Pavel Kalina

‘In möglichst organischer Weise.’ Anton Barvitius and the Restoration of Palazzo Venezia in Rome

In July 1856, Antonín Barvitius was entrusted with the restoration of the Palazzo Venezia in Rome, which at that time served as the seat of the embassy of the Austrian Empire to the Holy See. In the months that followed, he submitted several reports on the project. He first proposed a radical intervention—never carried out— involving a restructuring of the building. This would have involved relocating the eastern fragment of the courtyard arcades to the north, and adding a new short western wing perpendicular to the northern wing. Barvitius’s 1858 Report then offered a detailed description of the state of repair of the palace and put forward proposals for its restoration. It contains an extensive historical introduction. It is further divided into four sections corresponding to the four principal parts of the building. Throughout, the report referred to a graphic appendix, which has survived only in fragmentary form in the State Archives in Vienna; the missing sheets can unfortunately only be partially supplemented by preparatory drawings preserved in the National Technical Museum in Prague. Information about the renovation work actually carried out is provided in another report by Barvitius from July 1860. The alterations made to the palace are mentioned again by the architect himself in official correspondence from 1866, when discussions regarding his dismissal were already underway, as the new envoy, Alexander Hübner, was dissatisfied with his work. Barvitius’s responsibilities were subsequently taken over by Francesco Azzurri.

Barvitius left no explicitly theoretical texts, and thus understanding his thinking requires an analysis of the conceptual vocabulary he employed. Certain terms recur frequently. The term decorum appears only twice in his 1858 Report, yet it has a key significance. Perhaps surprisingly, Barvitius made relatively little use of the term style. Far more frequently, the pages of his Report employ the terms organism and organic. It does not appear, however, that Barvitius’s understanding of these concepts derived from contemporary theoretical discourse. By organism he seems to have meant simply a building conceived as a body exhibiting logical spatial relationships among its parts and causal relationships over time.

Author's email:

pavel.kalina@fa.cvut.cz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54759/ART-2025-0404



< back