Artículos

Three restorers of architecture, Boito, Giovannoni and Torres Balbás: interrelations in Europe in the first half of the 20th century

RIVERA BLANCO, JAVIER

JAVIER RIVERA BLANCO

Conversaciones…

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México

ISSN: 2594-0813

ISSN-e: 2395-9479

Periodicity: Bianual

no. 4, 2017

conversaciones@inah.gob.mx

URL: https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/317/31743883174388011/

Queda estrictamente prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos e imágenes de la publicación sin previa autorización del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

License Creative Commons
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Non-profit publishing model to preserve the academic and open nature of scientific communication

ePub generated from XML JATS4R

Abstract: Camillo Boito showed the way to a modern and scientific approach to architectural conservation in Europe, as opposed to the positions of stylistic restoration or of anti-restoration advocated respectively by Eugène Violletle-Duc and John Ruskin. Differentiating the old from the new and pointing out their contributions were two of his main achievements. These would be followed by the defenders of the Athens Charter(1931), especially by very important figures in conservation in Europe during the first half of the 20th century, such as Gustavo Giovannoni and Leopoldo Torres Balbás, who left a long-lasting legacy in Spain and Italy. The two had a rather personal and epistolary relationship; they were both interested in theory, and were researchers of the history of architecture and conservators who influenced the laws of heritage conservation in their countries.

Keywords: Boito, Giovannoni, Torres Balbás, restoration, heritage, conservation, Italy, Spain, architecture, history, urbanism..

Three restorers of architecture, Boito, Giovannoni and Torres Balbás: interrelations in Europe in the first half of the 20th century[1]

Translation by Valerie Magar and Mercedes Villegas

In the field of architectural restoration and conservation that arose at the beginning of the 1800s, that century and the beginning of the following one were marked by the hegemony of the theoretical guidelines coming from Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879) and his model, called “stylistic restoration.” This model spread throughout Europe, with followers who persisted well into the 20th century. These included personalities, such as Paul Abadie in France, Giovan Battista Meduna or Pietro Saccardo in Italy, or Gilbert Scott and the neomedievalists in the United Kingdom, as well as others in Germany (the cathedral of Cologne) and Spain (the cathedrals of León, Burgos, Barcelona, Cuenca, etc.). At the end of the 19th century, the debate regarding the criteria for restoration moved on to the north of Italy and new personalities, such as Luca Beltrami and Camillo Boito began interpreting other aspirations. Their novel sensitivities opposed the almost always arbitrary ripristino[2] of Violletle-Duc followers, but they were also far from the fatalism of John Ruskin and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), a movement defending anti-restoration and extreme conservationism.

Between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, three figures in the Mediterranean Latin world stood out in the search for a new approach to restoration operations, and in the need to create a new theory, which we know conventionally as “modern restoration” (Boito) and its successor “scientific restoration” (Athens Charter). Three leading figures built this bridge in the southern Latin countries: Camillo Boito, Gustavo Giovannoni and Leopoldo Torres Balbás (Calderón Roca, 2013: 16-35). The first was the master and the other two his disciples and successors. The second one became the true encoder, through his writings and with the celebration and approval of the Athens Charter (1931).

Recent studies[3] have highlighted the links between some or all, of these restorers and their theoretical principles. Previously, Luca Beltrami had tried new possibilities, moving away from the positions established in France by Viollet-le-Duc and in England by Ruskin; nevertheless, Camillo Boito (Rome, 1836-Milan, 1914) would be the one to establish an elaborate and systematized thought, contrary to the previous ones. He was trained in Central Europe and became a professor of fine arts in Venice and Milan, and he was very well acquainted with his predecessors’ proposals. He expressed the need to define the role of restoration and, within the critique of contemporary architecture, this allowed him to find an alternative, which he would continue to develop in important publications, such as Ornamenti di tutti gli stili (1881), Proposta di un riforma negli statuti della R. Accademia di Belle Arti in Milano (1861), Sull’avviamento delle arti belle in Italia (1864), Architettura del Medioevo in Italia (1880), Il castello medievale (1884), Questioni pratiche di belle arti (1893), as well as numerous articles in specialized journals.

A sense of humility and rigorous respect for the different periods in the life of a monument, would create in him the need to distinguish the original elements from those added later, a modern idea of authenticity that retrieved the criteria developed by Giuseppe Valadier, Rafaelle Stern and the popes of the early 19th century in their interventions in the ruins of Classical Rome.

It was all about opening the debate between the past and the present, between the memory and the project, and both were the main elements required to guarantee the conservation of the monument, permitting a new function for it, endorsing the safeguard of formal remains and expressing an understanding of the object.[4] Boito’s prevailing axiom was “when the need to restore a building is demonstrated, it must be consolidated before being repaired and be repaired rather than restored, avoiding renovations and additions”(Boito, in Rivera Blanco, 2001: 139 and ff.)[5]. Therefore, the important thing was maintenance, and any other intervention would occur only if it were an absolute necessity. The aim was to distinguish the old part of the monument from any new additions. He thought that the ripristini of Violletle-Duc’s school “with admirable wisdom and cunning make the new seem old, putting me in a ferocious perplexity of judgment, where the delight of contemplating the monument disappears, and studying it entails an extremely fastidious weariness.”[6] (Rivera Blanco, 2001: 139 and ff.).

To Boito, monuments represented documents of the history of mankind, and all their construction phases constituted each of the moments of their existence; so, they had to be respected: “in an old monument the added part must be conserved provided that it has artistic, archaeological or historical importance, although secondary, even at the cost of hiding something.”[7] Therefore, he was opposed to the ripristino and to the demolition of additions from other periods undertaken by the followers of Viollet-le-Duc; he advocated for a new awareness of history and of the aesthetic value of works of architecture and their different parts: “Not always must the oldest part, even if it is the most venerable and most important one, prevail over the added part, which can have an intrinsic and absolute beauty. In that case beauty can overtake antiquity.”[8]

On the other hand, he found a middle ground by also opposing Ruskin, his fatalism and antirestoration approach. For Boito, under no circumstance could a building be allowed to die: “It is necessary to do the impossible, it is necessary to perform miracles to conserve the monument’s ancient artistic and picturesque aspect.”[9] Therefore, in case of an obviously ruined monument and faced with the absolute necessity to restore or complete it, when consolidation or repair are useless, “if [additions] are unavoidable, they should not seem like ancient work, but rather appear to be the work of today.”[10] It was only at that time when Boito offered his famous eight principles for these types of structures, which were generally never completed or whose function should be changed, taking advantage of the intervention. This is important because much of the current criticism outside of Italy has taken these principles as a general theory of the Italian author, when they were in reality a last resort and only became relevant when his previous proposals were inapplicable due to the fabric’s serious deterioration.

These eight points or principles were presented during the III Congresso degli ingegneri e architetti italiani in Rome (1883) and ratified during the congress in Rome in 1893; they constituted a declaration of criteria that would be used by Giovannoni, Torres Balbás, Paul Léon, Nicolas Balanos and all the authors of the Athens Charter in 1931, and be reflected in the Italian laws for the conservation of monuments and objects of antiquity and art (No. 185, June 12, 1902), the Italian Carta del Restauro of 1932 and the Spanish Heritage Law of 1933.

They were composed of the following:

1.- Difference of style between the old and new. 2.- Difference of materials in their fabric. 3.- Suppression of moldings and decoration in the new parts. 4.- Exhibition of the material parts that have been eliminated in a place next to the restored monument. 5.- Insertion of the date of intervention or display of a conventional sign in the new part. 6.- Descriptive epigraph of the intervention, fixed to the monument. 7.- Description and photographs of the various phases of the works deposited in the monument itself or in a nearby public place, or publication of all of them, and 8.- Visibility of the actions carried out (Rivera, 2001: 137-138)[11].

