many noble Roman families had lived on the via
Papalis since the Middle Ages. Among these were some of the oldest and
most powerful Roman families, such as the baronial Orsini, belonging
to what Massimo Miglio has described as the oldest Roman aristocracy,
barons of feudal origin, who had their massive dwelling on the modern
via di Monte Giordano.4 In addition to these old families, there was the
ancient nobility, such as the Cesarini, who had settled near the modern
Largo Argentina. Also occupying the street were the most recently – as late
2 On this topic see A. Modigliani, Mercati, botteghe e spazi di commercio a Roma tra medioevo ed
età moderna (Rome, 1998).
3 On papal possesso see F. Cancellieri, Storia de’ solenni possessi de’ sommi pontefici da Leone III
a Pio VII (Rome, 1802). Valtieri, ‘Storie e architetture’, 18. A remarkable source remains L.
Pastor, The History of the Popes, 39 vols. (London, 1937–57), vol. VI. R. Ingersoll, ‘The possesso,
the via Papale, and the stigma of Pope Joan’, in H. de Mare and A. Vos (eds.), Urban Rituals
in Italy and the Netherlands. Historical Contrast in the Use of Public Space, Architecture and the
Urban Environment (Assen, 1993), 39–50.
4 Orsini settlements can also be traced to the area of the modern-day palazzo Braschi (on
piazza San Pantaleo) and in the environs, between the via Papalis and Campo dei Fiori
in correspondence with the ancient Theatre of Pompey. On the Orsini strategy regarding
their urban properties see G. Ajello Mahler, ‘The Orsini family papers at the University
of California, Los Angeles: property administration, political strategy, and architectural
legacy’, Viator, 39 (2008), 297–31. From Miglio’s numerous relevant publications see M.
Miglio, ‘L’immagine dell’onore antico. Individualità e tradizione della Roma municipale’,
Studi Romani, 31 (1983), 252–64; idem, Il leone e la lupa. Dal simbolo al pasticcio alla francese, in
P. Brezzi and M. de Panizza Lorch (eds.), Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento (Rome, 1984),
31–46.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 437
as the mid-fifteenth century – ennobled families, the Romani cives who had
accumulated their wealth through mercatura, that is trade; these included
the Massimo, Mazzatosta and Pichi, to name but a few. Altogether, these
three groups represented the native-born Romans, a group that – in this
period – constituted a minority of the city’s inhabitants, corresponding to
20–4 per cent of the city’s total population, which Egmont Lee estimated
to be around 55,000–60,000 in 1527.5
Of these three groups, this last set of Roman citizens, which forms the
focus of this study, is characterized by having been deeply involved in
Rome’s communal government since the middle of the fourteenth century.
In many respects, these families considered themselves the legitimate
heirs of the ancient Romans, and because of this putative descent, they
felt invested with the honour and responsibility of maintaining the
ancient laws and traditions of Rome.6 While the older-established baronial
aristocracy and ancient noble families began to take up posts in the church
hierarchies, these newer families did not, and at a time of growing papal
power and authority in Rome, they also lost control of posts and offices
that had previously been their preserve.7
It was following the return of the pope to Rome in 1420, after the so-
called Avignonese Captivity, that the via Papalis became the contested
space that is analysed here. Throughout much of the fifteenth century
the pope was very rarely of Roman origin, and brought with him curial
officials, functionaries, bankers, merchants and working people, often from
the city or region of their origins.8 There were so many new arrivals that
the city’s population doubled. With this population increase came also
the transformation of the via Papalis, whose desirability appealed also
to newcomers, especially the ‘romanam curiam sequentes’, the followers
of the Roman curia, who threatened to displace older denizens in the
5 According to the Descriptio urbis: The Roman Census of 1527, ed. E. Lee (Rome, 1985), and
most recently Habitatores in Urbe: The Population of Renaissance Rome = Habitatores in urbe:
la popolazione di Roma nel Rinascimento, ed. E. Lee (Rome, 2006). The other inhabitants (30–
46%) were mostly drawn from the Stato della Chiesa which, at that time, included much
of the central region of Italy and its large cities; then there were the 5–15% from Latium;
the 20–30% made up of ‘forestieri’, that is people from the Italian Peninsula (especially
from Tuscany), but outside the Stato della Chiesa, and the 5–20% of foreigners, who came
from European countries. Percentages vary greatly owing to the uncertainty of the data
provided. See also A. Esposito, La popolazione romana dalla fine del XIV al sacco: caratteri e
forme di un’evoluzione demografica, in E. Sonino (ed.), Popolazione e società a Roma dal Medioevo
all’età moderna (Rome, 1998), 37–49.
6 Miglio, ‘L’immagine dell’onore’; idem, Il leone e la lupa; idem, Roma dopo Avignone. La rinascita
politica dell’antico, in Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana, 3 vols. (Turin, 1984), vol. I, 73–111.
7 The old Roman nobility (e.g. Cesarini, Santacroce) adopted what Esposito has called a
‘double strategy’, both civil and curial, maintaining roles in the municipality while also
acquiring roles within the curia and the church, for which see A. Esposito, ‘“Li nobili
huomini di Roma”. Strategie familiari tra città, curia e municipio’, in S. Gensini (ed.), Roma
capitale (1447–1527) (Rome, 1994), 373–88, at 375.
8 With the exception of Martin V Colonna (1417–31), until the election of Paul III Farnese in
October 1534, popes were outsiders or foreigners, hailing from Florence, Venice, Savona,
Spain or northern Europe, in each case coming to the Eternal City with hundreds of people
at their service.
438 Urban History

