Camillo Boito (Philological Restoration) PDF

CAMILLO BOITO (PHILOLOGICAL RESTORATION) ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN ITALY Following the unification of Italy in 1861, there arose a dual problem: defining a unified architectural style for the entire nation...

CAMILLO BOITO (PHILOLOGICAL RESTORATION) ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN ITALY Following the unification of Italy in 1861, there arose a dual problem: defining a unified architectural style for the entire nation and addressing the significant differences in architectural traditions and heritage preservation approaches among the pre-unification states. Boito recommended adopting the Romanesque style, as it reflected ethical and spiritual truth. He saw Romanesque architecture as the style of the Italian communes that rebelled against both the Church and the German Empire, freeing themselves from their control. In a unified Italy, liberated from both the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Papacy, the Romanesque Middle Ages appeared to him as the only historical reference point worth emulating—not by imitation or reproduction, but as a model. PHILOLOGICAL METHOD In the field of restoration, Boito held an "intermediate" position between John Ruskin (1819– 1900) and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814–1879). While rejecting the idea of letting a monument decay without intervention, he also opposed arbitrary and false reconstructions. He encouraged contemporary architects to complete buildings in need of care while preserving their authenticity, ensuring that the work would not deceive observers. Boito’s proposed solution drew upon philology, a discipline focused on reconstructing and interpreting texts or documents through linguistic analysis and textual criticism. He argued that ancient buildings should be restored using new elements in a way that made the overall composition clear. However, these new elements should be marked with diacritical signs—symbols that, in writing, distinguish a word within its context (e.g., parentheses, quotation marks, italics). He suggested applying diacritical signs to restoration by adopting a philological method based on two key principles: 1. Distinguishability of the intervention: Any reconstruction of stylistic unity must ensure that new parts are distinguishable from the old. 2. Notoriety of the intervention: Restoration work must be clearly communicated to avoid deceiving observers. 4 T H CONGRESS OF ITALIAN ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, ROME 1883 Boito first presented these ideas in 1879, later refining them for the National Congress of Engineers and Architects in 1883, where he outlined an eight-point program on restoration. These principles formed a sort of preliminary "Charter of Italian Restoration", providing clear guidelines for late 19th- and much of 20th-century Italian restoration practices. He referenced the restoration of the Arch of Titus by Valadier in the early 19th century as an example. The principles approved by the Congress were: 1. Architectural monuments should be consolidated rather than repaired, repaired rather than restored. 2. Additions or renovations should be executed in a different character from that of the monument. 3. It would be advisable anyhow that the additional or renewed blocks, whilst taking the original form, should still be made of obviously different material. In monuments of Antiquity and in others of particular archaeological interest, any parts which must be completed for structural or conservation purposes should only be built with plain surfaces and using only the outlines of solid geometry. 4. In monuments, which derive their beauty, their uniqueness and the poetry of their appearance from a variety of marbles, mosaics and painted decoration, or from the patina of their age, or from their picturesque setting, or even from their ruinous condition, the works of consolidation should be strictly limited to the essential. 5. Any additions or alterations which have been made to the first structure in different periods of time will be considered as monuments and treated as such. 6. A clear and methodical report on the reasons for the works and their progress should accompany the drawings and photographs. 7. An inscription should be fixed on the building to record the date of the restoration and the main works undertaken. PRACTICAL QUESTIONS OF FINE ARTS Boito's book “Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti” (1893) compiles numerous writings on art and architecture, offering practical guidance for working on ancient buildings. Depending on the type of monument, he identifies three types of restoration: 1. Archaeological restoration: Focused on buildings with no functional purpose, prioritizing the preservation of ruins. This includes anastylosis (the reassembly of structures using existing pieces, with minimal additions). 2. Picturesque restoration: Aimed at preserving the picturesque character of buildings (e.g., their decayed appearance and patina), suitable for medieval structures where reintegration and additions are allowed as long as they do not alter the picturesque value. 3. Architectural restoration: Applied to Renaissance and later buildings, which Boito felt closer to. These buildings, often retaining functional use, lack the patina of older structures and are not overgrown with vegetation. For these, completing the structure in its original style is legitimate. RESTORATION INTERVENTIONS CHURCH OF SANTA MARIA AND DONATO He just created the project for this restoration PORTA TICINESE An emblematic example in Milan is Boito’s restoration of Porta Ticinese, part of the city's ancient walls. Following 19th-century practices of demolishing old city walls to isolate access gates, Boito removed later additions to the structure. Besides restoring the central gateway, he added two lateral arches, possibly never part of the original structure. He also inserted two brick towers—one completed, the other left unfinished—and restored pointed arch windows and sections of the curtain wall. CAVALLI FRANCHETTI PALACE Boito's work often followed a stylistic approach, as seen in Palazzo Cavalli Franchetti in Venice. He did important restoration interventions on the façade, following the gothic venetian style. He also created a monumental staircase with medieval elements and fine marbles. ALFONSO RUBBIANI Between the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Bologna became the protagonist of one of the most dramatic cases of radical intervention on the city's architecture: Alfonso Rubbiani (1848-1913) systematically redesigned its appearance in a medieval style, considering restoration as a catalyst for its modernization. The plan devised by Rubbiani for the central area and Piazza Maggiore, where the Church of San Petronio and the Palazzo del Podestà are located, involved the removal of all additions to the buildings made after the late Middle Ages, bringing the city back to the end of the 15th century, its peak moment of political and cultural splendor. In an operation similar to that carried out by Viollet-le-Duc for individual monuments, Rubbiani brought the entire city back to the style of the late 15th century. But by demolishing the parts of buildings added after the 15th century, Rubbiani, in fact, opened spaces for traffic and commerce, modernizing the city center and adapting it to the needs of the late 19th- century life. PALAZZO RE ENZO  The restoration project for the Palazzo di Re Enzo included the addition of crenellations and the restoration of the triforiums, replacing previously rectangular windows. Another testimony to the instrumental value of this operation is evident in Rubbiani’s involving the citizens, who were asked to express their opinion on the style to be adopted for the windows to be restored on a corner of the facade of an important building. The three options were displayed, also through the city’s press, for public judgment: the people of Bologna could thus choose, like in a sample case, between a Lombard Renaissance style and an Emilian one, deciding how to reconstruct their city. It is clear that the strictly stylistic concept of Viollet-le-Duc was far surpassed. CHURCH OF SAN DOMENICO The appearance of the medieval Church of San Domenico, before Rubbiani’s restoration, was that of the transformations made in the 16th-17th centuries, which included the creation of a large window in the façade to bring light to the nave and the addition of porticoes. Rubbiani’s intervention aimed to bring the church back to the medieval era: the removal of the porticoes and the large window on the front revealed the medieval rose window, behind which the line of the medieval monocuspid facade could be read. The church was restored by bringing to light all the medieval elements, with the monocuspid facade completed, and the entire masonry curtain deeply reintegrated, effectively erasing the authentic stratification of different periods and projects on the original building. Other interventons by Rubbiani include: Palazzo del Podestà, Palazzo dei Notai, Loggia della Mercanzia and Church of San Francesco LUCA BELTRAMI (HISTORICAL RESORATION) Among Boito's students, Luca Beltrami (1854-1933) stands out as the leader of the so-called "historical restoration" movement, according to whose principles interventions on buildings must be supported by documentary evidence. According to Beltrami, the foundation of restoration should be a rich and detailed collection of archival documents, acts, drawings, and plans that can guide the architect toward a historically accurate solution. His role as Director of the Technical Regional Office for the Conservation of Monuments of Lombardy allowed him to intervene on important buildings. Beltrami is known for developing a method based on the scientific approach of the documents that form the basis of the restoration project. The goal was to overcome the uncertainties caused by Viollet-le-Duc's "principle of analogy" used to reintegrate past buildings. This use of documents as a certain source of history is typically 19th-century and fits within the positivist mindset. In reality, any document (a notarial act, a drawing, a historical view, etc.) offers only a partial view of reality, functional to the purpose for which the document was created. INTERVENTION ON THE SFORZA CASTLE The most significant restoration intervention by Beltrami was on the Sforza Castle in Milan (1893-1905). Since the Napoleonic period, the castle was at the center of a heated debate: many proposed demolishing it to build a residential neighborhood. Beltrami was among the opponents of this intervention and began studying its restoration, based on extensive documentary research. The problem was that what Beltrami considered "documents" (drawings by Filarete, old views, etc.) could only offer generic indications. In fact, the restoration focused on reconstructing the tower aligned with the road connecting the center of Milan, the so- called Filarete Tower, of which only a few traces remained. The tower was reconstructed based on the model of the Vigevano tower, contemporary to the Milanese one, thus returning to the principle of analogy that was initially intended to be rejected. The main reason for the intervention was the need to create a scenic backdrop for a new urban arrangement in the 19th-century city. ST. MARK’S BELL TOWER Luca Beltrami was also involved in the reconstruction of the bell tower of St. Mark's in Venice, which suddenly collapsed in 1902; the collapse also damaged the Loggetta del Sansovino (16th century). After the first interventions by Giacomo Boni (1859-1925), aimed at recovering the materials from the collapse, there was much debate about the reconstruction: whether to follow the traditional forms, use modern ones – as it was the era of Art Nouveau – or move it to the left of the basilica. The reconstruction was entrusted to a