|
Dr. Alberto Peratoner Report on the Mistakes Made During the Restoration of the Clock of the Tower in St. Mark's Square This article is available in pdf format for off-line reading and printing. Click on this link to download the compressed file (1 MB)
The clock, in the configuration it had before the last restoration, was the result of a series of stratifications that took place in the five centuries of its history: 1495-1499:
Gian Paolo and Gian Carlo Rainieri from Reggio built the clock.
|
It should be noted at the outset that De Lucia's intervention (in 1858) consisted mainly of additions, including new, well-localized systems, in many cases put in place with surprising respect for the previous order.
At the end of 1996 a new restoration was entrusted to
Piaget. In reality, it was only a sponsorship because
Mr. Romanelli, Director of Venetian Civic Museums, directly hired blacksmith
Alberto Gorla (who had already restored other ancient
mechanisms) and historian of horology Giuseppe Brusa.
Mr. Brusa admitted to me that he intended to eliminate
the 19th century stratification of the clock that, in his opinion, had "perverted
its nature," and to warmly support a presumed philological restoration. My adamant
opposition to this concept brought about, in a short period of time, my total
exclusion from the restoration project, even as a source of information on the
state and the real necessities of the clock.
| At first, Mr. Brusa and Mr. Gorla wanted to substitute the eighteenth century clock face with a hypothetical - and questionable - reconstruction of the more complex astronomical dial of the Rainieri brothers (even though the present zodiac decorations are believed to be those of the original dial). When the Direction of Civic Museums (i.e., G. Romanelli) explained to them that such an operation would be impossible, the two men doggedly concentrated on the two large paneled numerical wheels (Tāmbure). They relied on the misconception that such wheels had "substituted" the mechanism that permitted the carousel of the Magi, a mechanism which, in their opinion, was suppressed because of the wheels' clumsy presence. This contention is absolutely false: as I have amply demonstrated in my book, the cleverness of De Lucia's intervention lied precisely in his ability to put the two functions in a "dialogue" through ingenious solutions that permitted their alternate activation. For many years I personally dislocated the parts, during the periods of activation of the Magi's carousel. |
Detail of zodiac decorations. |
|
This picture shows how Mr. Brusa and Mr. Romanelli
are wrong when they say that the large panelled wheels (for hours and
minutes indications) are not compatible with the Magi's carousel. The
large inner toothed wheel on which the figures were mounted has not been
removed. It's clear that the tàmbures were mounted over the Magi's
mechanism without the need for its removal. On the top of the picture,
you can see the levers which allow lifting the panelled wheels during
the carousel. |
When it was decided that even the removal of the great tāmbure was not acceptable, Mr. Brusa concentrated his interest on the pendulum, the escapement and the relocation of the weights' chords below the frame of the central mechanism, with the consequential loss of the vertical development which exploited the height of the tower. This time the idea passed, maybe because it did not affect any of the external (and therefore visible) features of the clock, and the institutions involved could quietly take refuge behind the appearance that, once the external appearance of the tower was saved, the rest could pass as bickering among specialists which could only be understood by few and would continue indefinitely without ever reaching an agreement.
In 1998, while the press continued talking about a conservatory restoration, the clock, taken apart and moved to a shop in Mantua, was profoundly transformed:
a) The pendulum was relocated and brought to the opposite side of the central frame (North), far from the 'Timekeeping train' (South) and beyond the sectors where the striking trains are lodged.
b) The pendulum was substituted by a shorter one, about half the size (from 4.15 to 1.90 meters), equipped with a spring suspension (the previous one had a knife-edge suspension).
c) The new pendulum was centrally located in correspondence to a pendent guide-bar connected to an arbor that crosses the whole frame to bring - as I noted - the movement to the opposite side. The original pendulum, instead, was located laterally and was moved by a horizontal arm, hinged in the points of conjunctions to the vertical guide-bar and to the pendulum.
d) As a consequence of the mutated oscillation period (from
2 to 1.36 seconds) the escapement was completely reconstructed with its gearing
(realized ex novo in the pinwheel style as the previous).
Thus the heart of the clock, the most vital and qualifying part of the whole
mechanism with its beautiful and rare 4-meter-long pendulum, lost its function.
