MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246

2
Fascist Architectural Remnants in Rome’s Contemporary Cityscape:
Dissonant Heritage between Negligence and Re-use
Keywords: Fascist architecture, Rome, Italy, Foro Italico, Piazza Augusto Imperatore,
Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, EUR, negligence, re-use, Italian cultural memory.
Master’s Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies 2015-2016, University of Amsterdam
Author: Sophie van Doornmalen
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Ihab Saloul
Second Reader: Dr. Tamara van Kessel
Date: 20 May 2016
Word amount: 23.072
Abstract
The purpose of this master’s thesis is to examine how the architectural remnants of the fascist
era (1922-1943) in Rome have been physically and ideologically neglected and reused in both
their treatment and the way in which they are discussed in the public debate. Through the
examination of three case-studies, namely the Foro Italico, the Piazza Augusto Imperatore and
the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, it is made clear how changes in the treatment of fascist
architectural heritage reflect the changes in the collective memory of and attitude towards the
fascist past in general. After the Second World War, fascist architecture has simultaneously
been reused out of practical reasons and neglected in order to not emphasize the divided
memories that exist of the fascist era and the Second World War. Fascist heritage has been in
a frozen state, being too dissonant and politically difficult to handle. However, since the
1990s, the Italian political life changed drastically, because of the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the demise of communism in Italy and the re-emergence of far-right. These
developments have opened up the debate on the meaning of the fascist past and have made
way for revisionism. As a result, the fascist past is being normalized and the ideological
connotation of fascist heritage is being downplayed and marginalized. Because of this, fascist
architecture has gotten out of its isolation and is being reused and refurbished. This
ideological neglect is not necessarily a negative development, as it has become a dynamic of
preservation of the dissonant heritage of the fascist past.

3
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not be possible without the much appreciated help, advice and support from
several people. First, I would like to thank dr. Ihab Saloul for inspiring me to write about this
subject, your always giving honest and direct critiques and supporting me throughout this
thesis project. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to dr. Tamara van Kessel for the
extra time and effort she put in discussing the subject with me and helping me contextualize
the subject. I truly enjoyed working with both Ihab and Tamara, and without their help and
encouragement, this thesis would not have been possible.
I would especially like to thank my parents and family for the motivational speeches and
discussions on the subject, as well as supporting me all throughout my studies. Also, a big
thank you to my friends and my Hardcore Heritage classmates for listening, getting me
through stressful times and making writing this thesis even more enjoyable with coffee breaks
and laughter in the library. Further, I would like to express my gratitude to my roommate
Jeroen Krul for the illustration on the cover.
In addition, I would like the thank the Royal Dutch Institute in Rome (Koninklijk Nederlands
Instituut Rome), and especially dr. Arthur Weststeijn, for introducing me to the subject of
fascist heritage as well as offering the best courses in Rome, which always nourished my
curiosity and passion for Rome’s cultural heritage and its many secrets and treasures.

4
Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 3
Content ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6
Research question................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1: What is fascist architectural heritage?.................................................................... 14
How ‘fascist’ is ‘fascist architecture’? ................................................................................. 15
Divided Memory .................................................................................................................. 17
Dissonant Heritage ............................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2 - Case 1: Foro Italico ............................................................................................... 24
Reuse without damnatio memoriae...................................................................................... 25
The 1960 Olympics .............................................................................................................. 26
Physical neglect.................................................................................................................... 30
Removing fascist writings anno 2015 .................................................................................. 31
Chapter 3 - Case 2: Piazza Augusto Imperatore ...................................................................... 40
Erasure INI and fasces.......................................................................................................... 42
Manufacturing the new Ara Pacis Museum ......................................................................... 43
Remaking the piazza in 2015 ............................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 - Case 3: EUR.......................................................................................................... 54
The revitalization and reuse of EUR.................................................................................... 56
Aestheticization of the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana........................................................... 58
Fendi Headquarters 2015 ..................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 5 – Comparison of the case-studies ............................................................................ 68

5
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 72
Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 76
Literature .............................................................................................................................. 76
(Newspaper) Articles............................................................................................................ 79
Additional sources................................................................................................................ 82
Dictionaries ...................................................................................................................... 82
Video ................................................................................................................................ 82
Websites ........................................................................................................................... 82
Additional......................................................................................................................... 83
List of Images........................................................................................................................... 84

6
Introduction
Scattered around Rome are the physical remains of the fascist era (1922 -1943), such as
buildings, iconography, sculptures, mosaics, obelisks, inscriptions etc., which can still be seen
in the contemporary cityscape. Rome’s cityscape, or urban environment, is the backdrop
against which daily life takes place and where past events of fascism have taken place and left
their traces.1
Rome has often been called an ‘urban palimpsest’, a city that reflects different
histories as they have been ‘written on, partly erased, added to, and rewritten time and again.’2
Huyssen uses the term ‘palimpsest’ as the visible and invisible traces that fashion the city’s
memorial landscape. A palimpsest simultaneously displays and hides memories and multiple
layers of meaning. Over the years, the remains of fascist heritage have become part of Rome’s
palimpsest, and linger both visibly and invisibly in the cityscape. The presence of fascist
heritage in Rome has caused some dispute over the years, as there has never been a consensus
on how the fascist past should be perceived and how the fascist remnants should be treated.
The remains of fascism have been controversial over the years, and because of the dissonance
they create, they have been dealt with in an often conflicting manner. In my thesis, I will look
at look at two main ways of dealing with these fascist remnants in contemporary Rome,
namely neglect and reuse.
Neglect can be defined as the act of not giving ‘enough care or attention to something’
or not giving ‘enough care or attention to people or things that are you responsibility’.3
Neglect thus, is a subjective term, since there is not a standard for what ‘enough care’ should
entail, or even that care should be given in the first place. The idea of what ‘enough care’
encompasses depends on the viewpoint, since different groups of people may have different
ideas about the treatment of fascist remnants. Also, neglect can mean not paying attention to
or care for something at all. Neglect can take on multiple forms and occurs in a physical and
ideological form. Heritage can be physically neglected, which means that the physical
appearance of the site, or parts thereof, are deteriorating, because of lack of upkeep. The
protection of the site through upkeep and security is substandard, leading to vandalism and
damage to the site by overuse and erosion. Also, the ideology of a site can be neglected,
1
‘Cityscape’ [Def. 1 and 3.0] (n.d.) Merriam Webster. Retrieved from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cityscape
2
Foot (2009), 4. And A. Huyssen (2003) Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 7.
3
‘Neglect’ [Def. 1]. (n.d.) Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neglect and
‘Neglect’ [Def. 1 and 6.]. (n.d.) Dictionary.com. Retrieved from:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/neglect?s=t

7
meaning that the set of ideas and beliefs of a (political) group, related to or embodied in
fascist heritage, can be neglected.4
This ideological neglect is thus an indifference or
unconcern of the things that fascist heritage symbolizes, namely the fascist ideology, its
values, and the memories that are connected to this heritage. This neglect generally arises
from the political difficulty and sensitivity of the subject, which makes it easier to avoid these
problems than to start an unpopular discussion.
Many fascist buildings have been reused, which is the act of using a building after it
has fallen in disuse, or after a change of regime. This reuse can either be conventional, thus
retaining its former function, or creative, where the use is different from the former function.
Like neglect, reuse can also be subdivided in physical and ideological; physical reuse is the
reuse of a structure, regardless of the ideological message it might convey. Often, when a site
is physically reused, the meaning of the site is being altered and detached of its previous
meaning. Reuse is not limited to the physical site, since the ideology linked to a site and the
messages it exalts can also be reused. With this ideological reuse, the ideas and belief of a
group, which are expressed through or are encapsulated in heritage, are restated. In the case of
fascist heritage this identification with ideas and belief of fascism, expresses itself in neo-
fascist tendencies.
The concepts of neglect and reuse are paradoxical. When something is neglected, it
implies that it is not re-used, as ‘neglect’ suggest a passiveness, since something is not being
done, or being done poorly, while ‘reuse’ hints at activity. Likewise, when something is re-
used it is implied that it is not neglected. But as we will see, there are different levels of
neglect and re-use that often go hand in hand when it comes to fascist architectural remnants
in Rome. Neglect and reuse stand side by side, and can be seen simultaneously in several
possible combinations. For example, a heritage site is physically reused, but ideologically
neglected, or a site is physically neglected and ideologically reused. We will encounter
different combinations in this thesis.
Research question
The concepts of neglect and reuse are particularly interesting for fascist architecture in Rome,
because, for a long period of time, ideological neglect has been the tactics of postponing the
problem of dealing with the fascist heritage. This heritage has been so ideologically charged
4
‘Ideology’ [Def. ‘Simple’ and 2b]. (n.d.) Merriam Webster. Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/ideology

8
that the treatment and discussion on this heritage was difficult, unpopular, and would expose
the division in Italian society. At the same time, however, many fascist structures have been
reused but are not being dealt with. It is interesting to look at these cases of Italian fascist
architecture now, because after an extensive period of abandonment, there seems to be a
change going on in the treatment of fascist heritage the past decades. In 2015 alone, three
cases of fascist heritage sites have been in the media, because of a change, or a proposed
change, in its treatment. First, the ‘Mussolini Dux’ obelisk at the Foro Italico was under
discussion, as politician Laura Boldrini suggested that the inscription on the obelisk should be
removed. (Fig. 1.) Second, after years of neglect and decay, the area surrounding the
mausoleum of Augustus at the Piazza Augusto Imperatore is being refurbished into a
pedestrian area. (Fig. 2.) And third, after more than 70 years of abandonment, the Palazzo
della Civiltà Italiana, commonly known as the ‘Square Colosseum’, has a new purpose as the
new headquarters of the Italian fashion brand Fendi. (Fig.3.)
In order to examine these changes more closely, I have formulated the following
question:
How does the neglect and reuse of fascist architectural heritage in Rome’s contemporary
cityscape reflect changes in the Italian debate on and the memory of the fascist era?
Many monument have been altered over time, by renaming them or removing fascist
reminders. Just like the city itself, these monuments have visible and invisible layers, and the
monuments in themselves become palimpsests as well.5
As part of the memorial landscape of
a city, these individual architectural sites can be seen a catalysts of public opinion, mourning
and recognition.6
The way in which fascist heritage is treated and debated tells us a lot about
how the fascist era is being remembered. According to Pierre Nora, memory is defined in its
opposition to history. Memory is borne by living societies, is in permanent evolution, open to
remembering and forgetting, vulnerable to appropriation and manipulation. Memory is by
nature multiple, collective, plural, and yet individual.7
Nora elaborated on Maurice
Halbwachs, who argued that apart from individual memory, there is also a ‘collective
memory’ of a group, which is dependent upon the framework of a group or society and exists
beyond the individual.8
Jan Assmann also analysed the concept of collective memory, and
5
J. Foot (2009) Italy’s Divided Memory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 4.
6
Ibidem
7
P. Nora (1989) “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”, in: Representations, 26, 8-9.
8
M. Halbwachs (1992) On Collective Memory. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 7-9.

