Review

Reviewed Work(s): The Invention of the Historic Monument by Françoise Choay and
Lauren M. O'Connell
Review by: Chris Miele
Source: The Burlington Magazine , Dec., 2001, Vol. 143, No. 1185 (Dec., 2001), pp. 767-768
Published by: (PUB) Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/889330

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

(PUB) Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Burlington Magazine

This content downloaded from

193.190.84.16 on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS

in 1995), the translation of which haseven

of studies published by twentieth-century been veneration, leading to Riegl's modern
scholars oriented precisely toward
long awaited, dis-
is not so much a history cultasofa monuments. The explanation Choay
series ofmyths
pelling the nineteenth-century linked critical
con- essays. Their aimoffers
is to for this momentous change is reduc-
unpick
cerning the artist simply did not the ontology of the 'historic monu-
exist. tivist: the culprit, the Industrial Revolution.
Goya: The Last Carnival isment',
onlyand in this sense
partially a the work is compa- 1960 signals a new departure, or so the
book about this artist. Rather it is a formi- rable to David Lowenthal's now classic The argument goes, a new Industrial Revolu-
dable essay on the disintegration, around Past is a Foreign Country (1985) and Raphael tion, the age of information technology and
1800, of the tradition of Carnival through- Samuel's superb Theatres ofMemory (1994).mechanical reproduction run riot, remov-
out Europe, in which the authors utilise the Choay's focus is France, from 1820 to the
ing that barrier of distance so carefully built
images created by Goya, and secondarily present. She is content to let this tradition up by nineteenth-century scholars and crit-
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, as stand for Europe, adducing examples from ics, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc, Boito, Riegl and
the rest. In the aftermath historic buildings
proofs of their hypotheses. Significantly, in England and Italy in support of her part-for-
the Spanish edition the title was inverted,2 whole swap. Undoubtedly the histories ofbecame familiar once again, the process ac-
thereby offering a clearer idea of its genuine building conservation in different European
celerated by cultural tourism on an entirely
orientation. In a multidisciplinary study countries do follow similar trajectories, but new scale, a movement promoted by gov-
emerging partially from the realm of cul- there is a danger in generalising from the ernment (read French) policies. Here, final-
tural anthropology, Victor I. Stoichita and French experience - with its very unusual ly, is the death of the monument and the
Anna Maria Coderch intermittently offer history of centralised bureaucratic control birth of the modern heritage industry, an
cogent interpretations of specific works (the over decades. event that Choay sees as something of a
group portrait of the Family of the Infante What, according to Choay, is a 'historiccatastrophe for the culture of historic build-
D. Luis (1783/84; G-W 208), analysed in monument'? She defines the concept art-ings.
the light ofJ.C. Lavater's Essai sur la phy- historically, tracing its beginnings to early The story is embellished with neat per-
siognomie, silhouette portraiture3 and hair- Cinquecento Italy, specifically to a close- ceptions along the way, but the argument is
styling is an outstanding instance), but they knit circle of antiquarians and artists, helped very simplistic and hard to square with the
too discover 'auctorial self-projections' in by the renaissance popes who had de facto facts. My reservation has to do with this
unlikely places (not, incidentally, the same planning powers over ancient Roman re- notion of distance, and its collapse, of high-
ones as Ciofalo), and treat selected works to mains. The key 'paradigm' shift came when minded monuments remade as bland heri-
suit their theme. While this is an enormous- the remains of antiquity became strange. In tage only over the last forty years. There
ly erudite essay offering stimulating insights one historical moment, old buildings had was a very vibrant, well-developed, popular
into the symbolic world of c. 1800, the sheer straightforward commodity value, used and culture of historic buildings in nineteenth-
brilliance of the arguments suggesting a adapted without any appreciation of higher century Europe and cultural tourism of a
highly intellectualised and verbalised Goya significance. Then, in the next, they were kind that is recognisably modern. The elite
may be a pitfall in disguise, diverting atten- seen to have intrinsic aesthetic merit and, writers Choay likes so much, the Ruskins
tion from a more straightforward under- quite separate from this, historic value. and Riegls, did not hold this popular culture
