The care of ancient monuments; an account of the legislative and other measures adopted in European Countries for protecting ancient monuments and objects and scenes of natural beauty, and for preserving the aspect of historical cities

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Preface

THE purpose and scope of the present work are explained in the Introduction. It is an attempt to convey in a succinct form information as to measures in force for the safeguarding of ancient buildings and other objects of historical and artistic interest ; for the maintenance of a fitting aesthetic standard in the architecture of towns ; and for the preservation of the natural beauties of rural districts. The method pursued is to state in the various sections of the first part of the book the problems connected with monument administration, and then in the second part to convey some idea of the treatment of such problems in the past in the diflFerent countries of Europe, and of the solutions which at the present time are being essayed.

For well-nigh a century past some of these countries have been taking stock of their national assets in this department, and devising the best measures they could think of for their protection ; while within the last few years in Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other lands, there has been a renewed activity in all the agencies of preservation, of which we in this country would do well to take account. In the year 1902 alone, no fewer than four Monument Acts were passed in European legislatures, and at this moment in Austria, Bavaria, Prussia, Spain, and some other countries, laws on the subject are under consideration. In Germany, which is now taking the lead, there has been held for the last five years an annual congress exclusively devoted to monument questions, and to these meetings the various German states have sent official representatives. There is a special organ in the press of the fatherland, reserved for the discussion of these topics, and, in

Vlii PREFACE

a word, our neighbours across the North Sea are exhibiting in their whole treatment of the subject their national spirit of thoroughness. France also has possessed, since 1887, her own monument periodical, and an international congress for the protection of works of art and of monuments was held in Paris in connection with the exhibition of 1889. The international congresses of architects have also busied themselves with the subject, and that held at Madrid in April 1904, called upon all countries to form fresh associations for the defence of monuments of history and of art. In Austria, the great Technical High School at Vienna is establishing a special chair or lectureship in * The Care of Monuments'.

The attention excited in our own country by this activity of foreign governments and peoples has not been great. A move of some importance was made in 1897, when, on the initiative of the Society of Antiquaries, the British government obtained through its representatives abroad reports on the statutory provisions for the care of historical monuments in force in the various European kingdoms. The information thus obtained was embodied in a Parliamentary paper, and in the same year the chairman of council of the National Trust, Sir Robert Hunter, added to that society's current report a memorandum on these same agencies. These papers were not however complete, no notice, for example, being taken in either case of the elaborate Prussian arrangements for the care of monuments, which occupy nearly three hundred pages in the standard work on monument preservation of von Wussow. Since the above date no report on the subject has appeared in English, though the last five years have witnessed many interesting developments in foreign countries. On the Continent the two chief works that deal with the whole subject, the Preservation of Monuments o{ von Wussow, and the Care of Monuments of Freiherr von Helfert, were published, the one in 1885 the other in 1897, and though more recently valuable sketches of contemporary activity on the subject have been given by Dr Clemen and others, yet it is believed that nothing so complete as the present

PREFACE IX

work has yet appeared abroad. Hence there seemed to be a place, and even a prospective demand, for a narrative of what has been accomplished and is still in progress in this department, in the European kingdoms whose monuments travellers are wont to visit and admire.

The information thus presented has been partly derived from printed works mentioned in the bibliographical paragraphs, and partly from official papers, reports, etc. ; but very much has been owed also to the kindness of correspondents in various parts of Europe, who have, with a courtesy and patience for which the writer cannot be sufficiently grateful, replied to queries addressed to them, and have in many cases sent copies of official documents which otherwise he could hardly have procured. The chapters dealing with the separate countries, in the second part of the volume, are preceded in each case by a note indicating the sources of information from which the account has been drawn, and an opportunity is there affi>rded of mentioning the names and recognizing the friendliness of the many correspondents to whom the writer is thus indebted. He desires in this place to convey generally to all who have helped him an expression of his sincere thanks.

In some cases official documents, or portions of them, are translated in the text in full. These parts of the text are not distinguished by difference of type, but attention is called to them by the use of the inverted comma at the left hand of every line of such quotations. In other cases a resumd of the provisions of the document in question has been found sufficient Many of the clauses in such instruments are purely administrative, or are merely intended to safeguard the application in practice of the general principle, which is the only point of interest to the enquirer ; they occur in much the same forms in all documents of the class concerned. It would unduly have increased the bulk of the volume to have given these clauses in extenso.