9
made a distinction between communicative and cultural memory. Communicative memory is
made up of the oral transmitting of memory in our daily communication. Meanwhile, cultural
memory refers to the historical stories that people share within a cultural group. These
memories are being transferred through historical sources, inscriptions, buildings, art and
other media. The cultural memory fosters the group identity; the sense of sameness and a
shared generic character or set of beliefs among a group, for example national identity.9
Thus,
when referred to memory in this thesis, it concerns the cultural, public and collective form, as
the relation between a national community and how they perceive and reflect on their
communal history.10
Collective memory is closely linked to place. These Lieux de mémoire
‘where memory crystallizes and secretes itself’, are physical, tangible places of memory,
where people are in connection with the past.11
Memory is formed and manifests itself
through different forms and it takes root in the concrete, in spaces, gestures images and
objects.’12
Mammone argues that ‘historical studies—together with other key vectors such as
mass media, cinema, novels, political debates, commemorations, museums, and monuments—
contribute to the establishment of a country’s memory.’13
By looking at these actors, we can
analyse what is being remember and what is being forgotten. It is established that ‘buildings,
as well as objects, places and things, enshrine memory.’14
In this thesis I will especially focus
on how the architectural remnants are dealt with and how public and political debates discuss
this heritage, in order to find out how the fascist past is being memorized.
Thus, in this thesis, I will look at how heritage has being dealt with through the forms
of neglect and reuse and how the presence of this heritage and the reaction towards it in public
debate takes shape. The treatment and public debate reflect how fascism is being perceived
and what is being remembered. I want to see if there is a change going on in the treatment.
Methodology
In the first chapter, I will discuss what ‘fascist architectural heritage in Rome’s contemporary
cityscape’ entails. The history of fascism will be briefly discussed in relation to Mussolini’s
building program. I will explain how people have dealt with the remains of fascism after the
9
J. Assmann (1995) ‘Collective Memory and Cultural Identity’, in: New German Critique 65, 126-130.
10
A. Mammone (2006) ‘A Daily Revision of the Past: Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and Memory in Contemporary
Italy’, in: Modern Italy 11 (2), 212.
11
Nora (1989), 12.
12
Ibidem, 9.
13
Mammone (2006).
14
Benton (2010), 25.

10
fall of the regime and how this lead to the contemporary cityscape. Also, I will consider if
there even is such a thing as ‘fascist architecture’. Furthermore, I will explain how fascist
architecture relates to Italy’s divided memory on the fascist era and the Second World War,
and how this divided memory has led to a dissonance in the management of fascist heritage.
Then, in order to answer how the neglect and reuse of fascist heritage reflects changes
in how the fascist past is perceived, I will look at three case studies of fascist architectural
heritage in Rome, namely; the Foro Italico complex (Chapter 2), the Piazza Augusto
Imperatore and the abutting Ara Pacis Museum (Chapter 3), and the area Esposizione
Universale di Rome ’42, also called EUR, with an emphasis on the Palazzo della Civiltà
Italiana (Colosseo Quadrato) and the Palazzo Uffici (Chapter 3). I have selected these cases
for multiple reasons. First, all three of these sites are important, well-known fascist heritage
sites in Rome, that consist of both iconographic and topographic architectural remnants.
Rome has many layers of history in its cityscape of which many are visible, but even more are
invisible. Of the fascist remains, Arthurs makes a distinction between iconographical
remnants, the ‘explicit visual or textual referents to Fascist ideology’ and topographical
remnants, ‘meaning the spaces and places created by the regime’.15
Topographic remnants do
not necessarily visibly remind of the fascist regime, whereas iconographic remnants remind
directly of the regime and tend to ‘“speak” more loudly’.16
Also, iconographic remains are
more movable than topographic remains, which are embedded in the structure of the city and
cannot be easily altered. I will especially focus on the iconographic architectural remnants.
These can entail inscriptions and imagery that directly relate to fascism. All three of the sites
have explicit iconographic features, either mosaics, reliefs, inscriptions etc., which visibly
link the site to the fascist era, and which make their presence today controversial and
debatable. Second, they all have been in the media recently, as previously mentioned. Third,
the three cases owe most of their current appearance to the constructions made during the
fascist era, and have been relatively frozen or unaltered since the fall of the fascist regime.
In each of these case studies I will examine how the sites have been neglected and
reused (both physically and ideologically) since the fall of the fascist regime in 1943. I have
selected several important moments in the history of the sites, where there were circumstances
concerning the physical sites, which triggered an extensive public debate, while I will also
address the absence of public debate where one would expect one. The scrutiny of the public
15
J. Arthurs. (2015b) ‘‘Voleva essere Cesare, morì Vespasiano’: The Afterlives of Mussolini’s Rome’, in:
Civiltà Romana Rivista pluridisciplinare di studi su Roma antica e le sue interpretazioni 1, 286.
16
Ibidem.

11
debate has mostly been based on Italian and foreign newspaper articles, which have been
selected on availability and relevance. I have attempted to make a wide selection of
newspapers, as well as different points of view in the concerning debates. Furthermore, I will
base my research on secondary literature, which is mostly in English due to the resources
available to me at the point of writing. Although I speak Italian, I unfortunately did not have
the opportunity to make use of the abundance of Italian literature that exists on the subject.
In Chapter 5, I will compare the neglect and re-use of the three case-studies and will
consider what these ways of dealing with fascist remains tells us about the place fascism holds
in Italian society, debate, and memory. Then, in the conclusion, I will argue that there is a
normalization going on, that has developed parallel to the revisionism of the of the fascist
past. Normalization and Revisionism are trends that are not just limited to Rome, but count
for the dealing with Italy’s cultural memory in general. With this thesis, I thus contribute to
the debate on how fascist heritage in Rome is being dealt with and the place this fascist
heritage holds in society and in the public memory.

12
Figure 1. Aerial view of the Foro Italico complex.
(Photo retrieved from: http://tennisopolis.com/forum/topics/rome-foro-italio-men-s-main-draw).
Figure 2. Aerial view of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore and the mausoleum of Augustus.
(Photo retrieved from: http://www.touringclub.it/notizie-di-viaggio/roma-mausoleo-di-augusto-aprira-mai-quella-
tomba%20).

13
Figure 3. Aerial view of the EUR district being built in 1939. The Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana is on the center left of
the photo.
(Photo retrieved from: https://archiwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/e42.jpg).

14
Chapter 1: What is fascist architectural heritage?
Fascist architectural remnants refer to the architectural structures and ornaments which have
been built in 1922-1943, under the reign of Benito Mussolini, and which have remained until
this day. Fascism is a far-right totalitarian nationalist movement, which emerged around the
1920s in the aftermath of the First World War. Mussolini and his Partito Nazionale Fascista
(PNF) rose to power in government, starting from the March on Rome in October 1922.17
In a
matter of years, Mussolini had established a legal and executive dictatorial authority.18
He had
destroyed most of the political opposition through his secret police and violent Blackshirts
and turned Italy into a one-party dictatorship. Since 1925 he adopted the title of Dictator and
was commonly referred to as ‘Il Duce’ (the leader).
In order to justify his authority and to gain public support, Mussolini made use of
propaganda, amongst others through an extensive building program in Rome, which was
based on three principle ideas of Italian fascism: romanità, the rhetoric of imperialism and
war, and Mussolini himself. Mussolini wanted to transform Italy into ‘the Third Roman
Empire’, rivalling the First Roman Empire of ancient Rome and the Second Rome of the
Popes. The capital was to be the centre of both the nation and the Third Roman Empire and
therefore he wanted to make the city once more a place of greatness and grandeur worthy of
Rome’s imperial past. 19
This glorification of Ancient Rome’s imperial past is called
romanità. The idea of Italian unification based on the shared past of Ancient Rome was not a
new notion, as it was expressed in the nineteenth century throughout the Risorgimento.
However, it was mostly during the Ventennio that the city’s rich history, monuments, and sites
were opened up and put in more prominent positions, in order to define and display the new
fascist Italy.20
For example, the Colosseum was opened up with the construction of the Via
dei Fori Imperiali, the area around the theatre of Marcellus was cleared for the Via del Mare
and the Mausoleum of Augustus was highlighted by the creation of the Piazza Augusto
Imperatore. By focussing on exposing these ancient buildings, Mussolini made a direct link
with the ancient Rome, legitimizing the fascist rule as inheritors of the Roman Empire. The
idea of empire was not limited to Rome. Mussolini envisioned Italy as a powerful nation,
17
For a detailed overview on the history of fascism, see: J. van Osta (1989) Geschiedenis van Het Moderne
Italië : Tussen Liberalisme En Fascisme. Den Haag: Nijgh & Van Ditmar Universitair.
18
Van Osta (1989).
19
B.W. Painter (2005) Mussolini’s Rome: Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 5.
20
Ibidem, 2.