Figure 2: The XIV rioni (districts) of Rome.

most attractive locations. A summary survey of the first section of the via
Papalis that cuts east–west through the local administrative districts (rioni)
(Figure 2) of Ponte, Parione and Sant’Eustachio, reveals that about ten
palaces and smaller palazzetti were constructed, the majority by members
of the curia, during the period covered by this article.9
The stand off between the curia and the Roman nobility was very
significant and frequently took on a conflictual aspect; this was further
exacerbated by papal policies which not only favoured the interests of
the curial officials, but actively penalized the native Romans, removing
them from access to powerful positions, sources of income as well as
the very symbols of their history and traditions. Many of the Roman
families living along the via Papalis in particular emerged as the most
vocal critics of the pope and his efforts to control and dominate the city.
In the words of the nobleman Marcello Alberini, the Romani cives had lost
power, control and authority because, ‘they were no longer masters of
anything, not even of themselves’.10 Chronicles and other contemporary
9 A palazzo is a grand building of some architectural ambition that is the headquarters of
a family of some renown or of an institution; the word is more broadly used in Italian
than its English equivalent ‘palace’. A palazzetto is a smaller one, less ambitious. We will
adopt, nonetheless, the English version.
10 M. Alberini, Il Sacco di Roma del MDXXCVII (1547), in D. Orano (ed.), I Ricordi di Marcello
Alberini (Rome, 1901), 484. For additional evidence on this dominant and long-lasting
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 439
documents report episodes of open challenges to papal domination, over
and above the frequent and violent attacks on papal representatives in
the municipal administration and in the Camera Apostolica.11 Despite
the celebratory tone of official chronicles and curial and ambassadorial
reports, then, when the pope processed down the via Papalis, he would
almost certainly have faced the social group that was most critical of
him. Of course, this characterization somewhat simplifies what was a
problematic and fascinating relationship between the pope and the native
Romans, one that varied with each individual pope, his attitude toward the
city and his own particular origins. Nonetheless, this relationship offers a
revealing insight into the factors determining the configuration of urban
space, which is itself reflective of social dynamics which are otherwise
quite difficult to perceive.
For the conflict between these two groups is manifest on the ground,
in the streets, articulated through the language of architecture, both
permanent and ephemeral. Between the two communities, it should be
noted from the outset, the competition was strongly weighted in favour of
the curia, who tended to be far wealthier than the native Romans, as well
as being favoured by papal policy decisions. Papal favours were provided
to members of the curia through the concession of building sites and
privileges, through construction incentives, exemptions from rules that
prohibited the reuse of antiquities for building, as well as various other
forms of ad hoc legislation.12 Consequently, while curial officials tended to
be the more refined patrons of new palaces and smaller palazzetti, the native
Roman nobility more often than not settled for the restoration of existing
structures, or unifying more than one property, and only rarely built and
lived in new palaces built from scratch. During the period preceding the
return of the papacy from Avignon, the Romani cives had lived in large
residential complexes (called palatia in the documents) made up single
small houses (the domus), which were characterized by projecting elements,
deep balconies, sometimes shops on the ground floor and in many cases
exterior staircases. These were simple structures that had little overarching

situation see G. Rebecchini, ‘After the Medici: the new Rome of Pope Paul III Farnese’, I
Tatti Studies, 11 (2007), 147–200, with bibliography.
11 For example: in December 1483 Francesco de Maximis is reported to have managed to
repel an armed attack by papal forces by finding refuge in his property on the via Papalis
and setting a sort of private army to defend him (see G. Chiesa (ed.), Il diario della città
di Roma dall’anno 1480 all’anno 1482 (Rome, 1911), 203); another incident is reported by
Alberini (Alberini, Il Sacco, 204–5) in which two Romans, Marco Antonio Palosci and
Silvio Copparo, murdered an inspector of the Camera Apostolica; again in February 1512
another Roman, Pietro Margani, murdered the papal bargello, Vincenzo Sinibaldi (see L.
Onofri (ed.), M.A. Altieri, Li Baccanali (Rome, 2000), xvii). See also M. Miglio, ‘Raccontano
le cronache: curia, corte e municipio’, in S. Rossi and S. Valori (eds.), Le due Rome nel
quattrocento (Rome, 1997), 161–71.
12 Privileges and exemptions were guaranteed to patrons constructing palaces along the
new via Alessandrina (1499); among bulls offering such benefits are Etsi universis romanae
Ecclesiae (1474) and Etsi de cunctarum (1480) of Sixtus IV, and Inter curas multiplices (1516)
of Leo X.
440 Urban History
design, but often covered considerable areas of the city, such that they were
defined as ‘insulae’ (islands); they were, however, practical and provided
residents with shared facilities such as ovens, wells and gardens, as well
as some defensive elements. Often, the façade on the via Papalis had a
portico on the ground floor which encroached on a portion of the street
itself.
As the city became increasingly dominated by the papal authority,
so the native Romans lost their hold on political power and local
government in the city, but also experienced that loss on an everyday
physical level, as their visibility in the city came dramatically to be
undermined. Construction became a reason for conflict, and the via
Papalis, which had always been a desirable location, became a contested
space. Observation and statistics reveal that the fabric of Renaissance
Rome is made up of a large number of new residential buildings, of
which only a minimal percentage were erected by the native Romans.
The process which led to this growing asymmetry between native Romans
and the curia is complex, and this article can only offer a briefly outlined
chronological survey of some of the major episodes in the urban and
architectural development of the city towards the end of the fifteenth
century, when the real transformation of the via Papalis was pushed
through by the seemingly simple measure of the enforced demolition of
porticoes.

Legislative measures and urban interventions

Acknowledged by his contemporaries as Urbis restaurator et urbis renovator
(‘Restorer and renovator of the city’), Pope Sixtus IV della Rovere
(from Savona, 1471–84) contributed to the transformation of the city by
introducing the first legislation for the expropriation of private properties
‘for the public good’ (1480) and for the demolition of porticoes (1481),
especially those along the via Papalis.13 The portico was – along with
towers – one of the most common and widespread features of medieval
Roman buildings. It was a space belonging to the house, but it was
also a very important public space for everyday life. Business and legal
procedures were conducted under these porticoes, merchandise was
sold and protection from the sun and rain was provided. A cursory
13 The work of Sixtus IV on behalf of the city is also important as regards legislative measures;
in particular, see Bullarum diplomaticum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum pontificum,
vol. V (ab Eugenio IV ad Leonem X) (Turin, 1860), Sixtus IV, XXIV.2 (1480), Etsi de cunctarum
civitatum, 273–8: (1)274. See also H. Broise and J.-C. Maire-Vigueur, Strutture familiari, spazio
domestico e architettura civile a Roma alla fine del Medioevo, in Storia dell’arte italiana, 12 vols.
(Turin, 1980–3), vol. XII: Momenti di architettura, and D. Friedman, ‘Palaces and the street in
late medieval and Renaissance Italy’, in J.W.R. Whitehand and P.J. Larkham (eds.), Urban
Landscapes: International Perspectives (London, 1992), 69–113. For a detailed discussion of
such urban legislation in Siena, see F. Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City (New
Haven and London, 2007). On Sixtus IV see also M. Miglio, F. Niutta, D. Quaglioni and
C. Ranieri (eds.), Un pontificato ed una città: Sisto IV (1471–1484) (Rome, 1986).
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 441

Figure 3: First segment of the via Papalis between Castel Sant’Angelo

and the Capitoline Hill with the most important Roman families living
there around the sixteenth century. ‘P’ indicates porticoes.

investigation into fifteenth- and sixteenth-century documentation for the

via Papalis area reveals a number of porticoes along the street (for
instance along the Della Valle and Massimo properties, and along those of
the parish of San Pantaleo), and it is probable that there were many more
(Figure 3).14 We can surmise therefore that the demolition of porticoes
led to the substantial modification of the original medieval layout of the
street.