standing of the man and his art. There in a nutshell, half a millennium ago,of historic buildings in very high regard and
In both his public and private works the is the pairing that is with us still in the Con-so she, following suit, has not sought to
extraordinary richness of Goya's creative servation Movement, preservation drivenunderstand its aims and achievements. Cer-
universe and the real and imagined people by a desire to protect structures of 'architec- tainly in England, the past and its remains
inhabiting it, which 'provoke the beholder tural' or 'historic' interest, the words used inwere plastic media for the expression of
into identifying with the image' (Knudsen, British legislation. In the event, in sixteenth- new ideas. Consider Chester or Stratford-
p.43), are manifestly the source of this con- century Italy, the distance interposed be-upon-Avon or Tewkesbury. In each place
stant stream of diverse readings. The late tween the present and past was not all that cultural tourism flourished from the 1860s,
Pierre Gassier strove for decades in his great, hence Raphael's ambivalence: on thecomplete with souvenirs and tea cakes.
major studies on the artist to dispel the accu- one hand his desire to save antiquities as Indeed, the whole Gothic Revival project
mulated fantasies and to offer a more expressed judi- in his well-known letter to Leo X;was based on the idea of development; the
cious understanding of his wuvre.4 Perhaps on the other his happily presiding over the past and present were continuous. In Bel-
a re-consideration of Gassier's point of spoliation view and destruction of monuments gium, Ghent, Bruges and parts of Brussels
would allow for the clarification of issues for modern buildings. were revivified for the tourist industry;
and a closer approximation to identifying The story then jumps ahead to Revolu- Carcassonne was a magnet for tourists after
the real Francisco de Goya and the truths oftionary France where the debate over whatits dramatic reconstruction. Throughout
his works. to do with fine buildings that had servedEurope pragmatic decisions taken by town
ISADORA ROSE-DE VIEJO causes now deemed ignoble reached ancouncils and city fathers remade historic
extraordinarily sophisticated level. Here buildings into civic icons, celebrating the
See P. GASSIER and J. WILSON: Vie et wvre de Francisco something resembling, but not quite like, past even as these same people were build-
Goya, Fribourg [1970]. our modern concept of 'heritage' (which, ing for the future. There are examples of
2V.I. STOICHITA and A.M. CODERCH: El ltimo Carnaval.
Choay stresses, is not equivalent to 'historic
this tendency in France. Look at Rouen, an
Un ensayo sobre Goya, Madrid [2000].
3These are themes that were already of interest to Vic-
monuments') emerged. The real heydayutterly modern industrial city with a thriv-
tor I. Stoichita in his study A Short History of the Shadow,
of the 'historic monument', though, cameing historic buildings culture.
London [1997]. later, in 1820, and ended, it seems, just as Underlying this book is a certain snob-
4See, for example, in addition to note 1 above,suddenly in 1960. These dates seem ratherbery, and a belief that old buildings have
P. GASSIER: Les dessins de Goya, Fribourg [1973] andarbitrary one right reading. Oh, how Choay hates
and the author does not spend
[1975]; idem: Goya timoin de son temps, Fribourg [1983]. much time defending them. In this period any attempt to make them attractive to the
ideas about the past were institutional-'masses' by merchandising, sound-and-light
ised and scientifically constructed. Scholars
shows and populist interpretations. Schol-
codified medieval styles using the samears, she accepts, will treat this as so much
taxonometric methods as geologists andbackground noise, nobly pursuing their
The Invention of the Historic Monu-
palaeontologists. (Choay,jincidentally, doesquest for knowledge. But how will the gene-
ment. By Frangoise Choay. Translated notby
refer to the pioneering work of Paul rally well-educated (presumably middle-
Lauren M. O'Connell. 247 pp. with 21Frankl
b. & on the historiography of medievalclass) heritage consumer be gently edified
w. ills. (Cambridge University Press,architecture.)
Cam- when he or she is lost in a maelstrom of
For these proto-architectural
bridge and New York, 2001), ?47.50. historians
ISBN ancient buildings were no longerchildren howling for choc-ices? Who will
0-521-45474-3. simply old. They were expressions of partic-save monuments from obliteration under
ular art-historical moments cut off from the the collective weight of the new Goths?
Professor Choay's acclaimed 1992 study
present, isolated from the flux of everyday How dare governments require increased
life. Remoteness generated awe, respect, interpretation and access arrangements on
(it won the Grand prix national du patrimoine