15
respected by the great international powers and worthy of the Roman Imperial tradition.21
Because the fascist regime glorified the nation-state, war and violence and was also in need of
international recognition, it was only a natural consequence that Mussolini would seek
oversees expansion, as demonstrated by the colonial wars in Libya and Ethiopia.22
These
messages of imperialism were celebrated through iconography as well. Not only were there
several sites named after empire, such as the ‘Piazzale dell’Impero’ or the ‘Via dell’Impero’,
but also several inscriptions and mosaics refer to the imperial ambitions of the regime. For
example, the mosaics in the Foro Italico portray several images of indigenous people in
Libya, as well as armed youths and military. (Fig. 5.) To celebrate the successes in Ethiopia
and to showcase them to the international community at the World Exhibition, the regime
even constructed the entire area of EUR. The third principle idea of fascism was the figure of
Mussolini, who was the centre of fascist propaganda. This cult of Mussolini, or mussolinismo,
revolves around the admiration and imitation of the person or the politics of Mussolini. From
the very beginning of fascism, public identification with il Duce was encouraged. Mussolini
was the face of fascism, resulting in abundant iconography, reliefs, sculptures and inscriptions
of either the face or the name of Mussolini.23
The most prominent remnant is perhaps the
‘Mussolini Dux’ obelisk. (Fig. 6.)
How ‘fascist’ is ‘fascist architecture’?
The buildings and sites constructed during the Ventennio are mentioned here as ‘fascist
architecture’. However, the notion of ‘fascist architecture’ is controversial, as it is unclear
what exactly makes architecture built during the fascist era ‘fascist’. ‘Fascist’ in this sense
signifies architecture that is purely a product of the fascist regime or that speaks the
ideological propaganda message as intended by the totalitarian regime. Is all that has been
built under Mussolini’s regime ‘fascist’? First, the architectural style was not determined by
Mussolini or fascist officials, instead there was a ‘relatively open cultural climate’.24
There
was no such thing as ‘state art’, since ‘neither Mussolini nor one of his officials set in motion
an overall preconceived program to guide all individual initiatives’.25
At the opening of a
21
Ibidem, 115.
22
N. Carter (2010) Modern Italy in Historical Perspective. London: A Hodder Arnold Publication, 83.
23
Carter (2010), 139.
24
Ibidem, 152.
25
C. Lazzaro and R. J. Crum (eds.) (2005) ‘Introduction’, in: Donatello among the Blackshirts. History and
Modernity in the Visual Culture of Fascist Italy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 5.

16
group exhibition on Novecento art in Milan 1923, Mussolini declared that ‘it is far from my
idea to encourage anything like a state art. Art belongs to the domain of the individual. The
state has only one duty: not to undermine art, to provide humane conditions for artists, to
encourage them from the artistic and national point of view.’26
Rather than a univocal style,
architecture under Mussolini’s regime consisted of collaborative projects with different
architects and artists ‘representing a range of traditional and avant-garde trends.’27
Italian
architecture in the Ventennio thus incorporated a variety of stylistic trends, such as a
Traditionalist, Novecento and Rationalist style.28
This mixture of styles was based on
romanità, using classical proportions and rectangular symmetry, but also on vernacular and
rural Italian building traditions, which are pure and simple forms without ornaments.29
Buildings of the fascist era are often large and imposing, conveying a sense of astonishment
and intimidation and are usually made of durable, (plain) white materials, such as marble and
limestone. Although there are sculptures and mosaics to be found, the design is simplified and
lacks ornaments. Depictions mostly show heroic scenes, in line with romanità, imperialism
and war, modernism and industrialism, and they are modelled after the classical example.
Since there is not one specific state regulated style, the buildings constructed during the
fascist era are seen as expressions of interwar modernism. As the importance of interwar
Rationalist architecture is stressed, the ideological charge is lifted from the buildings
themselves, as we will come to see in the case studies.30
Second, many building projects were
conceived before the fascist era and were carried out in the interwar period. Most urban
transformations had been proposed during the Risorgimento. For example, there had been
advanced plans on opening up the mausoleum of Augustus in the Piano Regolatore of 1909,
26
‘Alla Mostra del ‘Novecento’’, speech of 26 March 1923, published in Il Popolo d’Italia, 27 March, 1923.
Printed in: E. Braun (2000) Mario Sironi and Italian Modernism: Art and Politics under Fascism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1.
27
C. Lazzaro (2005) ‘Forging a Visible Fascist Nation: Strategies for Fusing Past and Present’, in: C. Lazzaro
and R. J. Crum (eds.) Donatello among the Blackshirts. History and Modernity in the Visual Culture of Fascist
Italy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 27.
28
Rationalist architecture was popular in the 1920s-1940s. It was a compromise between the classicism of the
Novecento Italiano movement and Futurism, finding a synthesis between the nationalistic values of Italian
Classicism and the structural logic of the machine age. Novecento was a style based on the rhetoric of
Mussolini’s fascism. It lacked a vast artistic programme and included different artists and styles. It aimed to
promote a renewed and yet tradition Italian art. For more on these Italian interwar styles, read: K. Frampton
(1980) Modern architecture. A critical history. London: Thames and Hudson, 203-218. and R.A. Etlin (1991)
Modernism in Italian Architecture, 1890-1940. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
29
Lazzaro (2005), 27. For more on rural and ’vernacular’ architecture, read: Lazzaro (2005) 27-31.
30
J. Arthurs (2010) ‘Fascism as ‘heritage’ in contemporary Italy’, in: A. Mammone and G.A. Veltri (eds.) Italy
Today: The sick man of Europe. New York: Taylor&Francis, 114.

17
planning to reveal its original form by externally freeing the structure.31
Thus, we can
question whether or not the plans conducted during the fascist era were purely expressions of
fascism, since their roots lie in earlier periods. However, the existing plans were often altered
by Mussolini to fit his own needs and were used for the regime’s propaganda.
Despite of the critiques, I will still be using the term ‘fascist architecture’, because the
term implies that the architecture has an ideological charge, which is exactly why fascist
heritage is often the source of controversy, as we will encounter in the case-studies. Also,
with the case studies I selected, there are several markers (mosaics, inscriptions and
sculptures) that make it obvious to the beholder that the site is fascist and also in these
instances, it is debated whether or not the site still carries out the message of fascism.
Divided Memory
On June 21st
1940, Italy joined the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany. As the
war turned out to be devastating for Italy, Mussolini’s popularity dropped rapidly and
eventually, in July 1943, he was toppled by a group of fascists and imprisoned. After twenty
years of fascism, this news was met with euphoria amongst most Italians, as it led Italy to
believe that the end of the war was near. In this jubilation, many symbols and images of
fascism were removed, especially the fasces and images of Mussolini.32
‘Millions
immediately took to the streets to join in exuberant celebrations and purge their communities
of all traces of the fallen regime.’33
However, there were many Italians who sympathized with
the regime and grieved the fall of fascism. If the Italians thought the war was over, they
couldn’t be more mistaken. On September 8th
1943, Italy sided with the Allies, which led
Germany to occupying the larger part of Italy. The Second World War was continued as a
civil war, in which the population was divided between fascists fighting with the Nazi’s and
the resistance movements that consisted of partisans. However, this division was not clear cut
and many switched sides during the war. The nine months of German occupation were the
most atrocious of the war. There were mass deportations and reprisals for partisans who had
killed Nazi’s, such as the massacre at Fosse Ardeatine, where 335 civilians were killed. In the
meantime, Hitler installed Mussolini as head of a new fascist puppet government, the Italian
31
S. Kostof (1978) ‘The Emperor and The Duce: The Planning of Piazzale Augusto Imperatore in Rome’, in: H.
Millon and L. Nochlin (eds.) Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 271-272.
32
Painter (2005), xvi.
33
Arthurs (2015b), 286.

18
Social Republic or the Republic of Salò in Northern Italy. Il Duce died on April 28th
1945, as
he was caught during his attempted escape to Switzerland. Mussolini was executed and his
body was hung at a gas station at Piazzale Loreto in Milan, together with his mistress and
other executed fascists. The war ended for Italy in April 1945, when the Germans capitulated,
and the Italian liberation is celebrated on the 25th
of April.
With the change of regime, the newly founded Italian Republic’s government,
consisting of the Democrazia Cristiana (DC) and the Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI), tried
to eliminate the memory and traces of discomfort of the fascist regime. In order to move on,
most Italians wanted to forget about the twenty years of fascism.34
However, after the war,
there was no systematic removal of fascism. Streets and buildings were renamed in order to
reuse them. Buildings that had important functions and offices often remained in use.
Sometimes the fasces and fascist slogans were removed, but even this is not the case with
most buildings in Rome.35
The transformation of the city was swift and incomplete and post-
war Italy did not systematically distance itself from fascism. This goes for fascist architecture
in particular, but also for society in general. Fascist officials were re-installed in to office after
the war in all types of occupations, such as judges, bureaucrats, police officers etc.
Furthermore, war crimes were not prosecuted, so that neither society nor the city were purged
of remnants of the fascist era. 36
Because Italy was divided during the German occupation, there have been divided
memories on what happened during the Second World War. The term ‘divided memory’ or
memoria divisa has been in use since the 1990s. Foot (2009) explains that ‘divided memory’
is the emergence of contradicting narratives after events through forms of public and private
commemoration. These contradictory narratives are often incompatible, but they exist parallel
to each other.37
The post-war narrative focussed on the partisans as national heroes. Whereas
many local groups see them as having provoked the Germans and as a reason why some of
their relatives are dead. Also, where post-war Germany had to deal with the question of guilt
and collective responsibility for the war and the Holocaust, Italy minimized its culpability and
portrayed itself as a country of brava gente. Post-war Italy juxtaposed the ‘good Italian’
against the ‘bad German’, taking on a role as victim rather than perpetrator, as Italy had a
34
Painter (2005), xvii.
35
Foot (2009), 70.
36
For more information on not prosecuting Italian war crimes, see R. Ventresca (2006) ‘Debating the Meaning
of Fascism in Contemporary Italy’, in: Modern Italy 11 (2), 189-209.
37
Foot (2009).

19
hand in arranging Mussolini’s fall and switched sides during the war. 38
Consequently,
fascism, its violence and (colonial) repression have long been hidden under the façade of the
German alliance. The Nazi regime was blamed for having corrupted the fascist dictatorship
and introducing the racial laws. Even now, Italian Fascism is sometimes presented as a ‘a
benevolent patriotic dictatorship that was polluted and led astray only by the alliance with
Germany’39
The absence of culpability and the idea of brava gente are part of the reason why
Italian society and Rome’s cityscape have not been purged from fascism, and why the divided
memories have been allowed to exist in Italy. Also, in the light of the Cold War and the fear
of the spread of communism, it was in America’s interest not to alienate Italy, who had one of
the largest communist parties of Western Europe at the time.
Dissonant Heritage
A division of memory is also a division in how to interpret history and how to understand the
past. Over the decades, the contradicting narratives of memory have led to an inability to
create consensus about the past. On the one hand, this inability has led to conflict and fierce
disagreements on how fascist heritage should be treated, while on the other hand the lack of
consensus has led to inactivity in the management of heritage. The discordance on what
happened during the fascist era and how it should be remembered has made fascist heritage
‘dissonant heritage’. Ashworth and Tunbridge (1996) introduce the concept of dissonant
heritage in order to understand the discordance or lack of agreement on the meaning and
interpretation of heritage. Heritage is a product of the present, and its meaning and use can be
modelled after current needs and demands.40
Therefore, cultural heritage is intrinsically
conflicted and dissonant, and often contested, because it is interpreted and used in different
ways by different groups.41
Ashworth and Tunbridge argue that there are multiple ways in which the interpretation
of heritage could create dissonance among different groups of recipients. Especially relevant
to our case is the dissonance that may occur through obsolete transmission and undesirable
transmission. Obsolete transmission deals with messages which ‘…may continue to be
projected to a changed society, which has quite different policies and goals from those of the
38
Ventresca (2006), 192.
39
Quote from Prof. Emilio Gentile University of Rome, 24.13 min. Hewlett-Packard Documentary (2005)
‘Fascism in Italy’ See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBOyhNn0sg
40
G.J. Ashworth and J.E Tunbridge (1996) Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in
Conflict. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 6.
41
Ibidem, 20.