14 On medieval Rome and its porticoes, see Broise and Maire-Vigueur, Strutture familiari,
97–160.
442 Urban History
Demolishing porticoes was a means of improving Rome’s sanitation,
but, according to contemporary sources, it was above all a strategy
for achieving greater control over the city.15 When King Ferdinand of
Aragon visited Rome in 1475, he remarked to Sixtus IV that the pope’s
lordship was undermined by the ubiquity of porticoes and narrow streets.
Ferdinand told the pope that he had no chance of defending himself against
revolt under these circumstances.16 The connection between Ferdinand’s
observation and the legislation of 1481 is plausible; we know from many
sources that Sixtus IV was terrified of the violence of the Romans, so much
so that, for instance, he forbade public celebrations of Christmas in 1483.17
Tension flared up on a number of other occasions in subsequent decades,
specifically on account of urban renewal projects.
Perhaps the most significant example in this respect was around the
plans for the creation of the new street of via Giulia (1508–11), as part of
a wider project for rationalizing the street layout around the two banks of
the Tiber, around via della Lungara and the ponte Sisto bridge (Figure 1).
Sixtus IV’s nephew, Pope Julius II della Rovere (1503–13), planned to open
this new straight street in the heart of the city, along the north bank of
the Tiber, by destroying old properties, literally cutting houses in half to
create the via Giulia. Entrusting its oversight to the architect Bramante,
he also planned to build a huge tribunal palace, which was to house all
the city administration in one central venue.18 While the projected palace
may have sought to simplify legal procedures, above all it aimed to satisfy
the absolutist ambitions of the pontiff, which Manfredo Tafuri identified
as a ‘Renovatio Imperii’.19 The creation of the via Giulia was a violent
act not only within the city, but also against it, with serious consequences
for the relationship between the pope and Rome’s aristocratic and noble
families. Such was their opposition to the proposals that it precipitated an
uprising of the native Romans against the pope, which ended in August
1511 with the so-called ‘pax Romana’, a peace between the pope and