Boito and Giovannoni

The relationship between Boito and Giovannoni has been highlighted by numerous authors (Grimoldi, 1991). On several occasions, they both indicated their ties, as well as the relationship of the latter as a disciple and follower of the former, who would codify his theories in the “scientific restoration.” Most of the scholars of these figures highlight their affinities and, recently, Andrea Pane also revealed their differences (Pane, 2009). The Neapolitan scholar emphasized the positive relationship between the Milanese and the Roman in the following aspects: 1. The interest of both men for restoration, defining norms that had an influence in all of Italy, and which are intertwined. This is seen in Boito’s text that was approved during the III Congress of 1883, and the arguments developed in the Athens Charter by Giovannoni, as well as their influence on institutions related to the care of heritage, such as the one that led to the Carta del Restauro of 1932. 2. The influence that they successively had in the debate regarding the School of Architecture and the training of architects. 3. The importance they transmitted of the history of architecture when carrying out restoration efforts. 4. The relationship between history and the project, which they thought would generate a new architectural style in Italy, for Boito emanating from the Middle Ages, and for Giovannoni from the Renaissance. And 5. The contradiction between theory and praxis, given that the latter sometimes induced forgetting the former.

Pane describes how Giovannoni directly expressed that he was following the master, and how they both formulated an “intermediate” theory, between Viollet-le-Duc’s stylistic restoration and Ruskin’s anti-restoration. In the definition of “restoration” in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1936, he considered Boito as “the most notable and illustrious expert among us, for his precepts, his advice and examples”[12] (Pane, 2009: 145). Boito was for him the true “founding father” of architectural history studies and the “undisputed legislator” in architectural restoration. The Neapolitan author points out the differences, such as the chronological period, culture (an artistic versus a technical component, a literary world against a practical fascist world) and training, one was an architect, the other an engineer; their interests and tastes (Medievalism versus Renaissance, in general). Instead the two were editors of journals and disseminators of knowledge (all of which were arguments with which Torres Balbás agreed), and both sought a national architecture for the immediate future that leaned toward a Neo-Renaissance. Regarding the consideration of the architecture of time in restoration treatments, Boito (1886) had already defended that “additions or renovations, must be completed in our contemporary fashion, noting that in as much as possible the new forms do not clash in appearance too much with that of the ancient building”[13]; he added a nuance in 1893: “additions or renovations must be completed with a different character to the one of the monument, noting that, if possible, the aspect of the new forms must not steal too much attention with their artistic aspect”[14] (Boito, 1886, in Pane, 2009: 150). Giovannoni preferred the first definition and in the Carta del restauro of 1932 He recommended “[for additions] a character of bare simplicity and correspondence with the constructive scheme”[15] (Boito, 1893, in Pane, 2009: 150). Pane concluded with another issue that divides them both; Boito does not develop urban aspects, which on the contrary are decisively found in Giovannoni’s proposals. In all of this, Torres Balbás would be closer to the engineer.

Thus, Giovannoni took his principles from the archaeological, pictorial and architectural restorations that Boito had already defined in 1886. In his treatises, the Roman defended his five categories, going from theory to praxis: 1. Consolidation, 2. Completion, 3. Re-composition, 4. Liberation and 5. Innovation (Rivera Blanco, 2001: 139 and ff.; Pane, 2009: 146).

Figure 1. Plan of Cori, with the liberated Roman remains.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1914.

The Italians and Spain (Torres Balbás and the first third of the 20th century)

In Spain, Boito would be a partial source of repercussion, even though the followers of Vicente Lampérez y Romea (1861-1923), as Manuel Aníbal Álvarez (1850-1930) has shown in his works in San Martín de Frómista (1895-1904) and in the façade of the University of Alcalá (1919), where he made important stylistic transformations, while leaving in some of the elements (although not the most general ones) small details that permitted the distinction of his contributions, either through signs and letters (as in the capitals of the Palentinian church) or through textures and colors, as in the façade in Madrid. Lampérez, who went to Milan (Congresso artistico internazionale, in 1911) to show his theoretical principles, which to a great extent, followed Viollet-le-Duc, had already been criticized in that country by architects such as Antonio Muñoz–strangely, also a Viollet-le-Duc follower– and others who highlighted his distance from the new trends in that meeting (Bellanca, 2013: 40).

But the presence of the Milanese architect would be a more determining factor among the group from Madrid, headed by the Marquis de Vega Inclán, with his technical office at the Royal Commissariat for Tourism (with projects that were carried out by Emilio Laredo, Vicente Traver, and others). Also in the group were personalities, such as Santibáñez del Río, the young Ángel Ferrant and the first generation of architects, who emerged with the creation in 1929 of the regions or zones into which Spain was divided, following the French and Italian models.

In effect, the famous principles of Camillo Boito can also be clearly seen in the reconstruction of the church of San Pedro de la Nave (Zamora) (1930-1932), in which both the architect Alejandro Ferrant and his collaborator, the archaeologist and historian Manuel Gómez Moreno, indicated with different materials the places in which the hypothesis could be applied, for example, on some of the walls of the façade or in the vault of the nave (Note that Carbonara mistakenly stated that Boito was consulted for this intervention, which would not have been possible since he had already passed away. Perhaps, what he possibly meant to say was that his influence was clearly seen there.) (Carbonara, 1997: 205). And among many other works where his influence was clear, we cannot ignore the one made by Jeroni Martorell (1877-1951) (González Moreno i Navarro, 1999) at the Puerta de Centelles, where he precisely followed the spirit of the Porta Ticinese of Milan.

Another architect who pointed out the influence of the two Italian scholars in Spain was the architect Emilio Moya (Diez Ibargoitia, 2013), who from 1921 to 1926 was a member of the Spanish Academy in Rome. He was a good friend of Torres Balbás. Upon his return to Spain, he was appointed as conservation architect of the Fourth Zone, the central region of the country. There he would collaborate intensively with the general director of fine arts, Ricardo Orueta, with whom he developed the law of 1933 and created an important museum policy (Museo Nacional de Escultura of Valladolid). In 1934, he won the chair of Projects and in 1936, he became the director of the Academy of Rome, where he would also get married. The one to introduce and defend in Spain the use of new materials was Modesto López Otero, who even gave a speech to the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando on this subject when he became a member in (1926).

Torres Balbás Travels to Italy and Athens

In 1919, the personality of the architect from Madrid[16] was already defined by the time of his initial period as a conservator of monuments and a follower of the English anti-restoration or conservation movement, when he presented a lecture entitled “Legislación, inventario y organización de los monumentos históricos y artísticos de España”[17] at the VIII Congreso de arquitectos; in this lecture, he pronounced he was radically opposed to the proposals of Viollet-le-Duc, stylistic restoration, and those of Vicente Lampérez y Romea. In 1923, he was appointed director of the Alhambra, succeeding Modesto Cendoya, a follower of those theories, and in 1929, he was appointed chief conservation architect of monuments in the Sixth Zone (Eastern Andalusia–Almería, Jaén, Granada and Málaga), in addition to Levante, Murcia, Albacete and Alicante, a post he would occupy until September 1938.

In 1926, Torres Balbás embarked on a trip to Italy. The previous year, he had requested a grant from the Junta de Ampliación de Estudios[18] to visit that country to see for himself the restoration treatments that were being carried out there; undoubtedly, he already had received positive news concerning all the actions being taken (Congresses of Milan and Rome, contributions of Boito, Giovannoni, Muñoz and others). He planned his month-long trip for that year. Chapapría described this trip: in Avignon, where his studies began, he analyzed the restorations of the papal palace, the ramparts and other buildings. In Genoa, he met with Alberto Terenzio, who was superintendent for the architectural heritage of Liguria. (He visited works in progress such as the Embriaci tower, the ducal palace and Andrea Doria’s house in the piazza San Mateo.) Some of these works were done with the collaboration of Orlando Grosso, who was already a member of the fascist party. He then moved to Pisa to see the inclination of its tower.