20
society for which they were originally intended.’42
Obsolete heritage thus deals with messages
that are no longer relevant, have a different meaning now than originally intended or are no
longer understood. This may result in an irrelevant distraction or an embarrassing or
destabilising contradiction. Fascist heritage is obsolete because the values of the fascist
ideology are not in line with the democratic values that are currently dominant. Assuming that
fascist architecture still carries out some ideological aspects, it means that the architecture
carries out antidemocratic values that are no longer condoned and condemned. However, one
can ask oneself whether fascist heritage is actually obsolete, since neo-fascist parties have
emerged and are still present today. Despite the passing of several laws in the 1950s to
prohibit open support of fascism, a neo-fascist (or post-fascist) party was created in 1946,
called the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI). In 1970s and 1980s this was the fourth largest
party of the country, until it was dissolved in the 1990s. The post-war order had been frozen
by the Cold War, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the PCI was dissolved and this led
Italy’s political life into a crisis, making room for the resurgence of far-right movements.43
The MSI was succeeded by the Alleanza Nazionale, a conservative party that distanced itself
from Mussolini and fascism, and in the same decade, several neo-fascist and far-right parties
were erected such as the Movimento Sociale –Fiamma Tricolore, Forza Nova and Fronte
Nazionale. Also, the granddaughter of Mussolini, Alessandra Mussolini, is an active politician
in the Italian senate. With the presence of extreme right groups in contemporary Italian
society, we can wonder if the message of fascism is truly obsolete and if the fascist
architecture still carries out the original message after all. Does it carry out a message of
fascism or is it void of ideological message and does it become part of the contemporary
cityscape? If it does carry out the message, however, we can ask ourselves if these fascist
messages are to be called ‘irrelevant’.
Undesirable heritage, on the other hand, are the parts of history which are still present,
that society or a part thereof would rather not be confronted with or permit others to be in
contact with. This type of heritage can create dissonance among previous victims, their
children or those who fear they might be future victims. To the same extent, heritage can be
dissonant to previous perpetrators and their descendants, or to society as a whole, ‘which
would rather not be constantly reminded of the depths that can be reached by their shared
flawed humanity.’ Often, this type of heritage is handled with ‘deliberate concealment or a
42
Ibidem, 29.
43
Arthurs (2015b), 283-84 and Carter (2010), 173-174.

21
reinterpretation to reduce dissonance’.44
Deliberate concealment can also be defined as a
neglect of the physical state of the site, or the neglect of ideological markers. Reinterpretation,
on the other hand, is often necessary when a site is being reused.
Sharon MacDonald uses the concept of undesirable heritage and applies it to the case
of the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally Grounds and the Nazi past in Germany. MacDonald sets
forth that heritage and identity are connected, in the sense that material cultural heritage, such
as buildings and art works, reflect a sameness over time. Material culture does not only
represent identity, but it is the materialisation or objectification of this identity.45
Identity is
seen here as a sameness or homogeneity of a group that is in contact with the cultural
heritage. Since buildings exist both in the past and in the present, it gives the illusion that this
common identity or collectivity is also the same over time. Material cultural heritage is
therefore a discourse and a set of practices that are concerned with continuity and the
materialization of the collective identity.46
MacDonald argues that in the case of the Nazi past
in Germany, this continuity between past and present as materialized in heritage is
problematic. The remains of Nazi Germany reflect an identity that is no longer desirable in
the present society, because it carries anti-democratic and violent values. Material culture thus
becomes undesirable when a link is assumed between material culture and the sameness of a
group over time. This is also the case with Italian fascist architecture, which is disapproved of
by many because of its violence, antidemocratic nature and many victims in both Italy, South-
Eastern Europe (Greece) and Africa (Libya and Ethiopia). Thus, fascist remains in
contemporary Rome imply that the contemporary Italians are a homogenous group that by
accepting this heritage, place themselves in line with the fascist past, therefore accepting the
ideology. Fascist architecture in Rome, just as the Nazi Party Rally Grounds in Nuremberg,
had been designed as part of an identity building propaganda project, which reflects a
collective identity of empire, unity and nationalism. Does this collective identity still resonate
in society or has this intended message become obsolete?
Because fascist heritage is dissonant and Italian society still knows an ideological
divided, the urban space in Rome has been ‘frozen’ for decades. Because the remnants are so
ideologically charged and controversy and conflict have been suppressed so long for the sake
of peace and unity, often the remains have been neglected, but simultaneously they have been
44
Ashworth and Tunbridge (1996), 29.
45
S. Macdonald (2006) ‘Undesirable Heritage: Fascist Material Culture and Historical Consciousness in
Nuremberg’, in: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (1), 11.
46
Ibidem, 11.

22
reused as well. Now, we will turn to the three case-studies to see how these remnants have
been neglected and reused, what kind of public debate this neglect and reuse has triggered and
how the Italians have attempted to deal with their divided memories and make dissonant
heritage more concordant.

23
Figure 4. Benito Mussolini gives the first inaugural strike with the pickaxe in demolishing housing blocks in order to
open up the ancient monuments in Rome, 19 February 1935.
(Photo retrieved from Agenzia VEDO / Archivi Farabola http://roma.corriere.it/gallery/roma/04-
2013/porry/foto/porry-pastorel-padre-fotoreporter_4b3cbb70-9c26-11e2-aac9-bc82fb60f3c7.shtml#6 ).
Figure 5. Mosaics in the Foro Mussolini celebrate Italy's victory over Ethiopia in the Italo-Ethiopian war. Soldiers,
tanks, aircraft, a victorious Italian flag, and eagles flank the central inscription: "IX Maggio XIV E. F. L'ITALIA HA
FINALMENTE IL SUO IMPERO" (‘9th May, year 14 Era Fascista. Italy finally has its Empire’). Below, rows of
fasces, representing Italy, cage a subdued lion, representing Ethiopia.
(Photo by Avery Enderle Wagner, 2014. Retrieved from: http://romehistorymu.wix.com/romehistorymu#!foreign
affairs/cach).

24
Chapter 2 - Case 1: Foro Italico
The Foro Italico, former Foro Mussolini, was built between 1928 and 1938 as the national
athletics centre and a complex dedicated to sports, physical fitness and youth.47
The complex
was designed by Enrico del Debbio as a ‘twentieth century version of the imperial fora’, while
the construction was finished by Luigi Moretti, after Del Debbio passed away.48
The complex
housed the headquarters of the fascist youth organisation Opera Nazionale Balilla, the Italian
Olympic Committee and the Accademia fascista di educazione fisica or Accademia fascista
della Farnesina. The forum thus had the purpose of educating Italy’s youth in a patriotic,
unitarian and fascist manner. Furthermore, the complex functioned as a propaganda tool,
heroizing Mussolini and the fascist regime.
The Foro lies at the base of Monte Mario in the northwest of Rome on the left side of
the Tiber River, in Municipio XV.49
The main entrance of the forum is situated across the
Ponte Duca d’Aosta and is marked by a large obelisk made of Carrara marble with the
inscription ‘Mussolini Dux’ (Mussolini Leader). After the entrance, a large avenue called the
Piazzale dell’Impero leads to the Olympic Stadium. (Fig. 7.) The Piazzale is covered in
7000m2
black and white propaganda mosaics, designed by Gino Severini, Angelo Canevari,
Giulio Rosso and Achille Capizzano and which glorify Mussolini and the Fascist regime. The
mosaics portray images of physical education and sport, the conquest of power and the
subjugation of Ethiopia, the industrialisation and modernization of Italy and the hard work of
the Italians, and other achievements of the regime. Also, the grounds are covered in
propaganda texts, such as ‘It is necessary to win, but more necessary to fight’, ‘Many enemies
much honour’, ‘Leader, we dedicate our youth to you’ and 248 repetitions of ‘Il Duce’. 50
(Fig. 8. and 9.) Both sides of the Piazzale dell’Impero contain rows of marble slabs which
record the great achievements of fascism, such as the March on Rome (22 October 1918),
Mussolini founds the people of Italy (15 November 1914) and the proclamation of the Empire
(9 May 1936).51
On the east side of the Olympic Stadium lies the Stadio dei Marmi (Stadium
of Marbles), an oval athletic field surrounded by 60 marble neo-classical statues of nude male
47
Painter (2005), 14.
48
Valerie Higgins (2013) ‘Rome’s Uncomfortable Heritage: Dealing with History in the Aftermath of WWII’,
in: Archaeologies 9 (1), 32.
49
Former Municipio XX. See:
https://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?jp_pagecode=municipio_xx.wp&ahew=jp_pagecode
50
«Necessario è vincere, più necessario è combattere », « Molti nemici, molto onore », « Duce, a voi dedichiamo
la nostra giovinezza » – translations by author.
51
«Marcia su Roma», «Mussolini fonda il Popolo d’Italia» and «La Proclamazione dell’Impero» – translations
by author.