15 See M. Tafuri, ‘“Roma instaurata”. Strategie urbane e politiche pontificie nella Roma del
primo ’500’, in C.L. Frommel, S. Ray and M. Tafuri, Raffaello architetto (Milan, 1984), 59–
106, and M. Tafuri, Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti (Turin, 1992), recently
translated as Interpreting the Renaissance: Princes, Cities, Architects (New Haven, 2006); see
also C. Burroughs, From Sign to Design. Environmental Process and Reform in Early Renaissance
Rome (Cambridge, 1990); for a contemporary source, M. Miglio (ed.), Li Nuptiali di Marco
Antonio Altieri pubblicati da Enrico Narducci (Rome, 1995).
16 O. Tommassini (ed.), Diario della città di Roma di Stefano Infessura scribasenato (Rome, 1890),
79, 85.
17 See D. Toni (ed.), Il diario romano di Gaspare Pontani, già riferito al ‘notaio del nantiporto’ (30
gennaio 1481–25 luglio 1492), Rerum italicarum scriptores, 3/3 (Città di Castello, 1904), 22;
also P. Farenga, ‘‘I romani sono periculoso populo. . .’. Roma nei carteggi diplomatici’, in
Gensini (ed.), Roma Capitale, 289–315.
18 On via Giulia, see L. Salerno, L. Spezzaferro and M. Tafuri, Via Giulia, una utopia urbanistica
del 500 (Rome, 1973); on the Tribunal palace project on via Giulia see S.B. Butters and P.N.
Pagliara, ‘Il palazzo dei Tribunali e via Giulia a Roma’, Zodiac, 14 (1995), 15–28.
19 Salerno, Spezzaferro and Tafuri, Via Giulia, 65–9.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 443
the Roman families, and the abandonment of the Tribunali plan.20 Julius II
subsequently adopted a less aggressive stance towards the native Romans,
and the latter briefly hoped for the return of their traditional rights. The
via Giulia, which in many respects was a remarkably forward-looking
urban renewal project, nevertheless turned out to represent a failure of
papal strategy on account of the fact that it so brazenly ignored the needs
and demands of the native Romans. The project stopped once and for all
with the deaths of both the pope (1513) and Bramante (1514). Even so, the
project remained a significant source for the growing resentment among
Roman families. Following that incident, the Roman families certainly had
a better understanding of the extent to which they were at the mercy of
papal power and under the constant risk of losing both their property and
their political role in the city.
With the election of Leo X Medici in 1513, the situation of the native
Romans took another turn for the worse. Unusually young for a pope
(he was only in his 30s), Leo X came from the powerful Medici family
of Florence. From the very beginning he dominated Rome and brought
a flourish of new artistic and architectural activity to the city. Up until
his election, mainly cardinals and wealthy members of the curia had
constructed large new dwellings; examples include the Cancelleria, close
to Campo dei Fiori (1498), and the Castellesi and Caprini palaces (of 1499–
1500 and about 1510, respectively), both in the rione Borgo, near St Peter’s,
and along the new via Alessandrina, cut in honour of Pope Alexander
VI around 1500. During the pontificate of Leo X a number of palaces
were begun by native Roman families resident along the via Papalis (e.g.
Alberini, Caffarelli, Pichi), and it is precisely on these projects that the
second part of this article will concentrate.
At this point it is useful to refer to the plan of Rome (Giovan Battista
Nolli’s plan, 1748) (Figure 4). Here, the most important palaces built by
non-Romans are marked with a circle while the new palaces built by
Roman families are marked with a diamond: it is immediately clear that
the diamonds are concentrated along the via Papalis and are rather few
in number, especially considering the fact that the three palaces of the
Massimo were built after the Sack of Rome of 1527 (between the 1530s and
the 1540s), and thus fall outside the time span covered by this study.21 The
focus here will be on the Pichi and Alberini palaces, the first of the new
buildings to be erected by Roman families during this period and, as will
be shown, it is no coincidence that they were both built on the via Papalis.

20 C. Gennaro, ‘La “pax Romana” del 1511’, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria, 90
(1967), 17–60; and Tafuri, ‘“Roma instaurata”’. See also Onofri, M.A. Altieri, Li Baccanali,
61ff.
21 For Roman palaces the fundamental text remains C.L. Frommel, Der römische Palastbau der
Hochrenaissance, 3 vols. (Tübingen, 1973). On palazzo Massimo alle Colonne, see V. Cafà,
Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne di Baldassarre Peruzzi. Storia di una famiglia Romana e del suo
palazzo in rione Parione (Venice, 2007), with bibliography.
444 Urban History

Figure 4: Giovan Battista Nolli plan of Rome (1748) with palaces

marked: a: St Peter’s; b: Capitoline Hill. Round circle: curials’ new
palaces (palazzo di San Marco, palazzo della Cancelleria, palazzo
Castellesi, palazzo Farnese, palazzo Caprini, palazzo Jacopo da Brescia,
palazzo Baldassini, palazzo Branconio dell’Aquila, palazzo
Fieschi-Sora, palazzo Fusconi-Pighini, palazzo Regis ai Baullari,
palazzetto Turci, palazzo Gaddi). Diamond: Roman families’ new
palaces (palazzo Pichi, palazzo Stati, palazzo Alberini, palazzo Della
Valle, palazzo Caffarelli Vidoni, palazzi dei Massimo).

The architectural patronage of the Pichi e Alberini on the via

Papalis
As far as we know, the first native Roman family to build a new palace was
the Pichi, a noble family that had earned its wealth through trade.22 The

