Wim Boerefijn Universal Exposition Rome 1942 (E42): Possible Meaning of Orientation. Architectural Instrument of Personality Cultus, Imperialism and Deception? 22 August 2021 This essay is the second preliminary version of a paper that I intend to publish as an article in an architectural-historical journal or a relevant collection of papers. It is based on research of scholarly literature and topographical and written sources that I have been able to consult in the limited space, time and accessroutes that I have been able to use in the past Covid-locked year. No original archival documents were consulted and unfortunately I have not yet been able to read all the literature that I expect to be relevant. I hope that connaisseurs of the material will feel challenged to test my hypotheses on their knowledge and material, and will thereby be able to shed more light on the matter. The first twenty-one pages of this preliminary version can be regarded as an ample introduction to Mussolini’s Rome and the project for the Universal Exposition that his regime planned for 1942. Readers that are aquainted with this material might want to skip this introduction. This second version contains some slight changes with respect to the first version and has the bibliography attached at the end. Wim Boerefijn Universal Exposition Rome 1942 (E42): Possible Meaning of Orientation. Architectural Instrument of Personality Cultus, Imperialism and Deception? This article is about the urban project of the ‘Esposizione Universale di Roma’ (also known as EUR or E42), the ‘city’ that was created to stage the World’s fair of 1942 in Rome under the fascist regime of dictator Benito Mussolini. (fig.1) Much has already been written about it, in particular about its architectural style, but I believe that I can contribute some new ideas as to its original urbanistic design. I have three new hypotheses, which are interconneted and rather speculative in character. The first is that the whole layout was oriented on Mussolini’s residence. The second is that it was also oriented on Tunis or the ancient city of Carthage. And the third is that the whole project for the universal exposition was secretly meant for the (symbolical) honouring of the ‘Duce’ and his imperial ambitions, and that under the guise of peaceful international cooperation it was in a sense a trap for the international community to implicitly contribute to these imperial ambitions. Unfortunately, I am not able to substantiate my arguments with hard evidence, but I wil try to make them plausible by circumstantial evidence and comparison. If there is any truth in my ideas, they demonstrate that the plan for E42 was even more megalomanic than it already appeared to be and that the aspect of personality cult of the leader was even stronger than it already seemed.1 1 Despite severe difficulties in laying my hands on literature due to Covid 19 lockdown, I have been able to do research at home and write this article thanks to the kind help of Reinout Rutte, Eva Röell, Mascha van Damme, Flaminia Bartolini, Keith Lilley, Lex Bosman, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Janet L. Mente from the KNIR, and Flavia Marcello. 1 Figure 1: Painted plan of the area of the Universal Exposition Rome 1942. Made for promotional purposes commissioned by the Ente, 1940. The plan is oriented southsouthwest. (from: Wikimedia commons) FASCIST ROME In October 1922 Benito Mussolini was made Prime Minister of Italy, after his supporters had threateningly marched their ‘March on Rome’. By 1925, he and his Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) 2 had seized absolute power in Rome and Italy by blunt political machinations, violence and democratic elections. Earlier in his career as a journalist and politician, Mussolini had detested Rome as the decadent seat of limp liberal government and of the Catholic church, and more generally as a symbol of the past instead of the future. But as his ideas became more and more nationalist and imperialistic, he became ever more convinced that he needed the glorious past of Rome, to use it as a symbol of Italian greatness, power and ambition. Increasingly, he employed the myth of ancient Rome in the cult of ‘romanità’.2 Mussolini would have wanted to say Make Italy great again, but Italy had never been great. That is why he needed Rome: to be able to say Make Rome great again. In 1922, on the mythical birthday of Rome (21 april) and just months before the March on Rome, he speeched: “To celebrate the Birth of Rome means to celebrate our kind of civilization, means to exalt our history and our race, means to lean firmly on the past in order to project better onto the future. As a matter of fact, Rome and Italy are two inseparable terms [...] The Rome we honor is certainly not the Rome of the monuments and ruins [...] The Rome we honor, but mainly the Rome we long for and prepare is another one: it is not about honorable stones, but living souls: it is not the nostalgic contemplation of the past, but of the hard preparation of the future. Rome is our starting point and reference; it is our symbol, or, if you will, our myth. We dream about the Roman Italy, that is, the wise and strong, disciplined and imperial Italy. Much of what was the immortal spirit of Rome is reborn in fascism: the lictor is Roman, our organization of combat is Roman, our pride and our courage are Roman: ‘Civis romanus sum’.”3 But the Rome that he found, was not the Rome that he wanted. His ambitions were greater than this old city could emit. On 21 April 1924, while celebrating the city's 2677th birthday, Mussolini received honorary citizenship, which gave him the opportunity to explain his strategy for Rome in a speech: "I should like to divide the problems of Rome, the Rome of the twentieth Century, into two categories: the problems of necessity and the problems of grandeur. One cannot confront the latter unless the first has been resolved. The problems of necessity arise from the growth of Rome, and are encompassed in the binomial: housing and communications. The problems of grandeur are of another kind: liberate all of ancient Rome from the mediocre construction that disfigures it, but side by side with the Rome of antiquity and Christianity we must also create the monumental Rome of the Twentieth Century. Rome cannot, must not, be solely a modern city, in the by now banal sense of the word; it must be a city worthy of its glory, and that glory must be revivified tirelessly to pass on as the legacy of the Fascist era to generations to come".4 The Duce (this is the title that Mussolini took on, meaning the ‘leader’) wanted to revive Rome to its ancient glory, and even dreamt of surpassing that. He strove to create a terza Roma: the third Rome, which was intended to surpass the classical and the Christian Rome. He felt that he needed the history, or rather the ‘myth’, of Rome to achieve his monumental ambitions. But the re-shaping of the structure and appearance of the city, through its streets, monuments and other buildings, was not just about form. The intention went far beyond: the Duce meant to restore Rome to its ancient glory and lead it to even greater glory, not just for Rome itself, but for fascist Italy, in order to create proof of the power, might, ability and resoluteness of its fascist administration. Therefore, the emphasis within the propagation of romanità was put on aspects that could serve this goal, such as power, discipline, obedience and austerity.5 Nelis 2007; Nelis 2011; Sidoni 2019, ‘introduzione’. Giardina 2008, p.57, translated from the Opera Omnia of Benito Mussolini (1956, v.XVIII, p.160ff). 4 Text from: B. Mussolini, Scritti e discorsi di Benito Mussolini. Milan 1934. Hoepli. Translation from: Notaro 2000, p.16. 5 Giardina 2008. 2 3 3 In order to realize his vision of the 'third Rome', architecture was an instrument of eminent importance. Mussolini employed historians, archeologists, architects, engineers and urban planners settled acedemics as well as young revolutionaries - to adapt and recreate the city so it would be sanitized, modernized and monumentalized.6 So, Mussolini and his regime set out to cut new roads through the city, to build post offices, hospitals, schools, housing projects, ministeries and a new university complex, and to ‘liberate’ ancient monuments from later additions, thereby demolishing older buildings and creating new focal points in the city’s structure. There was, however, no truly consistent fascist building program for the city, as has been suggested by various scholars. In fact, a master plan was made for Rome under the regime in 1931, but this was only half-heartedly taken as guide for the actual practice of building (and demolishing).7 And it must be considered that the modernization and monumentalization was not exclusively a project taken up by Mussolini and his regime. It had started long before, and was continued afterward, with fits and starts, although it is a fact that under the fascist regime development was relatively very swift. It should also be noted in this respect, that engineers, architects, planners, developers, builders and landowners tried to use the fascist regime to accomplish their goals, as well as the other way around.8 In principle, this is not different from earlier and later periods. But the fascist ambitions were not just about stones; they were also, and more so, about people. The regime strove to re-educate and reform its subjects into more disciplined, higher virtued, more fertile and stronger humans, for the sake of the fascist Italian nation.9 Fascism employed, or was even made into, a religion of the state, ritualized by the ‘culto del littorio’, which was inspired by ancient Rome and devised in order to enhance national unity and loyalty and devotion to the state.10 By that path fascist Italy and its subjects were intended to set an example to the world. For fascist ambitions were not limited to Italy. One of the most important ambitions of the fascists was to (re-)conquer an empire for Italy. In fact, fascism was to a large extent based on irridentism and the claim to an Italian empire. At least since the risorgimento-period Italians felt, and were made to feel, that Italy had the right to extend its rule to wherever Italians or Italian-speaking people had lived since centuries. And with regard to empire, Italians believed they had a right to it, just as other grand nations had their empires, or even more so, since Rome had held the empire on which Western and Christian culture had been built. Italians felt insulted by the outcome of the World War I peace negotiations, laid down in the treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain, as Italy did not recieve the rule over territory that it had claimed and had been promised in the secret Treaty of London. Fascism was, to a great extent, born out of this feeling of insult. The fascists fed frustrations over this matter and succeeded in canalising the energy that was born from this to their ambitions.11 6 Kostof 1973; Painter 2005; Bodenschatz 2013; Sidoni 2019. Sidoni 2019, ch.III, pp.128-151; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.106-118; Kallis 2014, pp.38-40. A variante generale was made in 1941-42, but this was never established by law due to the war. (Bruschi 2004; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.204-207) 8 With regard to architects and planners, this holds true for the young modernists (or ‘rationalists’) about whom so much has been written, such as Libera, Terragni, Pagano and Le Corbusier (who failed to convince Mussolini, though), as well as for traditional academics such as Brasini and Palanti and ‘moderates’ Giovannoni and foremost Piacentini. (Sidoni 2019; Ghirardo 1980) With regard to builders, Sidoni writes about a scandal in 1943 with contractors that made huge profits by alleged corruption. (Sidoni 2019, ch.V, VI) 9 Dagnino 2016. 10 Gentile 1990. 11 Nelis 2007; Giuman & Parodo 2011, pp.46-49; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_irredentism ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism (consulted 30-10-20) 7 4 Mussolini and his administration wanted to show off the greatness of ancient Rome, and even more of the new Rome, ‘the third Rome’, in which ancient Rome was assimilated and emulated. This was intended for national as well as for international propaganda. The new Rome had to be admired by the rest of the world, just like the ancient Rome. And especially for this purpose, great events of global or even ‘universal’ importance were to be held in Rome. The regime strove to organize the Olympic Games - which are of course ideal for reference to the ancient world - in Rome in 1940 or 1944, but did not succeed in getting the bid rewarded.12 It was successful, though, in claiming the World’s fair for 1942.13 ESPOSIZIONE UNIVERSALE DI ROMA: E42 The idea for organising the World’s fair in Rome most probably originated in the mind of Federico Pinna Berchet, who was well-experienced in the organisation of grand fairs and expositions. He presented the idea in April 1935 to Giuseppe Bottai, governor of the city of Rome, who proposed it to Mussolini in June. He wrote: “Therefore, the moment can be considered right for an international Exposition […] of exceptional importance to demonstrate all progress and all rediscoveries from more than twenty-seven centuries of human activity, from the moment that Rome let shine on the world the light of its genius and might. […] it is useful to create a Universal exposition in Rome, open to all sciences, to all arts, to all kinds of work and activity, to present and propagate all elements that constitute today the new Roman law […] to the tangible and rightful testimony of the civilizing and revolutionary actions of fascist Rome, and to which all peoples preceded by their heads of state will come to tap into the new life juice with which to secure to the whole world a new period of peace and work. […] And it will be the Roman Universal Exhibition, created along the zone that stretches to the sea of Ostia, to realize the Duce’s vision of ‘Rome Seaport’, from where one sails to furrow every ocean with the the labour and the wisdom of Rome to where will be ground to reclaim and humanity to redeem and to exalt.”14 Bottai and Mussolini were immediately convinced that this was a terrific project for the fascist cause. But Mussolini told Bottai by letter that the exhibition had to be held in 1942, one year later than Pinna Bercchet proposed, so that it would celebrate the twentieth birthday of the fascist regime. He also stipulated that he wanted to reconsider the proposed location later on, and that Bottai had to wait until the right moment to make public anouncements.15 Later on, in 1940, Bottai wrote that Mussolini had already foreseen the conquest of Ethiopia in June 1935 in a prophetic vision, and therefore ordered to look into the possibility of organising the exposition as a celebration of the foundation of a new Roman empire.16 In November 1935, the request was made to the Bureau International des Expositions, and 25 June 1936 a ‘First Category General Exposition’ was granted for 1941-1942. This year was determined by the six-year-term, following Barcelona in 1929 and Brussels in 1935. Somewhat later, the organisers managed to have the exhibition postponed with one year, in order to have it coincide with the grand festive commemoration of the ‘ventennale’, the 20th birthday of the fascist regime in Italy.17 In July 1936, Mussolini and Bottai chose senator Vittorio Cini as 12 Kallis 2014, pp.167-168. Ferrara 1987, pp.73-77; Notaro 2000; Sidoni 2019, ch.V. E42 also served other goals, apart from showing of fascist Rome to the world, as will be discussed later on in this article. 14 Progetto di massima per una Esposizione Universale Romana, p.4, printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.150. Tranlation author. 15 Di Majo & Insolera 1986, p.17. 16 Bottai (1938, p.1033), referring to what he said was a letter from Mussolini of June 23, 1935. See: Etlin 1991, p.483. 17 Garin 1987, p.3; Ferrara 1987, pp.73-75. The exposition was to open on 23 March 1942, on the twentieth birthday of the fascist revolution. 13 5 general commisioner of the institution that was erected somewhat later for the organisation of the exposition, the Ente autonomo esposizione universale di Roma. Politician and businessman Oreste Bonomi and politician and art critic Cipriano Efesio Oppo were appointed as vice-commissioners. Oppo also became artistic director of the Ente.18 From about the middle of the 19th century to the middle of 20th, the medium of exhibition was very important in Western culture, and the Fascist regime made extensive use of it as a main instrument of propaganda on national as well as international level.19 Fascist Italy was eager to present itself in international exhibitions, and invested strongly in opportunities for self-representation on the global stage, for example in the World’s fairs of Chicago 1933, Brussels 1935, Paris 1937 and New York 1939.20 But now Rome had to become the stage of this global theatre, as the marvels of fascist Rome itself were thought of as an excellent instrument of propaganda, legitimizing Rome’s new greatness by its ancient greatness. And in order to do just that, the ancient Rome of Emperors and Popes was to be extended by a new stage: the ‘third Rome’ of the fascist regime, in which the exhibition area of E42 was to play the main role. The Italian contribution to the exposition was intended to show to the world the history and greatness of Rome and the regime's cultural, scientific and economic achievements, and it’s ‘universal political mission’.21 The exposition was meant to be truly universal, as all countries in the world were expected to make a contribution, instead of only the thirty or so countries that usually took part in World’s fairs. In order to make an overwhelming impression on the many visitors from all over the world that were expected, the scale of the exposition was to be extra grand, surpassing every earlier World’s fair in scale.22 But there was an important additional reason to organize a ‘universal exposition’ of staggering proportions. On October 3, 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia. Despite severe losses, the Italian army conquered the country and on the 9th of May 1936 Mussolini officially proclaimed the Italian Empire. Rome was now, once again, the capital of an empire. However, this empire was not universally approved of, as many countries had opposed Italy’s Ethiopian campaign. The League of Nations had even imposed economic sanctions on Italy for its illegal military aggression.23 Moreover, tension was building up between nations in Europe in the 1930’s, and many already began to suspect that this tension would lead to war. Hence, the regime was eager to regain the support of the international community. For this reason, it strove to legimitize Italy’s aspirations to an empire and to demonstrate that its intentions were peaceful.24 The Esposizione Universale di Roma was regarded as the perfect stage to do that. The central theme that was chosen for the Esposizione Universale di Roma was ‘the Olympics of Civilisation’, and the subtitle ‘Yesterday, today, tomorrow’. Every nation was to display its contribution to the progress of human culture, particularly in the fields of art and science. 25 Despite 18 Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.19-20; Ferrara 1987, pp.75-78. Pinna Berchet was given a minor function as technical director of E42. 19 Stone 2018; Ghirardo 1992. 20 Fortuna 2019, p.185. 21 See citation above, and Garin 1987. 22 Fioravanti 1987, pp.91-94; Fortuna 2019, p.185. 23 The sanctions from the League of Nations lasted from 18 November 1935 to 15 July 1936. Ciucci 1989, pp.79-80; Sidoni 2019, ch.V, p.10. 24 Ciucci 1989, pp.79-80. 25 Ferrara 1987. According to various authors the theme Olympics of Civilisation was a reference to the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin, which were regarded as a great success for Nazi-Germany, being very well-organized and an 6 the fact that the Italian army had just conquered Ethiopia, against the international political concensus, E42 was marketed as a gesture of peace, a plea for nonviolent confrontation in the competition of human cultural progress.26 The intent was that this was the playing field in which Italy could showcase its universal supremacy. The national contribution was to contain countless pieces of evidence of Italy’s greatness in twenty-seven centuries of art, science, engineering, law etcetera. A considerable part of the contribution was more or less ready to be exhibited, while many expositions had already been held under the fascist regime, and could easily be reused in E42. Foremost among these expo’s were the Mostra della Rivoluzione Fascista of 1932/1937 and the Mostra Augustea della Romanità, which was held in 1937-‘38 for the bimillenial anniversary of Emperor Augustus, who was the main exemplary character for the Duce.27 To create space for the exhibition, a whole new quarter had to be laid out, and it was soon decided that this would not just be a temporary exhibition-area, but that it was to be a new ‘city’ which would be added to Rome and which was to play an important role in its subsequent development.28 The exposition had to showcase Italy’s best architecture, which, of course, had to be essentially fascist architecture. It had to be sturdy, giving the impression that it would last for centuries, to reflect the aspired might and stability of the regime itself. Therefore, it had to be built of stone and brick instead of perishable materials such as wood and plaster.29 In order to achieve that in an economically sensible way, it was, of course, helpful that the buildings could be designed for permanence instead of for the temporary exhibition only. overwhelming victory for the home country as a sporting nation. In E42, the fascists planned to beat all other countries in what they regarded as a Roman specialisation: civilisation. (Guidoni 1987, pp.34-35; Notaro 2000, p.17; Nicoloso 2008, pp.64-70, 211, 217; Kallis 2014, p.245) According to Nelis (2007), the theme of ‘past, present and future’ was very important in fascism, particularly regarding the ideology of romanità, and is it to be recognized most clearly in E42. The idea for an exposition on Italian Civilisation may have originated in a project by Valentino Bompiani, Massimo Bontempelli and Gaetano Ciocco, possibly on request of Bottai, which appears to have been proposed to Mussolini’s secretary medio 1934. (Mariani 1990, pp.16-17) 26 Garin 1987, p.4; Ciucci 1989 (II), p.80. 27 Garin 1987; Fioravanti 1987; Ghirardo 1992; Kallis 2014, pp.211-225; Stone 2018. According to Nelis (2007), however, it was not so much Augustus, but rather Julius Ceasar, who was the main example for Mussolini. 28 Already on 14 October 1936, the prominent architect and urbanist Marcello Piacentini had pleaded for making the exposition area a permanent part of the city, as a start for the regional development with various new settlements towards the coast, in an article published in Il Giornale d’Italia. (Godoli 1987, p.147; Quilici 2005, p.38) With this, he was searching to get a position as a planner for the exposition and to make this aspired creation permanent, unlike the disappointing experience with his creation for the Ethnographic Exposition of 1911 (see n.72), which was completely erased by the subsequent development of the Della Vittoria-quarter in the north of Rome. Piacentini had unsuccesfully pleaded to create a new centre for Rome about ten years before, but then to the southeast of the old city centre. Now, he must have seen a opportunity to actually make it happen, be it in a different location. Vittorio Cini also stressed the idea to make the areas for the exposition into permanent extensions of the city in order to realize Mussolini’s vision of Rome to the sea, in the promemoria to Mussolini of 6 november,. (Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.23-24) Soon after the decision to make the exhibition area of E42 into a new quarter of Rome, prominent commentators suggested that it should not just be a new extension to the city, but ithat it ought to be a modern version of the old Rome: ‘a new Rome’. (Notaro 2000, p.16) Various scholars have designated the city that was to be formed from E42 as an ‘ideal city’ (for instance: Kallis 2011, p.79; Guidoni 1987, p.32) or as the essential ‘third Rome’ (referring to Mussolini’s speech of 31 December 1925, see below). 29 This is explicitly mentioned in the text for Cini’s press conference of 12 January 1937, which is based on his first report as general commissioner of 31 December 1936. (Di Majo & Insolera 1986, p.32; Guidoni 1987, p.36) 7 Five architects were appointed on the first of January 1937 in a commission of urbanistic consulents, to advise the technical office of the Ente for the master plan for the exhibition area (the Piano Regolatore Particolareggiato): Marcello Piacentini, Giuseppe Pagano, Luigi Piccinato, Ettore Rossi and Luigi Vietti. 30 Piacentini was the most eminent among them: a true academic who had already successfully designed and coordinated grand projects in Rome and elsewhere, notably for the Universal Exhibition of 1911 and the University complex in Rome31, whereas the others were younger and less experienced. In April 1937 they presented a first version of the master plan to Cini and Mussolini, who approved of it. It gradually appeared that the planners did not all share the same ideas and ambitions for the project. Piacentini tried to save the collaboration by distributing responsibilities within the team, giving the main responsibility, for roads, squares and bridges to himself. In late 1937, Piacentini managed to grab the role of master planner as he was appointed head of the architectural office (sovrintendente ai Servizi dell’Architettura) of the Ente, while the others remained as consulents. In 1938 he revised the master plan considerably. This plan was approved by Mussolini.32 E42 was to consist of seven sections, that were called ‘cities’: Italian city, City of the nations, City of arts, City of science, Italian city of corporative economy, City of Italian Africa and City of leisure.33 The main expositions of the host country were to be housed in the permanent buildings, among which various museums, a congress building, a theatre, a church, and the offices of the Ente. These buildings would form the core of the new Rome that was to be built to the southwest of the existing city. Apart from these buildings, temporary pavilions were to be erected for the expositions of other nations and of part of the Italian contribution. The more powerful nations were to build their own pavilions, while the contributions of the lesser countries could be accommodated in thematic pavilions.34 CHOICE OF LOCATION In order to accommodate the exhibition, a suitable area of land had to be found. This terrain had to be vast, as the main intention was to show off the power, greatness and brilliance of the regime. Various sites were proposed to Mussolini. Pinna Berchet had already suggested a specific location in the Magliana-area about 8 km. southwest of the city centre in his first draw for the exposition of April 1935.35 Mussolini was immediately enthusiastic for Pinna Berchet’s plan, but was reserved about the location. As metioned above, he wrote to Bottai that he wanted to talk about the choice of site later on. Before that happened, a plan was suggested to disperse the exposition to three locations in Rome, Magliana and Ostia. On 20 Octobre 1936, Mussolini, Botttai, Cini, Oppo and some 30 These architects were chosen from a pool of 15 architects. They were appointed by Cini, but appear to have been chosen by Mussolini and Oppo. (Di Majo & Insolera 1986, p.41; Guidoni 1987, pp.36-37) 31 Piacentini was one of the leading architects-urbanists in Italy. He had a lot of experience with international exhibitions: apart from the 1911 exposition in Rome, he designed pavilions for World Expo’s of 1910, 1915 and 1937. (Lupano 1990, p.143, n.5) 32 Guidoni 1987, pp.37-52; Beese 2016, pp.304-311. It seems likely that Piacentini was already written into the project plan in November 1935: in the first version of April 1935 it was written that ‘the most intelligent and young architects of Italy’ were to make the designs, but in the version of November it is added that they were to be ‘headed by the most illustre architect of the kingdom at present’, which probably referred to Piacentini. (Ferrara 1987, p.75) 33 Fioravanti 1987, p.92. 