13 LOGGIA 20 20/11/07 13:02 Página 148 LOGGIA Nº20 ENGLISH VERSION “romantic” interpretations. Menéndez- he rejected outright Boito’s idea of Pidal’s training combined the two great differentiating added fabrics or elements lines of thought about architectural from the original ones and prioritised restoration in vogue at the turn of the the overall appearance of the building. Miguel Martínez Monedero century: the “preservationist” and the Preference for the plastic understanding ARCHITECTURAL “restorationist” schools, defended of the work took precedence, for the RESTORATION OF LUIS respectively by Leopoldo Torres Balbás first time, over respect for its material MENÉNDEZ-PIDAL, ARCHITECT and Vicente Lampérez y Romea. The truth and historic alterations, which, OF THE PRIMERA ZONA interesting debate that took place at the with the passage of time, was to be an start of the last century between the invariable aspect of his method, with Luis Menéndez-Pidal was one of the supporters of the “stylistic” discourse few exceptions. leading restorers of Spanish heritage (Lampérez) and “scientific” renovators Another early project, before the Civil buildings in the last century, and (Balbás) was the culture broth in which War, was the restoration of the particularly during Franco’s regime. the young architect started his career. Monastery of Guadalupe (Cáceres). He From the start of his professional career His next reference was to be the was commissioned to restore this in 1920 until 1975, the year he died, he historian Manuel Gómez Moreno, who important and conflictive monument by worked through political change and proposed Menéndez-Pidal for the the direct mediation of Vicente different social circumstances, at a time restoration of Santa Maria del Naranco Lampérez, who reserved for his ex- of unrest and a crucial period for the or the Palace of Ramiro I in Oviedo student at the university a challenge that current discipline of architectural (1929-36). This important personage would show him what he was really restoration. In the 55 years of his acted as his tutor for these works and, capable of achieving. Menéndez-Pidal professional career, Luis Menéndez- more importantly, the method they was the conservation architect of the Pidal restored some 200 buildings in his developed together had a great influence monument for 51 years. The importance different posts in the Administration, but on his posterior development. Gómez of this monument, not only at the early mostly as Conservation Architect of Moreno and Menéndez-Pidal defended stages but throughout his career (1923- Monuments of the First Zone (1941-75), the restitution of Santa María del 75), was vital for this architect. The during which time he refurbished the Naranco to its “original state”, which complicated task of caring for it most important works in the provinces was to be brought to light by means of a provided Menéndez-Pidal with the best of Asturias, León, Zamora, La Coruña, methodology based on archaeological possible lesson, which he later applied Lugo, Orense and Pontevedra. The study and historical research. Archaeological, on the many occasions that arose, either of his work and his intellectual because both professionals performed in the early days, in repairing the evolution is therefore an excellent tool archaeological research on the fabrics of damage caused by the Civil War on the with which to approach the restoration the building, concealed under multiple Cantabrian coast or from his post as the of monuments in this long and historical additions. And historical, head of the First Zone. The extensive fundamental period in architectural because they consulted all sorts of work on the Monastery of Guadalupe, restoration in Spain. scientifically authenticated historic which lasted almost as long as his documentation that helped get to the professional trajectory, is the best Education and methodological bottom of the sought after “original example to show the ideas and evolution development state” of the building (such as the of his particular restoration Due to the many different influences didactic lithographs made by Pacerisa in methodology. From the first years, that accompanied Menéndez-Pidal’s 1856). The archaeological interpretation where respect for the monument, cultural and methodological of the building and the search for its reference to his academic period and the development, together with the changing initial state by studying the remains principles of “modernity” were more historic circumstances that took place conserved and the historic noteworthy, to the last reports, where during his professional life (1920-75), it documentation was learnt by our confidence in his position in the Spanish is impossible to classify his restoration architect at the time and was to become cultural milieu and the assurance that he criteria within any particular trend. The a constant feature of his methodological would continue to be the sole ideological stance we can deduce from development. However, the conservation architect of the monument, his writings and acts is extremely responsibility of his first project in led him to take excessive risks. All of meaningful, showing him to be an heir Asturias put Menéndez-Pidal in a this puts before us an evolution that of Viollet le Duc’s “neomedievalist delicate position of compromise between pursued the “idea of the building” as his rationalism”, added to an eclectic his more “modern” renovating proposals ultimate goal, which materialised little education loaded with different and the need to obtain satisfactory by little over the years. The ultimate references, all of which were present in formal results. In many aspects, the goal that consisted, as we shall see, in architectural restoration in Spain at the restoration of Santa María del Naranco recuperating the “authenticity” of the beginning of the twentieth century, such lacked the “scientific” rigour of his first work, although this involved rebuilding as “archaeological”, “scientific” or even projects (Nieva and Guadalupe), since or replacing the missing parts, 148 13 LOGGIA 20 20/11/07 13:02 Página 149 ENGLISH VERSION sometimes following an of extensive damage to the heritage and, Pedro de Nora, among others; drastically “archaeological” and sometimes a among other things, the new affected by the damage suffered, the “stylistic” method. His continuous care administrative and political organisation reconstruction meant that the “modern” of the building and his search for that arose after the war. The pressing postulates of his early career were “originality” led him to address the need to tackle postwar reconstruction replaced by more interventionist architectural integrity of the whole site brought about a hurried renovation of methods to ensure the recuperation of from a revisionist viewpoint. the rigorous “modern” principles in the monument. However, in his recent After his first trip to Italy in the mid vogue at the time; in this context, post at the service of the newborn thirties, a new influence was added to Menéndez-Pidal, like all the other regime, Menéndez-Pidal suffered a those already in existence. In Italy he professionals who worked on postwar retrocession in his methodology and saw many viable alternatives to the reconstruction, saw from his own firmly recuperated obsolete concepts of “stylistic” method, among which we can experience that the “scientific method” “structural integrity” and “unity of include the exemplary archaeological of the 1931 Athens Charter was style” in the recuperation of the restoration works performed by inapplicable in many of the cases that damaged heritage. The “reconstruction” Giuseppe Valadier, which had required repairs. The systematic was seen by the new institutions as an anticipated the “scientific” discourse and destruction of the monumental heritage indisputable objective, which in many modern theses about the restoration of suffered by Spain in the Civil War, just cases included a “stylistic” revision of monuments defended by Boito. He also like Europe in World War II, had a its morphology. Besides, like in the rest discovered the work of Antonio Muñoz, crucial effect on the transformation of of the cities affected by World War II, who had developed an interventionist the general restoration concepts in the the destruction served as an excuse for archaeological method in the twenties 20th century. Menéndez-Pidal to correct or improve similar to the one adopted by our The following stage in Menéndez- defects or erroneous items according to architect years later. Also an heir to Pidal’s intellectual and methodological a positivist (and in many cases a Luca Beltrami’s “historic” method, development took place during the Civil “stylistic”) posture, with a view to Muñoz created with his interventions an War. His firm support of the national restoring the building to a better state. archaeological profile that Menéndez- side allowed him to act on the His interventions, with some exceptions, Pidal shared. The recomposition of conservation of the architectural heritage remained on the margin of the buildings by stylistic confrontations that under military law. But it was his denouncement of the historic fact of sought the “ideal model” on the basis of appointment as Representative of the destruction, and the “artistic value” and true scientific elements as the result of Informative Reconstruction Board when monumentality of the building were the historical and archaeological research the north front fell (October,