Bruno Zevi, the continental European emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s theories Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjar20 The Journal of Architecture ISSN: 1360-2365 (Print) 1466-4410 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20 Bruno Zevi, the continental European emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s theories Raúl Martínez Martínez To cite this article: Raúl Martínez Martínez (2019) Bruno Zevi, the continental European emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s theories, The Journal of Architecture, 24:1, 27-50, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 24 Jan 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 275 View Crossmark data https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjar20 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjar20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjar20&show=instructions http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-01-24 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-01-24 Bruno Zevi, the continental European emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s theories In the late nineteenth century, Bernard Berenson revived the analytical methodologies employed in art history by proposing new methods of pictorial analysis, such as space-composition and life-enhancement. In the twentieth century, his pupil Geoffrey Scott transferred these new methodologies from their original context, Renaissance painting, to architecture. Though Scott was a recognised critic within English aes- thetic circles, he was largely ignored in Continental European academic communities. The influence of his book The Architecture of Humanism (1914) was limited to the Anglo-American world before the 1940s. This essay depicts the key role that the Italian architect Bruno Zevi played after the Second World War, by becoming the primary architectural his- torian to introduce and diffuse Scott’s forgotten masterpiece in many non-English-speaking countries. Zevi defended a critical methodology based on spatial, empirical, and sensory analysis of architectural works, an attitude that is observed in his theoretical corpus written immediately after his return from the United States. This paper proposes an examin- ation of Zevi’s reception of Scott’s theories and the debates that it propa- gated, and aims to contribute to the understanding of the methodological approach followed in the years after the Second World War on both sides of the Atlantic. The introduction of the concept of space as an element of architectural analysis and design has been one of the most significant contributions to the field of architecture in the twentieth century. The interpretation of architecture in terms of space, though, did not become widely familiar to American and English audiences until the early 1940s, with the publication of Sigfried Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture in 1941, Nikolaus Pevsner’s An Outline of European Architecture in 1943, and later, Bruno Zevi’s Architecture as Space in 1957. Broadening this traditional narrative, Colin Rowe suggested that the American art historian Bernard Berenson, his pupil, the English architec- tural historian Geoffrey Scott, and, potentially, the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, had already begun to utilise space as a fundamental concept in their works, prior to the normally assumed entry of space onto the English- speaking architectural stage in the 1940s.1 Rowe’s hypothesis was developed in part from Cornelis van de Ven’s Space in Architecture: the Evolution of a # 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non- Commercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. Raúl Martínez Martínez Department of History and Theory of Architecture and Communication Techniques, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-BarcelonaTech, Barcelona, Spain. raul.martinez-martinez@upc.edu ORCID 0000-0001-9401-8006 27 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 1360-2365 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ mailto:raul.martinez-martinez@upc.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9401-8006 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13602365.2018.1527383&domain=pdf New Idea in the Theory and History of Modern Movements (1978).2 This book, focusing on the period from 1850 until 1930, operated on the premise that ‘the concept of space as an architectural fundamental was almost exclusively a German contribution,’3 a seemingly continuous source of influence for the leading architects and historians of the twentieth century. Rowe articulated van de Ven’s argument, questioning European influence on Wright but support- ing the inclusion of Berenson and Scott.4 This paper will delve deeper into Rowe’s observations in order to propose a continuous chain of connectivity and influence stretching from the 1960s all the way back to Anglo-American art historians and theorists of the late nine- teenth century. Its focus is to reveal the lineage beginning with Bernard Beren- son, continuing with Geoffrey Scott and developing further with Bruno Zevi. The connection between Berenson and Scott has already been well established by scholars like David Watkin and Mark Campbell but the relationship between Scott and Zevi has never been explored.5 In Rowe’s opinion, The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste (1914), together with its theoretical alternative, Rudolf Wittkower’s Archi- tectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (1949),6 was the most important contribution within the theory of architecture of the twentieth century.7 Scott’s well-known masterwork aimed to expand the methodological theory outlined by Berenson in 1883 in ‘A Word for Renaissance Churches,’8 a little- known, yet seminal essay that proposed an incipient interpretation of architec- ture in terms of space, described from the point of view of the aesthetic spec- tator (Fig. 1). However, as Watkin has pointed out in the foreword of the 1980 edition of The Architecture of Humanism, the legacy of Scott’s volume extended further than just his interpretation of architecture in terms of space. It also facilitated the introduction of the emerging physiological aesthetic theory, based on the concept of Einfühlung, into the English-speaking architec- tural scene; the demolition of the ‘fallacies’ (Romantic, Mechanical, Ethical, and Biological), false analogies based on intellectual concerns, developed in the nineteenth century by architectural criticism in an effort to explain architecture; and a positive statement of Baroque architecture as the ultimate depiction of the ‘humanist values’ in architecture9. In terms of these four contributions, the impact of ‘Geoffrey Scott’s greatest memorial’10 was not immediately recognised, nor was it linear. The book was published in England and the United States at an unfortunate moment in history, the summer of 1914 when the Great War began. The positive reception garnered by the release of this first edition was limited to a modest group of people, mostly friends and scholars related to Villa I Tatti. The second edition, released in 1924, appeared under more favourable historical conditions (Fig. 2). The receptive climate of opinion at the time facilitated a wider dissemi- nation of the text and, as Watkin observed, it ‘almost could be taken for a book of the 1920s instead of something left over from before the war.’11 From the late 1940s to the 1980s, The Architecture of Humanism lived a dynamic life of continuous recognition. It was reprinted several times in the United States (1954, 1956, 1965, 1969, and 1978) and in England (1947, 1961, and 28 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Figure 1. The Free Review: A Monthly Magazine, November 1893. (Biblioteca Berenson, Villa I Tatti – The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, courtesy of the President and Fellows of Harvard College). 