34 Ferrara 1987, pp.79-80; Fioravanti 1987; Guidoni 1987, pp.45-46. 35 Pinna Berchet exactly described the corner points of the area that he had in mind. It was to be on both banks of the Tiber to the southwest of the Magliana trainstation. (p.5 of the Progetto di massima per una Esposizione Universale Romana, printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.150) 8 more officials visited various sites to the southeast of Rome along the Via del Mare from the outskirts of the city to the coast, including the Magliana-area. On November 6, Cini suggested in a promemoria to the Duce to fuse the two parts of the exhibition foreseen in Rome and the Magliana-area, in a different location much closer to the city than the Magliana-area. This location was to the south of the Basilica di San Paolo f.l.m., to both sides of the Via del Mare (Via Ostiense), but preferably on the elevated grounds on the eastside. The main arguments for Cini to propose this area were better transport connections to the city, more prestige for being closer to ancient Rome, and for the hilly landscape that would offer security against floods and, more importantly, would provide great possibilies to play with perspective and variety of views in relation to the river and the surrounding landscape. He specifically mentioned the area between the abbey of Tre Fontane and the railway Rome-Ostia for its dominant position over the Tiber valley, for its “picturesque and panoramic scenes”, where lucious gardens and wooded parks can be planted to provide the perfect surroundings for relaxation, and for the “practically illimited possibilities for development towards the sea”.36 It took Mussolini one more month to make his decision: the location was to be where Cini had suggested: the Tre Fontane-area.37 It is not known why exactly he chose for that specific location, but we will return on that subject later on.38 This area was located to the east of Magliana, on the other side of the Tiber, about 7.5 km. southsouthwest of the heart of the city (Piazza Venezia) and just over 5 km. outside of the Porta San Paolo. (fig.2) The Tre Fontane referred to the Abbazia delle Tre Fontane (Abbey of the Three Fountains) where, according to legend, St. Paul was decapitated, his head creating three sources while bouncing on the ground. The intended area in between the abbey-grounds and the railway measured 400 hectares and was eventually extended to 436 ha.39 This area was mainly used for agriculture and mining, lain on an accidented terrace of Pleistocene volcanic deposits just southeast of the Tiber, about ten to fifty metres above sea level. The terrain that was eventually chosen was bounded by the ancient Via Laurentina on the east and the Via del Mare on the left bank of the Tiber to the northwest.40 To the northeast and southwest were small valleys with streams flowing into the Tiber, and there was one more valley with a stream flowing right through the area towards the river. (fig.3) 36 Guidoni 1987, p.24; Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.21-24. According to the main article in the Corriere della Sera of 16 December 1936, Mussolini had decided the day before. Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.21-24; Fioravanti 1987, p.92; Ferrara 1987, pp.74-77. See also n.137. In addition there was to be a secondary site for minor events at the excavations of Ostia antica. 38 Di Majo & Insolera (1986, pp.25-26) mention that it is rather strange that Cini pleaded another site to Mussolini than Bottai, who had got him on board not long before, had done. Bottai was promoted away to the position of minister of education not long after and was no longer involved. This suggests that there was a conflict of power and interest. There were rumours that it was about land speculation, which Mussolini dismissed as impossible and which have been ruled out by research as the land did not change hands. It is remarkable that only one day earlier (14 December) the planners Libera, Longo, Paniconi and Pediconi presented a proposal for the area between Tre Fontane and the meander of the Tiber to the southwest of Magliana. This terrain was far larger than the eventual exposition grounds, stretching much further southwestward. (Guidoni 1987, p.25) I do not know whether Mussolini was informed of this proposal. 39 Bodenschatz 2011, p.177 40 Alvisi 1987, pp.117-146; Mariani 1987, p.51 and photographs pp.33-37. Apart from the abbey, there were various farmsteads scattered in the area, a hamlet overlooking the Tiber, many pits and corridors from the mining of tuff and pozzolana cement and a forest of eucaliptus trees that had been planted in order to get rid of malaria. 37 9 Figure 2: Map of Rome and region to the southwest. (from: www.openstreetmap.org) The area of E42 is indicted in the map by author. Figure 3: Area where E42 was planned (indicated by author in orange outline) on topographical map ‘Roma e dintorni’, TCI 1931. 10 It is no wonder that Mussolini was enthusiastic about the idea of building a new urban extension to the southwest of Rome, as he had long before and on many occasions ventilated his vision of Roma al mare (‘Rome towards the sea’). Already on 31 December 1925, Mussolini speeched about his vision on the future of the city when he instituted the Governorship of Rome: “My ideas are clear, my orders are precise. I am more than certain they will become concrete reality. In five years, Rome must appear to all peoples in the world: vast, ordered, powerful, as it was in the time of Augustus’ first empire. […] In this way the third Rome will expand over other hills, along the banks of the sacred river, down to the beaches of the Thyrrhenian Sea. […] A straight road, which must be the longest and the widest in the world, will bring the fullness of mare nostrum [‘our sea’ meaning the Mediterranean] from the resurrected Ostia to the heart of the city where the Unknown [Soldier] watches over us.”41 Part of this text was even eternalized by being chiseled into the facade of the Palazzo degli Uffici of the Ente of 1937-‘39 (the only building to be completed before the project was abandoned), thereby attesting to the Duce’s foresight and power of purpose. Pinna Berchet and Bottai knew these ambitions of the Duce all too well, and probably therefore had suggested the Magliana location.42 Reclaiming the Mediterranean as Rome's/Italy’s Mare nostrum may be regarded as the central element of Mussolini's imperial ambitions, in a similar manner to Hitler’s lebensraum. Newly connecting the heart of Rome to the sea by main traffic arteries was a crucial way to visualise the fulfillment of this ambition. It is significant in this respect, that the Via del Mare was the first major urban project of the regime, connecting Piazza Venezia, with Mussolini’s office and the national monument, to the Mare nostrum.43 Mussolini was not original in his ambition to connect Rome to the coast and extend it in that direction. Plans thereto had already been made in the 19th century. One of the first concrete results of this was the building of a railway line to Ostia, which was opened by Mussolini in 1924, but which had been built for the most part under the liberal government. Right next to this railway, the Via del Mare was built. This autostrada was one of the prides of Mussolini, being one of the first highways exclusively for motorised wheeled traffic in Italy and the world, and being the first great infrastructural project of the fascist regime in Rome, opened in 1928. Mussolini also strove to revive the ancient port of Ostia, both as a seaside resort and a port.44 In 1928, Vergilio Testa, who was an important figure in the urban civil service, proposed a plan to create a linear extension along the Via del Mare to the sea. And in 1935, the grand old man of Roman town planning, Gustavo Giovannoni, proposed a more or less similar project, with separate settlements of various character and functions along a new highway (which may be regarded as the initial plan for the Via Imperiale, on which I will As cited in Marcello 2018, p.376. The ‘resurrected Ostia’ refers to Ostia Nuova, which was projected as a huge port as well as a bathing town. Eventually the project for the port was aborted. See also Kostof 1973, p.35; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.146-207; Sidoni 2019, ch.II. 42 Pinna Berchet wrote that the area towards Ostia was chosen among others “[…] to realize the Duce’s vision of ‘Rome Seaport’, from where one sails to furrow every ocean with the the labour and the wisdom of Rome […]” (p.4 of the Progetto di massima per una Esposizione Universale Romana, printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.150, translation author). In the eventual project description of June 1937, drawn up by Cini, it was explicitly mentioned that one of the two main objectives of E42 was “Realising the Mussolinian project of ‘Rome to the sea’ [‘Roma al mare’] and creation of a new monumental quarter.” (p.2 of the Programma di massima, printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.153; translation author). The epigraph on the architrave of the façade of the Palazzo degli Uffuci, which is turned towards the Via Imperiale reads: “LA TERZA ROMA SI DILATERÀ SOPRA ALTRI COLLI LUNGO LE RIVE DEL FIUME SACRO SINO ALLE SPIAGGE DEL TIRRENO” 43 Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998, p.38. Below, I will return on the relation of E42 to Piazza Venezia, Mussolini’s office and the National Monument. 44 Isolera & Di majo 1986, pp.6-9; Sidoni 2019, ch.II. 41 11 return below). Giovannoni even suggested to create an area for large expositions, just southeast of the Basilica San Paolo fuori le Mura.45 The site that was chosen for the exposition, was already well connected to both the city and the coast, by the ancient Via Ostiense (being part of the route of the Via del Mare), Via Portuense and Via Laurentina, and by the modern railways to Ostia and Fiumicino and the Ponte del Magliana. (see fig.3) In order to increase accessibility it was decided in april 1937 to build a largely subterranean metro line, connecting the area to the city centre and the Termini main railway station.46 And according to the piano regolatore of 1938, which was the second official plan, three new roads were intended to be built connecting to various parts of the existing city. (fig.4) Viale Marconi to the northwest, Viale Dante to the north and Via Imperiale to the northeast of E42, joining as a trident at a grand piazza just north of E42. This planned Piazza del Lavoro can be regarded as the counterpart of the old and admired Piazza del Popolo on the other end of Rome, in name, layout as well as position relative to the centre. The piazza and the Viale Dante were never completely realized, due to the war, which ended much different than Mussolini had planned, but the Viale Marconi and the Via Imperiale were actually built. The Via Imperiale was the most prominent of the two, being a main road of monumental proportions leading from the city centre to the new exposition-area, and beyond to the sea near Ostia, which was to be revived according to the vision of the leader.47 The Via Imperiale was meant to become the “greatest road of Rome and of Italy and, if taking into account the historic area it goes through, the greatest street in the world.”48 On the explicit order of Mussolini, the highway would lead straight through the heart of the exhibition area, instead of being lead around. It was intended to be a kind of modern version of the ancient consular roads, that radiated from Rome to the various parts of the world that Rome had conquered. The name Via Imperiale clearly refers, together with its grand scale, to the imperial symbolism that is to be found in E42, and on which I will elaborate below.49 45 Guidoni 1987, pp.22-24; Quilici 2014, p.232. Most probably, Giovannoni had heard of the plan of PinnaBerchet and Bottai for the Esposizione Universale, which was by then still foreseen to take place in the Magliana-area. (Quilici 2014, p.232) 46 Guidoni 1987, pp.25-26; Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, extra Intermetro in the back of the volume. Work on this metro line started in 1938 and was only completed in 1955. 47 Kostof 1973, p.37; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.201-203. 48 Painter 2015, p.132, referring to the article “La Via Imperiale” in Capitolium 1939, p.1. 49 Kostof 1973, p.37; Quilici 2005; Quilici 2014. The Via Imperiale was renamed Viale Cristoforo Colombo after the war. In origin this road was intended to lead to the sea in a straight line, but its course had to be adapted in a more westernly direction, because it had to be led around the royal estate of Castel Porziano. (Quilici 2014, p.231, n.4, citing engineer Edmondo del Bufalo, who was in charge of the designing of the road in 1937) In fact, There is a regional plan of 1937-’38, with the new roads in relation to E42 and the new reclamations in the Agro Pontino, which depicts the direction of the axis much further prolonged in the form of the planned Via Imperiale to the north and south of E42 (but not all the way to the coast). (see Quilici 2014, p.242). Another new road called Via Mediana was to lead more southernly towards the newly reclaimed Agro Pontino. This became the present SS148. (Quilici 2014, p.238) 12 Figure 4: Plan with various new routes connecting E42 to the city centre. With three main roads merging at the trident at Piazza del Lavoro just north of E42. Governatorato di Roma, 1938-’39 (from: Quilici 2005) DESIGN OF THE MASTER PLAN In early 1937 the first sketches were made for a master plan, and on 8 April the first official version was approved of by the Duce. (fig.5) On 28 April Mussolini symbolically planted a pine tree for the 13 groundbreaking ceremony.50 Work started with the moving about of many tons of earth, as the natural relief was to be terraced and partly levelled.51 The first master plan was a mixture of picturesque and formal design, with straight roads as well as curved ones, right angles as well as skewed lines, taking in the irregularities of the natural terrain. The outline was a sort of irregular pentagon, dictated by the natural terrain and pre-existing delimiting roads. This outline form was to be maintained in the eventual design. And so would be the central backbone of the plan: a wide avenue right through the middle of the whole area from northnortheast to south-soutwest. At both ends there were to be grand buildings at the high points of the axis, that acted as gates as well as ’palace of receptions’ (at the northeast end), and ‘grand pavilion of tourism and sports’ (at the southwest end). Near this last building there was a lake with an irregular outline to be constructed in a natural valley, more or less perpendicular to the central axis, which was to cross the lake over a bridge. Just after the entrance, there was to be an elongated piazza perpendicular to the main axis, with as central showpiece the obelisk of Axum, which was looted from the holy city of Axum in Ethiopia in early 1937. A bit further on, there would be another plaza on a second cross-axis. This was to be the Piazza Imperiale, which was to be flanked by museums and a theater. In various presentation drawings by Luigi Vietti one can see an urban layout with architecture of a typically modernist character, with skyscrapers of steel and glass, strongly reminding of Hilbersheimer’s and Le Corbusier’s cityscape fantasies. (fig.6) 50 Di Majo & Insolera 1986, p.42. The tree was planted near the location where the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana was to be built. The fact that it was an umbrella pine tree may have had special symbolical significance in relation to the fact that the whole route from Piazza Venezia to E42, by Via dell’Impero, Via dei Trionfi and Via Imperiale, was to be lined with trees of this kind later on. The planting of trees was an inportant aspect of urbanist operations in fascist Rome in general, but specifically for E42 it was regarded highly important to create a green atmosphere with trees, parks, gardens and waters. In order to have trees of some size by the time the exhibition would start, works immediately started with the planting of a great many trees. The parks and gardens would be designed by Raffaele de Vico, who was the most important greenery designer in Italy in the period. He was set on this job in 1938. On the design of the parks and gardens of E42, see: De Vico Fallani 1987. 51 See newsreel Giornale Luce B1172 del 29/09/1937: https://youtu.be/Wr-bOhJc_qQ ) 14 Figure 5: First version of E42’s master plan by Marcello Piacentini, Giuseppe Pagano, Luigi Piccinato, Ettore Rossi and Luigi Vietti, as depicted in Casabella 114, June 1937 (from: Etlin 1991) Figure 6: Presentation drawing of bird’s eye view along the axis of E42 in southerly direction, according to the first master plan of April 1937. Drawing probably by Luigi Vietti, March or April 1937. (from: Mariani 1987) 15 In March 1938, a revised plan was presented, revised by Marcello Piacentini after he was given the lead of the architectural office of the Ente. (fig.7) The basis remained the same, but skewed lines largely disappeared and fragments of picturesque irregularity were pushed further outward to the ample parks and green margins of the area.52 Monumental symmetry was strengthened in the various avenues as well as in the all-over structure. There was clearly more classicism and less romanticism in this design.53 The Palazzo del Civiltà Italiana and the church of Ss. Pietro e Paolo were set at the highest points along the edge of the high terrain at the side of the Tiber, so that they would be well visible from within the exposition area, but even more so when seen from the valley. They were to be counterbalanced on the other sides of their respective cross-axes by the Palazzo dei Ricevimenti e dei Congressi and the Palazzo delle Forze Armate (Palace of the Armed Forces; presently the Palazzo dell’ Archivio dello Stato). In the initial design there had been a separation of traffic flows, with the central motorway led through tunnels under the piazza’s; but now the motorway was led right through the squares and avenue, at the direct order of Mussolini who had always been fond of fast motorized traffic.54 The urbanistic composition and the architecture, for as far as indicated, had become much less modern and more monumental and classical in character in this plan.55 A third version of the master plan was presented in October 1939, in which the main difference was that the residential area was once more enlarged – which had also happened with the second master plan – and that parks and housing were extended all the way to the southwestern perimeter road.56 (fig.8) Details of the plan kept changing in later plans and models; but the main structure was fixed. 52 Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.48-50. According to Piacentini the plan, and particularly the lake, was made more regular in structure in order to make it more Italian and more Roman. (Guidoni 1987, pp.55-56) The Via Imperiale became the axis of a ‘nobler’, more ‘Roman’, and more ‘imperial’ composition. (Ciucci 1989, p.84) 54 Kostof 1973, p.74; Guidoni 1987, pp.48-49; Beese 2016, pp.304-318. It was the explicit will of Mussolini, that this axis became the main road from Rome to the sea, and not just the main axis of the exposition area, although some of the planners (Pagano and Piccinato in particular) wished to lead through-going traffic past the area, according to the ideas of modernist urbanistic theory. (Guidoni 1987, p.49, n.112; Quilici 2014, pp.231-232) Possibly, the tunnels and bridges were not just ommitted for reason of costs and austerity in the use of steel, but also for the purpose of making the avenue a future parade ground. 55 According to Nicoloso, this was explicitly inspired by Mussolini’s desire to refer to ancient Rome, in reaction to the project of Hitler and Speer for Berlin. (Nicoloso 2008, pp.208-212) 56 Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.37, 52. Another prominent difference was the introduction of the pseudoeliptical piazza near the main antrance on the northeast end. 53 16 Figure 7: Second version of E42’s master plan by Piacentini, March 1938 (from: Architettura December 1938 ; Di Majo & Insolera 1986) 17 Figure 8: Third version of E42’s master plan by Piacentini, 1939 (from: Civiltà, October 1941; Bodenschatz 2011) The absolute main feature in the whole structure is the three-kilometre long central axis of the Via Imperiale (presently Viale Cristoforo Colombo). (fig.9) Already in the very first sketches that we know, it was planned as a wide boulevard that connected the main entrances in the northeast and southwest, the only road to go all the way through the area, and far beyond.57 In early versions of the design there were to be buildings with gates at both ends: the Porta Imperiale at the northeast and the Porta del Mare at the southwest, but eventually these were suspended. In the eventual design of Piacentini, the central axis was planned as a wide boulevard in Haussmannian fashion, with separate traffic lanes. Its central part, between the Piazza Imperiale and the lake, was to have four lanes for cars in the centre, flanking lines of umbrella pine trees, cycle paths (very modern!), secondary lanes for cars and trams, lines of lower trees and walkways. But this main axis is not one wide boulevard along its entire length. In the northeast there is a piazza of pseudo-eliptical form (the present Piazza delle Nazioni Unite) and a bit further on it gets wider and is ‘crossed’ by a rectangular piazza (Piazza Imperiale). Right in the middle, the obelisk from 57 For early sketches of the master plan of January to April 1937, see Mariani 1987 and Mariani 1990. 18 Axum was to be planted at first, but after Mussolini decided to put it elsewhere, an obelisk was built here in commemoration of Guglielmo Marconi, the inventor, entrepreneur and modern Fascist hero.58 Five hundred meters further on, the boulevard splits, just before it reaches the lake. From here on there are two separate one-way roads that cross the lake by bridges symmetrically placed on either side of the central axis, and that join one another again about 800 m. further on, once they passed the hilltop that lies in between. This rather scenic feature seems to have been planned to endow special significance to the hilltop site in the middle, where we presently find the Palazzo dello Sport, but originally the Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce (Palace of Water and Light) was planned. A park was to be laid out in three sides of it, towards the lake, with water streaming down from fountains. The significance of this location was further enhanced since, in the second version of the master plan, it was highlighted by a gigantic arch that was to be built over it. (fig.9, 1, 10, 28) These architectural elements were to form the centrepiece of the visual spectacle that E42 was to become. I will return on these buildings later on in this article. All through the exhibition area, but particularly here, artificial light, fountains and music were to make the exhibition a dreamlike feast to senses. This was not unique, as earlier World’s fairs used the same instruments to make a deep impression on visitors, but the organization strove to surpass earlier exhibitions in this respect as well.59 Figure 9: Photograph of central axis (Via Imperiale) in a model of the first master plan, probably late 1937, in southerly direction. The grand arch, the Arco dell’Impero, was not part of the first design and was added later in 1937 (from: Archivio Storico di Eur SpA) 58 This obelisk was also intended as a homage to radio, Marconi’s main invention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Obelisk ; https://www.eurspa.it/it/asset-property/patrimonio/arte-edesign/opere-scultoree/obelisco-guglielmo-marconi (consulted 29-12-20) 59 Guidoni 1987, p.31; Godoli 1987, p.155; De Angelis 2014, pp.398-413. 19 Figure 10: Photograph of model of second version of E42’s master plan, summer 1938. In the central part of the picture are the pavilions of the most important foreign nations, sited along the central axis (from: Mariani 1987) Piacentini explained that the second version of the plan was based on the orthogonal grid-layout of ancient Roman colonial cities, in order to make it truly Italian in character.60 The main axis, the Via Imperiale, was the cardo, and the secondary perpendicular avenues were called decumani.61 Piacentini wrote that he was inspired by the Forum Romanum, “with to the left in the distance the Colosseum and the Capitol to the right”, by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Roman villas, by Versailles and Nancy.62 But it is very likely that he was also inspired by the Roman Piazza del Popolo, the Piazza San Pietro and the complex of the Via del Corso and the Vittoriano, as well as Caserta, Washington, Canberra, the Champs Elysees and Hendrik Christian Andersen’s project for a World Centre of Communication. Furthermore, the design must have been inspired by previous World’s fairs, among others the ones in Paris, San Francisco, Berlin, Barcelona, Brussels, and New York.63 All in all, there are elements of ancient Roman and Greek planning, barocque scenography and from the City Beautiful movement. The most prominent parts refer to monumental city planning and palatial environments, while the more peripheral parts are more indebted to examples from the layout of (theme) parks. It is clear that monumentality was of primary importance in the basic structure of the layout. The central axis truly is the spine of the whole structure. This is clearly visible from its straight alignment, 60 Guidoni 1987, p.33. According to Guidoni, the main motive for Piacentini to write this was to satisfy the regime, with its ideology of romanità. 