767

This content downloaded from

193.190.84.16 on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS

historic sites? However, hordes

especially of
once school
Merimee was involved - but On the completion of this work, seemingly
children do not, despite what
Murphysome fogies
has for the most part by-passed this unaware of any contradiction, he wrote on
may say, pose any real threat to old
knowledge. build-
Not that one need doubt that he 10th March 1842 to Ludovic Vitet, presi-
ings, which are more robust than
is altogether Choay
familiar with it. He has himself dent of the Commission des Monuments
makes out and will endure. Surely
done much archival any
work that might have Historiques: 'Les arcs doubleaux et les voiltes
exposure to an old building, however
enlivened popu-
his story and his judgments, but d'arites diceintries ont toute la pureti disirable: ces
list, is better than none ? The historic
he prefers build- approach.
a single-minded demrniers sont beaucoup plus minces que les anciennes
ing idea is now, as it has beenMerimee
for more barelythan
knew Viollet-le-Duc et par consiquent plus ligdres, de sorte que nous
a century, a messy, complex, multivalent
when he selected him for the job in Decem- n 'avons plus ni tassement ni diversement a craindre.'
beast. This diversity is worth both
ber 1839. friendship developed only There is, of course, more of this kind, all
Theircelebra-
tion and analysis, not denigration 1843, to travel together indicative of uncertainties and tentative
from
after they began, in
some Olympian height. on tours of inspection, and even then their explorations. As for the politics with which
CHRIS MIELE relationship was at first quite formal. Aims Viollet-le-Duc was concerned, they primar-
and actions were by no means concerted ily involved the allocations of money. On
from the start. Viollet-le-Duc's early opera- 18th May 1841 he wrote to Comynet, after
tions at VWzelay cannot usefully be com- the cure had protested bitterly against the
pared with those of F6lix Duban at the removal of his woodshed against the struc-
Memory and modernity: Viollet-le- Sainte-Chapelle without first taking ac- ture of the church and after a second work-
Duc at Vezelay. By Kevin D. Murphy. count of the building histories of the two man had been badly injured in an accident,
200 pp. with 53 b. & w. ills. (Penn State churches and their structural conditions 'tous lesjours les travaux de la Madeleine prennent
University Press, University Park, 2000), (which, in fairness, Murphy eventually does,
aux yeux de la Commission des Monuments His-
$45. ISBN 0-271-01850-X. though not before he has characterised
toriques uneplus grande importance etje nepuis sans
Viollet-le-Duc as a restorer prone to strong
compromettre ma responsabiliti laisser subsister un
This book derives from a dissertation and destructive measures). Duban later itat de choses aussifacheux; ilfaut absolument que
made up of a series of studies of some revealed himself to be as ruthless as Viollet- ces travaux marchent et marchent bien, c'est devenu
of the significant restorations that marked le-Duc, at the chateau of Blois, when he was aujourd'hui une affairepresquepolitique et le demrnier
the beginnings of the medieval movement intent to lay down a sequence of styles. vote de la chambre doit bien vous leprouver.' Kevin
in nineteenth-century France. One of Viollet-le-Duc's
the early pronouncements on Murphy's brash history fails to reveal the
studies, that on Rouen cathedral, has restoration, in relation to the Notre-Dame complexities and conflicts involved in the
already provided the basis for an article in Paris (admittedly for a more alert and early stages of the restoration of historic
in Word and Image. That on the Madeleine critical audience than he encountered at monuments in France - at VWzelay and
at VWzelay, reworked and reinforced by a VWzelay) should perhaps have been intro- the related Saint-Pere-sous-Vezelay (same
summary history of the institutions set up duced earlier into Murphy's history.architect, Yet same site architect, same contrac-
to preserve and promote the medieval heri- this scarcely matters. The chapter on tor), the least of all.
tage of France, is the subject of the present restoration or the 'reinvention' of the ROBIN MIDDLETON