1980), becoming a fundamental text in the field of modern and postmodern architecture. Philip Johnson in ‘The Seven Crutches of Modern Architecture’ (1954), Vincent Scully in Modern Architecture: Toward a Redefinition of Style (1957), Peter Collins in Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750–1950, Charles W. Moore in Body, Memory and Architecture (1977), Philip Steadman in The Evolution of Designs, Biological Analogy in Architecture and Applied Arts (1979), and Roger Scruton in The Aesthetics of Architecture (1979), among others, were all influenced by one or several of the main points described in Watkin’s foreword. The relative influence of Scott on the intellectual development of American postmodernism is witnessed by the impact that Vincent Scully had on leading architects of the late 1960s and 1970s, some of whom participated in creating the ‘Strada Novissima’ in the Venice Biennale of 1980. Scully’s critical point of view towards the International Style was evident in the text that he wrote for the catalogue of the exhibition, titled ‘How things got to be way they are now,’ in which he provided reasoning on the current architectural situation. In Scully’s opinion, the presence of the past as it operated in that moment in American architecture dealt with the reconsideration of ‘traditional, vernacular values by critics and architects alike,’12 fostering the reappearance of forms that stemmed from the American tradition of domestic building in wood. This revival was related to similar convictions that had led the first Shingle Style in the 1870s and 1880s, important ideals that America had forgotten and that needed to be restored. Scully further developed his study on this time period in his doctoral dissertation, later published as The Shingle Style: Architectural Theory and Design from Richardson to the Origins of Wright (1955). Scott was both directly referenced and alluded to in this work, specifically when Scully mentioned Scott’s ‘ethical fallacy’ to describe John Calvin Steven’s and Albert Winslow Cobb’s attitude of mind. More importantly though, Scott’s presence was forci- bly noted through Scully’s spatial descriptions and his ability to transmit the feeling of interior space. Two decades later, Scully delineated the influence of the formal and spatial relations of the Shingle Style on contemporary American architects in The Shingle Style Today or The Historian’s Revenge (1974). There he included the work of postmodern architects such as Robert Venturi, Charles W. Moore, Robert A. M. Stern, Jaquelin T. Robertson, among others. Scott’s influence on Scully is not unique; a similar line can be traced, both directly or indirectly, from The Architecture of Humanism to the featured work of other postmodern architects, including written pieces like The Secret Life of Buildings (1985) by Gavin Macrae-Gibson. The longevity and widespread impact of Scott’s ideas exist through the continuing lives of this ever-expanding study. The profound significance of The Architecture of Humanism spread further than just the United States and England. In 1939, 10 years after Scott’s death, Elena Craveri Croce, the daughter of philosopher Benedetto Croce, translated the text into Italian (Fig. 3). The introduction that she wrote for the book emerged from an adolescent reverence for Berenson that instigated a strong admiration towards Scott.13 It depicted Croce’s deep knowledge of his biography as well as the apparent connection between Scott’s principles and 29 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 2. The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste, 2nd edition, 1924. Berenson’s own theory. She also presented her own interpretation of the book’s importance, emphasising the attention placed on aesthetic matters, with beauty as the pivotal point of architecture, a carefully calculated observation linked to her father’s interests in aesthetics. Though Elena Croce’s translation was published at an unfortunate time—the start of the Second World War—it maintained longevity in Italy throughout the twentieth century. The Italian architect and historian Bruno Zevi, actively inter- ested in aesthetic matters, was immediately attracted to the book, and acquired his own Italian copy. His careful reading of The Architecture of Humanism is evi- denced through annotated phrases and meticulous notes in the margins. During the same year as the publication of the Italian translation, Zevi was forced, due to his Jewish heritage, to abandon his studies of architecture in Rome and emi- grate from Italy. In the spring of 1939, he first travelled to England to study at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London, and later, in 1940, he moved to the United States to study at Columbia University and Harvard University.14 In these two countries, he gained a new understanding of the enormous influence that The Architecture of Humanism had on the Anglo-American world. In 1943, Zevi returned to Europe, and, immediately after the end of the Second World War, he began incorporating Scott’s theories in his own work. The enthusiastic reception Zevi achieved within the Italian community led to a diminishing appreciation of the importance of his Anglo-American training. Zevi was subsequently categorised by scholars and architects as a primarily ‘Italian’ architectural historian, even though English references were predominant in the bibliographies of his first books and Geof- frey Scott’s theories maintained a prominent role within his texts. By reflecting Scott’s theories in his own writing, Zevi became a mouthpiece for Scott’s contributions long after Scott’s untimely death, and a continuation of a lineage that stretched back to Berenson. Furthermore, because of his exposure to the British and North American architectural culture, Zevi played a key role in building a bridge between the Anglo-American world, the Italian world, and subsequently, the Ibero-American world with the rapid translations of his texts into Spanish. Books such as Saper vedere l’architettura (1948), Storia del- l’architettura moderna (1950), Architettura e Storiografia (1950), Architettura in nuce (1960), and Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura (1973) were translated into Spanish in 1951, 1954, 1958, 1969, and 1978, respectively. Zevi’s diffusion of Scott’s postulates permeated into his work beyond his own writing. In 1978, Zevi became the editor of the Universale di Architettura pub- lished by Edizioni Dedalo, a collection of short essays that aimed to expand architectural appreciation and understanding to the general public.15 The Italian translation of The Architecture of Humanism was reprinted as the second and third volume of the compilation, just after Edward Frank’s Pensiero organico e architettura wrightiana—two works that Zevi considered essential texts for the formation of a good architect, along with Heinrich Wölfflin’s Renaissance und Barock16 (Fig. 4). Zevi reissued the same translation two decades later while serving as the director of a new collection Universale di Architettura, edited this time by Testo&Immagine (Fig. 5). 30 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Figure 3. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. Translation of Elena Craveri Croce from the 2nd English edition. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) Zevi’s original reading and modern interpretation of Scott’s text paved a foun- dation upon which he would build his life’s work. This was summarised on the back cover of the 1978 and 1999 Italian reprints of The Architecture of Human- ism, where Zevi rhetorically posed the question, ‘Is it possible to understand painting without knowing Bernard Berenson? Similarly, you cannot understand architecture without reading Scott’s book.’ This reasoning expanded the con- tents of the book from Italian Renaissance architecture to all architectural periods, specifically providing a practical application ‘to understand and judge contemporary events’. The efficacy of the text was expanded by Zevi from archi- tectural criticism to architectural design. He described The Architecture of Humanism as ‘a guide to current architectural practice,’ and advocated for the use of Scott’s theories in architectural design courses as a complement to the book’s already-accepted theoretical aims. This definition was closely aligned with Scott’s own hopes and objectives, since he originally conceived The Architecture of Humanism for ‘those who practice architecture, and also those who deal in philosophy (Figs. 6 and 7).’17 Zevi began fostering this relationship between architectural practice and criti- cal thought in Saper vedere l’architettura (1948). In the last chapter, titled ‘Toward a Modern History of Architecture,’ Zevi appealed for a more progressive manner of understanding the history of architecture. According to him, among the living factors of the contemporary world, modern architecture with its ‘inves- tigation of spatial problems’18 marked a pathway for historians and critics toward the true essence of architecture, allowing them to read both present and past buildings through a contemporary lens. This spatial essence of architec- ture, Zevi claimed, had been notably perceived by modern architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and Eric Mendelsohn, but ‘among the authors who have under- stood the problem, Geoffrey Scott, stands out.’19 This dynamic interpretation of the history of architecture provided a continuity which connected the present and the past, and had significant pedagogical implications. As he pro- fessed, ‘the story of ancient architecture should be taught with a modern critical mentality.’20 Zevi’s idea that the study of history created a critical consciousness whose usefulness had to be put in practice during the creative process was cate- gorised in the 1950s under the slogan of ‘history as an instrument of synthesis of architectural education.’21 As the director of the journal L’Architettura. Cronache e Storia, Zevi reinforced the concept that history ‘ought to be the most stimulating subject in the university and its methodological effects should be felt in the other branches of the curriculum.’22 Becoming a focus of his educational pedagogy, these ideas directed his inaugural lecture as chair of architectural history at the University of Rome in 1963, titled ‘La storia come metodologia del fare architectonico,’ and were reiterated in the United States the following year in his speech ‘History as a Method of Teaching Archi- tecture’23 during his assistance at the AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar. This core thought followed a linear path from its development in Poetica del- l’architettura neoplastica (1953). According to Zevi, Neoplasticism was a style, derived from Cubism, that had translated its pictorial conquests into architec- tural terms. The two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision of architecture 31 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 4. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1978. Collection Universale di Architecttura (directed by Bruno Zevi), number 2-3. 32 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Figure 5. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1999. Collection Universale di Architecttura (directed by Bruno Zevi), number 59. Figure 6. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the first chapter entitled ‘Renaissance Architecture,’ Zevi wrote the name of F.L. Wright when Scott talked about the relationship between the architectural design and the materials in the Renaissance. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) 33 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 7. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the chapter ‘Romantic Fallacy,’ Zevi referred to the Tecton Group when Scott talked about the role that the garden played in the Renaissance taste. This is another example of Zevi’s modern interpretation of Scott’s fallacies. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) of the past was surpassed by the four-dimensional reality of architecture, which including time as an element, had to abandon the static definition of architec- ture and to reconstruct the ‘dynamic experience of the conception and the realization of a work of art.’24 This new architectural consciousness lead the architect to an intellectual technique for the decomposition, characterisation, and assemblage of the parts of the buildings, becoming an effective analytical process that could be used to critically reinterpret architecture while establishing links between history and design. As Zevi expressed in the conclusion, subtitled ‘Critical Instrumentality of the Neoplastic Search,’ ‘to make architecture and to understand architecture’ were considered ‘parallel activities.’25 The progression of this active history of architecture was materialised in his attempt to visualise this architectural criticism within the exhibition on the fourth centenary of Michelangelo Buonarroti’s death. The display, held at the Palazzo delle Esposizioni in Rome in 1964, featured models and photographs of the architectural work of the Italian architect. These ‘critical models,’26 made by Zevi’s students from the Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, with the assistance of the painter Mario Deluigi, were three-dimen- sional translations of specific critical thoughts on architecture. Expressed with the instruments of the architect rather than the written word, these artistic cre- ations served to visualise architectural criticism from a contemporary vantage point, a new method in teaching and learning architecture that had to be not only capable of producing culture but also of developing the creative approach of architects in the formation of spaces. In 1973, Zevi’s beliefs shifted from ‘mannerism to language,’27 as he admitted in his address at the RIBA in 1983.28 This change was embodied by his publication of Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura (1973), an essay which, in Zevi’s own words, ‘con- densed all that I believed in’: the language of modern architecture could be codified, modern architecture coincided with modern historiography, but most importantly, architecture is ‘mainly space, dynamic space to move in, to be used and lived in.’29 By creating several new channels to disperse Scott’s vision, Zevi became the greatest intermediary for the rebirth of The Architecture of Humanism in new architectural fields. Geoffrey Scott’s Fallacies in Zevi’s Theoretical Corpus 1945–1950 Throughout Zevi’s career, as evidenced in his writings, Scott continued to be a reference and an avid support for his arguments and claims. Scott’s fallacies, in particular, provided the theoretical basis for Zevi’s corpus. Verso un’architettura organica (1945), his first book, was written in London with the assistance of the resources of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ library. This seminal text rejected ‘the most widespread misunderstanding in the historiography of modern architecture,’30 the interpretation of modern architecture as a sequence of three stages—growth, maturity and decay. Scott’s ‘Biological Fallacy’ equipped Zevi with the necessary backing to develop his historiographical claims. Scott’s defense of the ‘Primitive’ and ‘Baroque’ periods of Renaissance architecture as time frames of growth and development rather than of stagna- 34 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez tion and decay coincided with Zevi’s objectives to portray the architectural periods before 1920 and after 1933 as times of expansion and development in their own right, non-subsidiary to the rationalist phase of modern architecture (1920–1933). Verso un’architettura organica referenced Scott in ‘Meaning and Scope of the Term Organic in Reference to Architecture,’ a chapter where Zevi made use of Scott’s terminology to clarify the confusion behind the word ‘organic.’ Zevi’s first fallacy, named the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy,’ was based on ‘romantic naturalism,’ a principle which considered the organic to be a ‘formal imitation of nature.’31 He rejected any connection between the two concepts, using ideas from Scott’s ‘Romantic Fallacy.’ He then applied this same axiom to modern architecture and other periods like Gothic architecture and ‘all the worst English pseudo-roman- ticism.’32 The origin of this historical reference was denoted in Zevi’s Italian copy of The Architecture of Humanism and in Verso un’architettura organica (Fig. 8). Where Scott wrote of English domestic architecture, ‘the modern preference is to make the manor share in the romantic charm of the cottage,’33 Zevi added in his text that the period was, ‘full of naturalistic souvenirs which were tacked onto the outsides of cottages in order to give them an added charm.’34 Zevi’s second postulate titled, the ‘Biological Fallacy,’ shared its name with Scott´s last fallacy but its meaning bore no relation to Scott’s definition. The defect of this misconception was creating connections between psychological sensations and architectural forms. The strict correlation fabricated between the two resulted in a ruled aesthetic system—a manual, of sorts, that would sep- arate architecture from art. Zevi presented Scott as the protagonist of this fallacy and related the basis of this anthropomorphic identification with quotes from Arnold Whittick’s Eric Mendelsohn (1940) and Scott’s The Architecture of Humanism.35 Because Zevi held Scott in such a high regard, however, he resisted portraying him in a negative light, stating, If Geoffrey Scott had not died young and had been able, as he promised in his masterpiece The Architecture of Humanism, to reconsider the history of Renais- sance architecture in the light of these Berensonian theories, either he would have utterly refuted such doctrines or else his subtlety would have succeeded in evoking, even from such meagre premises, a series of brilliant critical deductions.36 The analytical and methodological contents of Scott’s fallacies, then, gave Zevi the necessary mechanisms to analyse modern architecture and other archi- tectural patterns. In another chapter of Verso un’architettura organica, Zevi jus- tified the reasons that led Italy to reject modern architecture based on two ‘fallacious trends,’ Monumentalism and Provincialism, which were motivated by Scott’s Romantic Fallacy. For Scott, the gravest facet of this fallacy was con- sidering architecture to be symbolic. Monumentalism, according to Zevi, failed in this respect because it exaggerated the symbolism of public buildings to glorify the fascist state. This connection between current architecture and poli- tics is strengthened by the evidence provided by Zevi’s copy of Scott’s text, where Zevi wrote ‘Piacentini’ on the margins bordering a paragraph on the Counter-Reformation which stated, ‘never, perhaps, has architecture been more successfully or more deliberately made the tool of policy’37 (Fig. 9). The 35 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 36 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Figure 8. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the chapter ‘Romantic Fallacy,’ Zevi highlighted the naturalistic influence on the domestic English architecture expressed by Scott and marked the example of the cottage which was adapted later for Zevi’s own arguments. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) 37 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 9. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the first chapter ‘Renaissance Architecture,’ Zevi referenced Piacentini when Scott talked about the political instrumentality of architecture. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) other trend, Provincialism, was delineated as a strong reaction against the modern. As Zevi stated, it was ‘the by-product of a romantic fallacy’ supported by pseudo-nationalist and sentimentalist motives. Throughout his analysis, Zevi followed the same philosophy as Scott, that ‘to overcome these misunderstand- ings, it is necessary to not only condemn them, but to clarify the reasons for their emergence.’38 Although Scott’s fallacies made up the basis of Zevi’s first book, the tangible relationship between their theories was only just beginning. Zevi’s second book, Saper vedere l’architettura, was most eye-opening to the non-English-speaking architectural sphere as it proposed a new methodology of understanding, judging and analysing architecture. The fifth chapter was con- structed based on the same model that Scott utilised in The Architecture of Humanism. Zevi achieved this similarity by directly distinguishing ‘Scott’s falla- cies’ from his ‘interpretations of architecture,’ characterising ‘interpretations’ based on their ability to provide a partial history of architecture and ‘critical fal- lacies’ on their inability to illuminate any permanent element of architecture. Then, as Scott did with the fallacies, Zevi analysed the main interpretations of architecture (political, philosophical-religious, scientific, economic-social, mate- rialist, technical, physio-psychological, and formalist) and pointed out their deficiencies; however, unlike Scott, Zevi proved these to be partial or incomplete histories of some aspects of architecture rather than absolute misconceptions. Finally, just as Scott concluded The Architecture of Humanism with his ‘huma- nist values,’ Zevi ended chapter five with the proposal, ‘On the Spatial Interpret- ation.’ Zevi’s theory subordinated the other eight secondary interpretations under the spatial interpretation in the same way that Scott’s theory subordi- nated the fallacies to humanist values. Scott’s humanist values, based on the senses, were the core of the architectural experience; and the fallacies, based on intellect, could not constitute an architectural experience, though they may have enriched it. Scott took on a particularly predominant role in the section ‘On the Spatial Interpretation.’ Zevi extensively quoted and referenced ‘the distinguished English critic’ and ‘student of Berenson’ in order to support his conviction that space was the primary mechanism through which one should judge archi- tecture. In this section, Zevi included a full transcription of Scott’s proposal regarding space. He explained the quotation of this ‘important passage’ as ‘an insight into architectural reality,’ stating, in no unclear terms, that Scott was the only historian to grasp the ‘secret of architecture’ and to express it ‘with absolute clarity.’39 Scott was included under the physio-psychological interpretation (the ‘Biological Fallacy’ from Verso un’architectura organica), although Zevi excused him again from any fallacious arguments by stating that ‘these hazy points do not diminish the value of Scott’s fundamental con- clusions.’40 Zevi’s pardon proved to be unnecessary; Scott was not trying to transform art into science. In fact, he rejected the intellectualisation of art, criti- cising the preponderance that intellect had maintained above senses in each one of his fallacies. The concept of Einfühlung, defended by Scott, was more in relation to the idea of architecture as an experience than as the theorisation