Patronage and the Popes of Rome

Rome was heading into ruin. The city was suffering. The Papacy had moved to Avignon on the say so of the French king and the French cardinals. It was not until the 14^th century that the Papacy returned to Rome. However, they returned to a city that had been depleted of almost all of its economic value; pilgrimage sites. The Papacy invested large amounts of money into the city and with them gone; the city was slowly on its way into ruin.

Ingrid Rowland’s article recounted key moments in Roman and Church history. All of these key moments dealt with the patronage of a pope. The first pope who recognized the power of Rome was Pope Martin. He started to move the Curia, the Catholic Church’s administrative body, from Avignon back to Rome. It was not until Rome had reached economic stability that the popes of Rome became a patron of the arts. Rowland’s article uses lots of historical evidence. This makes her argument strong, since she is tying the economics of the city to the main patrons of art. She argues that it was not until Rome reached economic stability were the popes willing to become patron of the arts. One of the greatest projects a pope accomplished was the Vatican Library. It was a resource from books and manuscripts in a time where all written word was still copied by hand. She ends here article with recounting the beginnings of Pope Julius II. He is considered the greatest patron of the arts for the time. Rowland argues that he does this, in order, to tie the Papacy to Julius Caesar and ancient Rome, a time of great art and culture.

Loren Partridge’s book takes a different approach to the patronage of the Catholic Church. He is trying to argue that the popes started to commission religious art with parallels to the Papacy, in order, to try and cover up their corruption. During the 14^th and 15^th century the Catholic Church was a corrupt place. Popes placed relatives in high ranking positions; some took mistresses and bore children. Partridge is arguing that in order to cover up the corruption the popes started commissioning these great works of art and encouraging culture to a once dying city. He uses more art to emphasize his point than Rowland. He also weaves social context into his argument. Overall, both articles show an interesting side to patronage, the popes, and Rome; were they trying to encourage economic growth within a city or trying to cover up a corruption that went back centuries?