61 In a unspecified document called “Informazioni Generali sull’e.42” which describes the 1938 version of the plan, printed in Mariani 1987, pp.185-186. 62 Beese 2016, p.309; Ortolani 2006, p.35. Piacentini wrote in 1940 that he wanted to renew the tradition of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Roman villas, ‘without forgetting Versailles and Nancy’. (Ortolani 2006, p.35) 63 Beese 2016, pp.308-318. It is likely that Piacentini was inpired by The American Vitruvius: An Architects' Handbook of Civic Art by Werner Hegemann and Elbert Peetz of 1922. (Monclús Fraga & Oyón Bañales 2001, p.60). Andersen proposed his scheme for a World City of Communication to Mussolini in 1926 and temporarily aroused his enthusiasm. (see: Etlin 1991, pp.501-513; Sidoni 2019, ch.II) He proposed it again specifically in raletion to E42 on 23 Octobre 1936. (Mariani 1987, p.31) On previous World’s fairs: Godoli 1987; Beese 2016, pp.63-80. 20 its great width and central position, and emphasized by the architecture of the piazzas, the obelisk, the Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce (with fountains and waterfalls in front) and the grand arch. Architectural style Much has been written on the architecture of the various permanent buildings that were (to be) erected for the exposition and beyond; particularly about the style of their appearance and their position in the confrontation of rationalism (or modernism) versus classicism (or traditionalism/monumentalism/academic) in Italy in the 1930’s. Ever since this period, the historiography of Italian architecture in the interbellum has been dominated by a focus on architectural style. Historians and architects alike, seem to have been more or less obsessed with the dichotomy rationalism versus classicism. In its discourse in the second half of the 20th century, the first was mostly presented as the moral superior while the second was more or less ‘dismissed’ as being the truly fascist and hence reprehensible.64 It has taken many years of debate and research to get a more objective view on the position of the young rationalist architects in fascism and of the attitude of Mussolini and his regime towards rationalist architecture. After the fall of the regime, architects and art historians have tried to argue for several decades that modernist architecture simply could not have been fascist, mainly on the basis of the gross simplifications that fascism was nationalistic and therefore reactionary and on the political right, whereas modernist architecture was labelled international, revolutionary and on the political left. Since the 1980’s, however, it has been clearly argumented that this is not a correct interpretation. Publications based on new research have gradually clarified that many of the young rationalist architects were active, often even ardent, supporters of fascism, and that they regarded their revolutionary modernist work as truly consistent with revolutionary fascist ideology, although they generally concealed and even denied that in the post-fascist period. At present, it is clear that Mussolini’s regime employed every architectural style it wanted, as long as it would fit its various functional, representational, symbolical and propagandistic goals. Different styles were employed for different purposes, or even for the same purpose.65 In the general project-description for E42 of 1937, Vittorio Cini prescribed that the permanent buildings were to be built in “the definitive style of our era”. This “E42-style” was to “obey to the criteria of grandiosity and monumentality”. The “sense of Rome, which is synonymous to eternity and universality” was to prevail, guaranteeing “that the style will not be aged after fifty or hundred years”. So it was decided that their architecture should be timeless and impressive, and this appears to have almost implicitly meant a choice for classicist monumentalism referring to ancient imperial Rome. The temporary buildings, on the other hand, were allowed to be “more daring and futuristic”.66 Marcello Piacentini has often been taken for the evil genius behind these stylistic prescriptions from Cini, as he supposedly meant to degrade the rationalists in the design team (Pagano, Vietti, Piccinato) and grab power, in a discourse that sometimes even tended to simplify it all down to a sort of duel between the academic Marcello Piacentini (in an Albert-Speerian role) and the rationalist Giuseppe Pagano (in the role of the rebellious hero and eventual martyr). Piacentini certainly did aspire the role of master planner of this project and of the regime in general, and there can be no doubt that he was an opportunist who used contacts in high places that made him receive important commissions not only from the fascist regime, but also by the liberal and Christian-democrat governments that came before and after. But by now it has become clear that his position was not so 64 Ghirardo 1980; Ciucci 1989. Ghirardo 1980; Ciucci 1989; Etlin 1991, p.XXIII, 165-599; Griffin 2007, pp.219-249; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.12-17, 422-423. 66 Ferrara, 1987, p.80; Guidoni 1987, pp.36-71. 65 21 much antithetical to the rationalists, but rather intermediary between modernism and classicism, between renewal and tradition, seeking to give various architects, young and old, and different styles their appropriate place within the whole.67 It is my opinion, however, that the strong focus on style may have drawn attention away from other interesting aspects of fascist architecture and the layout of E42 in particular. It almost seems as if (art) historians writing on Italian architecture under fascist rule have been ‘blinded by style’, or rather, by the discussion over style.68 So, I will no longer dwell on that subject here, as it already has received too much attention in my opinion. What I do want to dwell on is the symbolic significance of various elements of the layout of E42, particularly its orientation and its connection to the existing city. ORIENTATION OF E42’S CENTRAL AXIS Since the whole spatial layout for E42 was so clearly focused on its axis, the first questions that sprang to my mind when I first saw it, was: why this utter focus on a central axis and where is it directed at? To me it seems highly relevant to ask whether there is a special significance in this axis. I think it has, and I believe the significance may lie in its direction. As mentioned above, the central axis was a basic element in the design already in the very first sketches of early 1937. Unfortunately, it is not explicitly explained by the planners why it was such an elemental feature in the design, but it is highly likely that it must have been thought as part of the new main road that was to connect Rome to the coast.69 Nor is it explained how its direction was determined. Rome had a long tradition in laying out important roads in a straight line towards focus points: for instance Via Flaminia towards the Capitoline hill in the Republican era, the new roads of Sixtus V linking the main churches of the city in the 16th century, Via Nazionale between the Capitoline hill and Sta. Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri at the Baths of Diocletian in the liberal period, Via dell’ Impero between Piazza Venezia and the Colloseum (see below) and Via della Conciliazione towards Saint Peter’s, both in the fascist period (after various earlier plans). Hence, it seems highly improbable that the orientation of E42’s backbone was ‘accidental’, simply being the result of topographical conditions or being a secondary outcome of decisions concerning other elements of the design. It is clear that the position and orientation of the axis did not fit well with the natural 67 Ciucci 1989; Ghirardo 1980, p.116; Beese 2016, pp.13-16. I find it difficult to understand why this subject has been given so much attention over and over again. Is this because architects and art historians, in the second half of the 20th century, still felt the urge to argue for a definite style for the present and the future? In any case, it has a lot to do with the ambition of exonerating modernism at large (not just architecture or art) from the role it had played in fascism (and other totalitarian projects). (Griffin 2007) 69 In an earlier study-plan for the regional development towards the coast, of December 1936, we find a very sketchy laout for the exposition area in which there is no central axis and in which a new road to the coast is led arount the area along the southeastern edge, partly following the Via Laurentina. (depicted in Guidoni 1987, pp.26-27) There is another very sketchy version of this regional plan, which might be a preliminary study for this study-plan in which the exposition areas at Tre Fontane and Ostia are indicated. Here two new roads are drawn through the Tre Fontane-area, converging further southwestward: one coming from a new eastern road that may be regarded as a preliminary Via Imperiale, indicated as ‘Variante per Quartiere Appia’, and one from the bend of the Tiber, where the Via Ostiense and the newly planned road from Trastevere meet. (depicted in Mariani 1987, between pp.17-18) 68 22 relief70, and it seems unlikely that the motive for the specific position of the axis was simply that it would be merely through the middle of the area.71 Piacentini, being the main planner of E42, had already designed the layout of the Esposizione internazionale d’arte in Rome in 1911, early in his long career.72 This exposition was situated at the (then) northern margin of Rome, the present quarter Della Vittoria. The layout of this area was also focused on one main axis, which was clearly oriented on the river Tiber, perfectly perpendicular to it. This was not an uncommon feature, that can be found for instance in Rome in the Court of Justice and the Prati-area behind, and in the World’s fair-area in Paris. A similar orientation could have been chosen for E42 as well, as it is sited very near to the riverbank. But this was not the case. So how was the place and direction of the central axis determined? In the primary and secondary literature on the spatial layout of E42, this question was never explicitly addressed, for as far as I have found. This is rather strange, as the axis is such a pregnant feature in the overall plan. If anything is mentioned about the orientation in the historiographic literature on E42, it is -more or less implicitly- that the axis was directed either at the centre of the city or towards the sea/the coast.73 Orientation towards the centre of Rome It certainly would have made sense to direct E42’s axis at the centre of Rome. It is more or less common with periferal developments around cities of such prominence to direct them at the centre of the city, if only for communication purposes, with roads and railways leading towards the city centre. And in fact, the axis of E42 can be described as being roughly pointed towards the ancient parts of the city. It would seem obvious, however, to have directed it at the heart of the city, which was Piazza Venezia.74 Next to this piazza one could find the most prominent monument of all of Italy, the Vittoriano, as well as the Capitoline hill with the city-hall, and of course the office of Benito Mussolini in Palazzo Venezia.75 Nearby here were also the Quirinal (the then royal palace) and the Palazzo Montecitorio (the house of parliament) located. Since 1911, enormous crowds gathered on Piazza Venezia on many occassions to commemorate the unification of the country, to remember the sacrifices and victory in the Great War and, from 1929 on, to hear and see Mussolini orate on the balcony outside his office. Piazza Venezia’s centrality was enhanced strongly under the fascist regime, as it was made more monumental by enlarging and symmetricalizing its layout, and by the construction of new roads The place and direction of the axis do not provide the ‘easiest’ solution with respect to the existing topography of the site; rather the opposite. The natural relief was not made use of to provide a relatively gentle slope for the avenue. In fact some of the steepest slopes were in the path of the axis, for which a lot of earthwork had to be carried out. This is evident from the the study-sketches of early 1937 with the relief of the terrain. (see: Mariani 1987, pp.17, 19) 71 This is implicitly suggested in Lupano 1990, p.135. Furthermore, the place and direction of the axis were not chosen to create a perfect symmetry for the layout of the piazza to the northeast of the exposition area, with respect to the three main roads coming from different parts of the city that were intended to converge there. If that would have been the case, the axis would have had te be directed some degrees further southward. 72 It regarded the Ethnographic Exposition of the International Exhibition of Art in Romem, which was part of the 1911 World’s fair in Turin and Rome, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Italian Kingdom. (see: Beese 2016, pp.64-66; http://www.idea.mat.beniculturali.it/museo-civilta-mnatp/la-storia/la-mostra-del-1911) 73 For instance: Quilici 2014, p.230; Kallis 2014, p.245. 74 Mussolini himself actually used to call Piazza Venezia the ‘heart’ of the city, after he had moved his offices there in 1929. (Baxa 2010, p.90) 75 Kostof 1973, pp.13, 57-58; Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998; Sidoni 2019, pp.100-103 70 23 leading to the coast (Via del Mare, 1925-1928) and to the Colosseum (Via dell’Impero, 1924-1932) and from there onwards to E42 and the coast in the form of the Via Imperiale (see below).76 However, Piazza Venezia is not the focal point of E42’s axis. It easily could have been if the planners had wanted to77, but it clearly isn’t, as the northern direction of the axis is oriented about ten angular degrees further eastward. Another option for directing the axis more or less towards the centre that would seem like an obvious solution in urbanistic sense, would have been to align it with the Via Ostiense, the main existing entrance road into the city in the area south of the Tiber. Since this road was directed almost straight towards the centre, just a fraction eastward from Piazza Venezia, this would have been a relatively simple way to achieve a monumental connection with the centre. Apparently, though, this solution was not chosen. Orientation towards the sea The other obvious direction in which the axis may have been oriented, was the sea. Mussolini was keen to connect Rome to the sea and was never shy to ventilate his opinion on that subject. As already mentioned above, he declared already in 1925: “[…] the third Rome will expand over other hills, along the banks of the sacred river, down to the beaches of the Thyrrhenian Sea […]”.78 This was at least partly the reason for the choice of location of E42, and must also have partly determined the direction of its backbone. But to direct it towards the sea, any direction between west and south would have been possible. If the sea (or the coast / the ‘beaches’) would have been the main point of orientation it would seem logical and most clearly ‘speaking’ to direct it perpendicular to the coastline. But that is not what was done. The direction is about fifteen degrees northward from being perpendicular to the coastline. (cf. fig.2) Orientation towards Villa Torlonia So, I tried to find out whether there are locations where the axis might have been oriented on. To this purpose I used the internet map-appliance Google Earth to start with. I used the measurementtool to draw a line from the midpoint of the main axis on the southwestern end to the midpoint on the northeastern end, and then prolonged it and ‘flew’ along towards the sea and in the other direction, over the city. Towards the sea I did not find any locations that seem to have relevance to this matter, but in the city I did. The direction of the axis leads in north-northeasterly direction over the baths of Caracalla, passing between the Colloseum and the Lateran, over the Termini railway station, and then reaches a beautiful park in which the sumptuous Villa Torlonia lies. And it is here, at a distance of 10 kilometres from E42, that I found a possible relevance for the orientation of the axis, since Villa Torlonia was the residence of Benito Mussolini and his family from 1925 to 1942. The villa originally was a possession of the ancient Roman Colonna family, but was purchased by the wealthy Roman banker Giovanni Torlonia, ‘the banker of the pope’, in 1797. He had it renovated and restyled in neo-classical Roman style by architect Giuseppe Valadier in 1802-1806. Over the years, its park was enriched with buildings, garden ornaments and follies full of references to Roman antiquity, foremost to Villa Hadriana in Tivoli. Villa Torlonia has been designated as ‘the last project of the Roman patronage’.79 (fig.10) The villa was hired out to Mussolini in 1925, for the symbolical price of one lira per year, by Giovanni Torlonia (1873-1938), who was sympathetic to Mussolini and his regime. It is not known how this arrangement was specifically established. But it is clear that Mussolini was fond of the place. It must have been convenient to him as it was relatively close to his 76 Kostof 1973, pp.57-65; Sidoni 2019, ch.II, IV. See below, pp.48-49. 78 As cited in Marcello 2018, p.376. See also Kostof 1973, p.35. See above p.11. 79 Kirk 2005, pp.134-142; Campitelli 1986; Bartolini 2018, pp.165-167. 77 24 office, the train station, and the airfield. It is likely that he appreciated the villa for its classical Roman character, which could make him feel like a new Roman emperor.80 In the course of time, many important and influential persons were guests in the villa and its gardens: for instance Pope Gregory XVI, King Ludwig I of Bavaria as guests of the Torlonia’s and Giovanni Agnelli and Mahatma Ghandi as Mussolini’s company. Figure 11: Villa Torlonia, its park and outbuildings, at 4 June 1842, when the first Obelisco Torlonia was erected. Engraving by Gaetano Cottafavi, 1842. (from: Gasparoni Francesco, Sugli obelischi Torlonia nella Villa Nomentana. Ragionamento storico-critico. Roma 1842) The view is from the Via Nomentana, towards the south The prolonged line of the axis of E42 to Villa Torlonia as it is traced with Google Earth is depicted in fig.12. Working with Google Earth as precise as I could, I found that the straight line along the centre of E42’s axis leads through the park of Villa Torlonia, passing through the western corner of the Casina delle Civette outbuilding, about 135 m. to the east of the centre of the main villa where Mussolini lived (consulted 22-11-20). I have checked this in Open Street Map, and this confirmed what I saw on Google Earth (consulted 22-11-20, see fig.13 and https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_543137 ). When we assume that E42 was indeed directed at the Duce’s residence, this may be attributed to inexactness in determining the exact direction of the axis or, alternatively, it could be assumed that the referencepoint for orientation was not the villa itself, but a location in its garden.81 I would like to invite every reader to repeat my experiment, in Google Earth, Open Street Map or any other application or method. 80 Bartolini 2018, pp.165-167. The Torlonia became astoundingly rich in the 19th century, and were among the most powerul people in Rome by that time. When Mussolini moved into the villa, Giovanni Torlonia and his family moved into the Casina delle Civette, which was a kind of folly-house in the garden. Giovanni had become senator in 1920 and financed many of the reclamations, that were so dear to Mussolini and his regime. In 1937 he was nominated Minister of State. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torlonia (in English; consulted 20-10-2020), https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Torlonia_(politico) (in Italian; consulted 20-10-2020)) 81 If the line was drawn staight through the centre of the villa, this would mean a deviation of its direction, measured from the point 10 km. away, just north of the lake in the centre of E42’s axis, of 0.77 angular degrees. 25 Figure 12: Main axis of E42 (EUR below left) prolonged over Rome to Mussolini’s residence at Villa Torlonia (above right), at a distance of c.10 km. (yellow line drawn by author in Google Earth, 22-112020) 26 Figure 13: Main axis of E42 prolonged over Rome to Mussolini’s residence at Villa Torlonia, at a distance of c.10 km. (blue line drawn by author in Open Street Map in map https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_543137 , 22-11-2020) Above: from E42 (below) to Villa Torlonia (above). Below left: detail at Parco Torlonia. Below right: detail at E42’s lake and Palazzo dello Sport Motivation for orientation towards Villa Torlonia As far as I know, there are no primary sources that mention the spatial relation between Villa Torlonia and E42. That leaves us with the question: is this spatial relation a coincidence, or is there any intended meaning? I think there may well be, and I will try to make it plausible below. Why could the main axis of E42 consciously have been pointed at Mussolini’s villa? I think the reason is what we might call ‘directional symbolism’. The orientation of the axis would obviously 27 signify that there was an important relation between the two: E42 was aimed from the villa or at the villa, as the Duce’s residence was either a ‘source’ or an ‘end’. There is an obvious reason why Mussolini’s residence would be made the focal point of E42, as the fascist regime instituted a cult of personality around its leader, which was highly ritualised, even to the point of being a lay religion. In this, the figure of Mussolini was purposely mystified: in propaganda he was often even depicted as a kind of omnipresent demigod.82 With regard to E42, this is clearly illustrated by a passage from the 1939 program of the exhibitionion of the Mostra della Civiltà Italiana in the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana: "MUSSOLINI resumes the deepest aspirations of our race… The history of almost two millenia ends with him. This is the first time after Augustus that Rome has a universal political mission. The celebration of our leader must have a highly spiritual value."83 Hence, the residence of this leader may also have had a special spiritual value. The relation of E42’s axis to Mussolini’s residence can be compared to older urban designs, such as the central axis in the town of Versailles that was aimed at the palace of Louis XIV, or to other similar situations where the landscape was re-shaped with streets, canals and sightlines aimed at ruler’s residences. In this way, the residences were given a central place in the landscape that was meant to refer to the central place of a kind of cosmic relevance of the main inhabitant. Almost like the source of a river or a lightsource emanating rays. Piacentini did in fact mention Versailles and Nancy (referring to the Place Stanislas) as examples for E42 in a general sense. With this, he may have slyly referred to the orientation on the ruler’s residence in these two cases as example for E42.84 There is one more relevant example however, which was much closer in time and space: the Via dell’Impero, connecting Piazza Venezia in a straight line to the Colloseum. This grand avenue was built under the fascist regime and inaugurated by the Duce in 1932. The construction of this wide avenue has received an immense amount of scholarly attention for three reasons: while a whole neighbourhood was rigourously and unforgivingly demolished to make space; while its construction had many archaeological implications as it went along with the excavations of the imperial fora and their exposition to the public; and while it had a great symbolical value to the regime as a parade ground in the very heart of Rome.85 (fig.14) Gentile 1990, pp.236-238. “In 1928 Paolo Orano wrote that 'Mussolinism is a religion, because faith in il Duce was 'the preparatory phase in Italian religiousness', in which patriotism had to be 'intensified to the point of mysticism; and holiness, martyrdom and belief must be considered as powerful forces in the building of civic consciousness'.“ (Gentile 1990, p.237) See also: Gundle, Duggan & Pieri 2013. With regard to Mussolini’s propagandized omnipresence, see Falasco Zamponi 1997, pp.78-88. 83 Mostra della Civiltà Italiana, 1939, translation from Notaro 2000, p.20. In the words of Notaro: “[…] the whole place was supposed to be embraced by the body, the mind, in a word the persona of il Duce himself, whose monument [an equestrian statue] should be viewed by the visitors both at the entrance and at the exit of the Mostra della Civiltà Italiana, since he was the beginning and the end of everything.” (Notaro 2000, p.20) 84 Ortolani 2006, p.35, referring to Piacentini 1940, by which he probably intends: Marcello Piacentini, Classicità dell'E 42. In: Civilta, I, I (1940), pp. 22-30. P.28. 85 Kostof 1973, pp.60-63; Cederna 1979, pp.124-150; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.119-127. 82 28 Figure 14: Via dell’Impero, avenue laid out through the centre of Rome under the fascist regime, inaugurated in 1932. Photograph with parade in the 1930’s, looking in southeasterly direction from the Vittoriano towards the Colloseum. (Archivio Istituto Luce) Figure 15: Via dell’Impero, with Mussolini’s office in Palazzo Venezia in its heartline. To the left is the Forum Romanum; in the centre above is the National Monument to Victor Emmanuel II, the Vittoriano.Postcard c. 1960 29 However, there is one element of eminent importance that seems to have been largely overlooked, or at least underestimated, in the literature: this avenue is aimed exactly at the office of Benito Mussolini. The balcony outside his office, from where he delivered his most important speeches, is just a fraction off the perfect alignment of the axis of the Via dell’Impero. (fig.15) So, from his balcony and his office window, Mussolini could look straight down the new road to the Colloseum, among others to see parades moving towards him. So here we find a similar ‘directional symbolism’ as I hypothesize for E42’s axis. I think, however, that the practical argument of visibility from his office was not the primary motive; in the light of the personality cult around the Duce it seems inevitable that orientation towards his office had a higly important aspect of symbolic meaning. I have not been able to find out whether or not there is proof that the avenue was purposely oriented in this way. But it is almost impossible to imagine it was not, and that it was just a coincidence.86 My point is, of course, that there is a clear similarity to the orientation of E42’s central axis. The one straight road of great symbolic importance is pointed at the Duce’s office, the other at his residence. He had no new office or residence built for himself: in that sense we must grant him a kind of modesty which is not easy to reconcile with his general character. In the fact that enormous urban structures appear to have been aimed at these locations, we don’t find such modesty though.87 There is one big difference though: Via dell’Impero has a direct visual connection to the office, whereas in E42’s Via Imperiale there is a spatial directional relation but no direct visual relation. Mussolini could observe anything going on on the Via dell’Impero from his office; but not E42 from his residence. The symbolic relation, however, is very similar.88 86 It might seem a coincidence, as the Palazzo Venezia with its balcony had been there since ages, and a street from Piazza Venezia to Via Cavour (and later onwards to the Colloseum and the Lateran) had been proposed already in 1873. But it certainly is no coincidence that Mussolini had his office housed here and that he chose to make his many speeches, that were attended by enormous crows, from this balcony and that the plans for the road were redrawn under Mussolini’s rule to have it straightened, re-aligned and widened. 