The new 1.90 m. long pendulum located on the north
side of the main frame, far from the time train and beyond the striking
mechanism. The suspension is of the spring type. The entirely new escape
wheel can be seen together with the newly made split pendulum rod. Gorla
had to use this solution to accommodate the axis to the north dial (towards
the "Mercerie"). |
|
Mr. Romanelli, who thought of these changes as negligible
"adjustments," once said: "nothing will be lost: everything will be exhibited
in a museum," adding that these operations were conceived with complete reversibility
in mind, as requested by the Superintendence as a guarantee.
At the Superintendence, officials vehemently denied that, indeed, this had been
a retrospective philological restoration, telling me that, otherwise, it would
have not been approved. Those choices had been presented to them as "technical
necessities" and improvements. As far as the supposed 'necessity' is
concerned, however, it is clear and known to everybody that the clock worked
fine until 1997.
The claim of "technical improvements", is also
absurd because, as knowledge and science improve, every kind of ancient mechanism
may be improved. Indeed, such improvements are not carried out because, even
though conceptually outdated, all historical mechanisms preserve an intrinsic
value in the history of horology. Furthermore, when these mechanisms are functioning,
as it was in our case, the reasons to preserve them unchanged are even stronger.
It was sufficient (and a lot cheaper) to rectify the worn out parts to guarantee
a long, precise functioning; it is, in fact, in this shape that the clock has
excellently worked for 140 years and thus no improvement was necessary. No one,
in fact, has ever thought about "improving" the mechanisms of the monumental
pendulum clocks in Versailles to make them more precise, or because they did
not match the philological taste of the restorer; nor has anyone ever dreamed
of 'bringing into focus' Impressionist paintings.
On February 1st 1999 the clock, transformed as I described,
was reassembled at Palazzo Ducale and presented to the press, and there it still
is waiting for the conclusion of the structural work being done to the walls
of the tower.
In reality many of Mr. Brusa's contentions (included in the short pamphlet presented
in that occasion) openly displayed an intention
to carry out a retrospective philological reconstruction,
grimly disrespectful of the undoubtedly valuable historical mechanism.
At this point, it should be noted that the last letter sent by Mr. Romanelli to the newspaper "Il Gazzettino" (on August 25) increased the suspicion that a "philological reconstruction" was what was actually carried out. This letter referred to the 19th century restoration in unflattering terms, as an operation that had radically upset the very concept of the clock and "its philosophy," even though there are archival documents that clearly prove such assertions false.
It should also be noted that this last restoration is indeed reversible as requested, and there is still time to take action in that direction.
Confronted with the accusations published by the newspapers "Il Gazzettino" (August 22) and "La Nuova Venezia" (September 12), Mr. Romanelli, responsible for having supported Mr. Brusa's choices, responded by asserting the principle of scientific authority: "we relied on the best specialists," he said. Therefore it is important to observe that the publications written so far by Giuseppe Brusa reveal a rather superficial knowledge of the clock of St. Mark Square's Tower.
In his volume "L'arte
dell'orologeria in Europa [The Art of Horology in Europe]",
Bramante ed., 1978, for example, he mentions the "torre
delle hore [tower of the hours]" in St. Mark Square, which is first
of all just a clock, with a spectacular dial and automatic bell-ringers." (Page
11). Besides the amenity of the description, torre delle
hore is a denomination that does not appear in any document known to
us; nor was it ever a frequently used or classic way to refer to it historically.
Later, in the same volume, Mr. Brusa states: "unfortunately the dial and the
mechanics [of the clock] were substantially modified after the mid XVIII century
by Bartolomeo Ferracina, an excellent clockmaker but a terrible restorer. It's
not easy to establish how much of the original is left except for the wall structure
and the famous Moors" (page 40). It is very easy, indeed. It is enough to know
that Ferracina received the whole old mechanism, the monetary value of which
was paid to him based on the weight of the recycled metal and added to the monetary
retribution for the work done. It is also absurd to express a judgment on Ferracina
as a "restorer." Bartolomeo Ferracina wasn't a "terrible restorer" simply because
he was never a restorer: in 1757 he was paid by the Procuratia
de Supra to completely rebuild the clock, with the exclusion of the Magi's
carousel, on which he intervened later.