From there, he continued on to the station in Rome, where he would see firsthand all the transformations made since the unification (the Lungotevere, via Nazionale, the surrounding areas of the great Roman monuments), and he would personally attend the great debate on whether to apply diradamenti or sventramenti[19]. (These were defended by Mussolini and architects such as Antonio Muñoz, Marcelo Piacentini and others in the via della Conciliazione, in the surroundings of the Pantheon, in the neighborhood of the theater of Marcelo, the Capitol, the Palatine, the theater of Trajan and the Coliseum), while other figures like Giovannoni defended small enlargements (in the Renaissance Quarter, in via dei Coronari, in the district of San Eustachio, etc.) This was one of the most interesting moments for the restoration and urbanism of this country, which would define the Italy’s situation for the following decades and that would continue until the fall of the regime of Mussolini in 1945, at the end of World War II.

Figure 2. Regulation plan of Rome, 1931. It shows the sventramenti which were being carried out in the city.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1931.

Let us not forget that Torres Balbás defended the idea of maintaining buildings and historical additions, and preserving even the urban frameworks surrounding monuments and cathedrals. Historians of Granada have also described his opposition to the elimination of historical areas in this city, in order to create the enlargements, which were also meant for León.

In Rome, he met the leading protagonists of the transformations and restorations (like the then right-hand of Mussolini, and interpreter of his need to recover the Imperial and Christian Rome), the Spanish-born Antonio Muñoz, art historian and superintendent of Lazio (who has been very thoroughly studied by Calogero Bellanca). Muñoz undertook the most notable restorations of Rome at that time, such as Santa Sabina and the Velabro; he opened the great streets in the center (Theater of Marcelo). He also met Adolfo Venturi, a great art historian with an enormous influence on all the architects and restorers of the time and in Europe.

Likewise, Torres Balbás would maintain a good relationship with Vittorio Spinazzola, an archaeologist and superintendent of the archaeological heritage of Campania, who was very active in Paestum, Pompeii, and surrounding areas. One of Torres Balbás’ fundamental objectives in traveling to Italy, according to a letter that has been conserved, was to become familiar with the new techniques and archaeological restoration treatments. He also visited Ostia, a city where he saw firsthand the excavations and interventions, which he witnessed on several occasions.

He later visited Florence, including the ongoing works at the façade of the Duomo. And he continued on to Bologna, where he visited the recently restored chapels of San Stefano, San Petronio, via Mazzini, piazza della Mercanzia, etc.; he also visited the cathedral and the castle of Ferrara. He then stopped in Venice where he studied the campanile, reconstructed according to the theories of Beltrami, San Marco (with the debate between stylists and conservationists), the loggia of Sansovino and the ducal palace (northwest side), as well as the church damaged in the war of Saint Giovanni and Paolo. Finally, he visited the surroundings of Murano, Burano and Torcello, and before returning to Milan, where he analyzed the restoration of the church of San Ambrosio.

Such an impressive and vertiginous journey concluded in Toulouse where he visited a work by Viollet-le-Duc himself, the monastery of Saint-Sernin.

All this is mentioned in his Borrador de informe del viaje a Italia (1926), which is currently preserved as part of his file in the Alhambra in Granada and which was studied by Esteban Chapapría (2012: 103); it would become the basis for an unfinished article on Spain entitled “Destruction-restoration-conservation”. It is a shame that his photographs have not been preserved, since he likely took them with him in all his efforts for the rest of his life.

When Torres Balbás was appointed director of works at the Alhambra by the royal decree of March 23, 1923, he found some of the buildings in a ruined state. These included the convent of San Francisco, the Partal, the courtyard of the Harem and the courtyard of Machuca, among others that would become his priorities. As a follower of Ruskin at that time, and having knowledge of the theories of Boito and Giovannoni, he also incarnated the theories of those who were his teachers through the Institución Libre de Enseñanza, especially of Manuel Gómez Moreno and Elías Tormo. But he didn’t forget he was an admirer and follower of the writings and reflections of figures, such as Giménez Serrano, Francisco Tubino, Francisco Giner de los Ríos, Juan Facundo Riano, Manuel Cossío, or the Marquis de la Vega Inclán. From Boito, he took, as Vílchez has emphasized, his consideration that restoration had to be “based on two elements of judgment: eclecticism and elasticity”[20] (1998), the same criteria that in those years Giovannoni would also take from the same source, according to Varagnoli (2003). As proof that Torres Balbás did the same, the Sevillian professor mentions this text of his article The Alhambra and its conservation (1927):

Our criterion when arriving at the Alhambra was that of strict conservation and respect for the ancient buildings, but without dogmatisms or attempts to apply a priori theories until their final limits to a monument of such vitality. Each ancient building offers a different problem, and must be treated differently; each room or part of the Alhambra poses new problems, which must be solved individually. Eclecticism and elasticity; we believe this has been our formula, within a radical criterion of conservation, in which both the solidity of the fabric and their archeological interest and artistic aspect have been considered[21] (Torres Balbás, 1927 en Vílchez, 2000: 74).

In 1931, Leopoldo Torres Balbás celebrated a decisive year in his life, since he continued with the works at the Alhambra, as well as those of other places in Granada and Andalusia. He also applied for and obtained a chair at the School of Architecture of Madrid; the ministerial order was published on June 16, 1931: “professor of History of the Plastic Arts and History of Architecture.” In that same year, he attended the Athens Conference, the International congress for the conservation of monuments of art and history, convened by the League of Nations, through its International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation. He went together with Francisco Javier Sánchez Cantón, Emilio Moya Lledó, Juan de Arrate Celaya and Modesto López Otero. Jeroni Martorell, the prestigious Catalan restorer, also a follower of Boito and Giovannoni, did not attend, although he had registered. The representatives of the Spanish

Republic sailed from Marseilles to the Greek capital. The meeting was held from October 2130. The proceedings were published in 1932 (UNESCO, 1932). In Italy, Giovannoni described the meeting in great detail in an article published that same year (Giovannoni, 1932). In his text, we are struck by the fact that he practically ignored all the Spanish participants (Torres, López Otero, Moya), whom he barely mentioned in his comments on the meeting, since he spent most of his time describing and commenting upon a significant part of the 56 presentations, and summarizing their contributions; he only quoted in passing, and without providing the title, those of the Hispanics, and, in particular the one of Torres Balbás. This would seem to indicate a less than good relationship between them, and that the role of the Spaniards in the Athens Charter (issued on October 30, 1931) was rather sparse, although other interpretations have been suggested.[22]

It seems that, although Torres Balbás sought to publish in Palladio, for reasons unknown to us at this time, he did not succeed, even if Giovannoni personally invited him to do so. And it is also noteworthy that the Italian scholar never mentioned him in the numerous articles he wrote for his magazine and in his books. This suggests that either he did not value him highly, or that he was not familiar with his work. The existing correspondence between them shows at least a great respect.

The correspondence between Giovannoni and Leopoldo Torres Balbás is relatively wellknown, as it has been mentioned by Gallego Roca and Esteban Chapapría, based on the letters preserved in Granada (Gallego Roca, 2013: 334). Another series of letters between the Spanish and the Italian is kept at the Center of Studies for the History of Architecture of Rome (in the Casa dei Crescenzi), composed precisely of his personal information; there are three letters written by Giovannoni to the Spanish architect. There are four letters and a report of the years 1938, 1939, 1941 and 1945.[23] In the letters of Torres, significant because it

meant accepting the victory of the Francoist apparatus, there are only mentions to the history of architecture, none of restoration, and there seem to be indications that there was a time when the relationship between the two men was either cold or non-existent (despite the trip to Italy and the Athens meeting), and that in the late 1930s and part of the 1940s and always with great respect, they were only acquaintances and colleagues, but not close friends. Later, when the Italian had deceased (1947), the Spaniard quoted him in one of his writings in the journal Arquitectura (1961, August).