87 The idea of urbanism to celebrate the Duce’s persona by focusing on a building where Mussolini used to stay, was probably first realised in Predappio, the home town of Mussolini in the hilly inland near Forli. From 1925 onwards, this sleepy town was partly transplaced and extended into Predappio Nuova. Mussolini took a keen interest in the project, in order to stimulate the local economy, but also in order to make it a monument to himself (which it actually turned into, when it became a neo-fascist pilgrimage site). Among others, the simple house where he had lived was given a central place by aligning streets on it (Via Mazzoni, Via A. Gramsci (!), and probably a third street to the south, which did not really materialize) and having a semicircular piazza laid out in front of it, with monumental stairs leading up to the house. Mussolini was keen on keeping the house as unadorned as it had been, in order to demonstrate his simple roots. The project was designed by architect Florestano di Fausto. See: Bodenschatz 2011, pp.325-327; https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predappio (consulted 27-11-20); http://www.atriumroute.eu/heritage/sites/predappio (consulted 27-11-20); https://ereview.it/proli-predappio-paese-del-Duce (consulted 17-1-21). 88 There is one other piece of fascist urbanism in Rome, which is possibly similar in its directional symbolism: the Piazzale dell’Impero (presently Piazzale/Viale del Foro Italico), which was designed by Enrico del Debbio and Luigi Moretti and built in 1927-1933. This monumental scenic piazza was overtly dedicated to Mussolini and fascism and their triumphs. Its longitudinal form stretches from a fountain in the form of a globe in the northwest, to the Mussolini-obelisk in the southeast. At first sight, it seems to ‘simply’ have been directed perpendicular to the river Tiber, but it is odd that it is not accurately aligned with the bridge in front of it. When the axis from the globe to the obelisk is prolonged, the line does reach the park of Villa Torlonia garden at its southwestern entrance after 5,04 km. I have checked this in Google Earth, as well as in Open Street Map. See https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_640810#14/41.9245/12.4838 As with E42’s axis, there is no direct visual relation between the piazzale and the villa or its garden, and I have not found any reference to a spatial relation by orientation in primary and secondary literature. Unlike the case of E42, however, I can not think of a possible motivation why it would have been kept secret. For that reason, as well as for its larger deviation from being pointed at the main house, I think this conjectural case of 30 So, the Via dell’Impero and E42’s axis both seem to have been directed at locations where Mussolini normally worked and lived. The intention of this may have been, that people moving along these axes were in a metaphysical sense connected to the Duce, with or without knowing so.89 By walking the Via dell’Impero the masses were to some extent united to their leader in his office or on his balcony, visually and symbolically, as the undoubted leader of the impero was, of course, Mussolini. ‘Imperator’ was not his official title, but in his aspirations to be likened to ancient emperors, particularly Augustus, and the cultus that was created around him, Mussolini was unmistakably the modern Roman emperor. By moving along E42’s axis, the public was also united to Mussolini, but to a somewhat lesser extent, due to the absence of a direct visual relation with his residence, and by not having explicit material references to Mussolini there, such as the Mussolini obelisk. This absence of a direct visual relation or any explicit relation between E42’s axis and the Duce, was not accidental or a matter of imperfection. I believe that the relation was kept hidden on purpose, and this was a crucial difference with Via dell’Impero. As I will argue further below, it is likely that this hidden meaning was intended to be disclosed only after the World’s fair, which did not happen, eventually, as history took a different path than Mussolini and his fellows had planned for it to take. I think that E42’s axis may have been pointed at Mussolini’s residence, similar to the way churches are commonly oriented on sunrise and thereby the place of origin of the second coming of Christ, or just as mosques are pointed at the holy city of Mecca as the place of origin of Islam and its prophet. The direction points at its ‘source’ and its centre of reverence. In a similar way E42 was meant to be symbolically permeated with the power that emanated from the Duce, and at the same time its orientation may have been intended to act as a focus of reverence. Feasibility of orientation towards Villa Torlonia One practical matter which olso needs to be adressed is the questions of whether and how it was technically possible to direct the axis to a location ten kilometres away. This was not straightforwardly simple, since there was no direct visibility between E42 and Villa Torlonia, while there were higher hills, buildings and trees in between. The classical method would be visual orientation. This could be done by creating a column of smoke or launching a gas-balloon in windstill weather at the villa, or erecting a column of light there with a searchligth at night.90 A base point would be marked (by a stake for instance) on the southern end of the planned axis on a high point of the project-site (which would probably be at the place of the present Palazzo dello Sport in EUR). From there, vision with the naked eye or with a sigthing instrument would be used to have another stake planted in between this basepoint and the column of smoke or light or the balloon. The axis could be extended to either end by placing more stakes further on, determining their place by looking straight along the earlier stakes. directional symbolism can not be motivated adequately, and therefore should be considered coincidence, rather than purposely intended. 89 Something similar is suggested by Tymkiw, with regard to the Piazzale dell’Impero (presently Piazzale/Viale del Foro Italico). This is another showcase piece of Roman fascist urbanism, overtly dedicated to Mussolini, fascism and their triumphs. Tymkiw assumes that it was intended to achieve a metaphysical transposition of bodies moving over the piazza, linking them with the Duce. (Tymkiw 2019, pp.125-128) 90 A gas-balloon of the Italian military was actually used for making aerial photographs of the E42-area, probably in late 1936 or early 1937. (see photograph in Mariani 1987, p.33) The option of the column of light may seem unlikely, for working at nighttime would normally not be preferable, but it may be relevant that the theme of columns of light was one of the favourites of fascist architecture and propaganda (see also below on the faro (lighthouse), the fascio Agnelli and the Ara in E42). 31 Alternatively, the axis could be directed by use of an accurate map of Rome and a compass. This method was probably more liable to inexactness. A third option could have been the use of radiolocation, by use of a radiobeacon and a directional antenna.91 FURTHER MEANING IN E42’S ORIENTATION: IMPERIALISM AND DECEPTION I am afraid that the hypothetical meaning in E42’s orientation that I described above, is already more than enough to be deemed acceptable to many a reader. But still, I would like to add some more, as there may well be further intended symbolism in E42’s orientation. Here I mean the word ‘further’ in the double sense of ‘more meaning’ as well as of ‘more distance’. For this, we need to look the other way, and follow the central axis in south-southwesterly direction. There we arrive at the Tyrrhenian coast, where we recognize nothing especially relevant, apart from the coast and the sea, or ‘our sea’, as Mussolini used to say. But if we go still further, straight on and on for about 550 kilometres, we pass between Sicily and Sardinia and arrive at an other coast. The North-African coast of Tunisia. And nearby, we find a place that had a special relationship with Rome for a very long time: Carthage, which was succeeded by nearby Tunis as capital of the region. Orientation and technique Below, I will go into the more juicy subject of possible motives for the speculative orientation at this ‘goal’. But first I must present the dry facts as I have found them. Working with Google Earth again, the line of E42’s axis can be seen to arrive at Tunisia’s coast east of Ras Jebel after about 550 kilometres. Further on it passes by Tunis about 10 km. to the west of the city centre (the Medina), at about 594 km. from E42. (fig.16) When I tried to verify this in Open Street Map, there appeared to be a divergence: the line extending from E42s’axis lies even further westward, passing by the Medina at about 18.2 km.92 (fig.17 and http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_543149) Ancient Carthage is still further off, as it is located about 16 km. northeast of the Medina of Tunis.93 So, there is a considerable distance between the line and the relevant points at which I believe it may have been pointed: either Tunis or Carthage. This deviation, however, is not so much as to make the supposition inacceptable, considering that E42’s axis was laid out at a distance of about 600 km. away, and only being 3 km. long in itself. The difference in angular degrees measuring from the ‘other endpoint’ at Villa Torlonia (604 km. away) would be 0,95 / 1,85 to the Medina of Tunis and Carthage in Google Earth), respectively 1,73 / 2,59 to the Medina of Tunis and Carthage in Open Street Map. As before, I would like to invite every reader to repeat my experiment, in Google Earth, Open Street Map or any other application or method. 91 Radiolocation came to be used for military purposes in Word War I, being developed by among others the Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi, who experimented with directional antennas already in 1906. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smart_antennas (consulted 26-04-2020). It may be relevant that Marconi was an important figure to the regime, as he was a highly succesfull inventor and businessman, who was internationally admired. He was given various diplomatic and academic appointments by the regime and he came to be honoured in the axis of E42 by the erection of the Obelisco Marconi (see below n.180). 92 See map on: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_543149 (6-4-2021). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out what causes this difference or which instrument is more geometrically accurate. 93 Carthage is about 27 km. off the line extending from E42’s axis, according to my measurement in Open Street Map and 19.5 km. in Google Earth (measure to the Roman amphitheatre of Carthage). 32 Figure 16: E42’s axis prolonged to Villa Torlonia in the north and Tunis / Carthage in the south, at a distance of about 600 km. (yellow line drawn in Google Earth map by author, 6-4-2021). Above right: detail at Villa Torlonia. Bottom left: detail at E42 (presently EUR). Bottom right: detail at Tunis/Carthage 33 Figure 17: E42’s axis prolonged to Villa Torlonia in the north and Tunis / Carthage in the south in Open Street Map (6-4-2021). Bottom right: detail at Rome. Bottom left: detail in Tunisia. See: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_543149 Regarding the technique that may have been employed to direct E42’s axis at Tunis/Carthage94, it is not possible that it was pointed by visual orientation, as may have been done with orientation on Villa Torlonia, since the distance was far to great and the curvature of the earth surface would 94 Further below I will explain why I use this double toponym. 34 prevent sighting anyway.95 I have not been able to find out whether or not radiolocation96 was actually possible over such a great distance, but I suspect that it was very difficult at least. That leaves us to surveying, either indirectly by the use of existing accurate maps and an accurate compass, or by calculation of the geographical positions and their relative position. This method had been used ever since the 14th century by sailors to determine their direction at sea, and it had gradually become more accurate as instruments, data of calculated positions and maps became more precise and liable. Unfortunately, I have not found any data on the accuracy of this method for the Mediterranean by the 1930’s, but I am convinced that it was possible to calculate the direction of the axis by this method with the accurateness that appears to have been achieved at E42. Further below, I will explain how the idea of the double orientation of the axis towards Villa Torlonia and Tunis/Carthago may have affected the choice of location of the project. Why was E42 directed at Tunis/Carthage? Even when we know that it was technically possible that E42 was willingly directed at Tunis/Carthage, it may still just be a coincidence. Here, I will argue that it is not. Mussolini never made a secret of his ambition to rule over Tunisia. He was inspired by ancient Roman imperialism and was very much aware of the symbolical historic relevance of the Roman defeat of Carthage. Furthermore, he was annoyed by French rule over Tunisia and over the Mediterranean to the west of Sicily by its Tunesian naval base at Bizerte. Tunisia One should understand that Tunisia had been on Mussolini’s and many Italian’s minds for several decades. Already in 1871, the Italian nationalist politician Giuseppe Mazzini promoted a colonizing expedition, and since the late 19th century tens of thousands of Italians had emigrated to Tunisia. By 1936, 35% of all Tunisians were of Italian descent. Many Italians, foremost Mussolini and his fascist fellows, had felt insulted by the international treaties of Bardo (1881), Versailles (1918) and Saint Germain (1919), by which Tunisia was handed to France as a protectorate, and by which Italian claims to other territories, foremost in Dalmatia, were ignored. The disappointing results of these last two treaties, led the Italian effort in World War I to be regarded as a ‘mutilated victory’ by Italian nationalists. The resulting feeling of insult had actually been one of the prime movers for the rise of fascism from the very beginning. Discrimation of Italian Tunesians under French rule added to resistance to French policy of assimilation and contributed to the popularity of Mussolini, as he complaints in their interest on the international political stage.97 Mussolini also wanted to rule over Tunisia, because he regarded this country as ‘one of the bars of the prison cell that Italy was locked into’ by Anglo-French domination in the Mediterranean. His plan was to break all these bars.98 Furthermore, the axis Rome – Tunis also may have been understood as Due to the curvature of the earth’s surface over the distance of about 600 km., a sighting point would have to be more than 28 km. high to be visible at all. 96 See above, p.32. 97 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Tunisians ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Empire; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilated_victory (consulted 20-6-2020) 98 In february 1939 Mussolini spoke to the Grand Council of Fascism to clarify his geopolitical strategy for the development of the empire. He explained that although Italy is in the centre of the Mediterranean, it had no space to move freely, since the sea had become its prison with Corsica, Tunisia, Malta and Cyprus as the AngloFrench bars, and Gibraltar and Suez the guards that blocked Italy from free access to the oceans. (Smith 1976, p.139; Sidoni 2019, ch.V. p.161) In Tunesia, it was particularly the French navy base at Bizerte that bothered Mussolini. Eventually, in 1940, he demanded France to hand over Tunisia, Corsica and Nice to Italy, under the threat of war. In late 1942 Italy seized Tunisia with German support. Allied troops subsequently conquered the 95 35 part of the geopolitical axis Germany-Italy, that was intended to be prolonged deep into Africa.99 (fig.18) Figure 18: German-Italian axis prolonged into Africa via Tunis (central downward arrow). ‘Geopolitical synthesis’, from the journal Geopolitica 1939-1942. (from: Atkinson 1995)German-Italian axis prolonged into Africa via Tunis. ‘Geopolitical synthesis’, from the journal Geopolitica 1939-1942. (from: Atkinson 1995) Carthage Above, I have been using the double toponym Tunis/Carthage. This is because Tunis and Carthage are both relevant for my argument, and since they are so closeby on the immense surface of our planet, I have found it convenient to use this double toponym. The relevance of Tunis, as capital of Tunisia, has been argued above. The relevance of Carthage was lain in historical reference. Phoenician Carthage had been the most prominent of ancient Rome’s adversaries, being an empire and a civilisation in itself, until it was defeated in the Second Punic War by Scipio Africanus in 202BC, after which the Mediterranean had practically become Mare nostrum to the Romans. The victory over Carthago was generally considered to have been the key to Roman dominance in the Mediterranean. There is no doubt that Mussolini and his fellows were well aware of this part of Roman history. The Duce referred to ancient Carthage and the Punic Wars many times during his political career. In the late thirties, for instance, he compared Great Britain to Carthage, and spoke of fighting the ‘Fourth Punic War’.100 Even when Italy was well on its way to a disastrous defeat in World War II, Mussolini referred to Carthage for a hopeful historical parallel, telling the Italians that Rome country in May 1943. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Tunisians , consulted 3-11-20) 99 I do not know in what measure this was on Mussolini’s mind, but the idea was certainly alive in Italy in the 1930’s, as can be read from articles in the erstwhile journal Geopolitica. See: Atkinson 1995, specifically figs.6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 7.1. 100 Nelis 2007; Bosworth 2011, p.209; Giuman & Parodo 2011, p.69. Already in 1925, Mussolini had held al lengthy lecture titled Roma antica sul mare on the history of ancient Roman naval power and the Punic wars, to act as example for the new Italy. (Benito Mussolini, Roma Anitica sul Mare. Milan 1926 ; text on http://www.adamoli.org/benito-mussolini/pag0378-15.htm ; consulted 20-8-21). 36 had almost been defeated in the Battle of Cannae before it turned the tables and vanquished Carthage in the Battle of Zama.101 Considering the symbolical historical meaning of Carthage, it is relevant to regard an important contemporary counterpart to E42 as a grand artistic project of imperialist propaganda. In the same period as plans were being made for the universal exposition, a movie was made in the Cinecittà cinema studio’s, which had just been built under Mussolini’s auspices about eight kilometres west of E42. It was a very expensive, almost megalomaniac enterprise, for which thousands of people and animals were employed and millions of Lire were swallowed. The movie was called Scipione l’Africano. (fig.19) It was released in 1937, when the first spatial designs for E42 were being drawn. It presents the story of Scipio the African, the Roman general who defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama (202BC) and hence determined the ultimate victory in the second Punic War. The movie told a shamelessly propagandistic story, as it is obvious that ancient Imperial Rome should be regarded as fascist Italy, and Scipio should be regarded as Mussolini, having conquered Ethiopia one year before. It is generally accepted that the movie was intended to legitimize this conquest.102 But it seems quite likely that it was also meant to legitimize the future seizure of Tunisia, since Carthage was in present Tunisia. So, in a sense, E42 can be regarded as a counterpart to this cinematographic enterprise.103 Like the movie, E42 also propagated fascist imperialism, specifically pointed at Tunis/Carthage, but then in a veiled manner. Further below, I will try to argue why it was veiled. There was one element, hoewever, that may have been intended to lift a tip of the veil. Near the main entrance to E42, at the piazza with the two exedrae, the facades of the two flanking palazzi were adorned with four sculptural reliefs symbolizing ‘The conquest of the seas’, ‘The fascist empire’, ‘The [Italian] maritime republics’ and ‘Rome against Carthage’. (fig.20) The symbolism of these reliefs is clearly imperialist in character, focusing on Italian maritime dominance in the Mediterranean.104 101 Speech 23 February 1941. See: Sidoni 2019, ch.V, pp.202-204. The text of this speech is to be found here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/mussolini-speech-discussing-the-war-in-rome-february-1941 102 Giuman & Parodo 2011. 103 It should be noted, that Mussolini is known to have claimed for both cinema and architecture to be the most powerful of all arts. (Cinema: Giuman & Parodo 2011, p.10; Sidoni 2019, ch.V, pp.68-80; architecture: Nicoloso 2008, p.84) It would be interesting to investigate in what measure Carthage was to play a role in the expositions that were planned for E42 in the expositions of the Civiltà Italiana, Civiltà Romana, Forze Armate or others. 104 Four epigraphs were to be placed above the reliefs, synthesizing the program of Roman expansion to the sea. (Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.477-478). Unfortunately I have not been able to find what the other epigraphs were to be. There is another element in the axis in the first piano regolatore of april 1937, that may have been meant as a symbol with a similar significance. It regards the building in the axis on the hill southwest of the lake, where we presently find the Palazzo dello Sport. (see fig. 5 and 6) In Pagano’s desciption of this first master plan, he described this peculiar building with its bent-strip-plan, which was to house the ‘grand pavilion of tourism and sports’, as an ‘edificio a vela’, which means ‘sail-like building’. (Lupano 1990, p.137, referring to G. Pagano, L’Esposizione Universale di Roma 1941-1942, in Casabella 114, 1937) If the intention of the form of this planned building was indeed te refer to a sail, then the groundform of the two roads that were to pass under this building, joining together in a pointed fashion both to the northeast (just before reaching the lake) and to he southwest, may well have been intended to symbolize the hull of a ship. If this is so, then the bending of the ‘sail’ idicates that it sailed in southwesternly direction. This can be read as a ship sailing from Rome to the sea, but possibly it may also be taken for a ship sailing to Carthage; possibly Scipio’s ship or Mussolini’s ship, or both at once, uniting past, present and intended future. The sail-like-building and the road layout were deleted respectively altered in Piacentini’s 1938 and later versions of the master plan. 37 Figure 19: Poster advertising the 1936 feature film Scipione l’Africano, and still from the movie in which Scipio is being hailed by the Romans for having conquered Carthage, implicitly depicted as predecessor to Mussolini Figure 20: Rome against Carthage (‘Roma contro Cartagine’), high relief by Giuseppe Mazzullo 1942, on the facade of the Palazzo INPS, facing E42’s axis at the entrance to the area. (from: www.wallksinrome.com) Imperialist spirit in E42 The reliefs mentioned above were one example of the many references to Roman and Italian imperialism. In fact, the plans for E42 were bathed in the spirit of imperialism right from the outset. I will briefly point out various elements of imperialist ideology that were to be found in the exhibition, as it was conceived. In the various plans for the expositions in the museums and the Italian pavilions in E42 the imperial theme was almost omnipresent as there were countless references to the Roman Empire of the past. The Museo della Civiltà Romana, for instance, was to house the permanent exhibition of the 38 Mostra Augustea della Romanità (‘Augustean exhibition of romanness’).105 Furthermore, one of the seven ‘cities’ which were to be accommodated in E42 was the Città dell’Africa Italiana, where the glory and benefits of Italian rule over Libia and Italian East Africa were to be demonstrated, mixed with romantic touches of couleur locale. Other elements of E42 that referred to ancient and modern Roman imperialism were the Mostra dell’Impero, the Mostra dell’Albania and the display of the excavations and restorations of the ancient Roman port of Ostia Antica.106 One of the main purposes of E42 was clearly to glorify all kinds of ‘Italian’ empires: the ancient Roman and the Roman catholic empires, the Pisan, Genovan and Venetian empires, and of course the fascist, or ‘new’, Roman empire.107 The ideological center of the exhibition was to be the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana (The Palace of Italian Civilisation). This palace was meant to be the main building of E42, destined to house the Exhibition of Italian Civilisation, which was designed to demonstrate that "without the military, political and spiritual achievements of this ancient, and yet miraculously young people, Europe would not exist and the world would be much less civilized".108 The characteristic cubic palazzo with its sobre series of arches, was not located at the main axis of E42, but it was nonetheless very prominent due to its location on the highest hilltop of the area, overlooking the Tiber valley. High up on its four facades it carried an inscription, the same on every side: “UN POPOLO DI POETI DI ARTISTI DI EROI / DI SANTI DI PENSATORI DI SCIENZIATI / DI NAVIGATORI DI TRASMIGRATORI” (“A NATION OF POETS, OF ARTISTS, OF HEROES / OF SAINTS, OF THINKERS, OF SCIENTISTS / OF SAILORS, OF EXPLORERS”). (fig.21) These words were spoken by the Duce on 2 October 1935 in a speech that was transmitted by radio and for which many people were mobilized to attend at Piazza Venezia.109 In this speech, Mussolini aggressively reacted to the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations, saying that “military sanctions would be replied by military action”. Thus, the speech was meant to legitimize the Ethiopian war, which was started by the Italian army the very next morning.110 The words that were chiselled into the facades describe the Italian people as a most cultured nation, naming professions and groups that refer to creativity, heroism, sanctity, wisdom, knowledge 105 This Augustean Exhibition had been on show for one year starting September 1937 in the Palazzo delle Esposizioni on Via Nazionale, as a celebration of the bimillenial of Mussolini’s great example, emperor Augustus. 