25
athletes, which represent different types of sport and the Italian provinces.52
The Foro Italico
complex was inaugurated in 1938, marking the bimillenary of the birth of the first Roman
emperor Augustus, as well as the first anniversary of the new Italian empire. The Piazzale
dell’Impero (‘Square of the Empire’) symbolized the founding of a third Roman Empire,
rivalling that of imperial Rome and celebrated the new Italian empire that was established
under Mussolini’s regime.
Reuse without damnatio memoriae
In June 1944, the U.S. Army liberated Rome and soon after, the American troops occupied the
Foro Italico and turned it into the Fifth Army Rest Centre. The rest centres allowed soldiers to
recover from the battle fields, and allowed the armies to reorganize and retrain soldiers.
During the Second World War, the sports facilities were used by the American army as well
as Roman citizens. The Allied Administration in Rome organized matches between its staff
and teams of Roman citizens, which were held at the Foro Italico. The reuse of the complex
was practical, since a large and modern sports facility was at their disposal, and even a
necessity. The Second World War had caused a lot of economic and infrastructural damage in
Italy.53
The reuse of the sports facilities of the Foro Italico is unsurprising as it would be
unpractical and costly to manufacture a new structure.
What is, however, surprising is that the complex was not completely cleansed of
iconography. After the fall of the fascist regime on the 25th
of July, a number of the symbols of
Mussolini and fascism in Rome were almost immediately erased and defaced. However, the
iconoclasm of fascism was only partial as the Allied military administration repressed these
anti-fascist tendencies with force, trying to prevent a revolution. The destructions were
primarily motivated by the emotional release of the Italian people. They were reactions
towards a regime that repressed the people and was violent. However, this reaction was not
widespread and most importantly, it was void of legitimate civil authority. There was no
organized campaign of damnatio memoriae in terms of physical removal.54
Against the
backdrop of erasing fascist iconography and Mussolini remnants, one would expect the Foro
Italico to be defaced of its fascist remnants as well, as these images and writings were one of
52
D. Maraniss (2008) Rome 1960: The Olympics that changed the world. New York and London: Simon &
Schuster, 82-83.
53
Higgins (2013), 30.
54
Arthurs (2010), 119.

26
the most prominent expressions of fascism, but this was not the case. Because of the
American occupation, the fascist architecture and iconography were saved from destruction
and the Mussolini obelisk was prevented from being pulled down by an angry mob.55
Even
after the war, the removal of fascist iconography was not really an issue and was not arranged
by civil authority. Also, some Romans remained pro-Fascist, even after the fall of the regime.
The authorities did rename many places with fascist names, in order to reuse them
while simultaneously stripping them of their fascist connotation and ideological subtext. The
practice of renaming happened all over Rome immediately after the war. Numerous roads
were given a new name and structures that were named after Mussolini or achievements of the
fascist regime were altered. For example, the Foro Mussolini was renamed the Foro Italico
and the Via dell’Impero became the Via dei Fori Imperiali.56
This action is similar to the
renaming that happened under Mussolini’s reign. Renaming can be seen as a form of
damnatio memoriae, as it intends to strip any association with the regime. Since many places
are invisibly and unobtrusively linked to fascism, removing the name would remove the
fascist connotation and some of the dissonance. Since it was also highly unrealistic to
demolishing the entire Foro Italico, the complex had to be appropriated in order to make it
less dissonant.
Thus, after the war the complex was physically reused, partly for the originally
intended purpose; sports and physical training. Because the complex was physically reused
and rendered in its original fashion, it is the question whether or not the site is ideologically
reused as well. Did the Foro Italico still speak the ideological message of fascism? And did
these messages still resonate in society? The iconographic messages inscribed in the imagery
of the Foro Italico remained present and their power of expression was not publically
discussed until the preparations from the Olympics, end 1950s.
The 1960 Olympics
The post-war period did not revolve around how the fascist past and its remainders should be
handled. The fascist remnants of the Foro Italico became controversial in the build up to the
Olympics of 1960s, when concerns were raised about the fascist writings and iconography
55
Painter (2005), 41 and 153.
56
T. Benton. (2010) ‘Heritage and Changes of Regime’, in: T. Benton (ed.) Understanding Heritage and
Memory. Manchester: Manchester University Press in Association with the Open University, 141. For more
examples on renaming fascist sites, read: Rerum Romanarum (6 October 2015) “Le strade che hanno cambiato
nome dopo il Fascismo”. Retrieved from: http://rerumromanarum.blogspot.nl/2015/10/roma-strade-che-hanno-
cambiato-nome-dopo-il-fascismo.html

27
and whether they should be allowed to remain on the Olympic site. In 1959, two socialist
members of parliament, Mr. Lizzadri and Mr. Comaridini, made an interpellation, asking for
the inscriptions to be removed.57
They argued that the fascist writings are a memory of a past
that both the Italian people and the democratic world have condemned and that the guests of
the Olympics could consider them as an acclamation expressed by the current Italian people.
The Foro Italico still exalted Mussolini and his deeds and would thus be insulting to many of
the athletes and spectators who had possibly suffered under Mussolini’s reign. Comaridini
stated that: ‘The writings should be removed, not because they represent a threat to
democracy, but because they are a rhetoric exaltation of a regime that deprived the Italian
people of their freedom’.58
The Italian government declined the request to remove the fascist
remnants. Domenico Magrì, undersecretary of the Ministero del Turismo e dello Spettacolo
under the government of Segni II, explained that the presence of the fascist writings did not
exalt the fascist message and did not undermine the Italian democracy. They were expressions
of history and simultaneously contained a warning and a condemnation of fascism.59
Other,
more ‘practical’ arguments were raised, for example the absence of objections to the fascist
messages from foreign parties that would soon join the Olympics and objections to the costs
of the removal, which would be millions of lira. Neo-fascists were rejoicing upon the refusal
to remove the fascist remains: ‘[Lizzadri] wanted to remove the monolith from the Foro
Mussolini, the arms and the words that remind one of the most splendid periods of our
country.’60
Segni II’s center-right government did not last long and was eventually followed by
Amintore Fanfani’s on 26th
of July 1960. The leftist government Fanfani III undertook action
and by August it was decided that the fascist writings were to be removed, after the mosaics
and marbles were already restored by a team of specialists. In 1960, about three weeks before
the opening of the Olympics, the Minister for Tourism and Entertainment arranged to erase
some of the fascist writings, while the others that ‘have become part of Italian history’ would
remain and would be professionally restored. A fascist oath captured in the mosaics on the
57
“Resteranno al Foro Italico le sessanta frasi ‘duce, a noi’” (7 November 1959) La Stampa, 10. Retrieved from:
http://www.archiviolastampa.it/component/option,com_lastampa/task,search/mod,libera/action,viewer/Itemid,3/
page,10/articleid,0071_01_1959_0238_0010_16808394/
58
Ibidem. «Le scritte vanno cancellate non perché costituiscano una minaccia per la democrazia, ma perché sono
una retorica esaltazione di un regime che privò il popolo italiano della libertà». Translation by author.
59
“Resteranno al Foro Italico le sessanta frasi ‘duce, a noi’” (1959), 10.
60
N. Adelfi, “Imposte le scritte fasciste della Farnesina ai turisti ed agli atleti di tutto il mondo” (8 November
1959) La Stampa, 5. Retrieved from:
page,5/articleid,0071_01_1959_0239_0005_16531866/ «Voleva far rimuovere dal Foro Mussolini il monolito,
gli stemmi e le scritte che ricordano uno dei periodi di maggior splendore della nostra patria. »

28
floor was covered up by concrete, while the inscriptions on the large marble block on the
economic sanctions in Ethiopia were removed as well.61
This particular slab was removed,
because the content could offend the participating nations at the Olympics.62
Two days after
the decision of the government to erase all the writings, a group of hundred neo-fascists,
supposedly from the MSI, demonstrated at the Foro Italico, singing hymns of the Ventennio
and burning red socialist flags. The demonstrations led to scuffles between the police and
youths, resulting in fourteen arrests. A day after this message, La Stampa reported that no
further fascist writings would be removed from the site, according to a spokesman of the
Ministry of Sport and Tourism.63
Only the ideological writings would be removed, those with
an historic character would remain.
We can distinguish two notable arguments in this debate. The first revolved around
whether or not the fascist writings still exalted fascism, ‘the fascist message’, Mussolini or his
deeds. The fascist remnants could be considered an acclamation of fascism, which is
undesirable in a democratic society. They were a rhetoric exaltation of a regime that deprived
the Italians of freedom. Also, the remnants were considered undesirable because of improper
identification. In the previous chapter we have heard Macdonald’s arguments that material
culture reflects a continuity and the materialization of the collective identity.64
In this
discussion, there was a clash of people interpreting the presence of these fascist writings as a
historical continuity and therefore a continuation of the Italian identity then and now, while
others did not. The adversaries reacted by saying that the writings did not exalt this message,
but that they were a warning and a condemnation. In this light, it is interesting to see the
reaction of neo-fascists, who by demonstrating against the removal showed that they did still
identify with the ideological message the writings and iconography represent. In this sense,
the adversaries neglected the improper identification of the neo-fascists. The fascist remnants
here were thus contested, because the presence of the iconography and writings in the Foro
Italico assigned a collective identity of sameness over time to the Italians, which was
embraced by neo-fascists, rejected by one group and ignored, neglected and downplayed by
61
The inscription on the marble slab: ‘Le sanzioni economiche all’Italia - 18 novembre 1935’.
62
“Chiassate di missini a Roma per le scritte al Foro Italico” (11 August 1960) La Stampa, 1. Retrieved from:
page,1/articleid,0075_01_1960_0192_0001_16952842/
«si è ritenuto che il suo contenuto avrebbe potuto offendere le nazioni partecipanti al Giochi olimpici »
63
“Nessun’altra scritta fascista sarà cancellata dal Foro Italico” (12 August 1960) La Stampa, 5. Retrieved from:
page,5/articleid,0075_01_1960_0193_0005_16591473/
«Saranno cancellate solo le scritte ideologiche, quelle a carattere storico rimarranno »
64
Macdonald (2016), 11.

29
the other. It is not about whether or not the writings exalted fascism, because this depends on
the beholder. It is not a question about whether it does or it doesn’t, but to whom it exalts
fascism and to whom it doesn’t. The second part of the debate concerns the distinction that is
being made between ‘historical’ and ‘ideological’ writings. Some writings could be offensive
to visitors and participants of the Olympics, because of the episodes in history they remind of.
However, the selection of what is historical and what ideological is dubious. While removing
some offensive writings, others - arguably equally offensive - have remained in place, for
example, the inscription remembering the capture of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. If the
inscription of the sanctions was removed for offense, then surely Ethiopian athletes must find
the loss of independence offensive, too. Furthermore, by claiming that some accounts on the
marble blocks are ‘historical’ while others are ‘ideological’, is to accept the fascist
representation of history. By leaving the inscription ‘Mussolini founded the Italian people’
and presenting it as an ‘historical’ account, the fascist connotation is surpassed.65
The fascist
glorifications of certain events can hardly be called a neutral representation of history, if ever
such a thing exists.
Eventually, the site was restored and the ‘most offensive’ marble inscriptions, such as
the inscription on the Ethiopian conquest, were removed and three new dates were inscribed
on originally blank marble slabs: The fall of the fascist regime on July 25th
1943, the
referendum for the Italian Republic on June 2nd
1946 and finally, the Italian Constitution on
January 1st
1948. These new dates were added in order to emphasize the historic accounts that
were mentioned there. ‘Instead of purging the site of fascist associations, the goal seems to
have been to superimpose new layers of symbolism that supplemented, rather than replaced,
its original iconography. In this way, the post-war Republic could lay claim to the Foro
without engaging in a controversial and potentially revolutionary act of iconoclasm.’66
The
Olympic authorities thereby ‘closed’ the debate on the fascist past.67
During the Olympics
itself the controversy was not brought up again. The focus was put on the classical and
Christian heritage of Rome, distracting the attention from the fascist heritage. The debate on
the fascist remnants shows that the ideological aspect of the presence of the iconography and
writings is neglected. The following compromise was not made out of a shared desire for
historical inclusiveness or remorse or processing the past, but because many fascist supporters
were proud of the ideology and removing its symbols would show this sentiment to the
65
« Mussolini fonda "Il popolo d'Italia »
66
Arthurs (2010), 120.
67
Arthurs (2010), 120.

30
international community.68
The removal of the remnants would trigger demonstrations from
neo-fascists, and with the international spotlight focussed on Rome, the fascist past and neo-
fascist present were not a desirable image to promote.
Physical neglect
The Foro Italico is a prominent example of physical neglect. In different elements of the
complex, there are signs of physical neglect. First, the mosaics are decaying due to overuse
and the lack of protection. Since the avenue is still in use as a route to the Olympic Stadium,
where many matches and concerts are held, the mosaics suffer under the footsteps of millions
of spectators a year. The mosaics are not actively preserved against this amount of use, since
they are not being covered up to protect them and they are seemingly not being maintained.
Also, the avenue is a popular skateboarding spot, which also leads to the destabilizations of
the mosaics. Due to these circumstances, many mosaics are in a poor condition. (Fig. 10.)
Second, the marble slabs and the fountain at the rotunda are often vandalized by graffiti.
Third, the marble statues on the Stadio dei Marmi as well as the marble slabs often appear
dirty and not properly maintained. Some of the statues do seem cleaned, while others are
covered in a layer of moss and dirt. (Fig. 11.) However, several restoration works have been
conducted in the past decades, most recently the renovation of the obelisk between 2006 and
2008, by CONI, the Italian Olympic Committee, which manages the Foro Italico complex.
These restorations have been critiqued because they were poorly conducted and the
restoration techniques have impaired the surface of the obelisk. Another point of critique on
the management of the Foro Italico complex is the utter lack of surveillance and police forces
in the area, which make the restorations, however executed, futile.
The neglected state of the Foro Italico leads to a ‘problem of potential architectural
agency’, which is described by Sharon Macdonald.69
She discusses the problems that
architectural remnants of an undesirable regime (such as the Nazi regime in Germany) cause
in our modern age. She states that ‘if the buildings remain intact, there is a risk that they
continue to speak the words that [the maker] intended. In the language of heritage and
identity, this material heritage risks generating an inappropriate identification.’70
This inappropriate identification is at stake, since the Foro Italico functions as a marker of
identification for neo-fascists. For example, the Mussolini dux obelisk has functioned as a
68
Higgins (2013), 32.
69
70

31
shrine to right-wing extremists. On the Italian Liberation Day, April 25th
, wreaths and flowers
have been laid down at the obelisk. On a neo-fascist website, these commemorations say: ‘In
memory of those who betrayed him and who fell for the honour of Italy’ and they call upon
others to lay flowers at the monolith.71
(Fig. 12.) The decaying state of the complex seems to
invigorate the claims that neo-fascist lay on the forum.72
Macdonald asserts that the
architectural remnants of a contested regime can have ‘seductive allure as ruins’ and ‘if
buildings are neglected they will become mythologised as ruins’.73
A similar allure has
befallen the Foro Italico, as the ideological subtext of the site is intensified because of its
decaying state. This sentiment is also found on the same neo-fascist website, which provides
information on the Foro Mussolini. The website scolds the vandals and skateboarders, as well
as the deteriorating state of the forum.74
In this example, the ruined form of the forum
instigates neo-fascists to stand up for their heritage. Because the Foro Italico is neglected,
there is space left for Mussolini’s ideological heirs and thus ‘for the re-emergence of illiberal,
xenophobic and nihilistic currents in Italian society.’75
Removing fascist writings anno 2015
The ‘Mussolini Dux’ obelisk is probably the most ‘offensive’ and prominent marker of
fascism in Rome. The obelisk, which has been in its current position for over 80 years, is
prominently visible from the two main roads; the Via Capoprati and the Lungotevere
Flaminio. As one of the most conspicuous fascist remnants, its presence is debated even now.
On April 17th
2015, Laura Boldrini, president of the Chamber of Deputies, suggested to
remove the writings on the obelisk, or at least the word ‘Dux’, which is an explicit symbol of
fascism and of the personality cult of Mussolini. During a ceremonial event celebrating the
70th
anniversary of the resistance, she reacted to the request of an elderly partisan to clean the
streets of fascism and remove the writings on the obelisk, because ‘fascism is returning’.76
71
‘Nel ricordo di coloro che non tradirono e che caddero per l'onore d'Italia’. See:
http://www.foroitalico.altervista.org/secondapagina.html
72
S. van Doornmalen (January 2015) ‘The Foro Italico: neglecting present pasts’, unpublished paper for the
course ‘Heritage Theory’, University of Amsterdam.
73
See: http://www.foroitalico.altervista.org/secondapagina.html
74
Ibidem.
75
Arthurs (2010), 120 and 125.
76
The partisan said to Boldrini: "After all that we said I think we should do something to clean up all the streets
of Italy from fascism, that is coming back plus take down that column at the Foro Italico with the shameful
inscription" Mussolini Dux ", it is time to break it down! ". (“Dopo tutto quello che ci siamo detti penso che
dovremmo fare qualcosa per ripulire tutte le strade d’Italia dal fascismo che sta ritornando e oltretutto di
abbattere quella colonna al Foro Italico con la vergognosa scritta “Mussolini Dux”, quella è ora di abbatterla!”.)
To which Boldrini responded "Or at least it is time to remove the writing". (“O per lo meno è ora di togliere la

32
Boldrini reacted by saying that ‘By now it is the time to remove at least the word’, referring to
the word ‘Duce’ on the obelisk.77
This remark by Boldrini was met with outrage, while the
expressed concerns for the return of fascism by the veteran partisan were completely ignored.
Many people have expressed their opposition towards the erasure of the writings. First, many
deem erasure undesirable, since Italy is now an antifascist country and the messages of
fascism are no longer relevant. Matteo Orfini, president of the Partito Democratico (PD),
reacted by stating that:
‘We are an antifascist country, the principles of the antifascist battle are written in our Constitution.
[..] We do not need to erase our memory [...] damnatio memoriae is an element of weakness and not
strength on the part of those who practice it.’78
Orfini implies that because antifascism is in the Constitution, the remains of fascism should
not be interpreted as messages that still resonate in society. On the contrary, the fascist
remains are ‘a warning for future generations, because the errors of the past need not to be
repeated.’79
Second, the writings must not be erased because fascism is too far in the past and
its remnants have become a part of history. The time to erase fascism has passed, according to
Philippe Daverio, art historian and writer. ‘It is one thing if, immediately after the fall of
communism, a statue of Stalin is thrown down, but today no one would dare to remove the
statue of Louis XIV by the Victory square in Paris in the name of the Republic. Now the
French Revolution is over for centuries.’80
In this argument, fascism is perceived as belonging
to the past and not relevant in the present, therefore not a threat to the Italian democratic
society. The Foro Italico is perceived by many as part of Italy and Rome’s history and
heritage, and it should be preserved because of its aesthetic and historical value. Third, the
erasure of the writings is condemned, despite its representation of a violent and
scritta”.) For the video on the incident, see: “«Togliere la scritta Mussolini Dux»: bufera sulla Boldrini” (17
April 2015) Agenzia Dire. Retrieved from: http://video.corriere.it/togliere-scritta-mussolini-dux-bufera-
boldrini/fe5f9d5a-e52e-11e4-845e-5bcd794907be
77
Ibidem. «È ormai il momento di togliere almeno la scritta».
78
“Boldrini: «Cancellare la scritta Dux dall’obelisco di Mussolini» Bufera sulla presidente della camera” (17
April 2015) Corriere della Sera. Retrieved from: http://roma.corriere.it/notizie/politica/15_aprile_17/ripulire-l-
obelisco-mussolini-bufera-parole-boldrini-079c8ae4-e50d-11e4-845e-5bcd794907be.shtml
«Noi siamo un Paese antifascista - ha aggiunto Orfini - i principi della lotta antifascista sono scritti nella nostra
Costituzione. Non abbiamo bisogno di cancellare la nostra memoria, seppur a tratti drammatica». «Credo- ha
concluso - che la damnatio memoriae sia un elemento di debolezza e non di forza da parte di chi la esercita».
Translation by the author
79
Reaction by Stefano Pedica (PD) “Boldrini: «Cancellare la scritta Dux dall’obelisco di Mussolini»Bufera sulla
presidente della camera” (17 April 2015).
80
F. Curridori (17 April 2015) “Un coro di insulti per la Boldrini che vuole "cancellare" Mussolini”. Il Giornale.
Retrieved from: http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/coro-insulti-boldrini-che-vuole-cancellare-mussolini-
1117618.html

33
antidemocratic regime. These negative aspects of fascist heritage are downplayed and
marginalized and equated to other heritage sites in Rome with an objectionable history. For
example, Davide Bordoni and Vincenzo Leli (Forza Italia) state that: ‘The obelisk of the Foro
Italico is a piece of the history of Italy, Rome and in particular Northern Rome. If you were to
demolish every monument made by emperors, pharaohs and dictators, we would need to
redesign Rome entirely.’81
It is rhetorically questioned if Rome should erase all heritage
representing violence and antidemocratic values, such as heritage linked to the Egyptian
obelisks, Emperor Nero or the Christian prosecutions in the Colosseum.82
In reaction to these critiques the spokesman of Boldrini, Roberto Natale, said: ‘The
president of the House has never said she wants to tear down the monuments erected during
the fascist era, to the unlikely imitation of Isis. The discussion on the legacy of April 25
deserves to be addressed on more serious issues.’83 Although the comment of Boldrini has
been taken out of context, it has triggered a debate. Even the president of the Jewish
Community of Rome, Riccardo Pacifici, has reacted by saying that the Foro Italico has
probably solely been maintained for its aesthetic qualities, and that this is perhaps only
problematic for tourists, who might think the presence of fascism is strange. He also called
Boldrini’s observations relevant and acknowledged that she has the merit of having raised the
issue.84
Others agree with Boldrini that the writings should be removed and stress that the
monument glorifies Mussolini and is therefore not a historical reminder. Deleting the message
would be a symbolic gesture that would show that Mussolini is not another great Italian
character. 85
The controversy on the removal of the fascist writings has shown that the majority of
the reactions perceive the Foro Italico as a part of history that is no longer ideologically
81
“Laura Boldrini: «Togliere la scritta "Mussolini dux" dall'obelisco del Foro Italico»” (17 April 2015) Il
Messaggero. Retrieved from:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/roma/cronaca/laura_boldrini_obelisco_roma_foto_italico_musolini_dux-
983038.html
«L'obelisco del Foro Italico è un pezzo di storia d'Italia, di Roma e in particolare di Roma Nord. Se dovessimo
demolire tutti i monumenti fatti da imperatori, faraoni e dittatori bisognerebbe in pratica ridisegnare Roma
intera.»
82
F. Curridori (17 April 2015). Antonio Pennacchi questions if we should also remove Nero from history. Also
on social media, people mocked Boldrini. ‘Comunque nel Colosseo ci ammazzavano i cristiani, secondo il
ragionamento della #Boldrini dovremmo abbatterlo. (‘However in the Colosseum they killed Christians,
following the reasoning of #Boldrini we should bring it down.’) Twitter quote from Italian journalist Antonella
Scutiero.
83
F. Curridori (17 April 2015).
84
“Laura Boldrini: «Togliere la scritta "Mussolini dux" dall'obelisco del Foro Italico»” (17 April 2015).
85
Gavrilovic, Vuk. (19 April 2015) “L’Obelisco di Mussolini? Io sto con la Boldrini”, 360 Giornale Luiss,
Student Newspaper of Luiss University, Rome. Retrieved from:
http://www.360giornaleluiss.it/attualita/19_04_2015/obelisco-di-mussolini-io-sto-con-la-boldrini/

34
charged. The recent debate has a lot in common with the Olympics debate, and similar
arguments have passed in review. Both debates deal with arguments on the historicity of the
remnants and about whether or not the remnants still exalt fascism and glorify Mussolini.
Only in the recent discussion, the negative aspects of fascism seem excused and they are
compared to events a long time ago. Ideological neglect is still on the foreground, as the
‘historical’ aspect of the remnants is stressed and the ideological message is brushed aside.
However, the physical reuse of the site combined with the ideological neglect does leave
room for ideological reuse as well. As we have seen, the presence of iconography and
writings in the Foro Italico leave room for far right tendencies as well and cannot be fully
cleared of any ideological connotation.

35
Figure 6. ‘Mussolini Dux’ obelisk, Foro Italico.
(Photo by author).
Figure 7. Piazzale dell’Impero, Foro Italico.
(Photo by Mario Giannini, retrieved from: http://www.archidiap.com/opera/piazzale-del-monolite/).

36
Figure 8. ‘Molti Nemici, Molto Onore’, mosaics at the Piazzale dell’Impero, Foro Italico.
(Photo retrieved from: http://www.romeingreek.eu/?p=12642).
Figure 9. ‘DUCE DUCE’ mosaics at the Piazzale dell’Impero, Foro Italico.
(Photo by Mario Giannini).

37
Figure 10. Decaying mosaics and vandalism at the Foro Italico.
(Photo retrieved from: http://folkestonejack.wordpress.com/tag/foro-italico/ and
http://www.romanordnews.it/7372/foro-italico-addio-allo-stato-terminale/).
Figure 11. Dirty marbles at the Foro Italico.
(Photo by author).

38
Figure 12. Neo-fascist wreaths in remembrance of the fascist regime at the Mussolini obelisk, 25 April 2013.
(Photo retrieved from: http://www.foroitalico.altervista.org/secondapagina.htm).

40
Chapter 3 - Case 2: Piazza Augusto Imperatore
In the 1930s, many remains of the Augustan period were uncovered in order to honor the
emperor’s 2000th
birthday.86
One such a building project meant to open up an ancient
monument to the city is the Piazza Augusto Imperatore, situated on the Via di Ripetta, which
lies in between and parallel to the Tiber and the Via del Corso. The piazza was commissioned
by Mussolini and constructed in 1937-1938, centralizing the Mausoleum of Augustus. (Fig.
13. and 19.) The mausoleum was the burial place of Emperor Augustus and it was Mussolini’s
plan to be interred in the mausoleum as well. The square was intended as a mythological-
historical area for ancient Roman memories and values inside the contemporary city.87
Similarly excavated was the Ara Pacis Augustae, Augustus’ altar of piece, which was found
in de foundations of the Fiano-Almagià palace and reconstructed on the west side of the
Piazza Augusto Imperatore under Mussolini’s direct orders. (Fig.14.) The Ara Pacis, made in
13 BCE in honor of the peace emperor Augustus negotiated with Spain and Gaul, is a
beautiful and unique altar, surrounded by decorative reliefs, depicting Rome’s founding
legends, the Roman peace and a religious procession starring Augustus himself.88
The marble
altar was regarded by the fascists as a very significant embodiment of romanità. In order to
protect the restored and relocated altar, a new pavilion was built around it, designed by
Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo. (Fig.13.) The classical and elegant structure was originally
intended to be made of glass and marble, but due to time pressure because of the approaching
celebration, the building was simplified and made of less durable material. On the façade
facing the mausoleum, Augustus’ Res Gestae were inscribed, composed of seven panels
which covered a surface of 40m2
.
The north and east side of the piazza are covered with modern office buildings
featuring grand travertine arcades, dating 1937-1940.These office buildings were also
designed by Morpurgo, consistent in the style of his Ara Pacis pavilion, and contain several
fascist images. On the north side, office building B houses the Istituto Nazionale di
Previdenza Sociale, formerly Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale, with
continuity .89
On the façade of the building there is a large inscription accompanied by two
86
Professor Emeritus Charles S. Rhyne and Reed College (Portland, USA) (2011) http://cdm.reed.edu/ara-
pacis/introduction.php This website is not affiliated with the Museo dell'Ara Pacis. And Higgins (2013), 38.
87
M.J. Strazzulla (2009) ‘War and Peace: Housing the Ara Pacis in the Eternal City’, in: American Journal of
Archaeology 113 (2), 2.
88
Strazzulla (2009), 1-2.
89
Follo (2013), 48.

41
winged Victories holding fasces, which refers to the opening up of the ancient monument to
the city and the link of romanità with fascism. (Fig.15.) The inscription reads:
‘This is the place where the soul of Augustus flies through the breezes, after the mausoleum of the
emperor was extracted from the darkness of the ages and the scattered pieces of the altar of peace were
restored, Mussolini the leader ordered the old narrow places to be destroyed and the location to be
adorned with streets, buildings, and shrines fitting for the ways of humanity in the year 1940, in the
eighteenth year of the Fascist Era.’90
The façade above the inscription is adorned with mosaics, divided in three panes, designed by
Italian artist Ferruccio Ferrazzi. The mosaics depict the ‘birth of Rome’ with the female and
youthful personification of the Tiber holding de babies Romulus and Remus. Underneath the
Tiber is the she-wolf, looking up to the scene above her. The she-wolf is the earliest surviving
piece of art made in Rome and it symbolizes the origins of Roman civilization.91
In antiquity
it embodied the idea of Rome, while under fascism it also added a layer of symbolism
representing the shared Roman origins of all Italian regions, encouraging Italian nationalist
feelings based on this shared past, besides the differences that were (and are for that matter)
present in Italian society. On the side panels of the main depiction are six figures, portraying
heroic labors. The imagery of heroic labor returns on the façade of office building A, on the
east side of the piazza. The relief on the central entrance of the building, designed by Alfredo
Biagini, depicts noble labors and heroic lives of the great Italian people.92 On the ground floor
of the north and east side are several restaurants, bars and shops. Finally, on the south side of
the piazza, the last of the four fascist buildings surrounding the mausoleum, is the Collegia
degli Illirici, a monastic structure belonging to the church San Girolamo degli Illirici (or San
Girolamo dei Croati a Ripetta). The date ‘A XIX’ on the overpass (in photo below) refers to
the 19th
year of the Fascist Era, 1941.93
(Fig. 16) Next to this overpass are the two churches,
90
HUNC LOCUM UBI AUGUSTI MANES VOLITANT PER AURAS
POSTQUAM IMPERATORIS MAUSOLEUM EX SAECULORUM TENEBRIS
EST EXTRACTUM ARAEQUE PACIS DISIECTA MEMBRA REFECTA/
MUSSOLINI DUX VETERIBUS ANGUSTIIS DELETIS SPLENDIDIORIBUS
VIIS AEDIFICIIS AEDIBUS AD HUMANITATIS MORES APTIS
ORNANDUM CENSUIT ANNO MDCCCCXL A F. R. XVIII.
Translation by Walter Englert, Reed College. Retrieved from: http://cdm.reed.edu/ara-pacis/meier/piazza-
augusto-imperatore/fabbricato%20B1/
91
Lazzaro (2005), 16.
92
Rhyne (2011) http://cdm.reed.edu/ara-pacis/meier/piazza-augusto-imperatore/fabbricato%20A/
93
Rhyne (2011) http://cdm.reed.edu/ara-pacis/meier/piazza-augusto-imperatore/collegio/

