In what ways, if at all, was the Renaissance in Rome different to that in Florence?

Florence not only modelled herself on the ancient ideal of a Roman Republic but also had recourse to ideals that pertained to a Greek πολις, which therefore necessitated the introduction of ancient political values such as reason, pragmatism and realism. In ancient Greece and Rome the Florentines noted an exemplary ideal; an ideal that espoused practical policies that gave each citizen liberty and freedom. Every aspect of the Florentine Renaissance was instigated in order to attain Republican status. Florentines extolled the ideals of democracy, virtue and equality and naturally aspired to create a state that would revere such exemplary laws. Texts that pertained to the acceptance and acknowledgement of a Republic were read,  rediscovered and translated, and all art, architecture and education was instigated in order to further the Republican ideal.  However, in contrast, Rome held the ideal that the Renaissance was primarily instigated in order to expand and strengthen the Roman Empire.  Roman intellectualism was seen to transcend that that was preached in Florence, in the sense that it acclaimed the mysterious past of Rome, and was therefore above and beyond the mere reason and pragmatism that was being extolled by the Florentines.  We have seen that Florence accepted and held in esteem all moral values and ideals of a πολις, and in doing so accepted all texts that were in agreement with this assertion.  Rome, in comparison, was seen to wholly ignore the political system of the Florentines, and accept only the texts that pertained to the acclamation of Rome’s Imperial rise to power, and those that accepted the existence of an Empire (Dionysius and Polybius). Florence looked to a particular aspect of Greek culture in order to delineate the reform and rebirth within the city, whereas Rome looked at the Hellenistic world as a whole, in order to gain knowledge of the ideals and values of an Empire.

The majority of Florentines were naturally dismayed at Rome’s aspirations towards the instigation and restoration of an Empire, mainly because of the lack of civil liberties and freedom of speech that an Empire induced, and that Caesar had manifested that the ideal of an Empire was simply impracticable.  Rome was never conducive to a Republican climate and made sure that, although many humanists and artists had a relatively large amount of freedom, they were never allowed to influence the public world; a liberty that had been taken for granted in Florence.  Rome was to be restored to its Imperial magnificence; an ideal that was contained in many artist’s work, including that of Bramante.  Although the idea of the restoration of an Empire was an important aspiration, Rome and the Papacy maintained that this ideal would simply succeed in the ultimate aim of reinforcing Rome as the centre of Christendom.  Naturally, this was an aspect of the Renaissance that could only be attributed to Rome, and therefore differentiating Rome from the Renaissance in Florence. Julius II focused specifically on the unique and all-enveloping Roman ideal of Renovatio Romae and immediately ascertained the need to restore the Universal Church by asserting and espousing Rome as the centre of the Christian faith.  Rome existed uniquely as the city of antiquity and mystery; and this inherent mystery and awe was indicative of Christ and St. Peter.  Therefore, another fundamental difference between Rome and Florence evolved - that Rome was not a ‘secular’ community or a πολις-based city focused primarily on ‘the ethico-political values of citizenship’ - rather that it was the capital of Christianity and was therefore to be regarded as a sacred and mysterious city, housing the faith of the Western world and beyond.  

Although the city of Rome was indeed at the forefront of the Renaissance, its ideals and thoughts behind the concept of the Renaissance differed radically from those held by the Florentines.  Sixtus IV declared Rome as the capital of Christianity rather than the capital of humanism, and therefore accommodated the restoration of Rome as a Christian capital.  The Renaissance in Rome was never fully concerned with merely furthering its artistic and cultural supremacy over the rest of Italy, rather the Papacy recognised that the Renaissance was concerned with the physical restoration of the Church in Rome; i.e. the restoration of Churches and other papal buildings.  The revival of art and intellectualism were obviously important within the Renaissance in order to facilitate an educated proletariat, however, Martin V and Eugenius IV realised the need to build and restore decaying Church property in order that it could be used, rather than to build purely in the name of art.  It must be stated however that although there was widespread papal recognition of the advantages of ‘cultural’ and ‘artistic’ architecture in furthering the cause of the Church, the ‘instauratio Ecclesias Romae’ and ‘Renovatio urbis’ were key themes apparent within the Roman Renaissance; themes lacking in the Renaissance of the Florentines.

It is plain to see that Rome differed quite considerably from Florence due to its position within Christendom.  Certain Renaissance ideas may have emanated from Florence and had an effect on Rome, but Florence was at an obvious disadvantage.  Within Florence, the restoration and renovation of the city was primarily due to the Florentine’s aspirations to be regarded as a Republic; Cosimo de’Medici even ruled, banked and acted as an ancient Roman.  Within Rome however, the restoration of the city and the organisation of its structure was in no respects due to wealthy traders and financiers wanting to imitate a πολις, rather that the massive influx of pilgrims descending on Rome during specially commissioned Jubilee years necessitated an advanced city plan.  The pilgrims therefore determined the overall character of the city - indeed the Ponte Sisto was built in order to alleviate the bottleneck that was occurring when pilgrims used the narrower Pont Sant’Angelo.  Again, the concept of pilgrimage emanates from the knowledge that Rome was regarded as the centre of Christendom, and that the people had a desire ‘for the immediacy of contact with the more than earthly heroism of the martyrs and the Apostles’.  Rome as the foundation stone of the Christian faith naturally played a major and unique role in the instigation of the Renaissance.