group of experts led by Beltrami, who decisively chose the "as it was, where it was" reconstruction of the bell tower, considering that in this case, the building was a document of itself. Beltrami resigned shortly after from his post due to the controversies surrounding the project, but his principle was respected, and the bell tower was inaugurated in 1913. TOWARDS IIWW ATHENS CHARTER 1931 The third decade of the 20th century was highly prolific in terms of regulations, with the development of a series of guiding principles and legislative frameworks. The Athens Charter is an international document signed in the Greek capital in 1931 by around one hundred representatives from approximately twenty European countries. The choice of Athens was not coincidental: during this period, one of the most significant restorations of the century was taking place there— namely, the restoration of the Acropolis, particularly the Parthenon. Engineer Nikolaos Balanos restored the temple using much of the material still on-site but with extensive reinforcements of reinforced concrete. Balanos reconstructed the southern colonnade and much of the northern one using reinforced concrete and iron clamps to connect the ancient drums to one another and to the new sections. At the time, reinforced concrete seemed the best solution for restoring the monument; however, over time, its effectiveness was disproven, as it aged faster than the stone. The Athens Charter was highly influenced by the theories of philological restoration promoted by Boito (but most importantly Giovannoni, one of his scholars), emphasizing the concepts of maintenance and restoration as exceptional interventions, the ethical nature of conservation, the collective right to demand it, and the promotion of modern techniques (with reinforced concrete being the foremost). Athens Charter 1931 I. DOCTRINES. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Whatever may be the variety of concrete cases, each of which are open to a different solution, the Conference noted that there predominates in the different countries represented a general tendency to abandon restorations in toto and to avoid the attendant dangers by initiating a system of regular and permanent maintenance calculated to ensure the preservation of the buildings. When, as the result of decay or destruction, restoration appears to be indispensable, it recommends that the historic and artistic work of the past should be respected, without excluding the style of any given period. The Conference recommends that the occupation of buildings, which ensures the continuity of their life, should be maintained but that they should be used for a purpose which respects their historic or artistic character. IV. RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS  The experts heard various communications concerning the use of modern materials for the consolidation of ancient monuments. They approved the judicious use of all the resources at the disposal of modern technique and more especially of reinforced concrete. They specified that this work of consolidation should whenever possible be concealed in order that the aspect and character of the restored monument may be preserved. VI. THE TECHNIQUE OF CONSERVATION In the case of ruins, scrupulous conservation is necessary, and steps should be taken to reinstate any original fragments that may be recovered (anastylosis), whenever this is possible; the new materials used for this purpose should in all cases be recognisable. This charter inspired a series of documents tailored to the specific realities of individual countries. ITALIAN RESTORATION CHARTER 1932 In Italy, Gustavo Giovannoni was the principal creator of the Italian Restoration Charter, approved by the Directorate General of Antiquities and Fine Arts and enacted in 1932. The 1932 Charter also emphasized the primarily historical value of monuments: the purpose of restoration was thus to preserve monuments as documents of art and history rendered in stone. Consequently, restoration proposals aimed only to restore the unity of line (i.e., the overall shape and volume, but not stylistic details or specific features) of a building. The charter also highlighted the importance of maintenance, which could postpone the need for true restoration interventions as long as possible. To counter the risks of stylistic restoration (Article 5), it stated that all parts of a building, regardless of the period to which they belonged, must be preserved without prioritizing one phase over another at the expense of others. The Italian Charter reiterated the distinction, already established at the end of the 19th century and endorsed by Giovannoni, between "dead monuments" and "living monuments." Dead monuments (ruins, archaeological remains, etc.) cannot accommodate new uses, nor can they undergo new additions; only anastylosis (the reassembly of original pieces of a destroyed structure) can be employed to facilitate their reading. For living monuments, however, new uses could be required. If additions to these monuments were needed, interventions were allowed, provided that the new parts were distinct from the original in form or material and had a character of "bare simplicity." Giovannoni did not have faith in the potential of modern architecture, believing that in restoration, any meeting between the old and the new was precluded. When he considered additions, he envisioned neutral interventions, distinct from the original in material and craftsmanship. However, while skeptical of modern architecture, Giovannoni did not reject its tools, even advocating for the use of reinforced concrete in restoration. At the same time, he argued that modern structural reinforcement techniques should be entirely hidden from view. The use of reinforced concrete would become one of the most debated topics in recent discussions, as over time, it became evident that it could cause damage to buildings and was characterized by limited durability.