22 On the Pichi family and palazzo see Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, 255–62; S.
Valtieri, Il palazzo del principe, il palazzo del cardinale, il palazzo del mercante nel Rinascimento
(Rome, 1988), 75–98; R. Cioffarelli, ‘Il palazzo di Girolamo Pichi in Roma e gli interventi di
trasformazione: dal primo impianto alle demolizioni per il tracciamento di Corso Vittorio
Emanuele II’, Architettura Storia e Documenti, 1–2 (1990), 101–20.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 445
Pichi had long been involved in civic administration, and continued active
in various offices during the pontificates of both Julius II and Leo X.23
While some of them were in the service of the pope, others are mentioned
as his opponents, and in this regard, the family remained steadfastly ‘pro
Colonna’, that is, anti-papal. The Pichi owned properties on the very
important intersection of the via Papalis and the via del Paradiso, in
the rione Parione (Figure 5). At this time, the via del Paradiso was an
essential thoroughfare and provided the only connection between the via
Papalis and Campo dei Fiori, since the via dei Baullari was only completed
some time later.24 Girolamo Pichi started to build a magnificent palace
around 1510, in the very years that Pope Julius II was developing his via
Giulia project, a few streets away. The palace was adorned with all’antica
Latin inscriptions, which celebrated the name of the patron, while it is
reported that there were several antiquities on display inside; both these
features were probably used to evoke the glorious past of ancient Rome.25
We still do not know much more about this palace, which was partially
demolished in 1883–85. Even the documentation – a drawing or survey
(dated post-1518) of the ideal project by an anonymous French artist
perhaps identifiable as Jean de Chenevières, and some later prints – is
somewhat insubstantial.26 Nevertheless, it can be deduced that the palace
design derived from the nearby cardinal’s palaces of the Cancelleria and
palazzo Venezia.
A few years later, during the pontificate of Leo X, another Roman family
started to build: the Alberini, a family who had many properties in the
rione Sant’Eustachio and Ponte. Guido Alberini decided to build a palace
near the Canale di Ponte, on the corner between via dei Banchi and the
via dell’Immagine (today known as via del Curato/via dei Coronari), yet
another crucial point along the via Papalis (Figure 6). It was the obligatory
intersection for anyone coming from the Vatican Borgo across the Tiber,
including the pope himself, and was also close to the Zecca (Mint) and via
dei Banchi, so-called for the concentration there of especially Florentine
and Tuscan bankers.27 It is likely that Alberini called upon Raphael,
the most important and sought-after artist of Rome. Here, too, as Pier
Nicola Pagliara has shown, the palace façade design made clear reference

23 Girolamo Pichi, patron of the palazzo Pichi, was a maestro di strade (with Domenico
Massimo) during the pontificate of Julius II, as reported in an extant stone inscription;
see Tafuri, ‘“Roma instaurata”’, 78.
24 For the via dei Baullari see L. Spezzaferro, Place Farnèse: urbanisme et politique, in Le Palais
Farnèse, 3 vols. (Rome, 1980–94), vol. I, part 1, 85–123.
25 For the similar, and well-studied case of the house of Lorenzo Manilio see L. Tucci,
Laurentius Manlius. La riscoperta dell’antica Roma. La nuova Roma di Sisto IV (Rome, 2001).
26 The graphic documentation is in Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. III, ad vocem.
27 On the strategic significance of the ‘trident’ see Tafuri, ‘“Roma instaurata”’; Burroughs,
From Sign to Design; and Ceen, The quartiere de’ Banchi.
446 Urban History

Figure 5: Location of the palazzo Pichi on a photographic plan of Rome.

to antiquity, especially through the conscious revival of ancient Roman

construction techniques.28

28 Raphael’s project, as far as is known, was then carried on by the young Giulio Romano
(who left Rome in 1524); see Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, 2ff; and P.N. Pagliara,
‘Palazzo Alberini’, in Frommel, Ray and Tafuri, Raffaello architetto, 171–83.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 447

Figure 6: Location of the palazzo Alberini on a photographic plan of

Rome.