Review of theories of modern and scientific restoration: the heterodoxy of Boito, Giovannoni and Torres Balbás

With most of the Spanish renovators, we have found that the theories of the scientific restorers in Spain urged the establishment of a model in Spain that respected restoration, and enhanced conservation over interventions; this position was often excessively exalted to the maximum. In contrast, other Spaniards were more in line with restoration according to the principles of the old schools of the 19th century or of the postwar period in Spain; and even after the arrival of democracy, they have seen in Torres Balbás a theoretician who did not carry out what he had written when he himself went into practice. It is for this reason that his restoration of the Casa del Chapiz in Granada, has been shown to be a clear example of the opposite of what Torres Balbás had preached in writing. This is only partly true, for the entire building was restored according to scientific criteria, except for a part which he completed by mimesis, given that he had no other option.

The analysis of Claudio Varagnoli (2003: 1-3) and Marco Dezzi Bardeschi (2000: 17-23) have been more academic and removed from local Spanish controversies regarding the true attitude of Giovannoni, compared to that of Torres Balbás. There is a desire to see in both, the Roman and the Madrilenian scholars, a certain level of parallelism in their lives. However, they were obviously very different in many other respects, such as in the cultural period in which they had lived, in politics or in social thought, as well as the place in which they developed their practice, Nevertheless, there are similarities in the “modus operandi” of the restoration interventions; we should note and emphasize that this does not contradict their theories and

their coherence with the works applied by both men in the decades of the 1920s and 1930s, as opposed to the true “inventions” made by the followers of Viollet-le-Duc or the followers of stylistic pseudo-tendencies.

The historians dealing with of the theory of restoration of the first half of the 20th century have taken their writings and declarations literally –as in Camillo Boito. In some cases, these were close to reality, whereas in others they differed greatly. It is important to insist on the fact that, despite this recognition, there is no similarity between their new designs and their completions, and those made by the followers Viollet-le-Duc; the reason why their theory remains admissible is that it marks a divergence from the design of their contemporaries, as well as their or ancestors and of many of those who succeeded them. Even today, it would be easy to use those approaches in an argument, when in several contemporary theories (of the second decade of the 21st century), the “recovery of tradition” is defended, both in materials and in designs. However, this is not what we are dealing with now, so we will leave it for another time.

Returning to the two contemporary Italian theoreticians, we can highlight how Dezzi emphasizes the difference between what they said and what they did, a thesis included from the beginning of his article. In it, Dezzi emphasizes the first anti-restorative texts of Towers Balbás, which later turned to repairs (courtyard of the Harem and other places) and sometimes even to restoration, in the same trend that he had initially rejected. He uses as examples of this antithesis at the Casa del Chapiz, the Bañuelo, the Corral del Carbón, and as an extreme case the Bibarrambla Gate, emphasizing the contradictions since the texts of 1923, and 1931 to 1933 (Dezzi Bardeschi, 2000: 19-20).

On another hand, if we analyze the studies that have been made on Gustavo Giovannoni, we can choose from all of them the one made by Varagnoli. He even quotes how Roberto Longhi, in 1917, described him as a little Viollet-le-Duc. And it is true that Giovannoni, like Torres Balbás, had an 18th-century education, albeit advanced in comparison to Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin. While the former invented and the latter was opposed to always intervening, Giovannoni preferred “sostenere, non rinovare”, following Boito, although he understood that it was sometimes necessary to intervene.

We have already pointed out elsewhere that the problem of Giovannoni, as well as of Torres, was the lack of a contemporary style for completions and for the design of large spaces to fill the lacunae or unfinished areas.

In his famous writings on cathedrals, Torres rejected the destruction of the additions and the cleaning up of the urban spaces around the monuments, and the same thing was defended by Giovannoni since 1908, in his anonymous article in Nuova Antologia; he was also in favor of the diradamenti (ventilations), but against the demolitions that Muñoz and the followers of Mussolini did in Rome and other Italian cities at that time. Torres also raised his voice in 1923 against the destructions that were being carried out in the city of Granada.

When he undertook the completion of elements, such as in the upper part of the façade of the church of Santa Maria del Piano in Ausonia (1915), his action was totally picturesque. A similar thing would occur with some Roman houses of via dei Coronari and of Fiammeto, the one of Bonadies on the bridge of Sant’Angelo, where it would seem he did not employ a “methodological approach.” Like Torres in the Casa del Chapiz, Giovannoni built a mimetic wing at the Casa Mattei.

Figure 3. Elevation of the new façade of Ausonia, Santa Maria del Piano.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1916.

Figure 4. Watercolor of Ausonia.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1916.

In the 1920s, according to Varagnoli (2003: 1-3), Giovannoni evolved to become more pragmatic, and he distanced himself from orthodoxy. This is revealed, according to the Italian scholar, in his studies for the transfer of Santa Rita de Casia (1928) which, incomprehensibly, changed from a circular plan in its initial location under Ara Coeli to an elliptical one, next to the Theater of Marcelo.

Figure 5. Reconstruction of Santa Rita de Cascia (originally built by Carlo Fontana, in 1665), Rome, moved from the foot of Ara Coeli to the vicinity of Teatro Marcelo.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1928.

An interesting systematization can be seen in the pantheon monument to Dante in Ravenna, but also in Giovannoni’s search for a style that would be similar to that of the monument. In the 1930s, he made the two restoration projects that mark perhaps his most heterodox moment, Sant’Andrea in Orvierto (1926-1930) and Santo Stefano Maggiore or degli Abisini in the Vatican (1931), in which he undertook liberations, as well as the design of new schematic architecture, etc. Or “the drastic liberation of the portico of the oratory of San Andrés in the complex of the hospital of San Juan (1929-1930) and in San Luca e Martina (apse) with a full language of Cortona (1933-1934)” (Varagnoli, 2005: 28). Or his drawing for a church in Amatrice (1946) with a Medieval façade as well as of the 16th century.

Figure 6. New Italian architecture, Peroni Bier Factory, Rome.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, 1901-1912.

Figure 7. Current view of the Peroni Bier Factory, Rome.

Image by the author, 2017.

Figure 8. Church of San Andrea in Orvieto, with the concluded façade by Gustavo Giovannoni in 1920, and restored in 1930.

Image: Gustavo Giovannoni, ca. 1930.

Figures 9 and 10. Current view of the Church of San Andrea in Orvieto. On the right, detail of the façade.

Images by the author, 2003.

We have argued that Torres Balbás was a flexible and eclectic architect, because he could not have been otherwise in those days when, in numerous cases, the building to be intervened somehow indicated the path to follow, and there were insufficient restored buildings to use as references. Varagnoli has emphasized in Giovannoni his concept of the “transaction,” which he developed in his book from 1925 (Questioni di architettura...). In it, he justified the adaptations and embellishments, in the common sense of the word, speaking of the visual impact of the environment. This argument would be used by dozens of architects devoted to restoration then and later, both there and here (in Italy and Spain). The same happened with urbanism, for which he proposed “sottono interventi” (low-key interventions, but maintaining the aspect of the building), which is a contradiction with respect to conserving all elements.

In short, Giovannoni was a flexible architect, who was not intransigent in the defense of the past. He understood that modern restoration would have an impact on the ancient fabric, and he made every effort to reduce the impact of modernity, looking for a national style for the new additions, although he did not find it different.

