Tradition and Innovation: the Construction of Court Palaces and the Role of Professional Figures in Eighteenth-Century Piedmont
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Valentina Burgassi and Mauro Volpiano Tradition and innovation: the construction of court palaces and the role of professional figures in eighteenth-century Piedmont Valentina Burgassi1 and Mauro Volpiano2 1. Dipartimento di Architettura e Design, Politecnico di Torino - École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 2. Dipartimento di Architettura e Design, Politecnico di Torino Introduction The capital of the Savoyard state since 1563, Turin offers a paradigmatic example of urban design in the Age of Absolutism, when the city was completely reorganized to accommodate the state and public buildings required for the functioning of a centralized court bureaucracy (archives, mint, government offices, etc.). The buildings and public spaces of the city were harnessed to reinforce the image and status of the ruling dynasty, not least by using the palaces and residences of the court to communicate the prestige of the sovereign. This urban and regional system included properties and residences – large architectural complexes, with a range of residential and practical functions – that were scattered in and around the capital city, in keeping with the example of numerous contexts around Europe, such as Madrid, Vienna and Paris. Medieval, dynastic seats, hillside villas with wine-growing estates, hunting retreats and riverside residences joined urban palaces in a variegated collection that continued to expand and evolve up to the beginning of the Napoleonic age at end of the eighteenth century, before enjoying a final, if rather different, phase of development in the 1800s. Although the individual buildings enjoyed differing fortunes in the twentieth century, many of them can be seen to have already suffered in the nineteenth century from misuse and neglect, if not the systematic looting of valuable materials and the repurposing of whole buildings for new functions (as in the case of the seventeenth-century palace of the Venaria Reale). Towards the end of the twentieth century, the residences of the Savoy court began to attract renewed interest, particularly in regard to their historiography and architectural conservation: in 1979 restoration work was already underway at the Castle of Rivoli with a view to housing a museum of contemporary art. Since then, one restoration project has followed another. Great attention has been given, in particular, to communicating the architectural and art historical value of the buildings. However, a general evaluation of their technical and technological qualities is still lacking, despite the copious data that have emerged from the restoration initiatives, and the resulting literature which tends to focus on single buildings [1]. These building complexes constitute an encyclopedia of building from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, providing us with a palimpsest, so to speak, of court architecture in these years. However, more targeted comparative analysis is still required if we are to appreciate their qualities and features fully – whether these are 275 Tradition and innovation: the construction of court palaces and the role of professional figures in eighteenth-century Piedmont shared by many buildings or are unique to individual examples – and understand the interactions between local building traditions and international models. It is against this background that our research group at the Politecnico di Torino undertook the study discussed in the present article. Comparative studies on this material are particularly fruitful, especially in light of the coherence that characterizes all the sites examined: the recurrent presence of workers not only from Piedmont but also, typically, from the area of the Lombard and Swiss lakes; the use of recurrent decorative models and techniques associated with particular families or workshops; the role of ducal and royal architects, who are actively involved in multiple projects at the same time; and – underpinning the process – the complex administrative apparatus by which the state exercised rigorous control over these projects – as can be understood from the archival data – which is a fundamental factor in our understanding of how construction actually worked in this context [2]. The organization of construction works between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries The programmatic renewal of the capital city was initiated under Duke Emmanuel Philibert, and continued under his successors until it reached its apex with the transformation of the Duchy of Savoy into a kingdom during the reign of Victor Amadeus II. At the height of the Duchy’s standing, between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, architecture became a direct expression of the power of the House of Savoy and a tool of political promotion. With the state organized along precise political schemata, the power of the ruler was affirmed more emphatically by giving the political order a representative, physical form [3]. To manage this process, it became necessary to exercise some degree of direct control over building works in the capital, including the division and organization of labor. Sure enough, in the buildings commissioned by the Savoy family, we find evidence of a rigid hierarchy and administrative apparatus, not to mention methodologies of construction that were consolidated over time and an established workforce of laborers, craftsmen and architects who found repeated employment in the construction of buildings for the Duke. The Letters of Patent (16 May 1566) issued by the regent, Margherita of France, forbade any “habitante nella città” (citizen) from engaging in the construction of buildings, while “mastri da muro” (master builders) and other construction workers were required to obtain a license from the Duke, under penalty of confiscation of any unlicensed works they had begun and a fine of a hundred lire [4]. Other legislative measures included controls over the prices of bricks and “carretti di sabia” (cartloads of sand), lime and plaster (30 September 1621) [5] and other building materials (4 July 1624) [6]. Duke Charles Emmanuel I issued an ordinance establishing a “Magistrato delle Fabbriche” (Magistracy of Buildings) to oversee not only the construction of the Duke’s own buildings, but also those of private citizens, with a view to coordinating the embellishment of the city (10 March 1621) [7]. With this, the Duke sought to resolve the issue of possible discrepancies between the building as planned and the actual result, but it also served to keep a tighter rein on royal spending. The Magistrato was given control of construction in the capital with the remit to ensure the “bellezza, ornamento, et comodità d’essa, et delli habitanti” (beauty, embellishment and the comfort of the city, for the citizens). It was made up of two state councilors, three “Mastri Auditori” (master auditors), two engineers (including Carlo di Castellamonte), an auditor, a comptroller of the household, a chief engineer, a controller of buildings, and a secretary selected from among the existing Crown employees. The role of this original Magistrato was more a question of supervision and enforcement than the determination of decisions and policy. However, it prepared the way for a more complex administrative set-up with the creation of the Council of Buildings and Fortifications, which was established by Duke Victor Amadeus I on 30 August 276 Valentina Burgassi and Mauro Volpiano 1635, by merging the Delegation of Buildings of the Fortifications of Turin, (which oversaw military buildings) and the Council of Buildings (which had previously overseen work on the Duke’s own buildings) [8]. The Council of Buildings was separated from the Council of Fortifications in 1666 by Charles Emmanuel II, before the two offices were reunited in 1678 by the regent Marie Jeanne-Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours. In a provision issued on 28 March 28 1717, by King Victor Amadeus II, the Council of Buildings and Fortifications took its final form. It was the body responsible for monitoring construction activity in the city from then onwards. This included ensuring that the organization of the works themselves, including the coordination of labor, was in accordance with the various provisions issued by the organs of state and the strict instructions of the court architects. Under the firm direction of the “general intendent”, the buildings office was responsible for the management of supplies from the quarries, the sourcing and storage of building materials and producing quotes for the works themselves. It was also responsible for setting up and monitoring the tendering process, drafting budgets for civil and military construction and ensuring that the works were actually implemented to a satisfactory standard [9]. Another key body was the Council of Finances, an integral part of the administrative set-up that was able to influence decisions on all the matters relating to state finances, not least because construction represented one of the most significant expenses for the ducal purse. Each phase of the construction process was overseen by a team of qualified professionals whose specific roles were coordinated and monitored by the “First Engineer” or “First Architect” [10]. Typically, military works were entrusted to the former, while the latter was given responsibility for civilian structures, including ephemeral works such as sets and decorations for public events and celebrations. The First Architect was assisted by at least two or three “dessinatori” (draughtsmen), who – under his supervision – executed the technical