Both the Pichi and Alberini projects were for large palaces, of which the
ground floor and the mezzanine were intended for shops and the upper
floors were destined for living quarters. The two patrons were both skilled
merchants, accustomed to investing money, buying and selling properties,
and the two buildings were certainly intended to produce income. As such,
448 Urban History
their development was a speculative move, and a completely reasonable
one, considering that in the sixteenth century the rione Ponte and Parione
were the two most populated areas of Rome, and consequently the rents
there were the highest in the city. Nevertheless, neither Girolamo Pichi nor
Giulio Alberini ever completed the construction of their palaces, nor did
their heirs continue the projects. In spite of the fact that Girolamo Pichi
acquired a house on the via Papalis in 1515, it appears from the documents
that the family never managed to gain control of all the properties
necessary for the construction of the original design, which seems to have
been for a palace of as many as 11 bays facing on to the via Papalis. In
December 1534, Girolamo’s heirs divided the old and the new parts of the
palace into four parts, putting a definitive stop to the original impressive
design.29 It is surprising to note that the division document reports that
the principal entrance had originally been intended to be on the dark
and narrow via del Paradiso rather than the prominent via Papalis, and
it appears that at the time of the division only three of the eleven planned
bays on to that façade had been completed (nor all of the floors). So too
in the case of the Alberini palace the main entrance was on the narrow
via del Curato rather than the via Papalis and it appears that – given the
absence of the family coat of arms and the building’s sober appearance –
the patron had never actually intended to live in the residence.30
Furthermore, the Alberini and the Pichi had other things in common;
Giulio and Girolamo were both noble and wealthy Romans, both were
municipal officials and they were also brothers-in-law. The two had
also been in charge of building a temporary theatre, erected on the
Capitoline Hill in September 1513.31 This theatre, whose architect was
the Florentine Pietro Rosselli (who has traditionally been identified as
the Pichi project architect), was an extraordinary structure, a triumph
of ephemeral architecture and visual rhetoric.32 It was built to celebrate
Giuliano and Lorenzo de’ Medici, respectively the brother and the nephew
of the newly elected Pope Leo X, as new citizens of Rome. It was said of
these magnificent celebrations, which were financed by the pope, that
they were to be Leo X’s homage to the civic power and ancient history
of Rome.33 Nevertheless, it also constituted an insidious appropriation of
Roman symbols and traditions, a claim on the rights and power of the
Roman municipality, performed on the central civic site of government.
29 Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, x, quoting a document in Archivio di Stato di
Roma, Coll. Not. Cap., vol. 87, fols. 217–22v, 29 Dec. 1534 (notary: Stephanus de Amannis).
30 Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, 11; the present finished aspect of the palace,
with three clear façades addressing the street, is actually the result of nineteenth-century
interventions, which continued the building according to extant surviving fragments.
31 See F. Cruciani, Il Teatro del Campidoglio e le feste Romane del 1513. Con la ricostruzione
architettonica del teatro di Arnaldo Bruschi (Milan, 1968): other members of the two families
were involved, since Ludovico Pichi and Giovanni Alberini were entrusted with the
realization of the theatrical representations.
32 For the palace attribution, see Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, 257.
33 Various accounts are in Cruciani, Il Teatro.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 449
Citizenship was, at least in theory, limited to Romans.34 It is thus likely
that the apparent satisfaction and joy of the celebration masked a growing
feeling among the native Romans that their role in the city was again at
risk. Indeed, that risk may well have been most forcefully felt by those
that had contributed to organizing the magnificent event. As such, the
Capitoline theatre of 1513 may have precipitated the Pichi’s and Alberini’s
determination to construct their respective palaces, with the express goal
of laying claim to this area of Rome for the Romans themselves. Building
was a way of officially contributing to the papal ambition of transforming
and beautifying the city, while at the same time it was also a means of
preventing others from acquiring such properties and building along the
via Papalis. The new urban development legislation put in place by Sixtus
IV and his successors made it easier for prospective patrons to buy up
neighbouring properties if their intention was to enlarge their own site
in order to build a new palace. As such, both the Pichi and Alberini
building projects may be considered countermeasures to the architectural
expansionism promoted by the pope and members of the curia.
The case of the Alberini palace is emblematic. In 1516 Giulio Alberini
tried to buy the house of his neighbour Pietro del Bene, who was a
Florentine banker. Pope Leo X (a Florentine himself) personally intervened
with an official papal Brief, asserting that the house belonged to the
banker, thereby hindering Alberini’s project.35 In this instance, which
clearly contravened the new legislation, the via Papalis emerges clearly
as a contested space. Alberini eventually did manage to buy the banker’s
house three years later, although by that time, work on his building project
had already come to a halt, perhaps on account of financial problems.
The area occupied by the palazzo Alberini turns out to have been
especially sought after, a fact that is again confirmed by the choices
exercised for the construction of ephemeral architecture. According to one
of the reconstructions of the famous papal possesso of Leo X, a triumphal
arch belonging to the Sienese banker Agostino Chigi was placed precisely
on the site adjacent to Alberini’s property (prior to the beginning of its
construction) on the via dei Banchi (Figure 7).36 On the other side, the
triumphal arch corresponded to what would become, a few years later, the

