Rinnovare le basiliche romane, prima e dopo San Giovanni in Laterano

The decision (1605) to demolish the still existing part of the Constantinian Basilica in order to complete the new St. Peter’s ended the overall makeover which began in the Renaissance; but in the new historical context of Counter-Reformation it aroused strong criticism. In particular Cardinal Baronio, Church historian, was firmly contrary to erase the material traces of the churches of early Christianity, inasmuch essential historical basis of the Church. In fact many ancient Roman Basilicas, from the end of the sixteenth century onwards are renewed with criteria more respectful of the originary structures, but the most important church that should be in comparison with St. Peter’s was St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome. In this way, many proposals for St. John in the first half of the seventeenth century reveal more attention to a typological and material continuity with the first Basilica founded by Constantine. The projects of the Barnabite architect Giovanni Ambrogio Magenta and those of Giovanni Battista Mola, both promoted by Barberini family, show new characters, such as the maintenance of the system with five naves and the conservation of columns and other artifacts. Furthermore, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, in renewing the Triclinium of Leo III, the early medieval structure in the Lateran complex, introduces new parameters, such as the distinction between antique remains and modern completions. These instances are reflected, in the mid-seventeenth century, with the renewal of the Lateran Basilica led by Borromini, where the respect of the structure is associated with a strongly individual language. This result becomes a watershed in the way of renewing the Roman Basilicas. In the first half of the century, the distinction between modern language and ancient structures had low intensity and guaranteed a balance between venustas and vetustas, while after the renewal of St. John the relationship becomes more contrasted. This can be seen in a comparison between a renewal of the early seventeenth century, like that of San Crisogono, and, a century later, that of the Basilica of San Clemente, promoted by Pope Clement XI. From a general point of view, the two renovations move on homogeneous parameters: the substitution of the roof trusses with a large coffered ceiling, the replacement of the clerestory with modern windows, the conservation of the floor, the decorative unification of the nave. But in San Clemente, the decorative inserts are strongly autonomous and punctuate the structure without making system between them; and, there is a renewed interest of scholars for medieval antiquities along with this mode of intervention by means of individual parts. So that the ancient enclosures of the choir, which at the time of the Counter-Reformation were dismantled, are now left in place, while the restoration of mosaics and frescoes tend to retain more carefully the old parts. Over the century here examined appear new general criteria for the renewal of the Roman basilicas, with attention paid to the conservation of the materials and the typology, but the outcomes are different. They range from interventions that mask the old system into a new structure – improving the stability of the building – to interventions that interact with the ancient structures in sight. But these experiences are deeply interwoven and go hand in hand with a growing attention of scholars of Christian antiquity for these monuments – and only in this context they acquires a true historical relevance.