106 Fioravanti 1987; Garin 1987. Various parts of the intended exposition were also to be exposed in the Mostra d’Oltremare in Naples, which was inaugurated in 1940. ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostra_d%27Oltremare , consulted 31-10-20) The excavations of Ostia Antica were largely motivated by the desire to put them on show in E42, especially functioning as demonstration of Rome’s ancient rule over the Mediterranean. (see document Informazioni Generali sull’E.42 undated but proabably 1938-1940, in Mariani 1987, p.186) 107 Notaro 2000. In the meeting of the Bureau International des Expositions over the request for the exhibition it was even stated that its theme would be the “valorising territorities and riches that are neglected until now”. It is noteworthy that this meeting was on 12 november 1935, about six weeks after Italy invaded Ethiopia, and that the Bureau appararently attached little value to the discussions in the Leaugue of Nations over sanctions against Italy. (Mariani 1987, p.17) It should be noted, however, that the celebration of imperialism was not unique to E42, as World’s fairs had glorified Western colonialism and imperialism ever since the ‘Great Exhibition’ in London of 1851. And this holds even stronger for the colonial exhibitions that were held, starting in Victoria, Australia in 1866. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_exhibition , consulted 31-10-20) 108 Garin 1987; citation from Notaro 2000, p.19, translated citation from: E. Cecchi, Il Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana. In: Civiltà I, 1941, pp.5–9. 109 Mussolini 1935; https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_della_Civilt%C3%A0_Italiana (consulted 3-11-20) 110 Bodenschatz 2011, p.25. The speech can be played from https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80033686 , the specific sentence can be heard at 14:00 (consulted 16-6-2020); https://www.britannica.com/event/Italo-Ethiopian-War-1935-1936 (consulted 3-11-20) 39 and adventurousness. With these words, it is more or less implicitly made a matter of natural consequence that the Italians had to go overseas to live and rule on the other end. In this specific case, I am inclined to think that it refers to a location from E42 about 600 kilometres straight down the road, where Mussolini would like them to further their peaceful civilising calling: at Tunis, formerly Carthage. One of the most obvious elements referring to imperialism in E42, is of course, that the central axis, which was the absolute backbone of the spatial structure, was called Via Imperiale. This axis was part of a grand route that was to connect Rome to the Mare nostrum. Many other streets in the area and piazzas of E42 and around were given names that refer to historical imperialism.111 The entrances on the axis were called Porta Imperiale (northeast) and Porta del Mare (southwest). In the first designs, the Axum-obelisk, looted from the holy Ethiopian city of Axum, was to be erected as a centerpiece in the axis of E42 near the entrance. Later in 1937, however, it was decided to put this trophy on another prominent location on the route from the city centre to E42.112 Figure 21: Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, with epigraph on its four facades, meaning: “A NATION OF POETS, OF ARTISTS, OF HEROES / OF SAINTS, OF THINKERS, OF SCIENTISTS, OF SAILORS, OF EXPLORERS”. (from: Wikimedia Commons, photograph by Blackcat) These words are from a speech by Mussolini on 2 October 1935, the day before the Italian army invaded Ethiopia Aiming the axis at intended prey I think that E42 was aimed at Tunis/Carthage as a veiled symbol of the scheme to conquer it. We might call this ‘directional symbolism’. The idea of specific orientation of an important axis in the city 111 For instance, in the residential area that was planned simultaneously between the existing city and E42, Piazza delle Legioni Romane, Piazza degli Imperatori, Piazza dei Consoli and streets named after the various emperors, Roman provinces, explorers and seafarers. https://www.rerumromanarum.com/2017/05/il-progetto-di-espansione-di-roma-verso.html (consulted 3110-20) The original document with the denomination of public spaces in the area, of 12-12-1940, can be found here: https://www.comune.roma.it/servizi/SITOWPS/getPDFDelibera.do?codiceDelibera=712 (consulted 3110-20). The renaming of the Via Imperiale to Viale Cristoforo Colombo, after the war, still kept it in the same theme at large. 112 In 1937 Mussolini decided to have it put up in the Piazza del Circo Massimo (now Piazza di Porta Capena). ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_of_Axum, consulted 31-10-20) Instead, a new obelisk was made for the heart of E42, dedicated to the national and fascist iconic inventor/businessman/diplomat Guglielmo Marconi and to the medium of radio. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Obelisk, consulted 31-10-20) As a monument to radio, this obelisk may also be regarded as an implicit reference to the Tower of Progress in Hendrik Christian Andersens utopian World Centre of Communication, which Mussolini had shown himself enthusiast for in 1926. (Etlin 1991, pp.508-509; see also: Sidoni 2019, ch.II, pp.83-85; Guidoni 1987, p.32 ) 40 of Rome for the sake of desired or planned conquest, may seem bizarre to us - which, of course, it is but to Mussolini and his fellows it may have seemed valuable, as they did tend to have a rather magical way of thinking in which symbols played an important role. And the Via Imperiale certainly was a symbol to them; if only for its very name, its absolutely central role in E42’s layout, its majestic triumphal arch, and the connection it made between the centre of Rome and the Mare nostrum. On top of that, as I argue, it must also have been a symbol for the sake of its spatial orientation. If this orientation was indeed intentionally directed at Tunis/Carthage, then E42 could be regarded as a sort of weapon aimed at the intended prey, with Mussolini at the trigger, of course.113 This image of a specific place being like a weapon aimed at a victim is not my invention. There are clear indications that this was actually how Mussolini thought. In 1939, he used this same imagery of directional symbolism in a speech in regard to Corsica, which was a French possession. He explicitly called it ‘a pistol pointing at the heart of Italy’.114 That Mussolini and his henchmen thought in these kind of terms, with symbolical weapons pointing at aspired enemy territory, and that this could be symbolized in monumental architecture can be read from the case of the Monumento alla Vittoria in Bolzano/Bozen. (fig.22) This monument is a triumphal arch designed by Marcello Piacentini in 1926, dedicated to the Italian victory on Austria-Hungaria in WWI and particularly for the conquest of the northern German-speaking part of Italy (Alto Adige / Süd Tirol). It was also meant as a symbolic boundary marker, intended to house an altar to the fallen soldiers and for the resurrected fatherland. It was built in 1926-’28 on the location where previously had stood the unfinished Kaiserjägerdenkmal, which was built in 1917 under the Austrian-Hungarian regime to commemorate the Kaiserjäger that had fallen in the battle of Caporetto. The location was also meaningful in the sense that it was on the westbank of the river Talvera, where the new quarter of Bolzano was to be built, that was intended to house the new institutions and inhabitants that were to Italianate the ancient city of Bozen.115 This national monument was built in the form of an ancient imperial triumphal arch, but in a modernized, or rather fascistized, formal language characterized by among others columns in the form of fasci, designated as ‘ordine littorio’. In this way, the victory in WWI was made into a fascist victory ante litteram. The project formed the occasion for the first professional meeting between Piacentini and Mussolini. The idea for the fasci in the columns is said to have been provided by Mussolini’s himself. Moreover, it has even been suggested that the whole monument was sketched out by him.116 This monument has been described as the very first purely fascist monument, of which many were to follow.117 Mussolini himself also proposed the idea for the arch to be crowned with a cannon that would be pointed northward, to the enemy territory of Austria. This cannon was not meant as an actual mechanical weapon, but as a symbolical gesture. Here we can recognize a clear similarity to E42’s axis being pointed at French Tunis / Punic Carthage. Piacentini is reported to have talked the Duce out of his idea for the cannon, instead decorating the attica of the monument with a winged victory that points her bow and arrow towards the north, in this way containing the same aggressive directional symbolism in a more traditional classical imagery.118 113 If it is true that this symbolic imagery was actually behind the design, then the shape of the Via Imperiale with the split part over the lake and ‘pointed conjunction’ to the southwest of the present Palazzo dello Sport may have been intended to symbolize an arrow, bullet, bomb or rocket. 114 Smith 1976, p.139. This was the same speech as mentioned in note 98. 115 Bodenschatz 2011, pp.350-359; Canali 2011/2012, pp.117-151; Obermair 2016. 116 Nicoloso 2008, p.172; Etlin 1991, p.405; Obermair 2016; https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumento_alla_Vittoria_(Bolzano) , consulted 13-12-20. 117 Obermair 2016, p.35. 118 Nicoloso 2008, pp.137, 172; Bodenschatz 2011, p.258; Canali 2011/2012, p.144. Piacentini made a sketch of the idea of the cannon topping the arch, in which, according to Canali, the cannon had ‘a clearly fallic form’. 41 Looking at some specific aspects, it is almost as if the Bolzano Monumento alla Vittoria was an early exercise for E42. Not only was it an important early fascist project of monumental architecture combined with urbanism, it held a similar implicit symbolical aggression in the orientation of its symbolic imagery, and it was also created by Piacentini and commissioned by Mussolini. Furthermore there is a riminiscence in the message of cultural supremacy and colonisation, and the architectural motifs of triumphal arch and altar, which were of prime symbolic importance, and which I will elaborate upon for E42 further below.119 Figure 22: Monumento alla Vittoria, Bolzano. Designed by Marcello Piacentini, 1926 (from: Wikimedia commons, photograph by Sailko) Mussolini proposed to put a cannon on top, pointing towards Austria. Piacentini traded this idea for the winged victory, pointing her bow and arrow in that direction. Why was the meaning of E42’s orientation kept secret? E42 as instrument of deception It was generally known that the regime aspired to rule over Tunisia, as Mussolini was very open about it. So why would it have been kept secret that E42’s axis was directed at Tunis/Carthage? I think that this ‘directional symbolism’ was only meant to be kept secret temporarily, being intended to be disclosed later on, after the World’s fair was held and Tunis would be conquered. Now, I will argue why. The general idea of World’s fairs was to act as a non-political neutral ground, meant to stimulate global exchange of goods and ideas, thereby acting as a vehicle to globalization and hence world peace. In this respect, World’s fairs were the counterpart to the Olympic Games.120 Therefore, it would be problematic to dedicate the universal exposition so openly to the autocratic leader of the host-country and his imperial ambitions. The more so, since these ambitions were far from peaceful. 119 The Latin inscription above the porch on the Bolzano monument can be regarded as pointing forward to E42: “HERE ARE THE BORDERS OF THE FATHERLAND, SET THE SIGNS / FROM HERE WE TAUGHT THE OTHERS BY SPEECH, LAW AND ART” (translation author). This theme is also apparent in E42 as the festival where the world was to be educated in the glory of Italian culture, and after which the fascist empire was to be completed by conquest. Bodenschatz calls the Monumento alla Vittoria “the culmination of aggressive theatralisation of ‘Italian’ urbanism” (Bodenschatz 2011, p.358). I believe that E42 was to go even further in this respect. 120 Short 2011. 42 There is a clear source of great relevance, that hints at a secretive - or at least veiled – agenda in E42. In the general program of E42 of June 1937, general commissioner Vittorio Cini described that World’s fairs were traditionally aimed at economic goals, but that in E42 the political content was to be far more important. As the Esposizione del Ventennale, its main goal was to commemorate the glory of the 20-year rule of the fascist regime. He emphasizes that “this has to be done in an almost invisible manner […] in order to avoid deliberate absences and boycotts on part of governments inspired by different political ideologies, opposed or openly hostile to Fascism”.121 So, it is clear that the organisers were conscious of the fact that it would not be proper to be to overt on making E42 a monument to the ventennale of the fascist revolution. It was deliberately kept ‘almost invisible’. The same may well hold true for the orientation of E42 at the Duce’s residence, let alone at Tunis/Carthage, since that would be regarded as glorification of the fascist leader, respectively symbolic imperialist aggression. When this would be in the open, it would undoubtedly be reason for many nations to withhold from participating, as taking part in the expostition would implicitly mean taking part in cheering the Ventennale, cheering Mussolini’s all-determining persona and position and, moreover, taking part in aggressive imperialist ambitions. Mussolini certainly was honoured in E42. As mentioned above, the Mostra della Civiltà Italiana was pervaded with his spirit, an equestrian statue with his figure was intended to be the highlight of the exposition, and quotes from his speeches were chiseled into the facades of two important buildings for E42. But he was not given that much prominence in the whole of the exposition area. No obelisk , square or building was named after him.122 Likewise the empire was celebrated, among others in the very name of Via Imperiale and the partial expositions of overseas parts of the empire.123 But no allusions were made to extension of the empire and further conquest. At least not openly, since the symbolism of the main orientation of E42 as a whole, was kept secret.124 ‘E42 Programma di massima’, elaborated on in Ferrara 1987, p.79. Translation from: Kallis 2014, p.245. Original text: “Ma dovrà affermarsi quasi senza parere, evitando forzature pregiudiziali, come naturale conseguenza della realtà esposta e documentata. Si procederà con quella corretezza che è indice di alta educazione politica e non senza cautela, per evitare facili assenteismi a boicotaggi da parte dei governatore ispirati a sistemi diversi, oppositie o aspramente polemici contro il fascismo.”(Original document printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.153) The original 1935-proposal by Federico Pinna Berchet to governatore Bottai already stated that great caution should be exercised with political messages, in order to keep other nations from withholding their contributions or even boycotting the exposition. Hence the journal that was to be created in order to entice other nations into taking part in the exposition, was to avoid “vain rhetoric and crude political allusions”. (Original document printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, pp.149-150); see also Sidoni 2019, ch. V, pp.16-18) 122 See above, n.42, fig.21, and Garin 1987, p.15. In my opinion, it may well have been intended to make E42 an explicit monument to Mussolini later on, after the World’s fair. See below, par. ‘E42 as a monument to fascism, the empire and Mussolini’. It has been suggested that the Duce was also secretly honoured in the exterior of the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana in the number and arrangement of the arches in the facades, while the six rows might refer to the characters ‘Benito’ and the nine bays to the characters ‘Mussolini’, the O of both names being common in the central opening on the ground floor. I do not know where this idea originated, but it is mentioned in https://www.eurspa.it/en/the-city-within-the-city/estate/historical-buildings/palazzo-civilta-italiana (consulted 20-8-21) and depicted in https://romeonrome.com/files/2016/01/BENITO_coliseumQuadrato.jpg (consulted 16-7-21). 123 See above, pp.39-40. 124 There is a curious element in the mapping of E42 that may be relevant here. Plans that were drawn for design and representation of E42 were generally depicted with the axis vertically in the centre, with southsouthwest on top instead of north. This may have been done to have the main entrance below and the direction of entering the exposition upward. But it is possible that there also was the symbolic element of perspective from Mussolini’s vantage point (Villa Torlonia) towards his goal (Tunis / Carthage) by way of E42 and particularly its triumphal arch. 121 43 One thing that was not concealed, was that E42 was explicitly built on the seaward side of Rome, in order to turn the orientation of the city towards the Mare nostrum (‘Our sea’ = the Mediterranean), as a main intervention in Mussolini’s overarching strategy for Rome in spatial sense. Various important sources on the creation of E42, clearly state so 125 and, more significantly, on the architrave of the façade of the Palazzo degli Uffuci, the first building to be realized for E42, it is chiseled in huge capitals: “THE THIRD ROME WILL EXPAND OVER OTHER HILLS, ALONG THE BANKS OF THE SACRED RIVER, DOWN TO THE BEACHES OF THE THYRRHENIAN SEA”. As mentioned earlier, this phrase was taken from a speech by Mussolini of 1925.126 In these texts it was not explicited, but it is obvious that this link of Rome to the Mare nostrum and the references to the Third Rome and the ancient port of Ostia, stand not just for the connection of the city with the coast, but rather for the ambition of Rome to extend its rule beyond the coast, over the Mediterranean. In fact, the phrase Mare nostrum originally was used in antiquity following the conquest of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica during the Punic Wars with Carthage, and later on began to be used for Roman dominance over the Mediterranean as a whole. After the phrase was revived in the late 19th-century ‘Scramble for Africa’, the Duce began to use it in imperialistic propaganda, in a way that was more or less similar to Adolf Hitler's lebensraum.127 This political orientation was explicited by Mussolini, in a speech to the Grand Council of Fascism of February 1939. In this closed meeting, he clarified his geopolitical strategy for the development of the empire. He told that the only way to get hold of the French possession of Corsica and its protectorate of Tunisia, was to defeat France in battle. Therefore, it was necessary to build up Italian military force for three more years, to pacify the empire in order to be able to use the colonial resources and to realise at least half of the agenda that was drawn up in order to reach autarchy. And only when at least half of the 600.000 Italian emigrants would have been repatriated, then it would be time to move against France. According to the Duce’s plan this would approximately be “at the close of the exposition of ‘42”. In this speech he designated E42 as “the exposition that is intended to reinforce our reserves”. Apparently, E42 was intended to contribute to the war-economy by generating extra income for Italy.128 Furthermore, according to the important industrialist Alberto 125 See above, p.11. “LA TERZA ROMA SI DILATERÀ SOPRA ALTRI COLLI LUNGO LE RIVE DEL FIUME SACRO SINO ALLE SPIAGGE DEL TIRRENO” (translation based on Marcello 2018, p.376). See above, p.11. Less visible, but possibly even more symbolic, was the foundational text that was was placed in the foundation that was immured in the Palazzo degli Uffici on 20 October 1937. It starts out with these words: “BEING CONVINCED OF THE MARKED DESTINY THAT THE URBE [=the city of Rome] MUST FACE TOWARDS OUR SEA, BENITO MUSSOLINI, THE WISE DUCE [=ruler] OF THE ITALIANS AND FOUNDER OF THE EMPIRE, ORDERED THAT IN THIS PLACE, THIS ADVANCED OUTCROP, GRANDIOSE BUILDINGS BE CONSTRUCTED IN PERMANENT FORM […]” (translation author). The official translation of the foundational text in latin (probably also the original text that was translated into latin) reads: “CONVINTO ESSER DAL DESTINO SEGNATO CHE L’URBE DEBBA AFFACIARSI AL MARE NOSTRO, BENITO MUSSOLINI, PREVIDENTE DUCE DEGLI ITALIANI E FONDATORE DELL’IMPERO ORDINÒ CHE IN QUESTA LUOGO, QUALE AVANZATA PROPAGINE, SI COSTRUISSERO IN FORMA STABILE GRANDIOSI EDIFICI, NEI QUALI DURANTE L’ANNO VIGESIMO DELL’ERA FASCISTA, SI ESPONGA, NELLA SOLENNE ADUNATA DELLE NAZIONI, QUANTO I POPOLI ABBIANO REALIZZATO NEL CAMPO DELLE SCIENZE, DELLE ARTI E DELLA TECNICA.” (Di Majo & Insolera, 1986, p.1) 127 See: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_nostrum (consulted 6-4-2021); Lowe 2002. 128 Smith 1976, p.139; Sidoni 2019, ch.V. See also above, note 98. This was, of course, when Mussolini still did not know that his German ally was to invade Czechia and Poland within a few months, to be followed by France and various other countries in 1940, after which his plans were abruptly thrown overboard and swapped for ad hoc decisions. 126 44 Pirelli, Mussolini said to him: “We plan for E42 to supply many valuta; we have few cannons and we need time to produce them”.129 So, E42 was projected to become a secret instrument of war in various respects. I think that making France, Britain and all other countries part of this project by participating in the World’s fair, can be regarded as a symbolical way to make them help build the trap that was destined for AngloFrench supremacy in the Mediterranean. The spatial orientation of its axis may have been intended as the secret symbol for Mussolini’s war machine, pointed at Tunis/Carthage. It may be relevant in this respect, that the pavilions of the most important nations, among which England, France, the United States and the Soviet Union were to be built directly abording this axis. In this way their contributions were made into ornaments in the (temporarily secret) monument to the Duce’s (future) conquest of Tunisia. (fig.1 and 10) In Mussolini’s thought, this may have been regarded as having the other nations symbolically support the gun in his hand. The speech for the Grand Council and the conversation with Pirelli were not meant to be disclosed. At the very same time, however, Mussolini publicly stated that E42, or the ‘Olympics of Civilisation’, were a message of peace from Italy to the world. In a public adress in the Capitol on April 20 1939, Mussolini even used E42 as proof of Italy’s peaceful intentions in times ‘when storm clouds start to appear on the horizon’, in reaction to accusations of aggression.130 And in a certain sense, E42 was indeed meant to be peaceful, but only for as long as the universal exposition was to last: to April 1943.131 We can also see the plans for war reflected in E42’s architecture. A huge bomb shelter was built under the Palazzo dell’Ente E42 and a structure of tunnels, no less than 19 kilometres long, was laid out connecting the main buildings.132 These architectural structures were not promulgated. Instead, official propaganda celebrated the opposite function and symbolism in E42’s architecture. Mussolini stated that the immense arch, that was to be built at the seaward side of the exposition area, represented “the symbol of human volition, strained in the effort of realizing peace”.133 I think, however, that this arch, which was never actually built, should rather be taken for a triumphal arch, secretly meant to commemorate Mussolini’s future conquest of Tunisia. Probably, this symbolism of the arch, like that of E42’s orientation, was intended to be made public only after the exposition was held and when Tunisia would be seized. This meaning could only be revealed after the universal exposition, as it would otherwise compromise the universality for the World’s fair. Translation author. “abbiamo in vista l’Esposizione E42 che deve fornirci molta valuta; abbiamo pochi cannoni e ci vuol tempo per farli […]”. From the diaries of Alberto Pirelli (Pirelli 1984, p.217) Alberto Pirelli, Taccuini 1922/1943. Bologna 1984, p. 217. Alberto Pirelli stood at the head of the Pirelli chemical industries, most well-known for its tyres, but he was also one of the main liaisons between the industrial companies and the regime. In 1936, Mussolini had intended to appoint him as chief commissioner of E42. (Ferrara 1987, p.75; Di Majo & Insolera 1986, pp.19-20, 26, n.4), 130 Sidoni 2019, ch.V, referring to Edoardo Susmel & Duilio Susmel , Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini. Roma 1951-1962. Vol XXIX, p.265. 131 In this respect, it may be relevant that the Olympics were traditionally facilitated by the Olympic truce, which lasted for the duration of the games. Notaro 2000 p.17; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Truce (consulted 20-11-20). 132 See: https://www.eurspa.it/it/asset-property/patrimonio/edifici-storici/palazzo-uffici https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/16_novembre_29/ecco-l-eur-mai-visto-bunker-19-chilometri-galleried31c66c8-b65b-11e6-9fa1-de32925f0429.shtml and video on https://youtu.be/vS9rehCIFmY (consulted 17-11-20) 133 “[…]simbolo delle volontà umane tese nelle sforzo di realizzare la pace […]” Sidoni 2019, ch.V, p.164. Translation author. 