There has been no attempt to institute comparisons among the different countries with regard to the sums officially

X PREFACE

expended on behalf of ancient monuments. The financial and administrative systems of the countries differ so widely that accurate comparisons would be very difficult, even to one practically familiar with these systems, but there is another reason why the sums thus disbursed have not been detailed. A comparatively lavish expenditure on monuments is not always wholly to the credit of a country, for much of the money is possibly spent on works of so-called restoration, many of which had better have been left unattempted. Restoration for the sake of restoration is the worst possible way of spending money voted for the care of ancient monuments ; and it is to be feared that a good part of the resources lavished on monuments in England, France, Italy, and some other countries, has been wasted on needless and inartistic renewals. A better way to use funds set aside for these purposes in national or civic budgets, is to spend them first on preventive works and necessary repairs, and next on the purchase for the general good, either by arrangement or compulsion, of public and domestic buildings of artistic or historical value, or of scenes and sites of natural beauty. It is not, in a word, the mere amount that a country spends on its monuments that is of importance, but rather the judicious distribution of the sums available.

In the survey of what is done abroad the design of the book is to take account only of the countries of Europe, but there has been added a chapter on monument legislation in certain non-European lands of old renown, such as India and Egypt, the abundant monuments of which are largely under European care. The inclusion of the United States would on many grounds have been advisable, but would have logically involved a great and undue extension of the limits of the work. A few paragraphs on the interesting subject of American care for monuments and for scenes of natural beauty are however subjoined as an Appendix.

University of Edinburgh.

July 1905.

Part I. The Principles And Practice Of Monument Administration

SECT. PAGE

Introduction 3

1. The Significance and History of the Care of Monuments. ii

2. The Meaning of the Term 'Monument' .... i6

3. The Limit of Age for Monuments 18

4. The different Kinds of Monuments 20

5. Why should Monuments be Preserved? .... 24

6. Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? The Function of Public

Opinion 31

7. Means for the Preservation of Monuments : A. Private

Societies and Publications 34

8. Means for the Preservation of Monuments : B. Official and

semi-official Agencies, Museums 41

9. Means for the Preservation of Monuments : C. Legislation,

National and Local 44

I a Restoration and An ti- Restoration 46

11. ' Classement ', Inventorization, and Official Publications . 57

12. Superintendence of Excavations and Disposal of * Finds':

Treasure-trove 61

13. Prohibition of Sale or Exportation 66

14. Expropriation or Compulsory Purchase .... 67

Xll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part II. Monument Administration In The Various European Countries

CHAP. PAGE

I. France 73

II. Germany 97

III. Italy 126

IV. Great Britain and Ireland 148

V. The Austrian Empire 166

VI. Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland ... 172

VII. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden .... 184

VIII. Russia and Finland 200

IX. Spain and Portugal 208

X. Greece and Turkey 216

XI. The Danubian Provinces 225

XII. India, Egypt, Algeria, Tunis 230

Appendix, a note on the Care of Monuments in the United

States 243

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Only general works and collections of documents are mentioned below . The special works dealing with each country y with the other sources of information from which the notice of each country has been compiled^ are indicated at the heads of the chapters in the second part of the book.

Von Wussow, Die Erhaltung der Denkmdler in den Kulturstaaten der Gegenwarty Berlin, i88$.

Freiherr von Helfert, Denkmalpflege^ Wien u. Leipzig, 1897.

Annuaire de Legislation J^trangkre^ Paris, Soci^t^ de Legislation Compar^e, 1872 f.

JO Ami des Monuments et des ArtSy Revue Trimestrielle lUustrde, Paris,

1887 f.

Die DenkmalpflegCy Herausgegeben von der Schriftleitung des Zentral-

blattes der Bauverwaltung, Berlin, 1889 f.

Erster Tagfiir DenkmalpflegCy Sonder-Abdruck aus dem Korrespondenzblatt des Gesamtvereins der deutschen Geschichts- ufid Altertumsvereincy Berlin, 1900. Report of Monument Congress.

Zweiter^ Dritter^ Vierter^ Fiinfier^ Tag fUr Denkmalpflege^ Stenographische Berichte, Karlsruhe- Berlin, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904.

Reports from Her Majesty s Representatives abroad as to the Statutory Provisions existing in Foreign Countries for the Preservation of Historical Buildings^ Accounts and Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 2 (1897) [c— 8443], London, 1897.

Memorandum as to the Steps taken in various Countries for the Preservation of Historic Monuments and Places of Beauty^ Appendix by Sir Robert Hunter to the Report for 1896-7 of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty, London, 1897.

Congr^s International pour la Protection des CEuvres d'Art et des Monuments, tenu k Paris du 24 au 29 Juin 1889. Proch-verbaux Sommairesy Paris, Impr. Nat., 1889.