34 A register of ‘cittadini romani creati’ (newly created Roman citizens) between 1516 and
1532 survives in Archivio di Stato Capitolino (Cred. VI, t. 49); citizenship was subsequently
widely awarded, especially by Clement VII de’ Medici onwards. A protracted debate
surrounded the awarding of citizenship to the Flemish humanist Cristoforo Longolio, for
which see D. Gnoli, Un giudizio di lesa romanità sotto Leone X. Aggiuntevi le orazioni di Celso
Mellini e di Cristoforo Longolio (Rome, 1891).
35 Pagliara, ‘Palazzo Alberini’, 171.
36 M. Fagiolo and M. L. Madonna, ‘Il possesso di Leone X. Il trionfo delle prospettive’, in
M. Fagiolo (ed.), Festa a Roma, dal Rinascimento al 1870 (Florence, 1997), 42–9. The papal
possesso of 1513 was the subject of a paper by Kathleen Wren Christian, delivered at the
annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Chicago in 2007 in a session from
which this collection ultimately derives; I thank the author for discussing her findings
with me. Like the palaces themselves, even the display of antiquities along the via Papalis
450 Urban History

Figure 7: Ephemeral arrangement of the via Papalis in c. 1513, showing

the location of the Gaddi and Alberini palaces (overlaid on M. Fagiolo
and M.L. Madonna, ‘Il possesso di Leone X. Il trionfo delle prospettive’,
in M. Fagiolo (ed.), Festa a Roma, dal Rinascimento al 1870 (Florence, 1997),
42-9).

palazzo Gaddi, home of Luigi Gaddi, a banker from Florence and a familiare
of Leo X. The Gaddi palace was built from around 1518, probably by Jacopo
Sansovino, as part of a project that contributed to increasing the Florentine
presence in the area, a process that was promoted also by the competition
for the construction of the Florentines’ church, San Giovanni dei Fiorentini,
also in 1518.37 Thus again we can observe a visibly contested space on a
prominent and strategic section of the via Papalis; it was perhaps this set of
circumstances, combined with the symbolic significance of the Capitoline
theatre, that persuaded Giulio Alberini to consolidate his properties in the
Canale di Ponte, turning them into one big palace.

Conclusion
New building projects were a means of combating papal ascendancy
through the language of architecture. Building palaces was, however,
a very expensive method of contesting papal power, as the Pichi and
Alberini projects exemplify.38 It was, moreover, an unusual course of action
for Roman families. While Roman families’ architectural projects along
the via Papalis stretched their finances to the limit and were sometimes
impeded by the pope’s political intervention, members of the curia were
during the possesso may be viewed as a reminder to the pope that Roman families were
the legitimate heirs of Roman tradition and the legitimate inhabitants of the city.
37 On palazzo Gaddi, see Frommel, Der römische Palastbau, vol. II, 198ff; on San Giovanni
dei Fiorentini, see M. Tafuri, ‘Progetti per San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Roma. 1518’, in
Frommel, Ray and Tafuri, Raffaello architetto, 217–23.
38 In this respect, the contemporary testimony of Altieri (Miglio (ed.), Li Nuptiali, 17)
corroborates the impression that Roman families ruined themselves on account of their
‘sumptuoso et excessivo fabricare’ (sumptuous and excessive building), through which
they sought to compete with the grandiose construction plans of the new arrivals in the
city.
The via Papalis in early cinquecento Rome 451
able to build there with much greater ease; indeed, they were encouraged
to build. Over time, as has been shown, the ‘competition’ between native
Romans and members of the curia became visible not only in the ephemeral
architecture of official events, but also in the permanent architecture of
the street itself. The via Papalis was a crucial theatrical setting which
cut through the heart of the city, a stage on which the difficult social
relationships of early sixteenth-century Rome were played out. In the end,
the via Papalis proved no more dangerous for the pope than it had been in
the late fifteenth century. The street retained its traditional symbolic value,
but dramatically changed appearance, both socially and architecturally. By
the middle of the sixteenth century, only a few porticoes remained (today
only the portico at palazzo Massimo alle Colonne survives, while the
Della Valle portico, which is partially visible, is subsumed into the palace
façade), the street had been enlarged and the medieval houses had been
replaced by noble palaces. With the porticoes went the Romani cives, whose
prominent identity projected on to this pre-eminent street was gradually
replaced by the overbearing presence of the broad community of curial
officials whose fortunes were bound to the growing powers of their papal
patron.