129 45 It is likely that the area was intended to receive further architectural elaboration after the exposition, in order to shape it more explicitly into a monument to fascism and to Mussolini. In this, the central axis would be further loaded with symbolic meaning. I will return on this subject below.134 I suspect that the basis of the directional symbolism was the intention to involve the nations that denied Italy its claim to an empire symbolically in a scheme to enlarge this empire and to honour its autocratic ideator, without them knowing so. In a certain sense, it is international political deception made concrete in the art of urbanism. This scheme may have been developed in reaction to the opposition against Italian empirialist ambitions, in particular the sanctions laid by the League of Nations in November 1935 after the Italian invasion into Ethiopia (3 October 1935). These sanctions were a blow to Mussolini’s belief in international cooperation with the dominant countries in the world - almost all of which were colonizing nations as well – and his ambitions on the international political stage. He felt deeply insulted, and so did most Italians with him. The regime succeeded in having this work for it, strengthening its support under Italians, in Italy as well as in Italian emigrant communities all over the world.135 The execution of this scheme, however, was far from brilliant. Reacting to German military action, Mussolini decided, going against his military and political advisors and his German ally, to join the war in June 1940. And there all plans were splattered to pieces by lack of military success. The Italian army failed almost everywhere it went. Mussolini’s endless ambition painfully appeared to be out of proportion to Italy’s actual power. E42 was first postponed and then cancelled, and after the fascist regime was driven away from Rome (July 1943) and ended (April 1945), nobody who might have been involved in the scheme of E42’s secret symbolism, would have been so honest or daring to disclose it. Almost everyone who had been involved in the fascist regime and its schemes, tried to wash it off, and mostly succeeded in doing so. Italy generally tried to forget the whole episode as soon as possible. On location, again It is possible that this sly scheme was conceived right from the outset of the project in 1935, but it is more likely that it took form later on, since the location for E42 was only determined in December 1936, and for having the same axis point to the Duce’s residence as well as at Tunis/Carthage, location was crucial.136 If the idea for pointing the axis at Villa Torlonia and Tunis was already conceived before the site was determined, this must have at least partly determined E42’s specific location. As described above, Mussolini wanted to connect Rome to the Mare nostrum, and so did influential planners like Giovannoni and Piacentini by 1935, be it by supplementary settlements rather than urban extension. But according to an official declaration that was published in daily newspapers 16 December 1936, it was Mussolini himself who had chosen the specific area of Tre Fontane the day before.137 This site See below par. ‘E42 as a monument to fascism, the empire and Mussolini’. Sidoni 2019, ch.V, p.5. 136 According to governatore Bottai in 1940, it was the Duce himself, who invented the idea for E42, and who planned it with ‘mathematical certainty’ already in 1935, before the conquest of Ethiopia. (Bottai 1938, p.1033. Referring to what he said was a letter from Mussolini of June 23, 1935. See: Etlin 1991, p.483) But most probably, this was just flattering in contribution to the quasi-religious cult of the omnipotent fascist leader. For the problem of location and getting the orientation right, see below. 137 Ferrara 1987, p.77, n.42. The main article on the frontpage of the Corriere della Sera of that day reports that the Duce and various officials went to choose the definite site on the day before, that the Duce subsequently chose the site of Tre Fontane, and that he gave “precise orders for the rapid implementation of the program of extension of Rome towards the sea, to be realised by the organic equipment of means of transport, as well as the accomodation of the intermediate zone for residential areas, rural borgate [=new 134 135 46 was chosen in spite of the fact that the location was not very well-suited to the purpose, being hampered by the strong relief and instability of the soil due to centuries of mining activity. In 1938, Pinna Berchet even complained that the project was being harmed by the conditions of the site.138 The regime’s favourite architect and eventual master planner of E42, Marcello Piacentini, had most probably opted for a different location just south of the Basilica of San Paolo f.l.m.139 Is it possible that Mussolini specifically chose this site for providing the secret symbolic meaning of orientation, being located on the line between Villa Torlonia and Tunis? We will probably never know for sure, but it is well possible. It is known that earlier, in May 1935, the Duce had remarked on the initial plan of Pinna Berchet that he supported it, but that he desired to speak to governatore Bottai about the subject of the suggested location.140 So it seems that he already had an other idea in mind. What idea, we don’t know, alas, but it might just have had to do with the orientation of the layout. In any case, five months later, on 20 October 1936, Mussolini and various officials set out to visit a number of sites along the Via del Mare between Rome and the coast. Two weeks later, Vittorio Cini suggested to the Duce to locate the expo south of the Basilica di San Paolo, preferably east of the Via del Mare. On 16 December, Mussolini appears to have followed this advice and chose for the specific site of the Tre Fontane-area. It is not known why he opted for this precise location. It is all speculation, but it is possible that in the meantime somebody had been set to work on determining the direction from Villa Torlonia to Tunis/Carthage, and that Mussolini only chose for the specific location once he had been informed about that. And the planners of E42, what was their position in this hypothetical secret scheme? I have not found any indications about that. But if the orientation had been part of the project from the outset, it seems inevitable that at least the main planner, Marcello Piacentini, must have been involved in the precise orientation at some point of the design process, early in 1937, or even before. We do not have a clear picture of how the planners came to the exact orientation of the axis. Already in the first sketches we know, of early 1937, the design team drew a dominant central axis with a south-southwest orientation on which the general plan was hung up, roughly as it eventually turned out to be built.141 Above, I already described various options that traditionally would have been urbanistically obvious choices for the orientation of E42’s central axis.142 It is not known whether or not these options were ever deliberated. If we look closely at the various early sketches and drawings for the general plan of the exposition area, we can see some differences in the position of the man axis. On one of the first design-sketches that is known, the orientation, and/or the place of the main axis was suburban residential areas for the lower classes], blended with woods, parks and gardens, and has also established that the zone of Ostia Antica, the Lido [=beach] and of Castelfusano will be appropriately arranged and valorised.” (Corriere della Sera, 16 December 1936, p.1) 138 Letter by Pinna Berchet to Mussolini, 8 March 1938. Mariani 1987, pp.23-27. See also: Ferrara 1987, p.80; Nicoloso 2008, pp.215-216. 139 Beese 2016, pp.300, 302. 140 See above, p.5. 141 Mariani depicts many early design sketches of the master plan, from January to April 1937. (Mariani 1987 and Mariani 1990). Among these, there is only one without a very prominent central axis. This design sketch is relatively crude, higly modernistic in character, and the only plan in which the artificial lake is lacking. It is unclear how this plan is to be situated, but most likely it was a very early version. In a study for the expansion of Rome towards the coast in relation to the World’s fair, of December 1936 (depicted in Guidoni 1987, p.27), a very different layout is depicted, without a central axis. No author is known for this study. 142 See above, pp.22-24. 47 different, as it is clearly passing right through the middle of the Forte Ostiense. This 19th-century bastion lies just north of E42 and in many of the sketches and plans it is the only clear topographical reference point for the location and orientation of the axis. (fig.23) In various other sketches, which are published in Mariani 1987, we see the axis depicted in various positions, but largely pointed in more or less the same direction, starting at the fort, at its centre or a bit further west or east. In an early design of February 1937, which seems to be relatively elaborated, we can see that the northern end of E42’s axis was turned somewhat further eastward, now cutting through the eastern flank of the Forte Ostiense.143 (fig.24) It is difficult to determine exactly, but it seems that in the first approved design of April 1937 the axis was slid still somewhat further eastward, so that it just passed by the fort, which is not depicted in the plan. (fig.5) As far as I can relate this plan to the present topography of the site, this was the actual position and direction the axis was eventually laid out on. I have not found sources that comment on why the place and direction of the axis was changed in the course of the design process. It is most likely that Marcello Piacentini was the one who determined the main basic starting points of the urbanistic design, since he was the most eminent planner among the team of five designers. He was also the one who was closest to Mussolini. Unfortunately, the part of the extensive archive of Piacentini that most probably held his correspondence with the Duce and other prominent persons in the regime, was lost.144 So, if there ever was correspondence on the intention of E42’s orientation in the sense that I suspect, it is probably gone. 143 Remarkable in this plan is that the avenue through the exposition area does not fluently connect to the feeding roads coming from the city, as it stops short of the fort, where a planned edifice of unknown nature is indicated in its centre and where the feeding roads deflect. This promts the question why it (apparently) was not considered to move the fort out of the way, which must not have been impossible, considering the immense effort that eventually was taken to adapt the terrain in the area. Since the 1920’s a medical institute for war-orphans was housed in the fort (Istituto Medico-pedagogico Gaetano Giardino). 144 Scharoccia 1999, pp.342-343. From the archive on architecture, parks and urbanism from the Ente Esposizione Universale di Roma at the Archivio dello Stato, there also appear to be many items missing and damaged. (Missori 1987, p.89) 48 Figure 23: Design sketches for E42’s master plan, early 1937, with central axis clearly being oriented in a slightly different direction, as is visible from the reference point of the Forte Ostiense below (from: Mariani 1987) Figure 24: Early design of E42’s master plan, February 1937, with axis cutting through side of Forte Ostiense (below) (from: Mariani 1987) 49 E42 AS A MONUMENT TO FASCISM, THE EMPIRE AND MUSSOLINI Once Italy had entered the war, it was clear that E42 could not be held as a World’s fair in 1942. In late 1940, the exposition was postponed to 1944, renamed Esposizione Universale di Roma (EUR), and the content was radically altered to an exposition focused on a competitive presentation of the two (expected) hegemonial empires of Italy and Germany, explicitly intended to show off “the power and prestige of Fascist Italy in all possible areas”.145 With the intended changes, we can see clearer the outline of a program to celebrate fascism and Mussolini in the central axis of the site. I believe, however, that this program was at least partly planned in secret well before 1940, but meant to be realized and revealed only after E42.146 In the plan and the (photographs of the) models of the first master plan of 1937, we find a rather mysterious cube at the focal point of the axis, on top of the hill overlooking the lake (the location where eventually the Palazzo dello Sport was built for the 1960 Olympic Games). The plan and its legenda indicate a fountain in front and the large curve of the ‘great pavilion of tourism and sport’ behind the cube.147 In the description of the master plan of 8 April 1937 it is described as “[…] Palazzo della Luce, fantastic vision made solely of glass, light and water: blazing lighthouse which will illuminate the entire Exposition and which will constitute, with its modern content of imagination and technics, the characteristic and salient record of the entire manifestation.”148 In a letter to Cini of 21 December 1937, Piacentini writes that the faro della luce (lighthouse) was to be built here in front of l’Arcone (the grand arch), and that this area was to form a theatrical dramatic culmination within the expositiion area.149 The 1938 master plan indicates that a Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce was to be built here. This Palace of Water and Light was meant as a pavilion for the exposition, in which the history of electric light was to be celebrated.150 In february 1939 a competition was launched for this building. Eventually, no first prize was awarded, but second prize went ex-aequo to Pier Luigi Nervi and the duo Franco Petrucci and Enrico Tedeschi. They were invited to make a new design together, but Nervi thanked for the honour, after which the duo made an adapted design, which was presented in February 1940.151 145 Gentile 1990 p.79; Nicoloso 2008, pp.272-273; Bodenschatz 2011, p.191. This project was planned by Vittorio Cini, and was approved by Mussolini on 4 January 1941 146 This is also what Guidoni (1987, p.65) and Greco (2018, pp.94-95) suggest. 147 See figs. 17 and 18 in Guidoni 1987, pp.40-41; figs. pp.45-47 in Mariani 1987; see fig.5 and 6 in this article. 148 Mariani 1987, p.190, transcription of original document 8 April 1937, without archival reference. In the explanation of the master plan to the Duce, 25 June 1937 it is described as “Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce, [...] dreamlike vision of an architectural ensemble, in which exclusively glass, water and light will be used”. (Mariani 1987, p.28) And according to Guidoni (1987, p.48) this same tekst describes it as “a grandiose composition is to constitute a highly attractive architectonic theme: it could be the palazzo dell’ luce […] or another gigantic construction with playful water elements, illuminated fountains, with many colours… It should be like the lighthouse of the entire Exposition”. Unfortunately Mariani doen not make clear archival references; Guidoni refers to “Carte Cini, Cartelle E42” in the Archivio Centrale dello Stato. 149 Text of letter printed in Guidoni 1987, p.77. It is not clear whether or not this lighthouse was the same as the gigantic Fascio Angelli, of which Piacentini writes a bit further on in this same letter. Piacentini speculates about its location and about giving it the form of a giant honorary comumn, crowned by a lighthouse. It was to be financed by Alberto Agnelli, the entrepreneur that owned the FIAT company. (See also: Greco 2018, p.95) 150 The idea for such an exposition may have come from the influential journalist and art critic Ugo Ojetti, who proposed a similar idea in February 1937. (Mariani 1987, p.31) 151 Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, p.471 ; Mariani 1987, pp.137-140; Muntoni 1987, pp.98-100 ; https://archiladymenabo.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/il-concorso-per-il-palazzo-dellacqua-e-della-lucedelle42/ (consulted 14-12-20) 50 On 25 August 1940, however, Piacentini wrote to Cini that he was dissatisfied with this design and wanted to suggest a different monument for this location.152 He wrote: “As I have suggested on various occasions, I have always found it necessary to mark the monumental quarter of E.42 - on the location that should be the most important, the most striking, the place of honour, so to say the main altar - with the ideal significance of the event which has inspired the exhibition, with a construction (building, monument, etc.) which in a certain way concludes the general urban composition and which seals the architectural character. […] As it is now, the quarter of E.42 lacks its point of moral support (and consequently also its point of urbanistic support) […]. On first occasion I have dreamt and I have also exhibited […] some sketches and designs – of the creation of an architectural complex on the hilltop of the waterfall, in the axis of Via Imperiale, where the memories, the relics, the glories and also the organisation of the Fascist party should have found their place. So that on the place of honour of E.42 a point of high political and social interest would be created. But difficulties of various nature - political, economical etc. – and above all the fact that this imagined construction would have recorded and represented an event and a conception of national and not universal nature, made them abandon the idea. Now the new international events, which will culminate in the victory of the Powers of the Axis, bring back into bright light the argument of an architectonic composition on the axis of the Via Imperiale, suggesting a solution which is highly appropriate to the greatness of the political present.” […] It is clear that the lack of a significant and expressive centre to the Exhibition coincides with the lack of an urbanistic-architectonic navel. […] that is why I think that here one should comply to the construction - simple and wide - of an exaltative monument, that with one elementary idea could clearly express the force of the event. A grand Altar, set on the ground, with supports and foundations of bronze, on which should be mounted 2 spotlights of the Royal Navy, which should launch a powerful lightbeam, visible from the furthest patches of Lazio: a vertical lighthouse, ideal lure for the peoples to the renewed Urbe.” Piacentini describes how, with the light, there could be vertical jets of water, and inside there would be a circular portico with sculptures of historical events up to the very present, with more fountains, from where the water would be led to the grand cascade. At the foot of the waterfall there could be a grand sculptural group, such as the disembarkation of Aeneas to remember the legendary origin of the latin people.153 Cini welcomed Piacentini’s idea and presented it to Mussolini on 4 January 1941, who approved of it. In his proposal it was described as “an architectural element of great artistic value and the highest significance, dedicated to the glorification and celebration of the new order created by Fascism.“ It was to be an altar to celebrate the beginning of a “new chapter in the history of mankind, the advent of a new Era. 152 Mariani 1987, pp.173-142. It is not impossible that this was more or less planned in advance, as the complete committee that was to judge the contest entries was made up of functionaries of the ente. In this way it was possible to make the impression of a free competition, but prevent a winner to be assigned and keep the project under complete control of the ente, and particularly its main planner Piacentini and its main patron Mussolini. 153 Mariani 1987, pp.140-142. The idea for a sculptural group of Aeneas’ disembarkation had already been proposed some years earlier for a fountain in the Piazza Imperiale, but was not accepted. (see: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, p.284, fig.1) The scene was to be depicted, though, as the first scene in the enormous mosaic of the Origins of Rome, designed by Franco Gentilini, in the main hall of the Palazzo dei Ricevimenti e Congressi. (Marcello 2010, pp.12-13) These mosaics were not realized, however, due to the changing course of history. Aeneas, as mythical founder of Rome, was a plurally symbolical figure, as he referred to ‘a political programme of leadership through divine appointment’, from the mythical hero via Emperor Augustus to Mussolini. (Marcello 2011, p.236) 51 This element, framed between two great lateral terraced masses and by the daring profile of the metal Arch in behind, visible from the entrance of the new Quarter, will be constituted of an imposing ‘Ara’ [=altar] whose sculpted walls will consecrate the Victory, the right peace and the beginning of the new Era.”154 With this, the altar clearly referred to the Ara Pacis of Mussolini’s great example, emperor Augustus. It was meant to celebrate the long-lasting peace that was to come once Mussolini had conquered the imperium he had in mind, like the ancient Ara Pacis had celebrated the Pax Augusta.155 It is likely that Piacentini secretly had already reserved the site for his ara well before.156 The cube in the 1937 master plan and later drawings and models certainly suggests that a structure of that form had been intended by the master planner.157 If that is true, the project for the Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce on this location may have been no more than a mask to cover the actual intention for as long as the Universal exhibition was still part of the plan. Piacentini made various sketches and drawings for the ara. (fig. 25 and 26) All other buildings had been designed by other architects - although Piacentini had given many specific instructions to their designs -, but apparently, this was the edifice he wanted to create by himself. The altar was to be housed under a massive monumental cubic building, set on pillars, which was to have the “atmosphere of a temple and triumphal arch in its interior”. The exterior would be decorated by high reliefs celebrating “the Victory, the rightful peace and the beginning of a new Era” by the sculptor Arturo Martini. From its top, a large lightbeam (a ‘fascio di luce’) was to project into the sky at night, symbolizing the light of civilization. There may well have been more information on this plan in Piacentini’s correspondence with Mussolini, but as mentioned above, this part of the archive is gone. It is known though, that Mussolini officially approved of the ara in January 1941.158 154 Mariani 1987, pp.142-143; Nicoloso 2008, pp.272-273; De Angelis 2014, p.397. It is interesting in this respect, that originally the epigraphs for the facades of the Palazzo della Civiltà were planned to be excerpts from Augustus's Res gestae, about the senate having decreed the consacration of the Ara Pacis after Augustus returned victoriously from Spain and Gaul. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_della_Civilt%C3%A0_Italiana consulted 25-7-21, and design for the palazzo in Mariani 1987, p.85) This suggests that this palazzo and E42 as a whole were intended as a celebration of victory. Ultimately, though, the words from Mussolini's speech were chosen to be chiseled into the facades. 156 Greco 2018, pp.94-95. 157 This is also suggested by Guidoni 1987, p.65. The basic geometric element of the cube, appears to have had a special significance to fascism. In E42, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana and the grand hall of the Palazzo dei Congressi e Ricevimenti, which are among the most important buildings in the project for E42, also had basically cubic forms. With regard to the temporary fake facade of the Mostra della Rivoluzione Fascista of 1932, it was written in that year that “[…] the gigantic cubical volume can represent with its geometric purity the synthesis of the totalitarian and integral concept of the Fascist Regime […]”. (Etlin 1991, pp.413, 494) 158 Guidoni 1987, pp.64-65; Zacheo 1987, p.167; Nicoloso 2008, pp.272-273; Greco 2018, pp.91, 94-95. It is possible that the Palazzo dell’Acqua e della Luce may have already been planned with the same functional intention for after E42, as it was to have such a lightbeam as well. According to Bodenschatz (2011, p.194), the lightbeam referred to Albert Speer’s plan for the new axis through Berlin. But with the lightbeam, the structure also follows the indication in the first program for the World’s fair of april 1935, which mentions: “In principle, the Exposition will have a centre: a monumental structure to glorify Rome as a lighthouse of civilisation and of fascism”. (original document printed in Gregory & Tartaro 1987, p.150) 155 52 Figure 25: Drawings for the fascist Ara Pacis as main visual and ‘moral’ focus point on the hill south of the lake in the axis of E42, by Marcello Piacentini, 1940 (from: Greco 2018) Figure 26: Presentation drawing of the fascist Ara Pacis on its intended location in the axis of E42, on the hill above the waterfall. Probably drawn by Marcello Piacentini, 1940 (from: Mariani 1987) Given the siting and intended function of this altar, I think it was explicitly meant to be the fascist equivalent of the Monumento Nazionale a Vittorio Emanuele II: the ostentatious monument in the heart of Rome, which is known as the Vittoriano. This national monument was built in the centre of Rome between 1885 and 1911 in order to commemorate the first king of unified Italy and to house the Altar of the Fatherland. In 1921 the shrine to the Italian Unknown Soldier was added to the monument. The Vittoriano was, and still is, the main monument to Italian national unity. Under the Fascist regime, its function was extended and its centrality and visibility was dramatically increased by various urbanistic interventions.159 159 Among others by widening the Corso, by the extension and symmetrisation of the Piazza Venezia in front of the Vittoriano, by clearing space around, and by the construction of two new great roads, leading out from 53 This monument was built against the slope of the Capitoline hill, boarding Piazza Venezia just outside Mussolini’s office (which was installed here in 1929). The Vittoriano was sited as the focal point of the axis of Via del Corso, which had been one of the most important roads through Rome since ancient times, and one of the very few that were straight over a considerable length. (fig.27) The layout of the axis and the ara on the hill in E42, seems to have been inspired strongly by this symbolical centre of Rome.160 Its setting would be similar and its functions probably as well: ara, monument, focal point, public attraction and symbolic centre of the nation. In fact, it is likely that the new fascist Ara Pacis was intended to become a superlative of the Vittoriano, not just being the new main monument of the fascist nation, but the main monument of the empire, or even of the ‘new world’.161 According to Geroid O'Tuathail a state's geopolitical agenda often tends to be materialized in its capital’s architecture and memorials. Cosgrove and Atkinson describe how this was certainly the case for the Vittoriano and its surroundings: “The ‘geopolitical’ agenda of Fascism was carved into the landscape of Rome and centered upon the Vittoriano and Piazza Venezia.”162 I agree completely on this vision, but I suspect that this function was intended to be moved to E42, but only openly so after the universal exhibition. the Piazza Venezia towards the sea (Via del Mare; passing by E42) and to the Colosseum (Via dell‘Impero), further on connecting to Via dei Trionfi, Via Africa / Via Ostiense / Via del Mare and Via Imperiale. See: Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998. 