But in fact, Torres and Giovannoni, while differing in their political sensitivities, were similar in many respects: they were both teachers of the history of architecture, researchers, critics, great historians, and they both developed contextual and positivist historiography, as was appropriate for the time. They were both interested in restoration, but much less in contemporary architecture to be inserted in monuments. They both admired Boito (18361814), and rethought the typologies and structures of historic buildings (in the first stage, defining if they were living or dead monuments, in the style of Cloquet and Didron). They also considered the reuse and altering of the monuments’ functions, urbanism as well as popular and minor architecture, the urban environment and the different types of patina of the surface and the use in interventions using new materials (concrete, iron, steel, copper, etc.). For both men, previous criteria were fundamental, as was the documentation of the intervention, and the methodology, all strictly defined but applied with flexibility within those limits. Torres progressed from anti-restoration to scientific restoration, in which Giovannoni was a leader, and that both men defended in the Athens Charter (1931). They both exerted a notable influence on the heritage and urban planning legislation of their countries, introducing the new principles (the Spanish Heritage Act of 1933 and the one of urban planning of 1939; and the Italian Carta del restauro of 1932, the act of Tutela italiana of 1939, and the act on urbanism in 1942).

If Giovannoni was the most notable architectural restorer of the first half of the 20th century in Italy, the Spanish engineer occupied the same rank in Spain during the first forty years. Lampérez would be renowned from the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the 20th century. Torres belonged to and was appreciated by the generation of the so-called “scientific restoration” in Europe, which was theoretically grouped under the Athens Charter of 1931. It was formed by great professionals, such as Giovannoni, Muñoz (largely a follower of Viollet-le-Duc, but also a friend of Torres), Chierici, Balanos, Léon, etc., all of whom were active in the first three or four decades of the century.

The Roman and the Madrilenian men were friends by the end of the 1930s. (It seems that the friendship did not exist before, although they must have met in the trip to Rome and during the preparation of the Charter Athens, but at that time, there seems to have been no future collaboration). From the 1930s on, they exchanged letters, books, reports, etc., always as two historians of architecture, not as restorers. Strictly given the data we have today, it seems they did not comment on their restoration interventions. During the last years of the Italian engineer, Torres tried to adhere more to his ideology, perhaps in order to receive his help in Spain, where he was an exile, but the fascist architect soon passed away, having done nothing for Torres who felt close to the Spanish Republic.

With regard to the Theory of Restoration and to his concept of Heritage, Balbás was strongly influenced by the French and German-Austrian authors, such as Didron, Léon or Riegl. He especially had important similarities with Giovannoni, which essentially came from Boito. As to the ideas and the influences that did not come directly from the grandfather founder of the discipline, Torres took them directly from Giovannoni. Here we should note his appreciation for what he called minor types of architecture, which induced Torres to study popular Spanish architecture, such as his book La vivienda popular en España (1923, edited in 1931).

The influence of the Italian professor was much stronger in Torres’ studies on urbanism, both of historical origin, and by its presence in the contemporaneity of the ancient settlements. In this field, the Italian had a genuinely pioneering role at the international level, together with Camillo Sitte, studying the Italian cities in depth, both to highlight their urban organization and to proceed to the drafting of their regulatory plans (Rome, Bari, etc.); and one should highlight among his numerous bibliography his extraordinary publication Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova (1931). He had already been concerned with the topic, while observing how our cathedrals became isolated, due to the negative influence of Viollet-le-Duc and his performance destroying all the buildings on the Notre-Dame of Paris. But it was during his period as a teacher, when he deepened his research into urban history, humbly pointing out that he had certain deficiencies in the study related this field. But we should not forget that one of the great virtues that we overlook in the Alhambra of Granada is its urban integrity, rescued and consolidated by Torres Balbás, who had found the ensemble seriously transformed and deteriorated. Giovannoni, Torres and all the scientific restorers of that generation were especially concerned with the environment, and no one can deny that the one still conserved in the Nasrid city is captivating. Of course, they both laid the pillars of what we would call the urban landscape as a generalization of the historiography of the context. As for gardening, the two men also worked with interest and methodology in the Generalife, in the Partal, in the Temple of Vesta, etc.

The historic value of the city and of monumental centers or settlements was embraced, almost simultaneously by the legal protection system of both countries, although Italy boasted a slight advantage with its laws of 1933, 1939 and 1942 and for us especially with the law of 1939.

They both agreed on the value of the documentation of the monument and its re-utilization and, although they took from Didron at the beginning of the century the division between “living and dead monuments” according to their ancient functionality or their continuity, they soon abandoned this position and understood that the buildings were possible containers for modern uses, which was preferable to freezing or losing them.

They both influenced each other in their scientific studies. If the Spaniard began as a complete positivist, a feature that was necessary in our Spanish historians until the 1960s and 1970s because of the lack of documentary and graphic sources, etc., he soon shifted to the specific analysis of typologies and structures. This was similar to what the Italian engineer did in his studies, when he faced the decorativism of Adolfo Venturi and of the Roman and Milanese art historians. All this intellectual education led them both to view the life of each monument as almost individual and distinct, a specific case. This was in keeping with the basic principles postulated by Luca Beltrami and also collected by Boito in contrast to those defended by the followers of Viollet-le-Duc of applying generic recipes to common styles. This position would permit scientific restorers to apply a treatment tailored for each building and case, within more flexible and elastic general standards.

Both were united by their failure with the architecture of the Modern Movement. Although Torres defended the search for a new path, like Giovannoni, he did not find it, and his new architecture, simple, synthetic and abstract, is still historicist. During the restoration treatments, for example at the Alhambra of Granada when facing the lacunae of the octagonal pillars of the Torre de las Damas, the same thing happened to him as to the Italian architect, when faced by the consolidation of Coti or the need to create a new façade for the church of Ausonia, or the restoration of the façade of San Andrea of Orvieto. In the later he added a second story, substituting a Baroque element with a rosette, a date and schematic friezes that are inserted in the same spirit as the studs and the arches of the Torre de las Damas, among other examples from both architects. So even if it is true that their additions could be fully distinguished, they still remind us more of the past than of an uncertain new present; for that, we will have to wait until the Critical Restoration, which would start in the 1960s (Pane, Minnisi, Scarpa, etc.). Therefore, when the lacunae were minimal on one side, or of a large scale on the other, they often had doubts, and they sometimes opted for a reintegration in style, as in the Casa del Chapiz in Granada or in the Church of the Abyssinians at the Vatican in Rome (San Stefano Maggiore). This last operation has its parallelism with the liberations and de-restoration of the courtyard of the Lions at the Alhambra of Granada. In the small lacunae, whenever there was a hypothesis, the differentiation is notorious, as in certain plasterwork, for example of the courtyard of the Harem, or of the Lions, etc. More liberties can be appreciated in more modern buildings, such as the palace of Charles V or the façade of the church of Santa Maria del Piano in Ausonia, Montevergine, Villa Torlonia, etc.

Figure 11. View of ruins of Cori, and the liberated Roman temple.

Image by the author, 2017.

Finally, we have to defend Torres Balbás as a faithful follower of Boito and the most European of our restorers of the first half of the 20th century, not only because he precisely managed and mastered the various theories and criteria of the most important professionals of the majority of nations in the continent, but also for having met the most notable restorers in Athens, and for having come into contact with others at the Paris Congress of 1921 (Venturi, Paul Léon, etc.) or on his trip to Italy in 1924. For Spain, he was transcendental because the minister Fernando de los Ríos was able to approve a law inspired by the document of Athens in 1933, which was in force until 1985, although during the Dictatorship (1936-1975) it was barely respected by the official institutions.

Figura 12. Gustavo Giovannoni, 1923. Curch of Ángeles Custodios. Roma.

Image by the author, 2017.

*

References

AA.VV. (1989) Cuadernos de la Alhambra (25).

AA.VV. (2002) Papeles del Partal. Revista de restauración monumental.

AA.VV. (2008) Papeles del Partal. Revista de restauración monumental.

AA.VV. (2013) Leopoldo Torres Balbás y la restauración científica, Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife, Sevilla, Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, Granada.

Arjones Fernández, Aurora (2015) “Los siete axiomas del Congreso de Roma (1883) a través del pensamiento crítico de Leopoldo Torres Balbás”, e-rph (17): 66-80.

Bellanca, Calogero (2013) Antonio Muñoz. La politica di tutela dei monumenti di Roma durante il governatorato, L´Erma di Bretschneider, Roma.

Boito, Camillo (1880) Architettura del Medioevo in Italia, Milano, pp. 117-182.

Camillo Boito (1884) I restauratori, Conferenza tenuta all’Esposizione di Torino il 7 giugno 1884, G. Barbèra, Editore, Firenze.

Boito, Camillo (1885) “I nostri vecchi monumenti. Necessità di una legge per conservarli”, Nuova antologia di scienze, lettere ed arti 2 (51): 640-662.

Boito, Camillo (1885) “I nostri vecchi monumenti. Necessità di una legge per conservarli”, Nuova antologia di scienze, lettere ed arti 2 (52): 58-73.

Boito, Camillo (1886) “I nostri vecchi monumenti. Conservare o restaurare”, Nuova antologia di scienze, lettere ed arti 3 (3): 480-506.

Boito, Camillo (1893) Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti: restauri, concorsi, legislazione, professione, insegnamento, Ulrico Hoepli, Milano.

Boito, Camillo (1988) Il nuovo e l´antico in archittetura, a cura di M. A. Crippa, Jaca Book, Milano.

Calderón Roca, Belén (2006) “La huella de la ciudad histórica desde los periodos autárquicos. Gustavo Giovannoni (1837-1947) y Leopoldo Torres Balbás (1888-1860) ante la cuestión historiográfica”, en: III Bienal de la Restauración Monumental. Sobre la desrestauración, Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio, Sevilla, pp. 147-157.

Calderón Roca, Belén (2013) “La herencia de Gustavo Giovannoni: estudios del conservacionismo sincrético de Leopoldo Torres Balbás a través de su faceta como historiador de la arquitectura”, Ucoarte (1): 16-35.

Calderón Roca, Belén (2016) “Gustavo Giovannoni y la didáctica de la arquitectura. Recepción en España a través de Leopoldo Torres Balbás”, en e-rph (19): 100-122.

Cacciavillani, Carlos Alberto (2005), “Joan Rubió Bellver, Leopoldo Torres Balbás, Jerónimo Arroyo López e il pensiero di Gustavo Giovannoni in Spagna”, en Maria Piera Sette (ed.), Gustavo Giovannoni: Reflessioni agli albori del XXI secolo. Giornata di Studio dedicata a Gaetano Miarelli Mariani (1928-2002), Bonsignori Editore, Roma, pp. 151-158.

Carbonara, Giovanni (1976) La reintegrazione dell´immagine. Problemi di restauro dei Monumenti, Bulzoni, Roma.

Carbonara, Giovanni (1996) Trattato di restauro architettonico (director), 4 vols., Utet, Torino.

Carta de Atenas (1931) [http://conservacion.inah.gob.mx/normativa/wp-content/uploads/VARIOS.1931.carta_.atenas. restauracion.monumentos.historicos.pdf], (consulado el 4 de agosto de 2017).

Carta del restauro (1932) [http://ipce.mcu.es/pdfs/1932_Carta_Restauro_Roma.pdf], (consultado el 4 de agosto de 2017).

Dezzi Bardeschi, Marco (2000), “L´Alhambra di Granada e i suoi “Restauri”. La “Fè antirestauradora” di Leopoldo Torres Balbás (1888-1960)”. Alla prova dei fatti”, In: Francisco Javier Gallego Roca (ed.), Dos estudiosos, una cultura de la restauración arquitectónica: Piero Sanpaolesi y Leopoldo Torres Balbás, Universidad de Granada, Granada, pp. 17-23.

Di Biase, Carolina (ed.) (2010) Il restauro dei monumenti. Materiali per la storia del restauro, Seconda edizione, Maggioli Editore, Milano.

Diez Ibargoitia, María (2013) Romay la formación de los arquitectos en la Academia de España, 1904-1940. [http://oa.upm.es/21578/], (consultado el 10 de septiembre de 2017].

Esteban Chapapría, Julián (2012) Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Un largo viaje con la Alhambra en el corazón, Pentragraf Editorial, Valencia.

Gallego Roca, Francisco Javier (1987) Epistolario de Leopoldo Torres Balbás a Antonio Gallego Burín, Universidad de Granada y Diputación Provincial de Granada, Granada.

Gallego Roca, Francisco Javier (ed.) (2000) Dos estudiosos, una cultura de la restauración arquitectónica: Piero Sanpaolesi y Leopoldo Torres Balbás, Universidad de Granada, Granada.

Gallego Roca, Javier (2013) “Torres Balbás y el panorama europeo”, en AA.VV., Leopoldo Torres Balbás y la restauración científica, Granada, Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife, Sevilla, Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, pp. 317-338.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1913) “Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova. Il quartiere del Rinascimento in Roma”, Nuova Antologia XLVIII (995): 449-472.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1925) Questioni di architettura nella storia e nella vita, Società editrice d’arte illustrata, Roma.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1931) Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova, Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, Torino.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1932) “La restauration des monuments en Italie”, MouseionIV, 17-18 (1-2): 39-45.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1936) “Restauro”, In: Enciclopedia italiana, Treccani, Roma.

Giovannoni, Gustavo (1945), Il restauro dei monumenti, Roma.

González Moreno i Navarro, Antoni (1999), La restauración objetiva (Método SCCM de restauración monumental, Barcelona, Diputació de Barcelona.

Grimoldi, Alberto (dir.) (1991), Omaggio a Camillo Boito, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Miano, Giuseppe (1969) “Camillo Boito”. [http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/camillo-boito_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/], (consultado el 10 marzo de 2017).

Muñoz Come, Alfonso (2005) La vida y la obra de Leopoldo Torres Balbás, Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, Sevilla.

Pane, Andrea (2009) “Da Boito a Giovannoni: una difficile eredità”, Anake (57): 144-154.

Rivera Blanco, Javier (2001) De varia restauratione. Teoría e historia de la restauración arquitectónica, R&R, Valladolid.

Rivera Blanco, Javier (2002) “La restauración arquitectónica española del siglo XX en la literatura especializada italiana”, Papeles del Partal: Revista de restauración monumental (1): 37-49.

Sette, Maria Piera (2001) “Il Restauro in Architettura”, UTET, Torino.

Sette, Maria Piera (ed.) (2005) Gustavo Giovannoni: Riflessioni agli albori del XXI secolo. Giornata di studio dedicata a Gaetano Miarelli Mariani (1928-2002), Buonsignore Editore, Roma.

Torres Balbás, Leopoldo (1926) Borrador de informe del viaje a Italia, Archivo de la Alhambra de Granada.

Torres Balbás, Leopoldo (1932) “Evolution des principes de la restauration des monuments dans l´Espagne d´aujourd´hui”, Mouseion IV, (17-18): 23-25.

Torres Balbás, Leopoldo (1998) “La Alhambra y su conservación [1927]”, en: Carlos Vílchez Vílchez, La alhambra de Leopoldo Torres Balbás (Obras de restauración y conservación. 1923-1936), Comares, Granada.

Torres Balbás, Leopoldo (1996) Textos dispersos. Sobre monumentos y otros escritos. Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid.

UNESCO (1932) Mouseion IV, (17-18).

Varagnoli, Claudio (2003) “Gustavo Giovannoni. Riflessioni sul restauro agli inizi del XXI secolo”, en Recupero. Paesaggio urbano (novembre-dicembre): 1-3. [http://www.restauroprogetto.it/docs/didattica/Varagnoli%20C_%20Gustavo%20Giovannoni.pdf], (consultado el 10 de marzo de 2017).

Varagnoli, Claudio (2005), “Sui restauri di Gustavo Giovannoni”, en Gustavo Giovannoni, Riflessioni agli albori del XXI secolo. Giornata di studio dedicata a Gaetano Miarelli Mariani, Bonsgnore Editore, Roma, pp. 21-35.

Vílchez Vílchez, Carlos (1998) La alhambra de Leopoldo Torres Balbás (Obras de restauración y conservación. 1923-1936), Comares, Granada.

Vílchez Vílchez, Carlos (1999) Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Biografías granadinas, Editorial Comares, Granada.

Villafranca, María del Mar y Román Fernández-Vaca (2013), Leopoldo Torres Balbás y la Restauración Científica. Ensayos, Patronato de la Alhambra y el Generalife e Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, Granada.

Notes

1 The current text is the result of an academic fellowship abroad undertaken by the author, and made possible through the Salvador Madariaga Grant. I sincerely wish to thank all the support provided by my director in Italy, Professor Claudio Varagnoli, and for his generous contribution to my work. I also extend my gratitude for this article, to my colleagues at the universities of Chieti-Pescara and La Sapienza in Rome, particularly Marina Docci from the Faculty of Architecture.

2 Ripristino: Reconstitution of the original appearance or shape of a monument, by means of eliminating added or superposed parts or elements.

3 See Rivera Blanco (2001: 130-150; 2013: 289-316) and Gallego Roca (2013: 317-337). For the relation between Boito and Giovannoni see Pane (2009: 144-153) and Arjones Fernández (2015: 66-80). For the figure of Giovannoni and Spain, see Gallego Roca (2013).

4 Al references to texts by Boito and Giovannoni were originally translated into Spanish by the author in De varia restauratione (2001: 135-139 and 139-150, respectively).

5 Original quotation: “I monumenti architettonici, quando sia dimostrata incontrastabilmente la necessità di porvi mano, devono piuttosto venire consolidati che riparati, piuttosto riparati che restaurati, evitando in essi con ogni studio le aggiunte e le rinnovazioni” (Boito, 1893: 28).

6 Original quotation: “con ammirabile scienza ed astuzia facendo parere antico il nuovo, mi mettono in una sì fiera perplessità di giudizio, che il diletto di contemplare il monumento sparisce, e lo studiarlo diventa una fatica fastidiosissima” (Boito, 1893: 4).

7 Original quotation: “Saranno considerate per monumenti e trattate come tali quelle aggiunte o modificazioni, che in diversi tempi fossero state introdotte nell’ edificio primitivo, salvo il caso in cui, avendo un’importanza artistica e storica manifestamente minore dell’edificio stesso e nel medesimo tempo svisando o mascherando alcune parti notevoli di esso, sia da consigliarne la remozione o la distruzione” (Boito, 1893: 29).

8 Original quotation: “Si pu aggiungere, non di meno, che le cose più vecchie sono, sempre in generale, più venerabili e più importante delle meno vecchie; ma che quando queste ultime appaiono più belle delle altre, belleza pu vincere vecchiaia” (Boito, 1893: 22).

9 Original quotation: “Bisogna fare l’impossibile, bisogna fare miracoli per conservare al monumento il suo vecchio aspetto artístico e pittoresco”

10 Original quotation: “Bisogna che i compimenti, se sono indispensabili, e le aggiunte, se non si possono scansare, mostrino, non di essere opere antiche, ma di essere opere d’oggi”.

11 Original quotation: "1. Differenza di stile fra il nuovo e il vecchio; 2. Differenza di materiali di fabbrica; 3. Soppresione di sagome o di ornati; 4. Mostra dei vecchi pezzi rimossi, aperta accanto al monumento; 5. Incisione in ciascun pezzo rinnovato della data del restauro o di un segno convenzionale; 6. Epígrafe descrittiva incisa sul monumento; 7. Decrizione e fotografie dei diversi periodi del lavoro, deposte nell’edificio o in lugo prossimo ad esso, oppure descrizione pubblicata per le stampe: 8 Notorietà" (Boito, 1893: 24).

12 Original quotation: “il più autorevole ed illustre assertore tra noi, coi precetti, coi consigli e con l’esempio”

13 Original quotation: “Le aggiunte o rinnovazioni si devono compiere nella maniera nostra contemporanea, avvertendo che, possibilmente, nell’apparenza prospettica le nuove forme non urtino troppo con l’aspetto del vecchio edificio”.

14 Original quotation: “…le aggiunte o rinnovazioni si devono compiere con carattere diverso da quello del monumento, avvertendo che, possibilmente, nell’apparenza prospettica le nuove forme non urtino troppo con il suo aspetto artístico” (Boito, 1893: 28-29).

15 Original quotation: “un carattere di nuda semplicità e di rispondenza allo schema costruttivo”.

16 On the most important character of Spanish restoration of the 20th century, see Esteban Chapapría (2012). Another important contribution is the exhibition curated by Alfonso Muñoz Cosme, Javier Rivera Blanco and Enrique Baquedano, in the palace of Charles V of the Alhambra of Granada in 2013. The publication by Villafranca and Fernández-Vaca (2013) also emerged in that context.

17 Legislation, inventory and organization of the historical and artistic monuments of Spain.

18 Board for the Extension of Studies.

19 Diradamenti: selection of some buildings to be demolished, in order to improve internal spaces within historic centres, between valuable buildings. Sventramenti: broadening, extensive demolitions in order to open wide spaces in historic centres.

20 Original quotation: “basada en dos elementos de juicio: eclecticismo y elasticidad”.

21 Original quotation: “Nuestro criterio al llegar a la Alhambra fue el de estricta conservación y respeto a la obra antigua, pero sin dogmatismos ni intentos de aplicar teorías a priori hasta sus últimas consecuencias a un monumento de tal vitalidad. Cada viejo edificio presenta un problema diferente, y debe ser tratado de distinta manera; cada aposento o parte de la Alhambra plantea nuevos problemas, que deben ser resueltos para cada caso particular. Eclecticismo y elasticidad; tal creemos que ha sido nuestra fórmula, dentro de un criterio radical de conservación, en el que se ha atendido tanto a la solidez de las fábricas cuanto a su interés arqueológico y aspecto artístico”.

22 Esteban Chapapría describes the meetings during the congress and the heated debates (Esteban Chapapría, 2012: 127).

23 The draft of Giovannoni’s answer has also been kept; it explains that he has reached Cabrero and that he has recommended he visit several monuments. He reminds Torres to publish an article in Palladio and he says that he has received from Torres his ideas on gothic architecture.

N.º 360.- Corrispondenza con personaggi diversi. 1901-1945.