of architecture. At the same time that Scott began recognising space as the 38 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez intrinsic value of architecture, he was proposing the application of Einfühlung methodologies to architectural space and, subsequently, he was inferring that space should be the basis of architectural criticism. Scott’s fundamental con- clusions were, therefore, the same as those that Zevi maintained in Saper vedere l’architettura. The key role that The Architecture of Humanism played in Saper vedere l’arch- itettura is reinforced in the bibliography, where Zevi stated that it was a unique work ‘of fundamental importance among books on the theory of architec- ture.’41 He also included Scott’s text as a justification for the inclusion of two references: first, Georges Gromort’s Initiation à l’architecture (1936),42 and second, Clough & Amabel Williams-Ellis’s The Pleasures of Architecture (1924).43 Zevi explained in the bibliography that these two books succeeded because of their grounding in Scott’s work, which allowed them to reject false postulates established by the old criticism. Saper vedere l’architettura was translated into English as Architecture as Space in 1957, only a decade after the Italian edition and immediately following the last two reprints of The Architecture of Humanism (1954, 1956). The first correlation between Scott’s and Zevi’s books was pointed out by Paul Zucker in his review of the English translation. This author argued that ‘the importance of Zevi’s book Architecture as Space can hardly be overestimated. It may have the same influence for our generation which Geoffrey Scott’s The Architecture of Humanism had more than forty years ago and still maintains.’44 Zucker’s con- nection cannot be reduced to the simple fact that Scott was the architectural critic most quoted in Zevi’s text or that his statements regarding space created a foundation for the book. This connection was made by Zucker, in fact, because he felt that Zevi embodied Scott’s legacy and impact in his own right. Zevi’s third book, Storia dell’architettura moderna, was an extension of Verso un’architettura organica.45 The chapter where Scott was first mentioned was ‘The Evolution of Architectural Thought.’ It maintained the same structure and principles as ‘Meaning and Scope of the Term Organic in Reference to Architecture’ from Verso un’architettura organica. Even functioning as a repro- duction, it contained small, but significant alterations related to Scott’s prin- ciples, especially those concerned with the ‘Biological Fallacy,’ mentioned in the first book. Zevi clarified here that the ‘Biological Fallacy’ was ‘the application of a physio-psychological interpretation and especially of the theory of Einfüh- lung to architecture,’46 a further elaboration on Zevi’s main concepts listed in Sapere Vedere l’architettura. He changed the term ‘aesthetic system’ to ‘ambig- uous aesthetic system,’ which implied that the concept of Einfühlung could support multiple interpretations but, most importantly, this clarification estab- lished a link between the theory of Einfühlung and its application for the analysis and judgment of architecture. Zevi dedicated another chapter to ‘the methodological problems in architec- tural historiography,’ problems that were closely related to Scott’s fallacies—in particular, the Biological Fallacy. Zevi’s primary objective when he wrote Verso un’architettura organica and Storia dell’architettura moderna was to put an 39 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 end to the misconceptions of ‘immaturity, maturity and decline’ as evolutionary phases in modern architecture.47 In Zevi’s opinion, ‘the structural fallacy benefited the evolutionary because it made art rely on technical progress.’48 Scott had included this erroneous tendency within the parameters of his Biologi- cal Fallacy; the archaic stage of an artistic tradition, he argued, was not mere immaturity of technique. Rather, it implied a particular aesthetic aim and conception. Zevi’s fourth book, Architettura e Storiografia, was published the same year as Storia dell’architettura moderna. In this work, Rationalism and Organic architecture were considered architectural phases that shared the same tradition and a single language. He established the same historical continuity that Scott had proposed between the Renaissance and the Baroque, rejecting early evolutionary theories. Influenced by Wölfflin’s Renaissance und Barock, Zevi explained that the Baroque and organic architecture reintegrated the archi- tectural elements that the Renaissance and rationalism had separated. The difference was that ‘Baroque fused the three dimensions of the Renaissance and organic architecture merged the four dimensions of cubism.’49 Baroque and organic architecture for these two authors portrayed the ultimate phases of Renaissance and modern architecture, respectively (Fig. 10). The strong correlation between Scott’s fallacies and Zevi’s books demon- strated the applicability of The Architecture of Humanism throughout diverse and separate architectural subjects with the complete integration of Scott’s the- ories into Zevi’s way of thinking. While the ‘destructive portion’ (the fallacies) of Scott’s text was critical for the basis of Zevi’s arguments, the ‘constructive portion’ (the humanist values) played an arguably larger role in the development of Zevi’s spatial interpretation. Bruno Zevi’s Methodological Basis: On the Spatial Interpretation The importance given to methodological issues in architecture during the late 1940s was one of the most common topics in architectural debates in the Anglo-American context where the formalist methodology of Wölfflininan roots was beginning to be revised.50 Both The Architecture of Humanism and Saper vedere l’architettura were united in the aim of applying new methodo- logical approaches to architecture based on spatial interpretation.51 According to Zevi, the ‘ignorance of architecture’ developed from a lack of a direct and clearly delineated analytical method, a problem which he attempted to solve in the fifth chapter of Saper vedere l’architettura, entitled ‘Interpretations of architecture.’ The main interpretations were grouped into three categories: ‘interpretations of content’ (political, philosophical-religious, scientific, econ- omic-social, materialist, and technical), ‘physiological and psychological interpretations,’ and ‘formalist interpretations.’ The last two categories were analysed in depth by Zevi due to their relevance and applicability to a spatial interpretation. The formalist interpretations led to a revolutionary shift in the analysis of painting, sculpture and architecture.52 By focusing exclusively on formal aspects, scholars were enabled to study architectural works with more 40 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez 41 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 10. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the ‘Introduction,’ Zevi underlined Scott’s own interpretation of the term Renaissance architecture (the primitive, classic, baroque, academic, and rococo phases formed Renaissance architecture) and adapted this procedure to the term Modern architecture. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) critical precision and while enacting more exact individuation of each monu- ment, thus promoting ‘a finer response to its aesthetic value.’53 The physio- psychological interpretations, developed from formalist interpretations, continued this explicit path offering a humanist basis to architecture rooted within Einfühlung theory. Zevi warned, however, that these two interpretations failed because they used an ‘aesthetic judgment,’ instead of an ‘architectural judgment,’ to analyse architecture. Where aesthetic criticism reduced architec- ture to pictorial values, focusing on facades and surfaces, architectural criticism was concerned with space. Zevi’s proposal, ‘On the Spatial Interpretation,’ tried to resolve this lapse by applying formalist and Einfühlung theories to architec- tural space. This layout was developed in the fourth chapter when Zevi showed the evol- ution of ‘space through the ages,’ a new proceeding that followed in the path of other authors, especially Nikolaus Pevsner’s An Outline of European Architec- ture. In the descriptions of the buildings analysed, Zevi depicted the architectural experience of an observer who wandered through its interior, explaining the empathetic sensations that occurred when the human body was transposed into space. He used imagery such as, ‘you feel that you are an organic part of a space which has been created for you and has meaning only due to your pres- ence,’54 and ‘architects conceived spaces which induced in the observer not a sense of peaceful contemplation but a mood of imbalance, of conflicting impulses and emotions, of struggle’ to place the reader within the architectural experience.55 These statements were all consistent with Scott’s proposal to apply formalist and Einfühlung methodologies to analyse architectural spaces. In Scott’s own words ‘we have transcribed ourselves into terms of architecture. […] We transcribe architecture into terms of ourselves. This is the humanism of architecture.’56 Zevi concurred with Scott’s desire to apply these two methodologies to archi- tectural analysis; however, he elaborated on the failures in the formalist and physio-psychological interpretations as they were transferred from aesthetic cri- ticism to architectural criticism. He characterised architecture from other art forms such as painting and sculpture by clarifying the specific ‘content of archi- tecture.’ It was, he said, ‘the men who live in architectural space, their actions, indeed their whole physical, psychological and spiritual life as it takes place within it. The content of architecture is its social content.’57 Zevi justified this argument with the use of Vitruvius’s principles and focused his attention on social and aesthetic problems, arguing that in architecture, there was little sense in isolating beauty but ignoring social content. Zevi asked the reader, ‘Is a highway beautiful without automobiles? Is a ballroom beautiful without dancing couples?’58 in order to conclude that function and beauty were irrevoc- ably intertwined due to the social content present at the very core of architec- tural understanding. Zevi’s expression that ‘social content, psychological effects and formal values in architecture all take shape in space’ professed the ‘indissolubility of social and aesthetic problems,’59 the same assertion that Scott claimed in The Architecture of Humanism (Fig. 11). 42 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez 43 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 Figure 11. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the ‘Introduction,’ where Scott differentiated between the three conditions of well-building (commodity, firmness, and delight), Zevi emphasised that beauty in architecture lay in space. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) Architecture requires ‘delight.’ For this reason, interwoven with practical ends and their mechanical solutions, we may trace in architecture a third and different factor —the disinterested desire for beauty. This desire does not, it is true, culminate here in a purely aesthetic result, for it has to deal with a concrete basis which is utilitar- ian.60 In the late 1950s, following the English release of Zevi’s works, the debate between social and aesthetic content of modern architecture rose to the fore- front of architectural criticism. In 1956, a year before the English translation of Saper vedere l’architettura, Arnold Whittick, in the second edition of Eric Mendelsohn, criticised the ‘too limited’ interpretation that Bruno Zevi had in Verso un’architettura organica by considering organic architecture exclusively through functional reasoning. In Whittick’s opinion, organic architecture ‘should comprehend both functional building and an aesthetic principle of des- ign.’61As the discourse on the social content of architecture began to grow and expand, the dialogue surrounding it became more focused on function over beauty. In 1957, John Summerson in ‘The Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture’ used Zevi’s rhetoric about organic architecture to support his investigation into the existence of a common basic principle applicable to modern architecture. By refuting the established formal theory, he concluded that ‘the source of unity in modern architecture was in the social sphere, in other words in the architect’s program.’62 In the same year, Erick Christian Sor- ensen in ‘On Form, In Space’ furthered the discussion by saying ‘what we seek is an architecture able to encompass the frame of life—to reflect all our experi- ences in the true order of art.’63 All these authors, while eager to contribute to this new discussion on functional and aesthetic content in modern architec- ture, were unable to incorporate the development of Zevi’s argument over time because they only had his first book as a reference. At that time, Saper vedere l’architettura had not yet been translated and dispersed into the English-speak- ing hemisphere. Most recently, Panayotis Tournikiotis in The Historiography of Modern Architecture (1999) reanalysed Zevi’s thesis and continued this trend of placing social content above technical interests and artistic impulse.64 By expanding upon the difference between aesthetic judgment and architectural judgment as well as expanding upon the social content of architecture in Saper vedere l’architettura, Zevi both modernised and actualised the original claim made by Scott in The Architecture of Humanism. The Architectural Experience Continued Saper vedere l’architettura claimed space as the essence of architecture and the key aspect of analysis in architectural judgment. According to Zevi, architecture had to be conceived as a sensory art (not an intellectual one) that could only be understood from direct experience. At the time when the book was written, architectural space was beginning to be characterised as a relevant subject matter for architectural criticism in English-speaking countries. Articles such as Ernö Goldfinger’s trilogy—‘The Sensation of Space’ (1941), ‘Urbanism and Spatial Order’ (1941), and ‘Elements of Enclosed Space’ (1942)—dealt with 44 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez matters similar to those discussed in Saper vedere l’architettura. They evaluated the specific qualities of space, its aesthetic and psychological effects on the indi- vidual, and introduced the concept of architectural experience as one of the characteristics of spatial perception. This direction towards a cinematic con- ception of architecture was evidenced by the appearance of several books in English during the 1950s and 1960s. Rex Distin Martienssen’s The Idea of Space in Greek Architecture in 1956; the English translation of Zevi’s book Architecture as Space in 1957; Steen Eiler Rasmussen’s Experiencing Architec- ture in 1959; Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City in 1960; and Gordon Cullen’s Townscape in 1961, were all publications about spatially experiencing architecture and architectural environments that contributed to the introduction of the sense of dynamic motion in urban and architectonic processes of analysis and design. The influence of Saper vedere l’architettura continued to thrive well into the 1960s. New spatial criticism emerged at that time such as the theories of the Portuguese scholar Pedro Vieira de Almeida. In his bachelor’s thesis ‘Ensaio do espaço da arquitectura’ (1963),65 he developed new concepts like espaço nuclear (core space), espaço complementar (complementary space), and espaço transiçao (transitional space) which assisted in the evolution of Zevi’s theories. During this decade, Zevi continued to allocate attention toward the subject of space. In 1960, 12 years after Saper vedere l’architettura, a second book was published, manifesting a renewed interest in the topic. In Architettura in nuce, Scott’s presence was central, yet again; only this time, it was through references to his mentor, Bernard Berenson. It should be noted that the Amer- ican art historian was not a new addition to Zevi’s repertoire. Berenson was also mentioned in Zevi’s first books, but only in direct reference to Scott. Unlike many architectural critics, Berenson, according to Zevi, maintained the power to influ- ence architecture through his aesthetic perspectives.66 In this new book, Zevi repeatedly used Berenson’s description of ‘art as an experience’67 to confront the abstract, German-minded approach to space, especially the theory of Raum- gestaltung, introduced by August Schmarsow, Herman Sörgel and Leo Adler.68 The confrontation between ‘traditional theories’ of space (Schmarsow) and ‘contemporary interpretations’ of space (Berenson) was dissected in Zevi’s text.69 Zevi did not reject abstract spatial conceptions since he recognised that they played a relevant historical role in considering a spatial approach in the study of architecture. Often intellectually stimulating, they failed because they were based on spatial categories and not on specific architectural works. Zevi agreed with Berenson’s approach, a subject which he had discussed before through the lens of Scott’s own interpretation of the same point. Accord- ing to Zevi, Scott, and Berenson, the valid methodology for architectural analysis had to always be based on the direct architectural experience of concrete works (Fig. 12). Not coincidentally, two decades later Saper vedere l’architettura, Zevi utilised this same argument as the foundation of his review of Cornelis van de Ven’s Space in Architecture. In L’Expresso, Zevi recognised the usefulness of this book and its importance to the categorisation of contributors to this debate, but 45 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 46 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Figure 12. L’architettura dell’umanesimo, 1939. In the ‘Introduction,’ when Scott explained that architecture was understood as an art through rhythm and proportion, Zevi connected these two intellectual concepts with a sensory element: space. (image courtesy of Fondazione Bruno Zevi) he also reinforced its major flaw: the metaphorical interpretation of architectural phenomena as ‘incarnations of abstract spatial postulates.’70 The concept of space was first introduced abstractly into architectural theory, maintaining malleability throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. From the very beginning, two different theoretical positions emerged. In 1893, both Schmarsow with Das Wesen der architektonischen Schöpfung (The Essence of Architectural Creation) and Berenson’s with ‘A Word for Renais- sance Churches,’ introduced their differing concepts regarding the interpret- ation of architectural space. Zevi was in alignment with Berenson’s and Scott’s trajectory on this principle, inherently contradicting previously accepted German theories. The wide dissemination of Berenson and Scott’s ideas in the Western world is unimaginable without the work done by Zevi in Continental Europe, with his persistent effort to spread this attitude to understand, analyse, and judge architecture through space. Acknowledgements A shorter version of this essay was originally presented at the Association of Art Historians Annual Conference held at University of East Anglia, 9–11 April 2015 and at the Third International Symposium, Mapping Architectural Criticism 20th–21st Centuries held at the Académie d’Architecture, Paris, 3–4 April 2017. I would like to thank Mark Crinson, Richard Williams, Paolo Scrivano and Hélène Jannière for selecting this paper. I would like to acknowledge the Biblioteca Berenson, Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renais- sance Studies for the courtesy of providing figure 1, and the Fondazione Bruno Zevi for their assistance in recovering images from the library of Bruno Zevi and their generous permission for reproduction. Notes and references 1. Colin Rowe, ‘The Present Urban Predicament’, in Alexander Caragonne, ed., As I was Saying. Volume 3: Urbanistics (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996), p. 219. 2. This book derives from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, defended in 1974 and titled: Concerning the Idea of Space: The Rise of a New Fundamental in German Architectural Theory and in the Modern Movements until 1930. 3. Cornelis van de Ven, Space in Architecture: The Evolution of a New Idea in the Theory and History of Modern Movements (Assen, Van Gorcum, 1978), p. xiii. 4. Rowe surmised that neither scholar admitted to German influence while, in fact both authors acquiesced to a certain degree. Berenson referenced Jacob Burckhardt in The Study and Criticism of Italian Art: Second Series (London, George Bell and Sons, 1902), p. vi; and Scott mentioned Jacob Burckhardt, Heinrich Wölfflin, and Theodor Lipps in The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste (London, Constable, 1924), pp. ix, 214. 5. David Watkin, ‘Foreword’, in Geoffrey Scott, The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste (London, Architectural Press, 1980); Mark Campbell, A Beautiful Leisure: The Decadent Architectural Humanism of Geoffrey Scott, Bernard and Mary Berenson (Dissertation, Princeton University, 2014); Mark Campbell, ‘Geoffrey Scott 47 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 and the Dream-Life of Architecture’, Grey Room, 15 (Spring, 2004), pp. 60–79; Mark Campbell, ‘Aspects not Things: Geoffrey Scott’s View of History’, AA Files, 59 (2009), pp. 42–49. 6. Alina A. Payne, ‘Rudolf Wittkower and Architectural Principles in the Age of Modernism’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 53, 3 (September, 1994), pp. 332–335. 7. Alfonso Corona Martínez, ‘Respe(c)to a Colin Rowe’, Revista Summa +, 47 (2001), p. 132. 8. The article was first published in The Free Review: A Monthly Magazine (November, 1893) and reprinted in The Study and Criticism of Italian Art: Second Series (London, George Bell and Sons, 1902). 9. Watkin, ‘Foreword’, pp. ix–xxix. 10. Ibid., p. xix. 11. Ibid., p. xxiv. 12. Gabriella Borsano (ed.), Architecture 1980: The Presence of the Past (New York, Rizzoli, 1981), p. 16. 13. Elena Croce, Ricordi familiari (Firenze, Vallecchi, 1962). 14. Bruno Zevi, Zevi su Zevi: architettura come profezia (Venezia, Marsilio Editori, 1993), pp. 34–43; and Roberto Dulio, Introduzione a Bruno Zevi (Bari, Editori Laterza, 2008), pp. 9–23. 15. Mario Sanfilippo, ‘Architettura/La collana di Zevi. Pensare e provocare’, Il messaggero (October 13, 1978). 16. Francesco Cirillo, Saper credere in architettura (Napoli, Clean Edizioni, 1996), p. 47. 17. Geoffrey Scott, The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste (London, Constable, 1924), p. 203. 18. Bruno Zevi, Saper verdere l’architettura (Torino, Einaudi, 1948), p. 160. The clarification that Zevi provided in the first note, titled ‘The Anti-Architectural Nature of the Modern Spirit?’ was significant because he expressed that whenever he referenced ‘space in archi- tecture,’ he was referring to the ‘idea of space-time,’ which he gave a specific application within architectural criticism. The aim was to abolish the concept of architecture as an a- temporal art not through ‘philosophic or scientific demonstrations’ but rather within the ‘direct experience of architectural analysis.’ 