book. It is admirably short. The matter Madeleine remains the best in the book; but Columbia University
is clearly defined. The aim, to demonstrate it is fatally flawed by the unfortunate fact
the way in which religious buildings were that Murphy was denied access to Viollet-
transformed into secular monuments to le-Duc's complete correspondence relating
serve the purposes of the state, is of high to in-the work, from 29th March 1840 to 22nd
terest, not to be denied. But Kevin Murphy November 1842, in the hands of one The ofArt of Ceramics: European
Viollet-le-Duc's descendants. These were
is no story teller. The history of the institu- Ceramic Design 1500-1830. By Howard
tions and the remaking of the Madeleinecrucial is years, in which Viollet-le-Duc's Coutts. 288 pp. incl. 220 col. pls. + 80 b. &
told as if the clear-cut agenda that Viollet- operation and aims were determined w. andills. (Yale University Press for the Bard
le-Duc famously (indeed notoriously) for- the support of the Commission des Monu- Graduate Center for Studies in the Decora-
mulated in 1866 in the eighth volumements of Historiques won. It was surely un- tive Arts, New Haven and London, 2001),
wise, at the very least, to publish a study
the Dictionnaire raisonni de l'architecture franfaise ?60/$75. ISBN 0-300-08387-4.
du XIe au XVIe sidcle was already in place of the restoration without access to these
letters. They will not, always, be withheld. The last survey of the subject in English
and that it was the shared goal of Francois
Guizot, Prosper Merimbe and Viollet-le- The letters are indeed revealing. Soon a scale comparable with this volume was
Duc. They are presented, almost, as equal alarmed was Viollet-le-Duc as to the condi- in the compilation World Ceramics, edited
partners in the enterprise. Guizot was tion at of the structure when he first inspectedby the late Robert Charleston, published as
the height of his political career, Merim~e it, that he petitioned the minister to allowlong ago as 1968. The time is therefore sure-
setting out on an entirely new tack as the In- erection of scaffolding under some of thely ripe for a fresh overview. What we are
spector General of Historic Monuments, vaults even before his project was submit-offered here is a survey of top-of-the-market
and Viollet-le-Duc, at the very beginning ted,
of let alone approved. The site architect,pottery and porcelain, concentrating on the
a career, virtually untried, when the restora- Comynet, was selected on the advice of thefactories that were in international terms
tion of the Madeleine was begun in 1840. architect Caristie, not later to be regarded the leaders of taste. There are chapters on
Kevin Murphy is, of course, well awareasof an ally of either Mhrimbe or Viollet-le- maiolica, German stoneware, delftware,
such facts, they are even contained in Duc. his Two months after the work of remak- Meissen, Sevres, the spread of porcelain,
book, but he fails throughout to set infor- ing a group of buttresses on the north side Staffordshire, and the progress of Neo-
mation forth in a sequential manner;was he begun, it was on Comynet's advice thatclassicism. The book has its origins in a
fails to explore the slow unfolding of aims Viollet-le-Duc started on yet another. Anddoctoral thesis presented at the University
and policies that made up the early restora- when it came to the vaults, far from remak-of St Andrews.
tion movement in France, the alliances and ing them wilfully, Viollet-le-Duc thought European ceramic design is placed in
the animosities not only of the various insti- piously to replace them in their originala wider context of decorative art: for the
tutional structures that were responsible for form. Relating discussions in Paris, he wrote inspiration of St Porchaire ware we are
it, but those also of the individuals within on 19th September 1841 to Comynet: 'IIdirected to Italian metalwork with Islamic-
these administrations. His history is blurred. itait convenu relativement aux vodtes d'arrites, quederived arabesques, and for maiolica forms
The painstaking research of Frangoise nous les construmisons exactement comme les an- to the vase engravings of Agostino dei Musi
Berc6 and Jean-Michel Leniaud has ciennes;
re- nous ne devons ni ne pouvons apporter des and Enea Vico. We learn that the foliage
modifications qui detruiraient le caractire de l'dglisedecoration of Ming porcelain was already
vealed much in recent years that might have
served to inform Murphy's account - one que nous restaurons.' And he went on toimitated in the painting of maiolica 'alla
describe in a subsequent letter the exactporcellana' in the early sixteenth century, and
thinks in particular of the history of the
restoration of the cathedral at Nantes, manner in which the stones should be laid. that two centuries later Cornelis Pronk was

768

This content downloaded from

193.190.84.16 on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms