Becoming Roman Again 543unification was completed, and Rome crowned as the capital of the Kingdom of Italy
(Carabinieri 2012).
At the time, Rome was as multi-faceted as the nation itself, lacking a physical center
and embodying no single meaning. It was precisely this versatility that rendered Rome
so appealing, offering itself up—at least politically—to the pursuit of various ideologi-
cal agendas. In turn, the city’s rich and complicated history lent itself to innumerable
interpretations, evidence for which abounded before the eyes of visitors in the form of
monuments from both the past and the present. In fact, the new capital was soon forced
to come to terms with its own past, not only in historical and ideological terms, but also
as pertained to the conspicuous physical presence of its urban fabric. Moreover, there
remained the spectral presence, enclosed within the Vatican walls, of a pope who still
refused to recognize Italy as a nation.
The main dichotomy exhibited in the new nation was above all political, as it had a
lay monarchy as well as an ecclesiastical one, both of which persisted in Rome right up
until the Breach of the Porta Pia. The political invasion of the city became evident in
the functional shift that a number of key buildings underwent, such as the Pantheon,
which became, in effect, the sacrarium for the House of Savoy. Further proof of this
invasion was provided by the newly erected structures, such as the National Monument
to Victor Emanuel II (Tobia 1998). These developments occurred, however, in fits and
starts and without any overriding urban plan owing to the ubiquitous obstacles presented
by the city’s pre-existing fabric (Insolera 2002: 359–94). To overcome these in favor
of a grand scheme would have required the wholesale demolition of large swathes of
the city.
Patrimony and Politics
As the city transformed into a modern capital, the education of the new Italians kept
pace, for the ruling class of post-unified Italy was tasked with instilling in its citizens a
sense of belonging to a national community—hence the proliferation of monuments in
honor of the lives sacrificed for the unification of Italy, that is, memorials dedicated to
the first heroes to be called “Italians.”
At the same time, Parliament was deliberating over an apparent need for national leg-
islation that would protect the country’s cultural patrimony. It was widely accepted that
Italy’s common ground resided in the peninsula’s past, traces of which were visible among
the artifacts and monuments excavated in the newly united territory. The clarion call came
on May 13, 1872, only 2 years after the definitive unification of the country as marked by
the capture of Rome. It was on this date that the minister of education, Cesare Correnti,
exhorted Parliament to conserve, amass, and jealously defend the country’s monuments
through the drafting of a national bill. He warned that the disparate pieces of legisla-
tion in place at the regional level were insufficient measures to contend with the greed
of art merchants, as a result of which veritable travesties were being committed against
the nation’s glorious splendors. Correnti explained further that the regional legislative
provisions were dangerously permissive in some provinces—even when adhered to in
full—and excessively strict in others. Unfortunately, his bill was not passed into law until
30 years later, in 1902 (Troilo 2003).