PART I

THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MONUMENT ADMINISTRATION a B.

PART I

THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MONUMENT ADMINISTRATION

Introduction

The subject of this book is the Care of Ancient Monuments, and the term * monument' embraces all old buildings and other memorials of bygone days. These are heirlooms from the past and appeal to the piety and patriotism of the present. Their number can never be increased, but on the contrary as time goes on they must necessarily become fewer. As the decay or destruction of any one of them involves an increase of value in those that endure, so the care of them will become every year a matter of more and more urgent duty.

In our own country coming developments in public life may give to the historic monument a worth we can hardly now realize. Whatever may be the future in other respects of Great Britain in relation to the Empire at large, it must always remain the soil in which are rooted all the traditional memories of the race. In the tangible evidences of a storied past, this island possesses what is necessarily wanting to our colonies and to the offshoots from those colonies. Britain is the land of the castle and the country seat and the gabled cottage, of the town hall and burgher's tenement, of the market cross, of the cathedral and the country church, institutions which have behind them a continuous history of a thousand years, and around which the nation has grown strong enough to flourish itself and to send forth branches that are spread over the earth. The interest which these memorials excite in the minds of our kinsfolk from across the seas is very great, and will probably increase as the generations advance. The feelings thus kindled help to keep alive throughout the Empire the sense of the unity of the stock, while anyone who has taken American acquaintances round one of our older cities, such as York or Edinburgh, knows how the consciousness of a still ampler solidarity is evoked by the antique historic scenes. These streets and houses, as well as the more conspicuous monuments of which they are the setting, are imperial assets, and on economic, almost on political, grounds, the duty of safeguarding them might well be recognized even by the least artistic and least antiquarian of the population.

Yet it is a fact that in this country the care of these ancestral possessions is not made a matter of imperial, or even of national, concern. Though we can boast an Ancient Monuments Act, it covers very little and affords even to that little only a limited protection, while we are almost wholly destitute of the elaborate official and semi-official machinery of Conservators, of Commissions, and of Inventories, available in almost every European country. Our owners of monuments, whether corporate bodies or private individuals, are as a rule unhampered by any law or central authority in the exercise of their powers over their property. There are in our own country monuments of national and even of world-wide importance, that are legally speaking at the absolute disposal of a single individual. The case of Stonehenge, which has recently been before the public, may be freely referred to, because the present owner of the monument is the last person in the world to fail in care for it. It is not for a moment pretended that such private owners are in general indifferent to the treasures under their charge. On the contrary, it is gladly recognized that both individuals and public bodies are often as jealous for the safe keeping and proper treatment of their artistic possessions as any outsiders could possibly be ; but provision unfortunately has to be made for cases in which owners may neglect, injure, or actually destroy, monuments of great aesthetic or historical

INTROD.] RELATION OF THE STATE TO MONUMENTS 5

value of which they have the disposal. In such cases control is only attempted by private societies and individuals, who appeal to the community and give a public turn to what the parties implicated would fain keep a private transaction. Unless there be ceaseless vigilance on the part of these unofficial watch-dogs, acts of waste and vandalism may at any moment be committed.

In a country like our own, redolent of ancient memories, but at the same time astir with restless movement, the interests at stake in this matter are too great for the British system of 'laissez-faire' to be satisfactory. The considerations (i) that these monuments when once destroyed can never by any possibility be replaced, (2) that in the minds of many they are of extreme value, and (3) that their character and history give them in many cases a place in the common and even in the national life, should be quite sufficient to lead anyone, interested in public economy to doubt whether we are right to leave the care of them in irresponsible hands. The question at issue is the question whether national possessions should remain in the absolute control of private individuals or corporations, and on this continental opinion is pretty well unanimous in the negative. Our insular way of thinking however, and our methods of action and inaction, differ from those in vogue on the Continent, and to the British mind the matter presents itself in another light.