We turn now to the concept of language within the Renaissance.  As a rule, Renaissance humanists were concerned with the eloquence, style and grammar of language.  Many avid scholars combed ancient libraries and monasteries in order to scrutinise the language of ancient texts and documents.  Purity of language was therefore a universal primary concern of the Renaissance, although this universal concern found expression in different forms in different cities. Rome, after the re-discovery of the Doric, (a simple, ordered and pragmatic style) was naturally opposed to the Florentine ‘florid and expressive’ language, which was described as ‘weak’ and ‘abstract’.  The Romans were concerned with the exposition of ‘pure Latin’ in order to further the process of Imperial restoration, as well as espouse the relationship between the Latin language and Christianity.  Such was the need of the Romans to strengthen the position of the Church that a blatant refutation of Florentine style was essential.  The debate regarding the usage of certain language styles provides an example of an important difference between the Renaissance in Rome and that in Florence.  In order to meet the requirements of the city of Rome, it was necessary to reformulate the Renaissance to suit the individual city; therefore the uniqueness of each city necessarily supposes the uniqueness of its Renaissance.  In summation, it is inevitable that the Renaissance in Rome would extol different virtues and beliefs to that in Florence- each city tailored the Renaissance to suit their own individual need.

The Renaissance in itself brought about many unforeseen and incredible transformations within Italian society, none more notable than the ‘reform’ of the education system.  Cities and towns were undergoing a radical change, in that the educated, who were mostly clergy, were being ousted by laymen. Many scholars and humanists of the Renaissance began to read pagan texts; Platonic academies were formed (Ficino 1433-99), and various humanists began to extol the virtues of such ancient masterly scholars.  The Church could no longer refuse access to ancient pagan texts, but was naturally concerned as to the consequences of such curiosity.  Indeed, from the curiosity and eagerness to discover pagan texts came the controversial notion of ‘man whole and complete’:  Certain Florentines asserted that the virtue and beauty of man was an end in itself.  Rome, as the centre of Christendom, naturally had to refute this view and assert that all restorations, discoveries and beauties of man were made in the light of the glory of God. Although this ideal was never expressed significantly throughout Florence, humanists such as Alberti also focused on the need for wealth and possessions and maintained that beauty and art were in themselves the ultimate goal of existence. In summation, Florence, although perhaps partially rejecting Christian morality, did in fact adhere to the teaching and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; in this sense the Renaissance in Florence and Rome are to perceived as very similar.  However,  the difference still remained that Rome was primarily engaged in a Renaissance of the physical and spiritual restoration of the Universal Church, and not merely a restoration of humanist intellectual concerns over art, architecture and culture.

The possibility of Papal patronage drew many artists and sculptors to Rome, but it was the existence of the monuments, buildings and ruins of ancient Rome that fuelled the artist’s desire to visit.  Therefore, Florence, for all its patronage by wealthy clans and families, could not provide the original art on which the majority of Renaissance was to be based.  Roman humanism was seen to differ from that in Florence due to the emphasis on the timeless antiquity of the achievements visible in Rome.  It was necessary therefore for the sculptor to come to Rome in order to scrutinise sarcophagi and art in general on which he would base his ideas.  It could therefore be argued that Rome, as the ancient city on which the Renaissance was based, has a valid claim over and above Florence to be regarded as the founding city of the Renaissance.

Finally, with regard to the differences between the Florentine and Roman Renaissance, it is important to note that artists and humanists in Rome, although complaining of the ‘restrictions’ of the proposed Empire, were actually limited to a greater extent by a city-state such as Florence.  In Rome, the opportunities of an urban capital were far greater than those of an ‘independent’ city. To a certain extent Rome was less prone to disturbance by external and internal political and social events that might prematurely halt the activity of the Renaissance; whereas Florence was fully exposed to the Spanish and French invasions, and the Medici rise to power.  Such interruptions only served to curb the process of the Florentine Renaissance, whereas in Rome, the process of restoration and renewal was in full progress.  Due to the lack of untimely interruptions, the constant influx of Florentine artists and the augmented process of urban restoration, Rome was finally seen as the Renaissance capital of Italy; and finally surpassed its daughter, the ‘failed’ Republic of Florence.

The Renaissance was to be of inestimable importance to the city’s of Florence and Rome, and for that matter, Italy as a whole. Florence, although generally regarded as the instigator of the Renaissance era, and a city that had a profound impact on Rome, was surpassed by the Italian capital by the year 1500. However, in spite of its impact and influence on Rome, it is important to note that differences were rife and extremely obvious between the two cities; Rome simply refused to passively absorb Florentine ideas without instigating a Renaissance of its own. Naturally, the cultural, political, social and religious position of the city prior to and during the Renaissance indubitably added to the uniqueness of events within each city; although in essence each city held an equally valid claim to be regarded as the centre of the Italian Renaissance.  Suffice it to say that both Florence and Rome paradoxically instigated a common but intrinsically unique Renaissance that augmented the standards of intellectualism, education, knowledge and awareness of history - even with a unique Renaissance each city brought forth great works of art that are a revelation to behold even today.

---

Bibliography

B. Pullen, A History of Early Renaissance Italy, Allen Lane 1973

C. Stinger, Rome of the Renaissance, 1985

D. Hay The Italian Renaissance, Cambridge University Press, 1961

G. Holmes, Florence, Rome and the Origins of the Renaissance, Clarendon Press, 1986

M. L. Bush, Renaissance, Reformation and the Outer World, Blandford Press, 1967

P. Burke, The Italian Renaissance, Princeton University Press, 1986

P. Laven, Renaissance Italy 1464-1534, Batsford, 1966

P. Portoghesi, Rome of the Renaissance, Phaidon, 1972

V Cronin, The Florentine Renaissance, Collins, 1967

V. H. H. Green, Renaissance and Reformation, Edward Arnold, 1974

The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. VII, ‘The Decline of the Empire and the Papacy’,         Cambridge University Press, 1932

---