N.º 1.- Egregio professore: When the glorious National movement began in June 1936, I was about to send you a work that I had just published on the modillions of lobes, studying their evolution from the Roman cornices to our Muslim art. It was impossible for me to do so, because the copies of that work, together with my books, photographs, notes and papers of 30 years of work, remained in Madrid where they have surely been destroyed. Fortunately, I was able to leave Madrid on time. I am now dedicated to the repair of the cathedral of Sigüenza, one of our monuments that suffered most from the war. We still have almost no books or notes, but we try to continue with our work. I am now writing a study on pointed vaults and theories on Gothic architecture. In short, my thesis is that of continuity between the Roman and pointed vaults: I cannot see the radical difference that Viollet-le-Duc and his followers mentioned between the Roman and Medieval vaults; the pointed vaults work exactly like those of the groin vaults, the only difference being in its materials; the pointed vaults are nothing more than provisional groins. As the Spaniards say, all roads lead to Rome; applying the proverb to the history of architecture, in the Roman one we find the seeds of all the later ones until today. Without journals, isolated from the archaeological movement and its bibliography, I dare to risk annoying you and ask you to let me know if something has been published in Italy on Gothic vaults and theories of this architecture in recent years.

In view of the present circumstances and thanks to the generous help of your country, there is in Spain a great flow of love and sympathy towards Italy. It is to be hoped that from now on our respective Nations will live closely together, as they were in so many moments of the past. And that to the magnificent resurrection of Italy in the last years, will follow the one of Spain in the next ones. With affectionate greetings, I remain faithfully at your service. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Profesor de Historia de la Arquitectura en la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Olivo, 3. Soria. 1 June 38. II Año Triunfal.

N.º 2.- Egregio professore Gustavo Giovannoni: Egregio professore. I have the pleasure of sending you today, in a separate registered package, the last work I published before our glorious war, which refers to subjects related to Roman architecture, and those derived from it. Among my books and papers saved in Madrid - many have disappeared - I have found two copies of that work, of which I am sending one. I do not forget your kind and cordial invitation to collaborate in the journal Palladio and I hope to send you a paper for it as soon as I will be free of urgent jobs. I reiterate my admiration, colleague and friend. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Catedrático de la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Olivo, 3 – Soria. 12 July 1939 – Año de la Victoria.

N.º 3.- Egregio Prof. Gustavo Giovannoni. Accademico d’Italia. My distinguished and illustrious friend: I take the opportunity of a trip to Italy by my disciple at the School of Architecture of Madrid, Mr. Cabrero and Torres-Quevedo, to send you a cordial greeting.

Mr. Cabrero will make a quick study tour in that wonderful country of Italy and I would be very obliged if you could facilitate his work whenever possible. I believe that the relations between the Italian architects and the Spaniards are not as close as they should be and that we are both interested in fostering them. I take the opportunity to include a small work on Gothic vaults. I do not lose hope of having some free time to write an article for Palladio. I greet you with all consideration and affection. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Arquitecto. Catedrático de la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Madrid, 11 December 1941.

N.º 4.- Chiarimo. Prof. Gustavo Giovannoni: Illustre collega: I am very happy, after all the past catastrophes, to resume my communication with you, wishing him a very happy year 1946, in which you may continue working with the usual success. There is no need to tell you the hope that all Spaniards who love Italy have in its resurrection following the recent bad years. My admiration for Italian architecture, starting with Imperial Rome, grows every day. And I therefore try to communicate it to my students. I send you my cordial greetings, with the admiration and affection of always. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Madrid, December 26, 1945. (Original quotation: N.º 360.- Corrispondenza con personaggi diversi. 1901-1945.

N.º 1.- Egregio professore: Cuando, en junio de 1936 dio comienzo el glorioso movimiento Nacional, iba a enviarle un trabajo que acababa de publicar sobre los modillones de lóbulos, estudiando su evolución desde las cornisas romanas hasta nuestro arte musulmán. Me fue imposible hacerlo, pues los ejemplares de ese trabajo, en unión de mis libros, fotografías, notas y papeles de 30 años de trabajo, quedaron en Madrid en donde seguramente los han destrozado. Afortunadamente yo pude salir de Madrid a tiempo. Ahora estoy dedicado a la reparación de la catedral de Sigüenza, uno de nuestros monumentos que más han sufrido con la guerra. Aún casi sin libros y sin notas procuramos continuar nuestros trabajos. Ahora estoy escribiendo un estudio sobre las bóvedas de ojivas y las teorías acerca de la arquitectura gótica. En resumen la tesis que sostengo es la de la continuidad entre las bóvedas romanas y las de ojivas: no hay esa diferencia radical que pretendía Viollet-le-Duc y sus seguidores entre las bóvedas romanas y las medievales; las bóvedas de ojivas trabajan exactamente como las de arista, no habiendo más diferencia que en el material; las ojivas no son más que aristas provisionales. Como decimos los españoles, todos los caminos llevan a Roma; aplicando el proverbio a la historia de la arquitectura, en la romana encontramos los gérmenes de todas las posteriores hasta nuestros días.- Sin revistas, aislado del movimiento arqueológico y de su bibliografía, me atrevo a molestarle rogándole me indique si se ha publicado algo en Italia sobre las bóvedas góticas y las teorías de esa arquitectura en los últimos años. Merced a las circunstancias actuales y a la generosa ayuda de su país, hay en España una gran corriente de amor y simpatía hacia Italia. Es de esperar que en adelante nuestras respectivas Naciones vivan íntimamente compenetradas, como lo estuvieron en tantos momentos del pasado. Y que a la magnífica resurrección de Italia en los últimos años, siga la de España en los próximos. Le saluda afectuosamente y queda a su disposición. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Profesor de Historia de la Arquitectura en la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Olivo, 3. Soria. 1 de junio 38. II Año Triunfal.

N.º 2.- Egregio professore Gustavo Giovannoni: Egregio professore. Hoy tengo el gusto de enviarle, en paquete aparte certificado, el último trabajo que publiqué antes de nuestra gloriosa guerra y que se refiere a temas relacionados con la Arquitectura romana y que en ella tienen su origen. Entre mis libros y papeles salvados en Madrid –muchos han desaparecido– he encontrado dos ejemplares de ese trabajo, de los que le envío uno. No olvido su amable y cordial invitación para colaborar en la revista Palladio y espero poder enviarle un trabajo para ella en cuanto quede algo más libre de trabajos urgentes. Con tal motivo se reitera una vez más su admirador, colega y amigo. q. e. s. m. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Catedrático de la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Olivo, 3 – Soria. 12 de julio de 1939 – Año de la Victoria.

N.º 3.- Egregio Prof. Gustavo Giovannoni. Accademico d’Italia. Mi distinguido e ilustre amigo: Aprovecho la ida a Italia de mi discípulo de la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid, del Sr. Cabrero y Torres-Quevedo, para enviarle un cordial saludo. El Sr. Cabrero va a hacer un rápido viaje de estudio por ese maravilloso país de Italia y agradeceré a V. mucho le facilite en lo posible su labor. Creo que las relaciones entre los arquitectos italianos y los españoles no son tan íntimas como debieran y que tanto a unos como a otros nos interesa fomentarlos. Aprovecho la ocasión para incluirle un pequeño trabajo sobre bóvedas góticas. No pierdo la esperanza de tener algún rato libre para poder escribir un artículo con destino a Palladio. Le saluda con toda consideración y afecto. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Arquitecto. Catedrático de la Escuela Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid. Madrid, 11 de diciembre de 1941.

N.º 4.- Chiarissimo. Prof. Gustavo Giovannoni: Illustre collega: me es muy grato, después de todas las catástrofes pasadas, reanudar mi comunicación con V, deseándole un felicísimo año 1946 en el que pueda seguir trabajando con el éxito de siempre. No tengo que decirle la esperanza con la que los muchos españoles que amamos a Italia tenemos en su resurrección después de los malos años pasados. Mi admiración por la arquitectura italiana, a partir de la Roma imperial, es cada día mayor. Así trato de comunicárselo a mis alumnos. Le saluda cordialmente con la admiración y el afecto de siempre. Leopoldo Torres Balbás. Madrid, 26 de diciembre de 1945).