An Alien Practice “Town Architects” in 19th Century Romania

19th century architecture in the Romanian Principalities is a subject insufficiently known; information, ideas and analyses have been often focused on narrow topics and have not been assembled yet in general syntheses which would shed light upon the period between the end of the Phanariot rule (1821) and the reign of Charles I.1 This period is associated with the transition from an extended Middle Ages to a wavering modernity built on the hasty shift of fashions and desires, echoing in the areas of politics, society, culture and behaviours, against a backdrop of a contrasting and disharmonious setting. In architecture, the experiments based on elements adopted from the West, blended in achievements which also took heed of local traditions, started as early as the 17th century, occasionally in Wallachia and much more frequently in Moldavia. Anonymous local or foreign artisans engrafted their personal experiences in the more or less ambitious or extravagant orders of a small elite. The development of settlements had a long tradition, based on intuitive principles and the “local custom”,2 accomplished “...on the spot, by exchanging looks and good words”.3 The first attempts of legal acts to regulate the development and administration of towns had been made as early as the Phanariot rule, in the last quarter of the 18th century; the most significant legal initiative in this line was the one issued by Mihail Fotino between 1775-1777 in Wallachia during the reign of Alexandru Ipsilanti. The regulation included general provisions, based both on the old traditions of Byzantine law and on local customs, and its content was mostly designed for Bucharest.4 It is against this background that the first few names of foreign architects are documented in the early years of the 19th century; these architects were given commissions and paid from state treasury to carry out projects outside monastic premises mostly fortified or princely and noblemen’s residences.

19 th century architecture in the Romanian Principalities is a subject insufficiently known; information, ideas and analyses have been often focused on narrow topics and have not been assembled yet in general syntheses which would shed light upon the period between the end of the Phanariot rule (1821) and the reign of Charles I. 1 This period is associated with the transition from an extended Middle Ages to a wavering modernity built on the hasty shift of fashions and desires, echoing in the areas of politics, society, culture and behaviours, against a backdrop of a contrasting and disharmonious setting.In architecture, the experiments based on elements adopted from the West, blended in achievements which also took heed of local traditions, started as early as the 17 th century, occasionally in Wallachia and much more frequently in Moldavia.Anonymous local or foreign artisans engrafted their personal experiences in the more or less ambitious or extravagant orders of a small elite.The development of settlements had a long tradition, based on intuitive principles and the "local custom",2 accomplished "…on the spot, by exchanging looks and good words". 3The first attempts of legal acts to regulate the development and administration of towns had been made as early as the Phanariot rule, in the last quarter of the 18 th century; the most significant legal initiative in this line was the one issued by Mihail Fotino between 1775-1777 in Wallachia during the reign of Alexandru Ipsilanti.The regulation included general provisions, based both on the old traditions of Byzantine law and on local customs, and its content was mostly designed for Bucharest. 4It is against this background that the first few names of foreign architects are documented in the early years of the 19 th century; these architects were given commissions and paid from state treasury to carry out projects outside monastic premises -mostly fortified -or princely and noblemen's residences.
In the absence of any local specialised education, professionals from Central Europe and later on from Western Europe (either with formal education or self-taught) continued to be involved in the urban and architectural modernisation of the Principalities.A first institutional structure, in which the architectural practice gained its own place, was created against the modernisation background brought about by the Organic Regulations 5 -the first stage of the endeavour for the legislative unification of the Principalities -and its related legislation.The contributions of many foreign practitioners were decisive in orienting the Principalities' architecture towards Western models and Indigenous Aliens.Mediators of Architectural Modernity developments; their achievements illustrated, to a smaller or larger extent, what was considered as novelty in the artistic world they came from and where they had been educated.The early 19 th century until the fourth decade and even beyond was the period of "technicians," when the architect was often mistaken for a civil or military engineer.The clear differentiation between the two professions, materialised in guild organisations, which however did not specifically regulate the right and conditions for free practice, started to take shape only towards the end of the 19 th century.
The activity of "state architects" and "town architects" in the period following the implementation of the Organic Regulations in the two Principalities is a subject still insufficiently studied.This paper attempts to outline an overall picture based on the research of a small share of the rich documentary materials in archives and of secondary bibliographic sources; however the subject remains of course open to further detailing and refining.