It may be of use here briefly to indicate what are, broadly speaking, the opposing principles that underlie all discussions as to the care of ancient monuments. On the one side then, there may be asserted as indefeasible the right of the community over monuments in which is written the common history, and which in centuries past have been the centres of the common life. On the other side there may be asserted, as equally indefeasible, the right of private or corporate owners to do as they will with their own. We may find a classic expression of the former principle in some phrases used in 1872 by an Italian Minister of Public Instruction when introducing before the Senate a draft Act for the protection of ancient monuments. ' The State has a supreme interest in using all vigilance and care for the proper custody of the precious monuments of art and of antiquity : its intervention is accordingly justified in all that concerns this great patrimony of the nation. From this exalted interest is derived the principle that the State alone can give permission for restorations, removals, or works of repair ; that the State in the same way has not only the duty of preserving the monuments so that they shall be of service to the progress in education of the studious, but also the duty of repressing and punishing all attempts at vandalism; and, as regards excavations, of exacting in every case previous notice so that these may never be undertaken without its leave. The same principle gives to the State the right to interdict, save by its previous permission, the exportation from the kingdom and the sale of artistic works by authors no longer living, of collections of coins, and of rare manuscripts and documents ; and finally the right of precedence in the acquisition of objects found in excavations, and other articles of value whenever their proprietor desires to sell them or send them out of the country.'

The draft Act thus introduced had for its intention ' absolutely to prevent the monuments of antique civilization and the masterpieces of Italian art, in whosesoever possession they might be, being in any way injured or destroyed ', and amongst its provisions it contained one according to which any remains of ancient public buildings, such as temples or city walls, that might come to light in excavations on private grounds, passed at once ipso facto into the possession of the state, the proprietor of the soil receiving an indemnity. By another provision it was rigidly forbidden, under penalty, to destroy or alter objects of art and antiquity, even when these were in private proprietorship ^ A member of the Committee of the Italian Senate that reported on this draft Act used the argument that there was an essential difference between the inexhaustible productions of nature and of human industry, which can be renewed at any moment, and the rare creations of the higher intelligence that when once lost can never be repeated or restored ; and that in the case of objects of this

* Mariotti, La Legislazione delle Belle Arti^ Roma, 189a, pp. 317, 334, 331.

INTROD.] BRITISH * LAISSEZ-FAIRE ' 7

unique character, absolute possession, the 'jus utendi et abutendi* should not be conceded to irresponsible persons or bodies \

With such uncompromising assertions of the public interest in all national treasures of art and antiquity, assertions which as we shall see can be paralleled from French writers, we may contrast the expressions of the opposite view that were heard in the British Parliament from opponents of our extremely mild and unpretentious Monument Act of 1882. As originally drawn, this Act contained a clause under which a private owner, who possessed an ancient monument and wished to destroy it, was bound to offer it first for purchase at a valuation by the Treasury. This limitation on the freedom of an owner to destroy what might be a unique work of genius and a priceless national possession the British Parliament refused to accept, and the Act as carried contains no compulsory provisions at all. Yet this innocuous measure, with all its teeth drawn, was protested against to the last in the House of Commons (postea, p. 153 f.) as an 'invasion of the rights of property... in order to gratify the antiquarian tastes of the few at the public expense * !

It should be pointed out that this cry of the * invasion of the rights of property ' has been raised over and over again in opposition to measures brought forward in the public interest, and that such measures, limiting private rights, are in beneficent operation all about us. Private rights in property are being invaded every day in connection with public works, and the principle that the community is justified on proper grounds in interfering with these rights is in every civilized society fully established. The practical question concerns the propriety of these grounds, and this is a matter in each case for consideration and argument. The Italian speakers and writers just quoted claim a very extensive right of interference for reasons of an aesthetic and historical kind ; whereas the opponents of the British Ancient Monuments Act would deny that these reasons have any validity at all.

It seems pretty obvious that what we should in our own circumstances aim at is something between the absolute control of the state over ancient monuments even in private hands, and the system of almost complete 'laissez-faire', which at present prevails among ourselves. How much it would be practicable in the present state of public opinion to demand is a matter for consideration, and the main purpose of what follows is to help those interested to form an opinion on the various issues involved.

It will conduce to clearness if a little space be occupied here with a note on the general scheme of monument legislation and administration, as we find it at work on the Continent. In all foreign countries official attention is given to the subject, and one of the Ministers^ is in charge of the interests of monument preservation and of amenity in general. He has as his council a Commission of experts, and there is generally a staff of official Conservators, Inspectors, and Architects who carry on the active part of the work. In some countries this consists primarily in the supervision, upkeep, and, if need be, repair or restoration, of public buildings under state care ; in other countries in the control of excavations and the proper safeguarding and disposal of immovable and movable objects found in them. A certain pecuniary provision, generally grumbled at as too small, is placed at the disposal of the department.