Two of the three Magis |
Mr. Brusa continues saying: "Originally, on a ledge facing the square, a procession of Angels and Magi, at the striking of the hour, passed in front of the golden-bronze Virgin Mary with Baby" (page 40). In reality, the procession of the Magi continued to function, on the solemnities of the Ascension, in May, and the Epiphany, being purposely arranged by the people responsible for the clock maintenance and constituting a noteworthy attraction for many, even during the years in which Mr. Brusa was writing his book. Disheartening, also, is the description of "a procession of Angels and Magi;" there have always been the self-moving statues of three Magi, preceded by only one angel with trumpet. |
Again: Mr. Brusa
concludes his discourse, that for all other aspects remains always superficial
and never ventures deeply into the analysis of the mechanism's specificity,
writing: "Maybe this is the oldest example left of a turret clock with dials
visible from different points, as later became frequent on bell-towers and towers."
(Page 41). Thus he himself, a historian of horology, forgets the older and world
famous clock of Rouen's tower, erected in 1389.
We should also add that, in this book, Mr. Brusa acknowledges the rarity of
pendulums with a 2 second period, that is those pendulums, one of which he took
the liberty to dismiss: "two second pendulums, long about mm 3975, or even slower
and longer are rare and can be found in astronomical and turret models" (page
460).
But that is not all. The pamphlet
distributed to the press the day the restored clock was presented (Feb. 1, 1999,
at Palazzo Ducale), contains other and more significant inaccuracies. They are
more significant because, in the meanwhile, Mr. Brusa could have concentrated
on studying this particular clock; circumstance that, evidently, was not sufficient
to eliminate the superficiality already demonstrated in the past. The pamphlet
is called "Restauro dell'Orologio della Torre [Restoration of the Tower's
Clock]" and includes a short 4-page chapter (pp. 28-31)
with the title "1499-1999. Il restauro della meccanica e il ripristino
delle funzioni dell'Orologio di Piazza San Marco [1499-1999. Restoration of
the Mechanics and Reactivation of the Functions of St. Mark Square's Clock]"
written by Giuseppe Brusa.
When speaking of the hated pair of
tāmbure with numerical panels representing
hours and minutes introduced by De Lucia (1858), Mr. Brusa argues that
"the apparatus, moved by its own mechanism, obviously needed to be connected
and synchronized with the main train of the clock, with the consequence
of interfering to some extent with the functioning in general and with
precision in particular" (p. 29). Now, it would be nice to understand
the sense of such distinction, between interference in general and that
on precision. As for the second, we will see what Mr. Brusa is referring
to, exaggerating the extent of such 'interference' to justify an intervention
on this aspect too. Mr. Brusa continues: "De Lucia clumsily superimposed
the rudimentary movement of the new apparatus to Ferracina's structure,
deciding thereafter to eliminate the transmission of the time movement
to the dial facing the Mercerie to lighten the timekeeping train and,
in addition, to sacrifice the striking train of the 'meridiana'
to reduce the overall obstruction" (p. 29). |
Middle frame drawing. The 132-blow strike system
is placed on the left side and clearly doesn't interfere with anything. |
Mr. Brusa goes on: "He [De Lucia] longed to demonstrate
his expertise in traditional horology and thus ended up causing a radical distortion
of Ferracina's mechanics". The intervention by De Lucia, in reality, wasn't
such as to justify these contentions; here instead we can see a real projection,
as such words fit perfectly what Mr. Brusa e Mr. Gorla have done.
The description finally reaches the focal point of the controversy: "Questionable
the idea of substituting the original pendulum with another very voluminous
one, 410-centimeter-long, with 2-second-long oscillations, in order to obtain
greater reliability of oscillations and better isochronism. Due to lack of space
such a pendulum could not be located behind the clock, as the previous, and
was therefore inevitable to place it frontally. To avoid interferences with
the pinion that transmitted the motion to the wheels of the clock-face, it was
necessary to move the new suspension laterally and that required more than one
experimental solution, as recently emerged. The gears ratio had to be modified
consequently". (p. 29). On the contrary, it is clearly and indisputably demonstrated
by archival documents and drawings and by the number of oscillations noted in
a contemporary book on the Clock Tower, that the pendulum wasn't lengthened
by much and that it was previously placed in the same position of the one built
by De Lucia.