42
the San Girolamo and the San Rocco, which were spared in the demolition of the quarter.94
Therefore, in the current piazza we see the idea of the Third Rome reoccur: Ancient Rome
with the Mausoleum and the Ara Pacis, Catholic Rome with the monastery and the two
churches and the Third Rome of Mussolini with the manufactured piazza and the Ara Pacis
pavilion.
Erasure INI and fasces
After the fall of Mussolini, Rome was immediately flooded by outbursts of joy and
enthusiasm, as is described in witness accounts.95
Millions took to the streets, singing,
celebrating and destroying images of Mussolini. This act of iconoclasm was an emotional
outing of disproval of the war and the violence of World War II, while simultaneously being
an exclamation of joy as many thought that this was the end of the war for Italy. There were
no organized responses from the anti-Fascist opposition, as they were caught off guard by the
fast developments. 96
In these ‘Forty-Five Days’ days of celebration between 25 July and the
capitulation to the Allies on 8 September, the future of Italy was very uncertain and the social
order was completely turned upside down. Concerned for an anti-national uprising and a
communist revolt, public assemblies were banned and military authorities were deployed to
keep public order.97
All these events resulted in the fact that many fascist icons and writings
are still to be seen today. Which remnants were destroyed, and which were saved from
demolition, is often a matter of coincidence, practical opportunity and the chance of
intervention by either the Italian or the Allied forces.
As we have seen earlier, there was no structural damnatio memoriae. But where the
Foro Italico remained unharmed, the Piazza Augusto Imperatore has known some damage.
The destruction of fascist remains was mostly directed at images or inscriptions of Mussolini,
as the propaganda and building program had been focussed on the cult of mussolinismo. In the
days after July 25th
1943, an anonymous iconoclast removed the letters ‘–INI’ from the word
MUSSOLINI on the northern inscription, leaving the word ‘MUSSO’, a vernacular term for
‘donkey’ or ‘jackass’.98
(Fig.17.) This ‘small act of damnatio memoriae’ mocked both il Duce
94
For more on the manufacturing of the piazza and the decisions made, read: S. Kostof. (1978) ‘The Emperor
and The Duce: The Planning of Piazzale Augusto Imperatore in Rome’, in: Henry Millon and Linda Nochlin
(eds.) Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
95
J. Arthurs (2015a) ‘Settling Accounts: Retribution, Emotion and Memory during the Fall of Mussolini’, in:
Journal of Modern Italian Studies 20 (5), 621.
96
Arthurs (2015a), 621.
97
Ibidem.
98
Arthurs (2015b), 283.

43
and the fascist monumentalization of the Roman past.99
Another target of the temporary
destruction of fascism were the fasces, the bundled rods with an axe. The fasces symbolized
the ancient Roman symbols of state power and under fascism represented the unity of the
Italian nation, authority and the exercise of power.100
Therefore, they were an excellent target
for a mob wanting to distance itself from everything it represented. The fasces depicted on the
arches on the southeast side of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore were chiselled away and are
still present in their damaged state. (Fig.16) Even more interesting, is that somewhere
between 1990 and 2005, the INI was restored, once again anonymously and publicly
undiscussed. According to Arthurs, the restoration occurred against a turbulent transition for
Italy, in which the electoral resurgence of the extreme right took place, including the inclusion
of the ‘post-fascist’ Alleanza Nazionale in Silvio Berlusconi’s governing coalition.101
These
events are also the backdrop to the controversy of the new Ara Pacis Museum.
Manufacturing the new Ara Pacis Museum
Over the decades, Morpurgo’s structure around the Ara Pacis showed signs of deterioration.
By the 1990s, the construction was not sufficiently protecting the Ara Pacis from the urban
pollution, leading to the ordering of a new museum.102
In 1996 the project was given to the
renowned American architect Richard Meier, commissioned by the Municipality of Rome,
which was under the office of center-left mayor Francesco Rutelli (1993-2001). Meier, who
had recently finished the Getty museum, has a long-standing international reputation as an
architect of museum buildings. However, the museum was to be the first new largescale
building project to occur in the city center since the fall of fascism and was always destined to
be controversial.103
From the beginning, both the circumventing of the usual public design
competition and the direct selection of Meier, a foreigner, for such an important public
building, was critiqued. Also, the project was met with opposition from the right-wing, who
delayed the process, but did not succeed in stopping the construction from taking place. In
1999, the pavilion was closed and the Morpurgo pavilion was torn down, except for the Res
Gestae, the laws of Augustus inscribed on the east wall1938-39, which were left in place.
Meier’s museum is a long building, preceded by a fountain, steps and a plaza.
99
Ibidem.
100
Lazzaro (2005), 16.
101
Arthurs (2015b), 283.
102
Higgins (2013), 39.
103
P. Singley (2007) ‘Roma Macchiata: The Stain of White.’, in: Log 10 (Summer/Fall), 131.

44
(Fig.18.) The structure is made of glass, white-painted concrete and travertine, offering the
Ara Pacis a light and spacious surrounding. After seven years of construction, the Museo
dell’Ara Pacis opened in September 2005 and was inaugurated on Rome’s birthday, 21st
of
April 2006.104
During the inauguration, a small group of the Italian neo-fascist party
Movimento Sociale - Fiamma Tricolore demonstrated, waving black flags.105
They critiqued
the amount of public money spent on the monument to ‘build a mess and make yet another
foreign architect happy.’106
Many more critiques were expressed about the aesthetics of the
building and the mismatch between the modern structure and the historical city center.
Adversaries have likened the building to a petrol station, a pizzeria and a coffin, but it was
right-winged art critic Vittorio Sgarbi who really took the cake in the bashing of the new
museum. Sgarbi declared the building ‘an indecent cesspit by a useless architect’ and topped
that with setting a model of the building on fire on the Piazza Augusto Imperatore.107
Severe
critique also came from abroad, as New York Times architectural critic Nicolai Ouroussoff
declared the building to be ‘a flop’ and: ‘Absurdly over scale, it seems indifferent to the naked
beauty of the dense and richly textured city around it.’108
Not only art critics and architects
have been displeased about the museum, but politicians as well. Silvio Berlusconi called the
new museum a ‘monstrosity’ and in 2008, during the elections for Rome’s new mayor, Gianni
Alemanno from the neo-fascist party Alleanza Nazionale, declared that he would tear down
Meier’s museum.109
He stated that it was not a priority and that perhaps there could be a
referendum to let the citizens decide.110
The reasons for tearing down the museum were not
explicitly expressed, though it was supposedly about the aesthetics of the building and the fact
104
The celebration of the birth of Rome on the 21st
of April was initiated under Mussolini. It was made a fascist
national holiday, replacing the socialist Labor Day of May 1st
.
105
“L'Ara Pacis riapre dopo sette anni ma è scontro sulla teca di Meier” (21 April 2006) La Repubblica.
Retrieved from: http://www.repubblica.it/2006/04/sezioni/cronaca/apertura-ara-pacis/apertura-ara-
pacis/apertura-ara-pacis.html
106
Ibidem.
107
S. Rose (1 May 2006) “When in Rome…”. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/may/01/travelnews.museums
108
N. Ouroussoff (25 September 2006) “An oracle of modernism in ancient Rome” New York Times. Retrieved
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/arts/design/25paci.html?_r=0
109
R. Mambelli (4 May 2006) “Ara Pacis, è ancora scontro” La Repubblica. Retrieved from:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2006/05/04/ara-pacis-ancora-
scontro.rm_034ara.html?ref=search
110
“Alemanno, sicurezza e sviluppo "E via la teca dell'Ara Pacis"” (30 April 2008) La Repubblica. Retrieved
from: http://www.repubblica.it/2008/04/sezioni/politica/roma-alemanno-sindaco/roma-alemanno-sindaco/roma-
alemanno-sindaco.html "La Teca di Meier è un intervento da rimuovere. Non è ovviamente una priorità - ha
detto Alemanno […]. E lancia l'idea di un riferendum: "Potrebbero decidere i cittadini”. And “Alemanno: «Via
la teca dell'Ara Pacis»” (30 April 2008) Corriere della Sera. Retrieved from:
http://www.corriere.it/politica/08_aprile_30/alemanno_via_teca_ara_pacis_a600722c-16ca-11dd-8b67-
00144f02aabc.shtml

45
that it had been criticized a lot. Interestingly, the issue was revived two years after the
opening of the museum, while the visitor’s numbers surpassed everyone’s expectations.111
As
it goes with election promises, the museum was not actually torn down and is still in place.
However, what is remarkable is that the removal of a building was such a pressing matter only
two days after the elections. According to Arthurs, the controversy was not only about the
aesthetics of the building, but more so on the political implications of the site which is related
to Mussolini.112
The controversy is an expression on the longstanding debate on the
significance of the fascist past in contemporary Italy. Interestingly, this fascist past has not
been actively mentioned in the debate as presented in the newspapers. The arguments against
the structure and the critiques were about the money spent, the fact that Meier is a foreigner
and, most importantly, about the aesthetics of the building. The ideological charge of
demolishing a structure built during the Ventennio and replacing it with a modern building
was not mentioned. Strangely, it was not about the preservation of fascist remnants, while in
the case of the Foro Italico the historical and aesthetical importance of fascist architecture has
been explicitly pressed. Even so, while neo-fascists demonstrated and objected to the new Ara
Pacis Museum, the fascist connotation attached to the act of objecting to the removal of the
Morpurgo structure is striking, but it was not discussed in public debate. For some reason, the
controversy of the Ara Pacis did not lead to a discussion on the significance of the fascist past,
as it had with the Foro Italico controversies. The ideological connotation of the discussion had
so far been neglected.
Remaking the piazza in 2015
For over 80 years, since the construction of the piazza under Mussolini, the mausoleum has
been closed and in decaying state. Now the monument is severely neglected and barely
visible. Fenced off and used as a dumping site and an unofficial public lavatory, the
mausoleum is almost unnoticed by passersby, and is often mocked with the name ‘il dente
cariato’ (the rotten tooth). Although the colonnades of the surrounding buildings have been
filled with restaurants and shops, the area is quite lifeless and the Mausoleum has been
abandoned. Plans were made to refurbish the piazza and the mausoleum for 2014, the 2000th
death anniversary of August. However, the reconstructions did not take place and the
111
“Ara Pacis: 30 mila visitatori in 15 giorni” (6 May 2006) La Repubblica. Retrieved from:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2006/05/06/ara-pacis-30-mila-visitatori-in-
15.rm_021ara.html?ref=search
112
Arthurs (2010), 115.

MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246

MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246

Similar to MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246 (16)

MA Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies - Sophie van Doornmalen 10878246