Trevi Fountain and the Urban Development of the City of Rome
However, it is clear that Bernini’s design envisaged a much longer building than Palazzo Cornaro, otherwise there would have been very little space for the fountain of Trevi. In fact, we know from some of Lady Olimpia’s documents that two days after she bought Palazzo Cornaro she obtained a Brief from Innocent X (dated 20 October 1647) evicting the Gomez family from the smaller residence that probably adjoined the left-hand side of her new acquisition (between Palazzo Cornaro and the Trevi fountain). What is particularly interesting is that on 20 September 1653, Olimpia bought the building to the right of her new palazzo from two abbots, Antonio and Domenico degli Effetti. In this way, with the purchase of the two adjoining buildings, the architect would have been able to construct his long façade-cum-fountain for Princess Olimpia Pamphili. But there’s a very important aspect of those purchases that confirms, even if indirectly, that such a project existed. While the great Palazzo Cornaro was bought by means of a normal, mutually agreed contract, the story of the two smaller palazzi alongside was rather different and Lady Olimpia had to get Innocent X himself to intervene in order to deal with the owners who dared to oppose her wishes.
The Pope, “having learned that his beloved Lady Olympia, in order to improve and embellish the City, intended to enlarge her palazzo in the Trevi district…” (i.e. the former Palazzo Cornaro), issued the special Brief (mentioned above) to evict the “rebels” – the Gomez family, and especially the obstinate degli Effetti abbots. He based his demand on the famous Juris congrui “Constitution” of Gregory XIII which gave the pontiff the right to expropriate all the buildings he wished, even churches, monasteries and convents, on the grounds of civic requirements “ad maiorem Urbis ornatum”, that is to say, for more elegant urban development of the city of Rome.
If Lady Olimpia had to turn – via the Pope – to the Gregorian “Constitution” and claim that the eviction was necessary “ad maiorem Urbis ornatum”, it is absolutely certain that she had ready a design for the reorganisation of the three palazzi which would not only be to her own advantage, but would indeed contribute to the “more elegant urban development of the city”; obviously, she would have to exhibit any such design at the hearing with her opponents (the abbots). Now, how can enlarging a building by integrating it with two smaller adjacent buildings contribute to the elegance of a city? Practically the only way is to give it a more ornamental façade.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that if such a project – the design we are looking at – had been built, that too would have made a contribution to the elegance of the City. Next Page...