It is evident that, on this matter,
Mr. Brusa starts from a faulty assumption, following which he forces himself
to establish a chain of consequences that lead to a preposterous, patently false
conclusion. The starting assumptions are: a) De
Lucia substituted the old pendulum with a much bigger one, and b)
the pendulum thus had to be located in correspondence to
the anchor's arbor, directly guided by the connected crutch and, therefore,
behind the mechanism (North side). Consequences: I)
the pendulum, doubled to a 4 meter length, could no longer maintain its previous
position and had to be relocated 'frontally' (South side), where it was in recent
times; II) on this side, however, the central position
in correspondence to the anchor's arbor was occupied by the arbor exiting from
the main wheel of the timekeeping train (i.e., the arbor that transmits motion
to the astronomical dial), therefore De Lucia had to move the pendulum laterally
and was forced to connect it through a horizontal transmission arm; III)
another necessity was the perforation of the floor, because of the pendulum's
length.
| Such fantastic theory is based on unnecessary complications and totally falls apart because archival documents demonstrate that the horizontal transmission arm existed before De Lucia's intervention (1858). Specifically, the 1856 drawing published in my volume on the clock clearly shows the pendulum with its horizontal arm. |
Drawings from the Technical Report by Annibale Marini and Giovanni Doria (July, 22 1856) show the original position of the pendulum assembly and the existence of the horizontal bar before De Lucia restoration, carried out in 1858. The horizontal bar used to transmit the motion to the pendulum can be clearly seen in the lower left side of the sketch and the Ferracina escapement on the top right (Celestia Historical Archive of the Venice Municipality, 1855-1859, III / 5 / 6 - Tower Restoration Works). |
On the other hand, it is much easier to think that the pendulum had always been near the sector where the timekeeping train is lodged (as it is more logical and natural in any clock) and that De Lucia left it in the same position. Consequence I is also preposterous, because there are no structural reasons that would have prevented the perforation of the floor in the back position (North side) should the pendulum have been originally placed there. Deceptive is consequence II as well, because nothing would have prevented De Lucia from divaricating the pendulum near the arbor, just as Mr. Gorla was forced to do when constructing the new one. This was, in fact, necessary once the new pendulum was placed in a position where it was inevitably interfering with the arbor for the transmission of motion to the Northern dial. Reality is that, North or South, the central location of the pendulum wasn't feasible, due to the presence of the transmission arbors for the two dials.
At this point, Mr. Brusa states that "as proof of the
inadequacy of the operation, one has to notice the erroneousness with which
the new apparatus was synchronized to the timekeeping train: incredibly, in
fact, the new movement was connected to that crucial element constituted by
the escapement wheel" (pp. 29-30).
This is, once more, a gross simplification aimed at overrating the mechanical
'interference' to discredit De Lucia's work and feeling authorized to overturn
his restoration. In reality, before Brusa's restoration, the arbor of the escapement
wheel ended beyond the bridge with a small wheel, which moved another small
wheel having a period of 5 minutes. This small wheel was equipped with a pin,
whose periodic contact with a small hanging lever caused the activation of the
system of automatic numbers put by De Lucia on top of the central frame. Although
this connection wasn't truly unquestionable in its concept, nonetheless it was
never a problem for the clock precision or for the regularity of its motion.
Further in the pamphlet, Mr. Brusa rejoices for
the: "reactivation of the chime he calls 'meridiana,'
and that of the hour indication on the dial facing the Mercerie,
unjustifiably dismissed and undoubtedly worth being reactivated" (p. 30). Now,
while Mr. Brusa is right about the first mechanism (which, however, was not
unjustifiably dismissed but was dismissed following
a political decision of the city council), he still doesn't recognize that the
time indication on the Northern dial (Mercerie) remained active until 1997,
thus persisting in a rough error, unworthy of any bystander that from the street
could in fact observe its functioning.
On the basis of this belief, Mr. Brusa writes that "an extension of the arbor
has been predisposed so that - once it is permanently installed - it will transmit
the motion to the dial facing the Mercerie", but
such arbor already existed in all its length and transmitted motion to the above-mentioned
dial. This contention is quite astonishing because it doesn't take into account
the parts of the clock that were existing and functioning.
Further on, another detail surfaces: "Alberto Gorla has discretely introduced
in the context of Ferracina's mechanics a release device that will facilitate
the adjustment of the indications, (
)". Mr. Gorla added, not so discretely,
two (ugly) metal discs with perforated edges to the wheels that transmit and
differentiate the motion, releasing them from their respective arbors. What
is even worse, Mr. Gorla made a perforation on a
spoke of each of those wheels, so that they can be locked in the desired position
through one of the holes of the added discs, while he could have adopted a vice-like
device more respectful of the ancient and elegant wheels.