160 The similarity went further than an axis leading up to a monument with an altar on a hill: In both cases there was a large open space in front of the hill, and furher away on the axis an obelisk, a piazza flanked by two exedrae, an entrance gate (not realised though in E42) and a trident of streets. 161 Note the central position that E42 was intended to take on between the existing city and the newly planned extensions towards the coast, the Roma al Mare that Mussolini strove for. This is clearly visible in the piano regolatore generale of 1941-’42. (see fig.30) 162 Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998, referring to Geroid O'Tuathail, (Dis)placing Geopolitics: Writing on the Maps of Global Politics. In: Society and Space 12 (1994), pp.525-546. 54 Figure 27: The National Monument to Victor Emmanuel II, known as the Vittoriano, sited on the Capitoline hill (above), in the axis of the ancient Via del Corso in Rome, view towards the south. (from: Google Earth, 6-7-2020) The layout of the new axis of E42 and the intended fascist altar on the hill south of the lake is reminiscent of this layout Furthermore, I think that the new altar was also intended as a monument to Mussolini: implicitly, while fascism was more or less synonym to his persona, and the same was increasingly the case for the nation and the empire, since he was its highpriest and deity at the same time; but possibly also explicitly, referring to his deeds, triumphs, and maybe even his death. It may well have been the intention to create a monument to Mussolini’s honour at this location, possibly even Mussolini’s mausoleum163, much like the Vittoriano, which combined the functions of Altar to the Fatherland and monument to Vittorio Emanuele II. I have no proof for this whatsoever; my assumption is purely based on analogy, circumstantial ‘evidence’ and an estimate of Mussolini’s and Piacentini’s ambitions.164 I intend to elaborate on this Earlier, in 1934-’38, works were carried out ordered by Mussolini on ‘liberating’ and restoring the mausoleum of Emperor Augustus of c.25 B.C. The Duce was fascinated with Emperor Augustus, and regarded himself as his true heir. It has been suggested, therefore, that Mussolini planned to be entombed here himself. (a.o. Bosworth 2011, p.188) This does not seem unlikely, but I believe that his enormous ego may have demanded a separate and greater monument (at least in the imperialist phase from 1936 on). It has also been suggested that he was to be entombed in the church of Ss. Pietro en Paolo in E42 (see for instance http://www.conosciamoroma.it/conosciamoroma/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=836:e42&Itemid=433 ; consulted 7-7-21), but I suspect that his intended mausoleum was planned more direcctly integrated to the intended main monument for fascism and the empire. Eventually, long after his death, Mussolini was buried in the family tomb in his birthplace Predappio. 164 Note also the analogy to the Valle de los Caídos (Valley of the Fallen) in Spain, which was intended as burial place of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of the Falange movement, and the other fallen combatants of the civil war. It was built in 1941-’59 and acted as a national monument of the regime. 163 55 subject in another article in the future. For now, it is enough to claim that building a monument to Mussolini here, would make symbolic sense, in relation to the project of E42 as a whole and to the orientation of the axis at his villa and his aspired conquest of Tunis/Carthage and the Mare nostrum in particular. In 1948, when Piacentini’s name was still in the process of being whitewashed from the role he played in the regime, he did the ultimate trick of transformation, by suggesting a monument to the fallen American soldiers in World War II for the very same site. It even was to have a form similar to what he had sketched for the ara: a more or less cubic building decorated with high reliefs and a lightbeam projecting from the top. This suggestion was not heeded though. Eventually, in 1950, Piacentini was reinstated as master planner for EUR. For the specific site on top of the hill in the axis, Piacentini and Nervi designed the flying-saucer-like Palazzo dello Sport, which was built for the 1960 Olympics.165 Arco di Pace / Arco Imperiale : Triumphal arch? Over the central axis and the location of the altar, a gigantic arch was to be erected. The idea for this Arco Monumentale first emerged in 1937. In the original plan by Cesare Pascoletti and Dagoberto Ortensi it was to be made of steel, rising about 150 m. high. (see fig.28, 1, 9, 10, 26) Adalberto Libera is generally credited for the idea, which seems to be incorrect, as he rather made an adapted design for a smaller version in concrete. But it was Libera’s version that was chosen by the Ente to be elaborated on in a new design in ‘autarchian Italian aluminum’ of reduced but still gigantic size, with elevators and a restaurant in the upper part. The size was still so immense that it was to dwarve all the great churches of the world, including Rome’s own St. Peter’s, and it was at least to equal the Eiffel Tower.166 According to Piacentini, the arch was to act as a ‘symbol of peace and universality’, being illuminated at night so it would be visible from a great distance.167 It was designated under different names: Arcone (Grand Arch), Arco E42 (Arch E42), Arco di Pace (Arch of Peace) and Arco Imperiale (Imperial Arch).168 It is most probable that the last name most clearly reflects the meaning that Mussolini and the regime must have attached to it.169 I think that it Eventually, dictator Franco was also entombed here in 1975, although that may not have been the original intention. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Fallen, consulted 8-12-20) It is not impossible that the ara itself was secretly intended to become the tomb of the Duce. In any case, the form of the monument bears a likeness to Piacentini’s design of the mausoleum for Luigi Cadorna, who was a war hero and field marshall under Mussolini, erected in Verbania in 1932. http://www.artefascista.it/verbania__fascismo__archite.htm (consulted 11-12-20) Furthermore, it may also be relevant to take note of the mausoleum of Guglielmo Marconi in Pontecchio Marconi, which was designed by Piacentini in the late 30’s. It is known that Mussolini, Piacentini and Ugo Ojetti spoke about the ‘santuario Marconiano’ in december 1938. (Nicoloso 2008, p. 185; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Museum_and_Mausoleum , consulted 11-12-20) 165 Greco 2018, pp.95-99. 166 Guidoni 1987, p.37; Muntoni 1987, p.98; Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.467-470; Kargon, Fiss, Low & Molella 2015, pp.109-120 ; https://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/romes-most-famous-buildingthat-never.html (consulted 10-7-2020) 167 According to a letter that Piacentini wrote to Cini, dated 27 december 1937, printed in Guidoni 1987, p.77. 168 Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.467-470; Kallis 2014, p.157. 169 In Mussolini’s words it was a “symbol of the human will strained in the effort to realise peace” (“simbolo delle volontà umane tese nelle sforzo di realizzare la pace”; Sidoni 2019, ch.V, p.164, referring to Edoardo Susmel & Duilio Susmel , Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini. Roma 1951-1962. Vol XXIX, p.265). I guess that the ’peace’ must be understood in the Augustean sense here: Mussolini promised there would be peace after he had conquered the empire, and the arch and the altar were to celebrate the peace that was to come after victory. 56 was intended as a triumphal arch for the conquest of the Mare nostrum, or more particular Tunis/Carthage. The project was very dear to Mussolini. He signed his approval of the project, scribbling "Arco = E42 e vice-versa".170 Although the arch was never built, the project served a propagandic function nonetheless as it was pictured prominently among others on posters, in newspapers and magazines in the years running up to 1942.171 Figure 28: The Grand Arch (Arcone / Arco E42 / Arco di Pace / Arco Imperiale) which was intended to be built over the central axis to the south of the lake, originally designed by Cesare Pascoletti and Dagoberto Ortensi and adapted by Adalberto Libera. Advertising poster by Giorgio Quaroni, c.1939. (from: www.eurspa.it) E42 as part of a triumphal route? The combination of the projected altar and the projected arch was openly publicized only in 1941, after Italy had entered the war, but I am inclined to believe that it was not really new by then. I think it may have already been intended to be built with this symbolic content much earlier, but that originally it was planned to be realized and publicized only after E42 was over. 170 Kargon, Fiss, Low & Molella 2015, pp.109-120. https://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/romes-most-famous-building-that-never.html (consulted 10-7-2020) 171 Kargon, Fiss, Low & Monella 2015, p.111; https://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/romesmost-famous-building-that-never.html (consulted 10-7-2020) Note the likeness to the Gateway Arch, that was built in St. Louis Missouri, after the 1947 design of Eero Saarinen. This arch is officially dedicated to ‘the American people’. It was built as a monument to the westward expansion of the United States, much like the Arco Imperiale was, in my opinion, meant to celebrate the fascist expansion to the Mare nostrum and Africa. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Arch , consulted 11-12-20) 57 If this speculation is correct, it seems well possible that axis, altar and arch were part of a far grander project: a fascist triumphal route172 from Piazza Venezia to E42, from the old heart of Rome to the new heart of the empire; from the memorial of the heroes of the Great War (WWI) to the intended monument of the heroes of what was to become the Second World War.173 (fig.29) I think this route was to pass over Via dell’Impero, over the imperial forums, past the remnants of Augustus’ temple of Mars Ultor, past the famous maps of the old and the new empire174, through the triumphal arch of Constantine over Via dei Trionfi. Next it lead over Piazza Axum (present Piazza di Porta Capena), which clearly referred to Mussolini’s conquest of Ethiopia in 1936 by the presence of the obelisk that was spoiled from the holy Ethiopian city of Axum.175 The route continued southward, over the Via Africa (present Viale Aventino) to Piazza Albania, which commemorated the annexation of Albania to the Kingdom of Italy, that had taken place in 1939.176 From there on, the route passed the location where the headquarters of the fascist party, the Palazzo Littorio, were intended to be built (not realised)177, on to the Viale delle Piramidi178 (opened 1935), to Porta Ostiense, the redesigned Via Ostiense, turning of to the newly planned Viale Dante just north of San Paolo f.l.m. This road was to join the Via Imperiale and the Viale Marconi at the trident at the planned Piazza del 172 The triumphus was a traditional victory parade in ancient Rome. It was a civil ceremony and a religious rite, meant to celebrate and sanctify the success of military commanders who won wars and made new conquests for Rome. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_triumph ; consulted 29-11-20) In E42 there are various explicit references to the triumphus. For instance in the quadrigae that were designed to be placed on the protruding porticoes at the entrance of the Piazza della Romanità and the facade of the Palazzo dei Ricevimenti e Congressi and in the fresco’s in this palazzo’s atrium of the triumphs of Ceasar and Augustus. (Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.331-333, 482-483) 173 Possibly, this triumphal route should be understood as a symbolical mirror image, and continuation at once, of a ‘route of martyrdom’. According to Weststeijn (2018, p.341) this route of martyrdom led from the Piazza dei Cinquecento in front of Termini station to the Capitoline hill. It was created with various monuments under the liberal regime from 1887 onwards, in order to recollect the fallen soldiers in the Dogali defeat in Ethiopia and in World War I. The fascist regime added among others the ‘altar of the fallen fascists’ on the Capitoline hill to this route. If these routes of martyrdom and triumph really were planned as such, it appears more or less ‘logical’ that the fascist regime would have connected them, regarding that fascist imperial policy was to a considerable amount driven by the desire to expunge the shame of earlier defeats in Eritrea and Ethiopia. (see: Cerasi 2014, p.11) 174 The temple of Mars Ultor may have been especially significant for its symbolism of military revenge and for its important role in martial affairs in the empire. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Mars_Ultor ) Hyde Minor suggests that the building of the Via dell’Impero, with its references to the ancient empire, was intended as part of the plan to build a new empire. This intention may be read in the four maps of the ancient empire that were hung to the rear wall of the Basilica of Maxentius in 1934, and that were joined by a fifth map of the new fascist empire in 1936. (Hyde Minor 1999) 175 This stele was originally planned to be erected in Piazza Imperiale in E42, but plans were redrawn in 1937. (see p.41) 176 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Albania. Piazza Albania was inaugurated by Mussolini on 27 Octobre 1940, on the festive day celebrating the March on Rome. The following day the Italian army started the ill-fated invasion into Greece from Albania. (Sidoni 2019, ch.V, p.207) 177 Nicoloso 2008, p.147. The Palazzo del Littorio was intended to be built here, after the project for housing it next to the Via dell’Impero (1933) was aborted. But the new project for this location was also aborted in favour of the Foro Mussolini in the north of Rome, where it was built in 1939-1959. It is presently known as the Palazzo Farnesina, housing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_della_Farnesina ; consulted 26-7-21) 178 Nicoloso 2008, p.53. The name seems to refer to the ancient tomb of the adjacent Piramida Cestia, but may also be intended to point forward to the aspired conquest of Egypt. At present, the avenue is called Viale della Piramida Cestia. 58 Lavoro just north of E42.179 In between Piazza Albania and E42 there was plenty of room for more piazzas and monuments to commemorate more intended conquestst, for instance Greece, Corsica, Egypt and of course Tunisia/Carthage.180 I think the celebration of this last conquest was planned to be the grand arch on E42’s axis.181 The fact that E42 was not oriented at this triumphal route (e.g. directed at the Viale Ostiense) - which would seem more obvious in this specific context - is precisely because it was oriented on Villa Torlonia and Tunis/Carthage, making the presence of the Duce and Tunis/Carthage symbolically ‘felt’ by its orientation. Possibly, the sequence of spaces and buildings of the triumphal route may also have been intended as a temporal sequence of past (the centre of Rome with among others the Vittoriano and the Arch of Constantine182), present (the fascist era with Piazza Axum and Piazza Albania up to E42) and future (the Arco dell’Impero and beyond, a kind of land beyond the rainbow), adhering to the secondary theme of E42, ‘Yesterday, today, tomorrow’. It may also be relevant that the Via dell’Impero was intended as, among others, the stage for the yearly ceremonial re-enactment of the mythologized March on Rome, by which fascism took foothold in Rome and the government of Italy in 1922. It was also with this re-enactment the new road was ceremonially opened on 28 Octobre 1932.183 Possibly, the route of this ritual march was intended to be prolonged all the way along this hypothetical triumphal route to E42’s grand arch, once Tunis / Carthage would have been conquered. 179 The piazza and the Viale Dante were never completely realized, since works were aborted in the war and plans were altered and downgraded after the collapse of the regime. 180 In October 1937, Piacentini wrote in a letter to Oppo about his plan to make a grand new access road to E42 by way of the Via Ostiense, in addition to the Via Imperiale. He explicitly writes that various piazzas could be laid out along this route. On 7 December this idea is accepted in a meeting with various high officials. In an article of 27 November 1938 in Il Giornale d’Italia Piacentini writes that new ministries and other public buildings should be built along this route. (Guidoni 1987, pp.50-51) Possibly, the Obelisco Marconi in Piazza Imperiale should also be regarded in this context: being intended as a monument to Guglielmo Marconi and to the medium of radio (see above n.91), it can be taken for a celebration of the conquest of the ether by the fascist hero Marconi. 181 Nicoloso (2008, p.246) designates the grand route from the Foro Mussolini to E42 by way of the Via Imperiale in Rome’s Piano Regolatore of 1941-42 as via triumphalis, being explicitly meant to counter Hitler’s and Speer’s pharaonic project for the new axis through Berlin, which was also designed as a via triumphalis. It is not clear in Nicoloso’s text, whether or not it was designated as such in the erstwhile project for Rome. According to Kallis (2014, pp.93-95) a ‘triumphal circuit’ was created in the mid-1930’s from Piazza Venezia by Via dell’Impero, Via dei Triomfi, Via dei Cecchi or Via dell Circo Massimo back to Piazza Venezia over the Via del Mare. I think, however, that the route between Piazza Venezia and the grand arch in E42 by way of the middle route via Porta Ostiense was intended to become the main triumphal route. 182 Possibly, the ‘route of martyrdom’ (see n.173) was also conceived as part of the yesterday segment of the entire route. 183 Hyde Minor 1999, pp.151-153. 59 Figure 29: Hypothetical triumphal route between Piazza Venezia and E42. Route and names indicated by author on map Open Street Map. (https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/untitled-map_551971) Only after I had developed these ideas, I read a passage in Paul Baxa’s Roads and Ruins that appeared to me as highly relevant for this route and E42’s axis in particular. It reads “It was the new roads […] that acted as agents of transformation; they were the main protagonists of the fascist cityscape and their purpose was not only to move traffic and provide surprising views of the city, but also to transform Italians.” Baxa’s most direct source for this idea is a passage regarding the Via dell’Impero in the journal Capitolium of 1934: “It traces a wider path for our thoughts, it comforts our spirit, brightens our vistas; opens – amidst visions of real beauty and ideals – our mind and soul to less material and egoistic concepts of life; it comforts and exalts us; it refreshes and prods us towards new goals and greater destinies.” Baxa continues: The Via dell’Impero was not simply ‘a point of arrival for sterile contemplation of a great past, but a gathering place and start-off point towards new horizons.’ […] This kind of veneration of roads was central to the image of fascist Rome, and it can be traced back to the origins of the movement. The road was a moral and mythological symbol before it was functional. Yet, these roads were also required to shuttle increasing traffic through the centre of the city. Myth and technology, the moral and the functional, could not be separated in fascist Rome.”184 The idea behind this text is partly also about the Via Imperiale, being one of the prominent new fascist roads, but Baxa most probably was not aware of the fact that the backbone of E42 was Baxa 2010, p.100, referring to G. Marchetti Longhi, La via dell’Impero nel su sviluppo storico, topografico e nel suo significato ideale. In: Capitolium 10, no. 2 (February 1934). pp.54-56. 184 60 directed at Mussolini’s residence and Tunis/Carthage. Nonetheless, it seems to fit my argument perfectly. It is as if the words from Capitolium regarding the Via dell’Impero, foreshadowed the layout of E42’s axis.185 It is relevant here, to consider again that Via dell’Impero was aimed exactly at Mussolini’s office in Palazzo Venezia. This is comparable to E42’s axis being oriented on the Duce’s residence, even though the direct visual relation is absent there. In both cases, it seems that these enormous avenues may really have been intended from the very outset as moral and mythological instruments to transform the Italians in veneration of their leader and to ‘prod them towards new goals and new destinies’. AFTERLIFE OF E42: EUR By summer 1940, Mussolini was determined to enter the war. After he had seen Germany’s swift advance on several fronts, he expected peace talks to start soon and he wanted to make sure that Italy would be at the table. In June, he had Italy declare war on France, as he was convinced it would be over and done with in a matter of weeks. It turned out to be very different, with catastrophic results for Italy, himself and countless others.186 E42 was first postponed in May 1940, after which it was designated as EUR (Esposizione Universale di Roma) instead of E42. Work went on, however, until well into 1942, be it at a much slower pace.187 Mussolini was dedicated to have the works go on as long as possible, as it was one of the “great works with regard to our civilisation”. Even when the military requested to have iron and steel be exclusively reserved for military purposes, the Duce explicitly made an exception for EUR.188 In 1941-’42 a new master plan (piano regolatore generale) was made for Rome and its surroundings by Piacentini, Giovannoni, Oppo, Salatino and Testa, by order of Mussolini. It was only now that Rome’s extension towards the coast, including E42/EUR, was urbanistically normalised and regulated coherently with the development of Rome as a whole. 189 The map of the plan clearly demonstrates the central place that E42/EUR was intended to take on in the future Rome that was projected by the fascist national and urban administration, being located between the existing city and the huge newly planned seaward extension. (fig.30) After construction work was aborted due to the course of events in the war, the partly buit up area was used for war gardens to grow food for the hungry city, respectively encampment for Italian, German and allied military, as pasture and for illegal housing. After a long impasse, it was decided to use the area for the agricultural exposition of 1953. (fig.31) Construction works were subsequently taken up again, now to accommodate offices, museums and middle class housing. 185 It may be relevant to note that in irridentist literature in 1911 an imagery was used of roads through the Mediterranean that linked ancient Rome to its colonies, that were waiting to be repaired and reused. (Giuseppe Piazza , La Nostra Terra Promessa. Rome 1911, p. 116; Paolo Orano , Il Mediterraneo. Naples, 1911, p. 20 ; See: Agbamu 2019, p. 259) The orientation of E42’s Via Imperiale towards Tunis / Carthage could be regarded as a later symbolic representation of such a ‘Roman road buried by the sea’. There is no doubt that this literature was part of a movement that inspired fascism and Mussolini’s international politics to a considerable degree, but I have not found the imagery of a road under the sea in texts from the fascist era. 186 Smith 1976. 187 Ferrara 1987, pp.81-82; Fioravanti 1987, pp.99-100. 188 Nicoloso 2008, p.75. 189 In legal sence, however, there was no normalisation, as the PRG was instituted by Mussolini’s decree on 28 May 1942, shortly before the new legislation on urbanism was passed. Only in 1973, the development of EUR would be legally normalised. (Insolera & Di Majo 1987, pp.65-71; Bodenschatz 2011, pp.204-207) 61 Figure 30: Master plan (piano regolatore generale) for Rome 1941-1942. Note the central position that E42/EUR has (from: https://www.rerumromanarum.com/2017/03/piano-regolatore-dellametropolitana-di.html ; consulted 25-7-21) Figure 31: Aereal photo of EUR, in eastern direction, 1953. The layout and buildings in this picture were constructed in the period 1937-1942 (from: Wikimedia Commons) 62 The area has swung from being the pretended centre of soutwestward extension of Rome to unsuccesfully marking the outer edge of the city and back, more or less according to the political colour of the civic administration. The central theme of the quarter has meanwhile been redirected from ‘monumental centre’ in the 40’s, via ‘park city’ (50’s), ‘directional centre‘ (60’s-70’s), ‘city of art’ (80’s) to the actual ‘congress city’.190 Building projects kept going on. The youngest striking project was the 2016 congress centre designed by Massimiliano Fuksas. In the meantime the area around EUR was being urbanised in almost every direction with quarters for housing and business. And so was the land between EUR and Ostia, mainly with residential areas in a rather unstructured and unsightly manner. Mussolini’s vision of Rome being connected to the sea was attained, but not in the glorious fashion that he had in mind. It was not completely over with monumental imperial symbolism, however, as the obelisk dedicated to Guglielmo Marconi was finally completed in 1959 in the Piazza Imperiale (now Piazza Guglielmo Marconi), and even in 2004, the Obelisco Novecento, which refers to both the Tower of Babel and Trajans Column, was erected by the confluence of the highways south of the Palazzo dello Sport.191 In 2007, the project for the grand arch was even revived by the Roman city council, that assigned a budget to examining plans for erecting an enormous arch that was to symbolize ‘universal peace’.192 In 2015, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana became the headquarters of fashion company Fendi, which utilizes the building for its corporate identity and publicity, apart from unpractical accomodation of offices. The aesthetic taste for an estranging atmosphere that made this place attractive to this company, was probably also what brought world famous Italian cineasts Michelangelo Antonioni (L'eclisse, 1962), Bernardo Bertolucci (The Conformist, 1970) and Federico Fellini (Boccaccio '70, 1962 and 8½, 1963) to film in EUR. In perspective of my hypotheses, it would be at least remarkable that the secret intentions were not disclosed by collaborators in E42’s afterlife. Why did nobody speak of the symbolism behind the design after the fall of fascism? I think it is because nobody would have been (openly) proud of it under the new political constellation. As far as I know, all the collaborators tried to diminish their roles afterwards. Hence, it is unlikely they would have revealed any hidden symbolic intentions of explicitly fascist and imperialist nature. If the directional symbolism was really intended, Piacentini must have been in on the plan, or may have even been its originator. But he must have praised himself lucky to be punished only lightly after the war. He denied to have had special ties to Mussolini or a special position under the fascist regime193, so if there really was a directional symbolism, a plan for a monument to Mussolini or for a fascist triumphal route, he would have rather kept it to himself. CONCLUSION I think that by the integration of the various elements described above, E42 was explicitly, implicitly and even secretly drenched in the cult of romanità , the cult of empire, the cult of the Duce, and the cult of fascism (which largely contained the others). In the words of Kallis, E42 was meant as ‘the stage for the definite fascist triumph’.194 190 Quilici 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Obelisk ; http://www.romacontemporanea.artplannerscuole.it/a.cfm?id=2340 (both consulted 12-10-20) 192 https://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/romes-most-famous-building-that-never.html (consulted 16-12-20) 193 Sidoni 2019, ch.VI, pp.6-7. 