Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-22
The Leaning Tower.

To rebuild a structure exactly. after
It's destruction by fire or earthquake
would seem an easy task. given the
| possession Of the plans and specifica
| IONS OF the original. But such exact
| reconstruction is. according to Jean
| Lafftc, who writes in La Nature prac-
| ucaily impossible. New architects
VIII always. he says build new struc-
ture. putting something of themselves
| into the new building. no matter how
precisely they try TO copy the old. He
| Illustrates by the case of the new Cam
| panile in Venice. which he saws will
differ in material points from the one
| that fell in ruins on July IA, 1902
| though intended to reproduce it exact
y. Mr.. Latitte shows by photograph
| that not even the foundation. which
| has now been laid. is precisely like that
| of the original. He says:
WAS it necessary to rebuild? Many
| Of those who loved it must have an
swcrcd resolutely in the negative; they
hold that it is artistic impiety to try to
rcnair the injuries of time.
Monuments, they say, are the express
sion of the epoch in which they We're
built. and to reconstruct them after
their death is to tell a falsehood in
stone. Besides. they say that the ex-
pericnce of a thousand previous
restoTatiOns shows that no architect
has ever consented to restore a monu-
ment exactly, without putting some of
his own work into (which seems to
them altogether insupportable.
These people have not been needed:
and arrhaeologists and constructors
have sworn by all their gods and called
heaven TO witness that they would
change nothing-absolutely nothing: 50
the reconstruction was decided upon.
"A recent photograph represents a
square of masonry destined to serve as
TIE foundation of the future Campanile.
This square is formed of five steps or
sUpcrposed layers. Now in the condi-
ton Of the Campanile as it existed be-
fore its fall, in 1902, there was nothing
visible beneath the monument but a
support Of three steps. Thus the per-
sons who saw the building in 1901 and
who will see it as rebuilt. will not see
the same thing. The architects have
felt obliged, from the very foundation
and they will not stop thereto modify
the aspect Of the monument. 1t is true
that they nave an easy answer to this
accusation; they say that in reality the
Campanile. as ii was before its fall,
rested on a foundation of five steps. but
that, by reason of it's enormous weight.
two of these had been forced under
ground, 50 that only three We're visible.
II We consult a resume of the history Of
the Campanile. we find that since the
time. about the twelfth century, when
its construction was begun, it has met
met with various adventures. Light
ninC. fire. and earthquake destroyed it,
at least partially. several times-and in
til" course Of the rcbuildnGs and re-
pairs that eEsucd. it was necessary to
change the monument considerably. SO
that if We consider the numerous
stages through which it has passed. we
may lsk which of these successive
stages has been chosen by the archi-
tccts for reproduction.
''Tncy have. in fact. taken the sim
pl"St course; after having assured us
that all should be just as it was. they
have put their heads together and have
Comporcd Il sort Of anomaly of stone,
the result of which will be: % That
the aspect Of the monument will be al
tered by having base that was for
ncrly invisible; l2) that its weight will
hc modified Improved. it is true, but
what difference does that make from
the point of view of reconstruction"
ca that a certain number Of columns
ami useless details will be left out.
There is already in Italy Cam
panile question: and Senator Tiepoio
has lately echoed it by interpellating
the minister of public instruction on
the subject of the steps of ST. Marks.
II is true that the minister. Bonelli. an
swcrcd that he had nothing to do with
the matter, which was the business OF
he city of Venice; talk and controversy
arc still going on. For our part, we
have simply wished to note fine type
Of the comical situation into which we
are often driven by the rebuilding
mania. We have no reason, priori. 70
doubt the talent and perfect good faith
of the architects of the Campanile.
Perhaps it would have been better If
they had decided that we should see
Venice hereafter with new features
either without campanile or with a
new one, built after their own plans
in place of the work that they are now
engaged upon. with SO much science
and skill, at the risk of dissatisfying
the Psychologists and the artists, these
hostile brethren. For perchance. as
some skeptics even now predict, the
new Campanile, under the brilliant
Venetian sky, will follow its predeces-
sors in not giving the desired impress
sion and in not realizing the beauty of
its s!'-Literary Digest.