Mr. Brusa's pamphlet closes on a covert admission: "The mechanism that moves
the carousel with the Magi procession has also been restored, but the project
of disengaging the paneled wheels with digits to facilitate the periodicity
of the procession could not be accepted as it seemed too significant an innovation
in the circumstance". Here Mr. Brusa's disappointment clearly surfaces for not
having been able to completely dispose of the 19th century configuration designed
by De Lucia and, with it, the admission that, if it had been possible, he would
have lightheartedly removed those apparatuses.
Synthesis
a) The restoration had to be a conservatory one. So it is generally for all cultural, historical, and artistic items. This restoration was not conservatory, and it seems even more incredible because lately Italian Superintendences had been almost obsessive in their commitment to preserve even insignificant artifacts and items.
b) This transformation could have been presented as a necessity (i.e., as indispensable), claiming that: either the features of the clock are changed, or it will not work. Such a contention is, nevertheless, indefensible, as everybody knows that it worked well until it was taken apart.
c) This transformation could have been presented, more reasonably, as a technical improvement, to achieve more precision, but this concern should not take precedence over that of preserving an ancient clock that represents an important phase in the history of mechanics. In the light of contemporary conservatory ethics and practice, the perfectibility of an ancient artifact is not sustainable.
d) Last would be the choice of conducting a 'philological operation', which would consist of restoring a previous state; in this case, that previous to De Lucia's 1858 restoration. This was indeed the plan: erasing the traces of the 19th century restoration and substituting it with another one, arbitrary and brand new. Calling it 'philological' amounts to the presumption of having established that the previous pendulum (B. Ferracina, 1757-59) was located on the opposite side (North side) of that realized by De Lucia (1858, South side), and was, at least, half as short! This theory, however, is disproved by the fact that:
- d1) N. Erizzo, only 2
years later (1860), writes of a change to 1800 oscillations per hour versus
the 1828 of the previous pendulum. Thus confirming that the difference in the
pendulum's length was minimal, estimated as few centimeters, and that the previous
pendulum was, therefore, about 4 meters [see Peratoner, page 37].
- d2) The pendulum, in Mr. Brusa's hypothesis (and
indeed, as it has been reconstructed) should have been aligned with the anchor's
arbor, thus without the need of being moved by a horizontal arm such as the
one that 'pushed' it sideways in the last configuration. There
is, instead, a technical report by G. Doria and A. Marini, written
two years before De Lucia's restoration, that includes a drawing of the
pendulum with its transversal arm (Archive of "Celestia").
It is therefore natural to conclude, with the greatest clarity, that the pendulum
had always been there. [see Peratoner, page 38, and table IV on page 39]
- d3) Again N. Erizzo, writing about the 1858 work,
says that De Lucia added a device to the transversal arm; but if one adds something
to a specific mechanical part, it means that such a part already exists. [see
Peratoner, page 38]
| - d4) There is the brace of the old pendulum's suspension; an item that was no longer operational (since 1952) but is clearly recognizable in its function and, more importantly, matches exactly the position where the pendulum had always been. The way the item was manufactured is comparable to that of the other static parts of the clock and, therefore, the part belongs to the Ferracina's period. [see Peratoner, lower part of page 37] |
Ferracina's suspension cock. |
- d5) S. Cadel, the person in charge of the building restoration, upon its conclusion writes a very detailed report on the work carried out. No mention is made of a floor perforation (the 'hole' in the tower's living room ceiling), which would have been necessary if the pendulum had, at that time, doubled its size. The possibility of such omission being an oversight is unlikely, due to the very minute detail of that report. [see Peratoner, page 41]
|
The pendulum bob inside a glazed
box at the first floor of the Tower, in the position where it was before
the half 20th Century intervention. |
- d6) This configuration can be seen in a newly released picture that shows the pendulum oscillating in the room below the clock [reproduced in Peratoner on page 40, table V, see also pp. 41-42]. |
In conclusion, to have insult added to injury, it is now clear that aiming at recreating Ferracina's clock configuration, the restoration carried out by Mr. Gorla under the direction of Mr. Brusa, by moving the pendulum on the opposite side and shortening it by one half, together with the 19th century configuration that it was determined to suppress, has also erased the 18th century stratification that it wanted to recreate.
Dr. Alberto Peratoner
