Context 163 - March 2020

C O N T E X T 1 6 3 : M A R C H 2 0 2 0 21 Ireland FREDERICK O’DWYER To restore or to repair? The work of the antiquaries Henry Cotton and James Graves in Ireland highlights the Victorian debate about the hazards of restoration by those tempted to make architectural improvements. Many modern architects cite the charter of Venice (1964) in arguing that repairs to the fabric of ‘historic monuments’ should be contras- tive in a very obvious way. While John Ruskin (1819–1900) formulated a similar doctrine for St Mark’s Basilica in Venice in 1877: ‘The single principle is, that after any operation whatsoever necessary for the safety of a building, every exter- nal stone should be set back in its original place: if any are added to strengthen the walls, the new stones, instead of being made to resemble the old ones, should be left blank of sculpture…’, he did not originate it. Indeed, he had memorably writ- ten in The Seven Lamps of Architecture in 1849: ‘Do not let us then talk of restoration. The thing is a lie from beginning to end’, a position which he maintained for almost 30 years. Rather it was formulated by Ruskin’s contem- poraries in the Oxford and Cambridge univer- sity architectural/archaeological societies, both founded in 1839. Given that an objective of these societies was to advise clergy and their architects in conserving ecclesiastical buildings in use and protecting ruinous structures from collapse, in 1851 they proposed to publish an article in The Ecclesiologist challenging Ruskin’s remark. However, the chosen author – Edward Augustus Freeman (1823–92) of the Oxford Architectural The entrance to Cashel Cathedral, showing the reinstated arch and rubble masonry, with three new rectangular jamb stones inserted by Archdeacon Cotton in 1848–9, two on the left and one on the right, distinguished visually from the reconstructed stonework (Photo: Frederick O’Dwyer)