19. Ibid., p. 163. 20. Bruno Zevi, ‘La storia dell’architettura per gli architetti moderni’, L’Architettura. Cronache e Storia, 23 (September, 1957), pp. 292–293. 21. This was the title of the inaugural lecture that Zevi gave on 3 August 1951 at the University of Buenos Aires, as the opening of the course on Architectural History that he gave at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning. The inaugural lecture and the closing speech were printed as Bruno Zevi, 2 conferencias (Buenos Aires, Facultad de Arquitectura y Urba- nismo, 1952). 22. Zevi, ‘La storia dell’architettura per gli architetti moderni’, p. 292. 23. Zevi’s transcription, titled ‘History as a Method of Teaching Architecture,’ was published in Marcus Whiffen (ed.), History, Theory and Criticism of Architecture: Papers from the 1964 AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1965), pp. 11–21. For a summary of the seminar see: Marcus Whiffen, ‘History, Theory and Criticism. The 1964 AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar. Abstracts and Extracts’, Journal of Architectural Education, 19, Supplement: History, Theory and Criticism. The 1964 AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar (1964), pp. 1–12. 24. Zevi, Saper verdere l’architettura, p. 152. 25. Bruno Zevi, Poetica dell’architettura neoplastica (Milano, Libreria Editrice Politecnica Tam- burini, 1953), p. 151. Two decades later, in Il linguagio moderno dell’architettura (1973), Zevi considered ‘The Syntax of Four-dimensional Decomposition’ as one of the seven invari- ables of the modern language of architecture. 48 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez 26. Images of the models were published in a monographic number of L’Architettura. Cro- nache e Storia, 99 (January, 1964). A balance of the exhibition was achieved in Bruno Zevi, ‘Visualizzare la critica dell’architecttura’, L’Architettura. Cronache e Storia, 103 (May, 1964), pp. 2–3. 27. ‘From mannerism to language’ is the title that Zevi added later in his second autobiography Zevi su Zevi: architettura come profezia (Venezia, Marsilio Editori, 1993) to introduce his talk at the RIBA, which summarizes Zevi’s change after 1973. It was then that he first under- stood the limitations of modern mannerism and proposed the advantages of a new codified system for modern architecture. 28. For a full transcription of Zevi’s speech at the RIBA see Bruno Zevi, ‘Architecture versus His- toric Criticism’, Royal Institute of British Architects. Transactions, 5 (1984), pp. 39–51. 29. Ibid., p. 51. 30. Bruno Zevi, Storia dell’architettura moderna (Torino, Einaudi, 1950), pp. 11–12. 31. Bruno Zevi, Verso un’architettura organica (Torino, Enaudi, 1945), pp. 71–72. 32. Ibid., p. 72. 33. Scott, The Architecture of Humanism, pp. 68–69. 34. Zevi, Verso un’architettura organica, p. 72. 35. The relation Whittick-Scott is not accidental, during the development of Verso un’architet- tura organica Zevi consulted Whittick’s book Eric Mendelsohn. In its last chapter, ‘The Aes- thetic Value and Significance of Mendelsohn’s Work’, Whittick considered the aesthetic pleasure as the characteristic mechanism to judge the essentials of architecture. To reinforce this belief, he quoted Scott to support the use Einfühlung’s theory in architectural analysis. See Arnold Whittick, Eric Mendelsohn (London, Faber & Faber, 1940), p. 162. 36. Zevi, Verso un’architettura organica, p. 78. 37. Scott, The Architecture of Humanism, pp. 24–25. 38. Zevi, Verso un’architettura organica, p. 47. 39. Zevi, Saper verdere l’architettura, p. 146. 40. Ibid., p. 147. 41. Ibid., p. 167. 42. Georges Gromort, Initiation à l’architecture (Paris, Librarie d’Art R. Ducher, 1936), p. 8. 43. Clough Williams-Ellis and Amabel Williams-Ellis, The Pleasures of Architecture (London, Jonathan Cape, 1924), p. 252. The authors will support their arguments in the Mechanical Fallacy (p. 82), the Biological Fallacy (p. 87), and the psychological standpoint (p. 106). 44. Paul Zucker, ‘Review’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 16, 2 (December, 1957), p. 283. 45. Zevi, Storia dell’architettura moderna, pp. 13, 329; and Dulio, Introduzione a Bruno Zevi, p. 82. 46. Zevi, Storia dell’architettura moderna, p. 341. 47. Ibid., p. 597. 48. Ibid., p. 598. 49. Bruno Zevi, Architettura e Storiografia (Milano, Tamburini, 1950), pp. 80–81. 50. Anthony Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), pp. 7–8. 51. Zevi’s methodological vocation was already recognised by other authors such as Giulio Carlo Argan and Paolo Scrivano. See Giulio Carlo Argan, ‘A proposito di spazio interno’, Metron, 28 (1948), pp. 20–21; and Scrivano ‘“Vedere e scrivere l’architettura”. Bruno Zevi e “Saper vedere l’architettura”’, in Architettura spazio scritto. Forme e tecniche della teoria dell’architettura in Italia dal 1945 a oggi (Torino, Utet, 2001), pp. 201–213. 52. The application of formalist judgment in architecture can be observed in the two books of Giulio Carlo Argan: L’architettura protocristiana, preromanica e romanica (1936) and 49 The Journal of Architecture Volume 24 Number 1 L’architettura italiana del Duecento e Trecento (1937). These two text were very influential for Zevi and were reprinted in his collection Universale di Architettura. See Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, p. 136. 53. Zevi, Saper verdere l’architettura, pp. 140–141. 54. Ibid., p. 64. 55. Ibid., p. 76. 56. Scott, The Architecture of Humanism, p. 213. 57. Zevi, Saper verdere l’architettura, p. 147. 58. Ibid., p. 148. 59. Ibid., p. 150. 60. Scott, The Architecture of Humanism, p. 4. 61. Arnold Whittick, Eric Mendelsohn (London, Faber & Faber, 1956), p. 195. 62. John Summerson, ‘The Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture’, R.I.B.A. Journal (June, 1957), p. 309. 63. Erick Christian Sorensen, ‘On Form, In Space’, in Michael Asgaard Andersen, ed., Nordic Architects Write. A Documentary Anthology (New York, Routledge, 2008), p. 61. 64. Panayotis Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), p. 80. 65. Parts of the bachelor’s thesis were published between 1963 and 1964 as ‘Ensaio sobre o espaço da arquitectura (1)’, Arquitectura, 79 (1963), pp. 15–22; ‘Ensaio sobre o espaço da arquitectura (2)’, Arquitectura, 80 (1963), pp. 3–16; ‘Ensaio sobre o espaço da arquitec- tura (3)’, Arquitectura, 81 (1964), pp. 29–38. In 2013 a facsimile, published by Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo, appeared. For deeper understanding of the correlation between Zevi and Pedro Vieira de Almeida, see Tiago Lopes Dias, ‘Teoria e Desenho da Arquitectura em Portugal, 1956–1974: Nuno Portas e Pedro Vieira de Almeida’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2017). 66. Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, p. 78. 67. Bruno Zevi, Architettura in nuce (Venezia-Roma, Istituto per la collaborazione culturale, 1960), p. 179. 68. Current scholarship such as Johanna Gullberg, ‘Voids and bodies: August Schmarsow, Bruno Zevi and space as historiographical theme’, Journal of Art Historiography, 14 (June, 2016), pp. 1–20, examines the differing opinions between these two authors and demonstrates the longevity and lasting importance of space as a relevant topic. 69. Zevi, Architettura in nuce, p. 62. 70. Bruno Zevi, Cronache di architettura, dalla National Gallery di I. M. Pei alla polemica sul ‘falsi’ bolognesi (Bari, Laterza, 1979), p. 47. 50 Bruno Zevi, the Continental European Emissary of Geoffrey Scott’s Theories Raúl Martínez Martínez Abstract Geoffrey Scott’s Fallacies in Zevi’s Theoretical Corpus 1945–1950 Bruno Zevi’s Methodological Basis: On the Spatial Interpretation The Architectural Experience Continued Acknowledgements Notes and references