194 Kallis 2014, p.244. 191 63 The double urbanistic purpose of World’s fair-ground combined with subsequent new monumental urban quarter of symbolic significance, was presented as a smart and pragmatic solution in order to save costs for both propaganda and urban expansion.195 But I believe there is more to it: the intention was to make the whole world - and particularly the nations that had forced sanctions on Italy via the League of Nations for its aggression towards Ethiopia - contribute to an exposition that explicitly glorified Rome and its empire, both ancient and modern, less explicitly the Duce, and secretly his further imperial ambitions. This exposition was supposed to help fascist military build-up by supplying the regime extra income and extra time before striking. I think the plan was to turn this universal Olympics of civilisation into the ultimate monument of fascist triumph and glorification of its leader. The double purpose of fairground to be turned into new centre of the nation, or rather the empire, was deliberately meant as an insult to Great Britain, France, the USA and other nations that had dared to oppose the imperial project that Rome was deemed to be historically entitled to. With the directional symbolism of its axis, E42 can be considered as a kind of aggressive geopolitically inspired urbanism, which has no equal, as far as I know. That is, if my ideas about the orientation of the axis are correct. I realize, however, they are intriguing, rather than strong, for hard evidence is still lacking. I admit that the circumstantial evidence I used for arguments is far from decisive. However, I did not find facts that oppose my ideas. What clearly remains, is the fact that E42 was given a central axis that was much emphasized, right from the first design sketches up to the present reality, and the question of its orientation. I find it very hard to believe this orientation was a matter of accident or of pragmatical adaptation to circumstances, whatever they were. I think there simply must have been a good reason for its specific orientation, and chances are that this reason had a symbolic nature. I feel this is just crying for explanation, hence my attempt above. Over the past year, since I was first captivated by the question of E42’s orientation, I felt like being in an architectural historians’ playground, and the game may have carried me away. For me, as an architectural historian who has mainly investigated much older subjects, it was rather surprising how much still appears to be unkown about the history of E42 and its design, although there is such good documenation in comparison to cities of, say, six centuries earlier. The subject of its style has been excavated into its deepest layers, but other relevant themes seem to have been left almost untouched. And I think my efforts leave plenty to be investigated much deeper. It is my hypothesis that in E42 the explicit cult of romanità was implicitly, or even secretly connected to the aspiration for empire and the personality cult of Mussolini. There can be no doubt about the existence of this aspiration and this cult, and E42 playing a role in it, and I am not the first to draw attention to it. I think it cannot be doubted either that the line of its central axis extends to Villa Torlonia and Tunis (or nearby at least), and that it was technically possible to direct it there on purpose. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that its direction was accidental or just the result of pragmatism. But still, there is a chance this is all overinterpretation. The relevance I believe to have found in E42’s orientation may be coincidence, as there is no clear and unequivocal evidence. I hope this article may contribute to further research into this subject, to better understanding and eventually, to more knowledge. If my hypothesis on the orientation of E42’s axis and its meaning is not falsified, further research should be conducted on the early stage of design of the master plan: why was the plan completely focused on a central main axis, and how was its direction determined? Alas, I barely found relevant information on this particular subject. 195 Godoli 1987, pp.147-149. 64 In the period that I have been doing my research, we have had a pandemic raging over the world. We have seen the phenomenon of a large group of people who denied the malign work of the virus and/or who believed that there was some kind of secret plot behind it. To my amazement, I also saw this in my personal surroundings. I sometimes felt that the ideas that I developed over the plans of Mussolini and his henchmen with E42, were almost too similar to the ideas these people developed: an evil power rolling out a a secret scheme of manipulating media, public opinion and international policy in order to attain its own goals of power and dominance. I cannot say that this has not worried me. But I am positive that what I tried to argue above is far more likely to have actually happened than the supposed schemes that politicians, scientists, companies, organizations and their leaders have recently been accused of. I hope that, despite the inevitable shortcomings in my knowledge, logic, argumentation and language, this will also hold for you, my reader. Now, it is time for some concluding remarks. Above I have already written that Piacentini suggested a trick of transformation, by changing the altar to fascism into an altar to the fallen American soldiers in World War II in 1948, and that he was reinstated as master planner for EUR in 1950. In retrospect it is all too clear that Marcello Piacentini was an impudent opportunist, who used his talents and, more effectively, his enormous network of contacts in high places, to get important commissions by three successive regimes. He wantend to create, to build and to put his stamp on Italy, and more specifically on Rome. It almost seems as if he used Mussolini and the fascist regime for that purpose, rather than the other way around, but that is, of course, a question of perspective. It is quite astonishing, that Piacentini was not an ardent fascist, unlike many other architects, and that he was favoured so strongly by the regime and its leader, despite the fact he had circulated in circles of the freemasons and radical democrats around former mayor Ernesto Nathan, which were detested so much by the fascists, and despite the fact that Mussolini had been informed of Piacentini receiving slush funds.196 Could it be that Mussolini and Piacentini had some kind of special bond since their first project as architect and patron for the erection of the Bolzano Monumento alla Vittoria in 1926? As I already wrote above, this project could, in its specific symbolism, be regarded as an early exercise for E42.197 Unfortunately, the part of Piacentini’s archive that most probably held his correspondence with the Duce and other prominent persons in the regime, was lost.198 This is unfortunate, as it might have given more insight in their relationship, and may have revealed information about the orientation of E42’s axis and its secretly intended meaning. The Esposizione Universale 1942 never happened and Mussolini met his ill fate, hanging upside down from a girder of a service station in Milan on 28 April 1945, before more than a handful of buildings was erected in the area. It cannot be denied, however, that he was immortalized by the project, as well as by many other building projects that were realised under his rule. Apart from these, it was his political machinations and chicanery rather than a steady political vision that he is remembered by, his military failures and war crimes rather than his victories, by his malign aggression rather than by his benevolence, by the many victims rather than by the favoured, and probably by the persiflage in Chaplin’s Great Dictator rather than by his actual appearances on film. Reading the literature on Rome under his regime, it appears that various scholars held the opinion that he should be remembered for his demolitions rather than his architectural achievements.199 Indeed, many buildings were demolished under his rule, and not seldomly it was the Duce himself who 196 Nicoloso 2008, pp.172-192. See above, p.42. 198 Scharoccia 1999, pp.342-343. 199 Cederna 1979. 197 65 ceremoniously raised the pickaxe first. But in comparison to other capital cities in the period, Rome does not stand out for being torn down, although it is true that Mussolini was responsible for temporarily accelerating the process of making traffic breakthroughs in Rome. Anyway, architecture once again proves that it is a main instrument for immortalisation. It is known that Mussolini was aware of that.200 The Duce saw architecture and cinema as the most powerful arts.201 As I already mentioned above, there were two grand artistic projects that were meant to propagate his imperialist aggression: E42 and the movie Scipione l’Africano. It should be noted here, that the movie presently is mainly ridiculed for its wordiness and all too evident propaganda, and there probably are very few people that go to watch it, apart from historians possibly; whereas E42’s architecture and urban structure is presently much appreciated (for its aesthetic qualities, not for its symbolic content), after having been detested as anti-modernist in the second half of the 20th century.202 Many enjoy sightseeing or staying in EUR, which is a lively quarter of 21st-century Rome, still being developed further. I guess this proves that Mussolini’s opinion of cinema as powerful weapon might be true, but that its durability is much less than the impact of architecture. This goes to demonstrate that architecture is in fact a very powerful art indeed, but that probably will be nothing new to the reader. It also shows that architecture can be re-used, re-dressed and re-interpreted, and that it is up to (architectural-) historical research and interpretation to unveil forgotten, hidden or secret meanings, even when they are uncomfortable. Me and my colleagues, as architectural historians, are the ones that study architecture and its drives, its meanings and its consequences. With this, we are to a considerable extent responsible for how planners, architects and their patrons are reminded. Given the fact that Mussolini is, to a substantial extent, reminded for the architectural heritage of his regime, we are partly responsible for this.203 And I am aware that with the ideas that I put forward in this paper, I am contributing to the remembrance of a cruel dictator who cannot be seen as a friend to mankind in general. Benito Mussolini is also to be remembered for the athrocities he was responsible for, as for instance mistreatment and murder of political opponents, war crimes in Lybia, Ethiopia and Spain, and state-regulated racism against Jews and their deportation, and many other cruelties. I am convinced that E42 was planned to become a monument to Mussolini and fascist imperialism, secretly during the World’s fair and only openly after. My intention certainly is not to restore this function. I hope that , instead, this article may help to see EUR as a monument to Mussolini’s harmful megalomania and the danger of the collective delusion of nationalistic cultural moral superiority over other nations or peoples. If my ideas are correct, they show that Mussolini’s ego was even bigger than we already knew.204 But my account also may be taken to demonstrate that ambitious architects and planners may easily be drawn into aggression and deception, and that they can be guilty of stimulating harmful megalomania and collective delusion. 200 Nicoloso 2008. See above, n.103. 202 Bodenschatz 2011, pp.195, 208-217. 203 It should be considered here, that it were also archaeologists, (art) historians and artists that provided Mussolini with arguments and excuses for demolitions, no less than with arguments for and means of identification with historic periods and figures and their monuments, as well as for creating his own architectural heritage (in particular Margarita Sarfatti, Roberto Paribeni, Antonio Muñoz and Giulio Giglioli). See: Visser 1996. 204 Mussolini’s ego seems to have been bigger than Italy, as he complained that the people were not worthy of him and that they turned out to be un-Roman. In March 1942, when the Italian army failed almost everywhere it went, he said “This war is not for the Italian people. The Italian people are not mature or consistent enough for so grave and decisive a test. This war is for the Germans and the Japanese, not for us.” (Bosworth 2011, p.210) 201 66 I think E42 was meant as a monument to Mussolini, and in fact it has become so, although in a different way than intended. I am convinced that it would be a good thing if that would not be denied, and there would be some sort of presentation or museum of EUR and its history, where the uncomfortable aspects of ‘contaminated heritage’ would also be presented.205 Maybe that would help to make EUR into a true monument of the history of Italian civilisation. Bibliography to Wim Boerefijn , Universal Exposition Rome 1942 (E42): Possible Meaning of Orientation. Architectural Instrument of Personality Cultus, Imperialism and Deception? Agbamu, Samuel , Mare Nostrum: Italy and the Mediterranean of Ancient Rome in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries. In: Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 8 (2019), pp.250-274. Alvisi, Giovanna , Il contributo dell’aerofotofragia allo studio dell’E 42 e delle grandi opere pubbliche conesse. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.117-146 De Angelis, Adriana , Alla ricerca della città ideale. Utopie, distopie, ideologie, nostalgie e rimembranze dello spazio immaginato intorno all'"uomo nuovo”. Dottorato di ricerca in Scienze Archeologiche e Storico-artistiche XXVI ciclo 1920-1940. Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”. Napoli 2014. Atkinson, David , Geopolitics and the geographical imagination in Fascist Italy. Ph.D thesis, University of Loughborough, 1995. Atkinson, David & Denis Cosgrove , Urban Rhetoric and Embodied Identities: City, Nation, and Empire at the Vittorio Emanuele II Monument in Rome, 1870-1945. In: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (1998), no. 1, pp. 28-49 Baxa, Paul , Roads and Ruins. The Symbolic Landscape of Fascist Rome. Toronto/Buffalo/London 2010. Beese, Christine , Marcello Piacentini. Moderner Städtebau in Italien. Berlin 2016. Bodenschatz, Harald (hrsg.), Städtebau für Mussolini. Auf der Suche nach der neuen Stadt im faschistischen Italien. Berlin 2011. Bodenschatz, Harald, Städtebau für Mussolini. Auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Rom. Berlin 2013. 205 For an impression of the way Italy has dealt with the fascist architectural legacy in general, see: Malone 2017. A good example, in my opinion, is the ‘documentation centre’ in the Monumento alla Vittoria in Bolzano. See Obermair 2016 and https://www.monumenttovictory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/MaV_ENG_72dpi.pdf (consulted 19-12-20) 67 Bosworth, R.J.B. , Whispering City. Rome and Its Histories. New Haven/London 2011. Bottai, G. , Il mondo ‘ab urbe condita.’ Il significante e il galore dell’Esposizione Universale. In: L’Illustrazione Italiana 65 (December 18, 1938). Bruschi, Andrea , La Variante Generale del 1942 al Piano Regolatore di Roma. In: Roma. Architettura e città negli anni della Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Roma 2004, pp.619-626. Calvesi, Maurizio , Enrico Guidoni & Simonetta Lux , E 42, L‘Esposizione universale di Roma. Utopia e scenario del regime. Vol. 2 Urbanistica, architettura, arte e decorazione. Venezia 1987. Campitelli, Alberta , Villa Torlonia, l’ultima impresa del mecenatismo romano. In: Ricerche di Storia dell’arte, 1986, 28-29, pp. 151-160. Campitelli, Alberta , Villa Torlonia: storia ed architettura. Roma 1989. Canali, Ferruccio , «Monumentomania» asburgica e «Monumentomania» italiana a Bolzano nell’Età dei Nazionalismi: dall’«era Perathoner» alla ‘prima’ «era Tolomei» (1889-1928). Il Monumento Alla Vittoria di Marcello Piacentini (1926-1928). In: Bolletino della società di studi fiorentini 20/21, (2011/2012), pp.105-151. Cederna, Antonio , Mussolini urbanista : lo sventramento di Roma negli anni del consenso. Roma 1979. Cerasi, Laura , Empires ancient and modern: strength, modernity and power in imperial ideology from the Liberal period to Fascism. In: Modern Italy 19 (2014) , Issue 4, pp. 421 – 438. Ciucci, Giorgio , Gli architetti e il fascismo. Architettura e città 1922-1944. Torino 1989. (I) Ciucci, Giorgio, The Classicism of the E 42: Between Modernity and Tradition. In: Assemblage, No. 8 (Feb. 1989), pp. 78-87. (II) Dagnino, Jorge , The Myth of the New Man in Italian Fascist Ideology. In: Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 5 (2016), no. 2, pp.130-148. Etlin, Richard A. , Modernism in Italian Architecture, 1890-1940. Cambridge (Mass)/ London 1991. Falasca-Zamponi, Simonetta , Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley/Los Angeles 1997. Ferrara, Patrizia , L’EUR: un ente per l’E 42. In: E 42 Utopia en scenario del regime. I: Ideologia e programma per l’’Olimpiade delle civiltà’. Tullio Gregory & Achille Tartaro (eds.). Roma 1987, pp.7383. Fioravanti, Gigliola , L’Olimpiade delle Civilt’a: programma, strutture, organizzazione. In: E 42 Utopia en scenario del regime. I: Ideologia e programma per l’’Olimpiade delle civiltà’. Tullio Gregory & Achille Tartaro (eds.). Roma 1987, pp.91-101. 68 Fortuna, James , Fascism, National Socialism, and the 1939 New York World’s Fair. In: Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies, vol. 8 (2019), no. 2, pp.179-218. Garin, Eugenio , La civiltà Italiana nell’esposizione del 1942. In: E 42 Utopia en scenario del regime. I: Ideologia e programma per l’’Olimpiade delle civiltà’. Tullio Gregory & Achille Tartaro (eds.). Roma 1987, pp.3-16. Gentile, Emilio , Fascism as Political Religion. In: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (May - Jun., 1990), pp. 229-251. Ghirardo, Diane Yvonne , Italian Architects and Fascist Politics: An Evaluation of the Rationalist's Role in Regime Building. In: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 109-127. Ghirardo, Diane , “Architects, Exhibitions, and the Politics of Culture in Fascist Italy,” Journal of Architectural Education 45, no. 2 (Feb. 1992), pp. 67–74. Giardina, Andrea , The fascist myth of romanity. In: Estudos Avançados 22, (2008), issue 62. pp.55-76. Giuman, Marco & Ciro Parodo , "L’altro Scipione. Scipione l’Africano e il suo tempo: iconologia dell’antico nel film di Carmine Gallone". Cagliari 2011. Godoli, Ezio , L'E42 e le esposizioni universali. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp.147-155. Greco, Antonella , Ora non ho più da fare». Riflessioni su Marcello Piacentini: Roma, la Città Universitaria, la rinascita dell’EUR In: Quaderi dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura 2018, pp. 81101. Gregory, Tullio & Achille Tartaro (eds.) , E 42 Utopia en scenario del regime. I: Ideologia e programma per l’’Olimpiade delle civiltà’. Roma 1987. Griffin, Roger , Modernism and Fascism. The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler. Basingstole/New York 2007. Gundle, Stephen , Christopher Duggan, and Giuliana Pieri (eds.) , The cult of the Duce. Mussolini and the Italians. Manchester 2013. Guidoni, Enrico , L’E 42, città della rappresentazione. Il progetto urbanistico e le polemiche sull’architettura. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp. 17-82. Higueras, Alvaro , Contestation from the Top: Fascism in the Realm of Culture and Italy’s Conception of the Past. In: Helaine Silverman (ed.), Contested Cultural Heritage. Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World. New York 2011, pp. 193-204. Hyde Minor, Heather , Mapping Mussolini: Ritual and Cartography in Public Art during the Second Roman Empire. In: Imago Mundi, Vol. 51 (1999), pp. 147-162. Insolera, Italo & Luigi Di Majo , L’Eur e Roma dagli anni Trenta al Duemila. Roma/Bari, 1986. 69 Kallis, Aristotle , ‘In miglior tempo … ’: what fascism did not build in Rome. In: Journal of Modern Italian Studies, Volume 16 (2011), Issue 1, pp. 59-83. Kallis, Aristotle , The Third Rome, 1922-43 : The Making of the Fascist Capital. London 2014. Kargon, Robert H., Karen Fiss, Morris Low & Arthur P. Molella , World's Fairs on the Eve of War : Science, Technology, and Modernity, 1937-1942. Pittsburgh 2015. Kirk, Terry , The Architecture of Modern Italy. Vol. I: The Challenge of Tradition 1750-1900. Princeton 2005. Kostof, Spiro , The Third Rome, 1870-1950. Traffic and Glory. Exhibition catalogue University Art Museum, Berkeley 1973. Lowe, C.J. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940. London/New York 2002. Malone, Hannah , Legacies of Fascism: architecture, heritage and memory in contemporary Italy. In: Modern Italy 22 (2017), nr.4, pp. 445-470. Marcello, Flavia , The Idea of Rome in Fascist Art and Architecture: The Decorative Program of the Palazzo dei Congressi in EUR, Rome. In: Interspaces: Art + Architectural Exchanges from East to West. Melbourne 2010, pp. 1-27. Marcello, Flavia , Forma urbis Mussolinii: Vision and Rhetoric in the Designs for Fascist Rome. In: Brill’s Companion to the Classics, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Leiden/Boston 2018, pp. 370–403. Mariani, Riccardo , E42, un progetto per l’”Ordine Nuovo”. Milano, 1987. Mariani, Riccardo , La progettaione dell’E42. La prima fase / The planning of the E42. The first phase. In: Lotus International 67: I grandi progetti i traformazione / Large conversion projects. Milano 1990, pp. 91-126. Missori, Mario , Le carte dell’Ente Esposizione Universale di Roma depositate presso l’Archivio dello Stato. In: E 42 Utopia en scenario del regime. I: Ideologia e programma per l’’Olimpiade delle civiltà’. Tullio Gregory & Achille Tartaro (eds.). Roma 1987, pp. 85-90. Fraga, Monclús , Francisco Javier & José Luis Oyón Bañales , Elementos de composición urbana. Barcelona 2001. Mostra della Civiltà Italiana, Criteri fondamentali per la presentazione della Mostra. Roma 1939. Muntoni, Alessandra , E42, I concorsi. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp. 83-100. Mussolini, Benito , Scritti e discorsi di Benito Mussolini. 9 : Scritti e discorsi dal gennaio 1934 al 4 novembre 1935. Roma 1935. 70 Nelis, Jan , Constructing Fascist Identity: Benito Mussolini and the Myth of "Romanità". In: The Classical World. Vol. 100 (2007), No. 4, pp. 391-415. Nelis, Jan , From ancient to modern: the myth of romanità during the ventennio fascista. The written imprint of Mussolini’s cult of the ‘Third Rome’. Turnhout 2011. Nicoloso, Paolo , Mussolini architetto. Propaganda e paesaggio urbano nell’Italia fascista. Torino 2008. Notaro, Anna , Exhibiting the New Mussolinian City: Memories of empire in the World Exhibition of Rome (EUR). In: GeoJournal 51 (2000), no. 1-2, pp. 15-2 Obermair, Hannes , BZ '18–'45: ein Denkmal, eine Stadt, zwei Diktaturen. Begleitband zur Dokumentations-Ausstellung im Bozener Siegesdenkmal. Bozen, 2016. Ortolani, Giorgio , Ancient Modern Rome - Roma antica moderna. In: Claudio D'Amato Guerrieri (ed.), Città di pietra: L’altra modernità. Venezia 2006, pp. 18-35. Painter, Borden W. , Mussolini's Rome : rebuilding the Eternal City. New York 2005. Consulted as Ebook 2005. Pirelli, Alberto , Taccuini 1922/1943. Bologna 1984. Quilici, Simone , L’espansione di Roma verso il mare: la Via Imperiale. In: Carlo Fabrizio Carli, Gianni Mercurio, Luigi Prisco , E42-EUR. Segno e Sogno del Novecento. Roma 2005, pp.38-40. Quilici, Simone , Due nuove strade tra Roma e la sua regione alla fine degli anni trenta: la Via Mediana e la Via Imperiale. In : ll Tesoro delle Città, Annuario dell’Associazione di Storia della Città, Tesoro delle città / strenna dell'Associazione Storia della Città 7 (2014), pp. 230-243. Quilici, Simone , L'opera di Raffaele de Vico nel quadro della cultura urbanistica e architettonica romana della prima metà del XX secolo. In: Ulrike Gawlik, Raffaele de Vico. I giardini e le architetture romane dal 1908 al 1962, Firenze 2017, pp. 317-338. Scharoccia, S. , Albert Speer e Marcello Piacentini: l’architettura del totalitarismo negli anni trenta . Milano 1999. Scriba, Friedemann , The Sacralization of the Roman Past in Mussolini's Italy – Erudition, Aesthetics, and Religion in the Exhibition of Augustus' Bimillenary in 1937–1938. In: Storia della Storiografia 30, (1996), pp. 19–29 Short, John Rennie , Mega-events: Urban Spectaculars and Globalization. In: Ben Derudder, Michael Hoyler, Peter J. Taylor & Frank Witlox (eds.) , International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities. Cheltenham 2011, pp. 188-197. Sidoni, Paolo , La Roma di Mussolini. La più completa ricostruzione delle trasformazioni della città durante il regime fascista. E-book. Roma 2019. 71 Stone, Marla , Exhibitions and the Cult of Display in Fascist Italy. In: Arti in Italia, 1918 – 1943. Milan 2018, pp. 194-199. Smith, Denis Mack , Mussolini’s Roman Empire. London / New York, 1976. Spila, Alessandro , Sui falsi ruderi di villa Torlonia: il ninfeo. In: ArcHistoR 1 (2014), pp. 109-133. Tymkiw, Michael , Floor Mosaics, Romanità, and Spectatorship: The Foro Mussolini’s Piazzale dell’Impero. In: The Art Bulletin 101 (2019), no. 2, pp. 109-132. Vico Fallani, Massimo de , (1937-1943): Contributo alla storia dei parchi e giardini dell'E42. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987 pp. 156–163 Visser, Romke , Giglioli’s Dream. The Mostra Augustea della Romanità 1937/38. In: TMA - Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 18 (1996), IX, no. 2, pp, 40-48. Weststeijn, A.V. , Egyptian Memorials in Modern Rome: The Dogali Obelisk and the Altar of the Fallen Fascists. In: Versluys, Miguel John, Bülow Clausen, Kristine, Capriotti Vittozzi, Giuseppina (eds.), The Iseum Campense from the Roman Empire to the Modern Age: Temple - Monument - Lieu de Mémoire. Rome 2018, pp. 331 – 347. Zacheo, Maria Italia , Gaetano Minucci / SAPG. In: Calvesi, Guidoni & Lux 1987, pp. 165-167. 72