Conservation Movement in Italy Restoration of St Mark’s in Venice

 Conservation Movement in Italy

Restoration of St Mark’s in Venice

During the Austrian rule in Venice, from 1815

till 1866, many large undertakings were initiated

including the building of the railway bridge from

the mainland and the improvement of the harbour.

In 1818 the Commission of Artistic Property had

been established. In 1843, a long term restoration

programme was started in St. Mark’s, and in the same

period also in the Ducal Palace. The restoration of St.

Mark’s dealt with the renewal of the marble panels

on the north side, and the works continued here until

1865.

In 1856 the Emperor formed a special fund for

this restoration, and Professor Selvatico was invited

to report on the building and its further repairs.

His ‘proposals for the conservation and care’ of

the building were published as a part of the report

of 1859. (29) The proposals included a radical

consolidation and reinforcement of the structure

with iron chains, however, “without removing its

architectural character”; (30) the sixteenth-century

Zeno Chapel was considered ‘discordant’ with

the rest of the building, and was suggested to be

demolished. He also proposed the restoration of

the old decayed mosaics, capitals and column bases.

These indications formed the basis for the restorations

that followed.

From 1860 the responsability was entrusted to

Giovan Battista Meduna (1810-80), who had restored

the Fenice Theatre in Venice in Neo-Rococo style

after a fire in 1836, and who had been attached to

the Fabric of St. Mark’s since 1836. He continued

working on the north side until 1865, and then on the

south side until 1875; after that works were foreseen

on the west front and the mosaic pavement. (31)

Reaction by Viollet-le-Duc to St Mark’s

These restorations were approved by many.

Viollet-le-Duc, who had visited Venice in 1837, had

described how the whole structure was moving and

cracking, and how it looked like “an old pontoon

destined to founder back in the lagoon from where

it had come.” (32) Seeing the church again in 1871

during the works, he complimented the Venetians,

who had not let themselves be discouraged, but had

started working on the building. He considered that

the works on the north side as well as the on-going

works on the south side were essential in order to

provide the building with two solid walls, and thus

give it a longer life.

Reaction by Ruskin

Ruskin, who visited Venice in the winter of 1876,

when the scaffolding had been removed from the

south side, had a completely different reaction; he

was in despair. And when, during his visit in January

1877, Count A.P.Zorzi (1846-1922) approached him

with the proposal to publish a protest, he agreed to

write a preface and even to provide funds for the

printing of the text. (33) He remembered the earlier

“happy and ardent days” when he had passed his time

in the Piazzetta.

“No such scene existed elsewhere in Europe, in

the world: so bright, so magically visionary... I

pass the same place now with averted eyes. There

is only the ghost, - nay, the corpse, - of all that I

so loved.” (34)

He further remembered the mosaics of the upper

facade, how these “were of such exquisite intricacy

of deep golden glow between the courses of small

pillars, that those two upper arches had an effect as

of peacock’s feathers in the sun, when their green and

purple glitters through and through with light. But

now they have the look of a peacock’s feather that has

been dipped in white paint!” (35)

Ruskin did recognize the necessity of consolidation,

but was against the current methods of doing this. He

considered the saving of this important building as a

religious reponsibility, and more than just for the sake

of Venice; it was urged for the sake of all Europe.

(36)

Reaction by Count Zorzi

In the Osservazioni intorno ai ristauri interni ed

esterni della Basilica di San Marco (1877), Zorzi

conceived St. Mark’s not so much as an ‘architectural

monument’, but as a ‘museum of architecture’, and

consequently it needed special treatment from the

artistic and archaeological point of view. He insisted

on the fundamental difference between ‘restoration’

and ‘conservation’:

“Restoration presupposes innovations according to

needs; Conser vation excludes them completely.

Restoration is applicable to anything that has no

archaeological importance, but purely artistical;

Conservation aims at the safeguarding from decay

of what, for its antiquity and for historic reasons,

has a special merit superior to art, symmetry,

architectural orders, and good taste. Even more

necessary will this conservation be, when to the

archaeological interest is added the artistic value,

and when the object, in its whole and its details,

has such a mark of his tory that this would be

completely destroyed in a restoration carried out

in the modern fashion.” (37)

He maintained that St. Mark’s, in all respects,

fulfilled perfectly all the requisites to make it the

most interesting monument in Italy, and unique in

the whole Occident. In the current restoration, he

insisted, these requirements had not been considered,

and many serious errors had been made which he

grouped in seven categories (like the Seven Lamps

of Ruskin!).

- One: the restorers had scraped off the precious

stain that time had given the marble columns;

- two: had replaced old marble panels with new

ones that had a different pattern;

- three: had changed the form and scale of certain

string courses and details;

- four: had been excessively abusive in the

replacement of original capitals and other carved

marbles;

- five: had removed the altar from the Cappella

Zeno and replaced it with inappropriate new

marbles;

- six: they had restored mosaic figures with glass

tesserae in places where the use of stone would

have been more correct; and

- seven: they had executed poor workmanship in

the repair of the floors.

Zorzi further referred to the problems of

stabilization through renewal of brickwork, which

often caused the demolition and rebuilding of larger

areas; instead, he recommended ‘consolidation’ of the

existing structures with modern methods even though

these might be somewhat more expensive, in order to

conserve the original material of the building. He also

pointed out that in any case the cost of the restoration

had so far been two or three times the estimate.