The work, whatever its exact form, is comparatively easy when state property only is dealt with, but when the monument, or the ground under excavation, belongs to a corporate body or a private individual, a conflict of interests at once

* * Foreign countries are often supposed to rejoice in Ministers of the Fine Arts, but as a fact no Minister of the Fine Arts pure and simple exists anywhere.... Abroad, the interests of art engage part of the attention of the head of a more extensive department, such as Public Instruction and the Fine Arts (France), Public Instruction (Italy), the Interior (Belgium, Bavaria), Home Affairs (Holland), Religion and Education (Austria), Religious, Educational, and Medical Affairs (Prussia), or Public Works (Prussia). The Ministers representing these departments are in each case charged officially with the care of artistic interests, but they have to fight for the place of art in their annual budgets, and have to play the benevolent despot with powers often sadly restricted. '—^/twrwa/ of the Royal Institute of Briiish Architects^ third series, vol. XII, p. 73.

INTROD.] FOREIGN MONUMENT ACTS 9

arises, and the main purpose of monument legislation is to obtain in such cases for the authorities of the department effective control over the objects involved. The case of corporate ownership presents different features in different countries. In some, as in France, the state has considerable power over corporations such as municipal councils, railway companies, hospitals, colleges, and the like ; while in other countries, of which Britain is one, these bodies are more independent, and tend to become recalcitrant on the slightest suspicion of unauthorized pressure from the side of government. Monument Acts will of course be drafted in accordance with these varying conditions, but it will generally be found that public opinion is in favour of government as against corporations, and it should not be difficult for any state to secure proper public control in the case of objects of national value in the hands of town-councils and secular or ecclesiastical corporations.

The case of monuments, or land holding concealed treasures, in the possession of private proprietors is a more difficult one, for the cry *the rights of private property are in danger' rouses the ordinary citizen to alertness, and public opinion will as a rule incline towards the side of the individual. It is true that, as has been pointed out, the principle of interference with private rights is universally conceded, for almost daily land is compulsorily purchased to facilitate railways, roads, or other public works, but it is a different matter to use the same compulsion on grounds that many regard as sentimental, and in all discussions on draft Monument Acts the question of questions has been How far is this compulsion possible or advisable? In the three most important recent Monument Acts, those of France, 1887, and of Italy and Hesse-Darmstadt, 1902^, compulsion is actually allowed, though there are differences in the manner and measure of its application. In all these Acts, expropriation, or compulsory purchase on the part of the state, is permitted as a last resort for the purpose of rescuing a monument in danger;

^ These Acts are analysed, postea, pp. 85 f., 133 f>> 108 f.

lO PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE [PT. I

but independently of this, all the Acts favour an arrangement between the private (or corporate) owners of a monument of value and the state, according to which the object is entered on a schedule of protected monuments, and the owner is bound under the Act not to injure or alter it without official leave. An owner cannot be directly compelled to enter into an arrangement of the kind, but the existence of the right of expropriation enables the state to put on him a certain pressure in the required direction. When the undertaking is once given, if he offend against it, the French Act subjects him to an action for damages from the side of the government, while those of Italy and Hesse prescribe fines, and in some cases even imprisonment. To sum up then, in foreign schemes of monument legislation the state has the right of expropriating private or corporate property on artistic and historical grounds, while it has also the power of punishing an owner if he have entered into an arrangement with the state and fail to keep his pledges. In our own country artistic and historical grounds are not held a sufficient basis for expropriation of private or corporate property, while the absence of this right deprives the state of any means of exercising pressure on a proprietor to induce him to enter into an arrangement for protection.

It has just been said that the main purpose of the present book is to enable those interested in our ancient monuments to form an opinion for themselves on the proper way in which to deal with them. The book is not a * Tendenzschrift *, designed to inculcate any special views that the writer of it may hold. At the same time the reader may not be sorry to possess at the outset the writer s general opinion as to the objects at which friends of monuments in Britain should aim. To establish the principle that private or corporate property may be expropriated on aesthetic or historical grounds should be the first of these objects, but it is one that will not be secured without some considerable delay and difficulty. Much less resistance would be offered to a less formidable proposal, which would commit government to the Care of Monuments without rousing the spectre of * interference with the rights

§ l] WHAT WE SHOULD AIM AT II

of private property '. The proposal in question is one for the appointment of a Royal Commission, on the lines of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, but with powers extending over the wider field of ancient monuments in general. Such a Royal Commission would have in view in the first instance Inventorization, and would coordinate the various agencies which, as will be shown in § ii, are already at work in this direction. After inventorization, which would secure to us definite information as to the artistic and historical treasures we at present possess, would come measures of protection ; and, as the example of Austria shows, a strong Commission can do much, even without legal powers of compulsion, to bring owners to a proper sense of the value of monuments under their control. Finally, the Report of such a Commission would form the proper basis for a new and extended Monument Act on the lines of those recently passed, or still under discussion, on the Continent.