The Observations, dedicated to Ruskin, “English by

birth, Venetian by heart”, were distributed abroad, and

in 1879, when news arrived of the intented rebuilding

of the west front and restoration of the mosaic floors,

the SPAB and Morris reacted, sending a protest to the

Italian Government. In the same year, G.E. Street and

J.J. Stevenson came to Venice to inspect the building

in order to have a first-hand understanding of the

situation. In 1880, Street published an article in the

Times, confirming that the only problems he could

detect were those caused by the previous restoration,

and that no ‘rebuilding’ was necessary. (38)

The Italian reaction to the involvement of foreigners

in this restoration was not altogether positive;

especially those responsible felt hurt. This was seen

in an article by Pietro Saccardo, one of Meduna’s

assistants, in late 1879. (39) As a result of protests,

however, the works were interrupted, Meduna was

removed from this task, and the work was entrusted

to Saccardo and F.Berchet. Berchet was the architect

who had restored the thirteenth-century Byzantine

palace, Fondaco dei Turchi, on the Grand Canal, a

much criticized rebuilding in hypothetical form in

1860 to 1869. (40)

Giacomo Boni

One of the Venetians who remained in continuous

correspondance with the English about the repairs

to St. Mark’s, was Giacomo Boni (1859-1925),

archaeologist and architect, whom Ruskin had met

in 1876. He was such an excellent draughtsman that

Ruskin employed him to measure and draw historic

buildings for him. (41) He was well read in classical

literature and languages, and had learnt English

specifically to read Ruskin.

In 1879, Boni was employed in the restoration of

the Ducal Palace in Venice, and was so in a position to

influence the works, even if not to take decisions. The

restoration dealt with the colonnade, where certain

capitals had to be replaced with new, and where

the south side was freed from seventeenth-century

fillings. In St. Mark’s, he was later able to report that

certain demolitions had been avoided, and the use of a

mechanical saw had been forbidden in the restoration

of the mosaic floors; all original tesserae had to be

put back in their original position, and broken areas

repaired in harmony with their surroundings without

levelling the undulations of the floor. Marbles had to

be cleaned with pure water and sponge; regilding was

forbidden. (42)

Boni seems to have been involved in promoting a

letter on Venetian monuments, signed by some fifty

artists, and sent to the Government in 1882. The

document referred to Ruskin’s words, and announced:

“The artists of Venice and the whole Italy watch over

these famous monuments in the same manner as

one would watch over the glory and honour of the

nation.” (43)

Boni made careful studies of Venetian monuments,

including Ca’ d’Oro, and he prepared a detailed

historical survey of St. Mark’s, documenting damages

and studying the chromatic variations of its marbles.

In these studies he collaborated with the English

architect, William Douglas Caroe, who worked in

Italy. In the Ducal Palace he could still find and

document gilding and colours, found to be lead white

and red painted over the marble surface. (44) He

made a particular study of irregularities in buildings

considering them to have been made on purpose, not

resulting from structural deformations - and thus not

to be corrected in a restoration. (45) In the case of the

Porta della Carta, where the intention was to put back

the figures of the Doge and the Lion, Boni wrote to

Caroe that even if he also thought the gate would look

better with these statues, he considered it a historic

fact that the group was there no longer. (46)

In 1885, he made a stratigraphic excavation around

the foundations of the Campanile of St. Mark’s. (47)

In the same year, he wrote to Philip Webb, with whom

he had become a close friend, about his trip to Rome

to prepare “the ground for our new law of protection

of those monuments which, being the property of

private people or separate communities, have been

under no control whatever until now.” (48) In 1888,

he was called to Rome to prepare regulations for

conservation of antiquities. Later, he was appointed

the first architect for conservation of historic buildings

at the General Direction of Antiquities. (49)

Boni was an active writer, and he wanted to do for

Italy what Ruskin and Morris had done in England;

(50) he fought against demolitions in the historic

fabric of Venice in order to open new streets, and

he wanted to improve the hygienic conditions of

the houses, at least to provide a dry floor. He was

worried about the lack of official initiatives to provide

Venice with an economic basis for its survival. He

also defended the lagoon area, understanding that

the existence of Venice depended on its functioning;

he criticized certain fillings to make harbour

enlargements, and pointed out that keeping the canals

sufficiently deep for the water to flow contributed

to making the city a more hygienic place in which

to live. (51) Boni was actively involved in various

schemes to develop modern technology for use in

the conservation of ancient monuments. He had an

interest in the consolidation of stone, and in the use

of stainless steel.

In his general philosophy, and his concepts of the

picturesque, Boni was much influenced by Ruskin.

However, he did not limit himself only to the Middle

Ages, but had a great admiration of classical antiquity

as well. (52) In his work for the conservation of

ancient monuments, his main concern was to defend

their authenticity. Like Winckelmann and the Neo-

Platonic philosophers, he conceived a work of art as

a reflection of the ‘Godly Idea’ of an immortal origin.

To destroy such a work was to commit an act of

offence against the Divinity. (53)

Boni was too involved in his research to be able to

collaborate in the preparation of the new legislation;

being a Government architect, his influence was felt,

however, in many restorations around the whole

country and especially in the south. In the last phase

of his life he concentrated on the major excavation

campaign in Rome in the Forum Romanum and on

the Palatine as the Director of this office; here he

.developed the principles of stratigraphic method of excavation

منبع: تاریخ حفاظت معماری 

A History of Architectural Conservation

اثر : یوکا یوکیلتو

J. Jokilehto