Legislation and Central Administration: Public Works in Wallachia and Moldavia
Despite the inherent difficulties associated with the beginnings of officially establishing architecture as practice, the first forms of a controlled organisation of construction activities were materialised after the adoption of the Organic Regulations.There was a slow progress during the first decade of the Organic Regulations period, with only one engineering section ("massa") existing in Wallachia between 1833 and 1840, subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 6 employing one engineer and one architect.Similarly in Moldavia the Public Works and Water Supply Service was established as part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.In Bucharest the first to take the position of "state engineer" (employee of the ministry) was Vladimir Blaremberg,7 followed by Rudolf von Borroczyn,8 while the position of architect was held in turns by Achille August Theodor Thillaye, followed since 1843 by Johann Schlatter9 (transferred in 1845 to the Department of Religion in the position of "monastery architect")10 and then by the Armenian architect Iacob Melik,11 a former student of Henri Labrouste's at the École des Beaux-Arts. 12uring the enforcement of the Organic Regulations in Moldavia, besides the foreign architects (Moritz Hartl or Ștefan Bersak13 ), the first local professionals trained in Western schools and benefiting from state scholarships, were employed as "state architects".Alexandru Costinescu, a former student in Vienna where he had graduated engineering, land surveying and architecture courses with the highest grade,14 was appointed "state architect" (the first architect of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) in 1838 and held this position until after 1850.His career continued after the Unification of the Principalities in 1859,15 being involved in the public service in Bucharest.The activity of the department sections focused on public comissions and the directors of the four sections formed the Committee of the Public Works Administration.This body was in charge of coordinating and approving projects and construction sites.The activity was interrupted by the political events of 1848 and was resumed during the reign of Barbu Știrbei who, in 1852, appointed the French engineer Louis Chrétien Leon Lallane as director of the Department for Public Works.The Austrian architect Anton Hefft, invited in Wallachia by prince Bibescu in 1846, was appointed director of the Architectural Section in 1849, thus becoming a "state architect" subordinated to the French engineer.Hefft stayed in Wallachia until 1853, being trusted with many responsibilities in the field of public buildings, the most important one being the project for the National Theatre ("The Great Theatre") in Bucharest. 17Following the unification of the Principalities, the "state architect" position is assimilated to that of director of the Architecture In the "Regulations for Organisation of the Civil Engineering Corps" of 1862, the purposes of public works were defined as follows: "... building and maintaining communication roads, opening and improving navigation and rafting on rivers and channels, flood prevention measures, regularisation and cleaning of non-navigable waters, regularisation of towns and providing their water supply." 28Public works, including those with a special character, funded from other sources than the central budget but supervised by specialists (engineers) in the ministry, were outsourced, being subject to a "detached service".
At the beginning of the reign of Charles I the state bureaucracy became more complex.According to the legal acts adopted at the beginning of the 1890s, a special architecture service was to be established within the Ministry of the Interior, with few staff members, whose responsibilities would include"... preparing plans, bills of quantities, terms of reference for all construction works associated with the Ministry of the Interior; supervising such works; the intermediate and final inspection and acceptance of such works upon completion; mandates from the ministry to supervise, control, assist the inspection of construction works associated with counties and communes; preparing standard plans for building hospitals, prisons or other institutions associated with the Ministry of the Interior or laid under its control." 29The architect-in-chief of this department ("head of service") had to be an architecture school graduate, while at the same time maintaining his right to freelance practice.The rest of the staff within the service (the assistant architect and the draftsmen) were also supposed to be preferably graduates of specialised schools. 30This is not circumstantial considering, on the one hand, the higher number of young people returning to the country after having completed their studies abroad and, on the other hand, the fact that the newly established Society of Romanian Architects (1891) founded, after several attempts, a specialised school in 1892, whose authorisation was endorsed by the Ministry of Religions and Public Education.The school functioned under the management of Ion N. Socolescu and George Sterian, with 13 professors, none of them paid, until 1897, when the National School of Architecture was founded as a section of the School of Fine Arts, with its own regulations and teaching staff. 31wever the legislative acts and the enhanced institutionalisation of control upon (public and private) construction works only had an immediate impact in the capital towns of the two principalities, while in smaller provincial towns and in rural areas they were felt, but only later and not so consistently.

Local Administration and the Position of "Town Architect"
In Wallachia the Organic Regulations provisions 32 and the related acts referring to the capital town Bucharest included the first references to the election of the Town Council ("Eforia") and the creation of the "town architect" position (paid from the local budget); the latter had mostly bureaucratic responsibilities, supervising the fulfilment of the large number of measures and duties provided in the "Regulation for the health, landscape and civil security within the town of Bucharest". 33The architect-in-chief 's responsibilities also included: "... taking good care to ensure that all works contracted through tenders should be performed as per the technical specifications, 28 I.The text came as an addition to the organic Law adopted in 1831.Actually in 1847, during the reign of Gheorghe Bibescu, "The regulation for the health, landscape and civil security within the Police of Bucharest" ("Regulamentul pentru starea sănătății, înfrumusețarea și paza bunei orânduieli în poliția Bucureștiului") was reedited as part of the "Organic Law embodying the legal acts of 1831, 1862 and 1833 and finally with the legal acts of 1834 until present, separated per years" ("Regulamentul Organic întrupat cu legiuirile din anii 1831, 1862 și 1833 și adăogat la sfârșit cu legiuirile de la anul 1834 până acum, împărțite pe fiecare an").
pavements, rainwater run-off culverts and the like; often responsible to go on site and actually see the ongoing works and in case of noticing any non-compliance, they should immediately report to the commission in writing so as to mitigate in time any potential error due to the contractors' lack of care or greed." 34With support from the police ("Agia"), the town architect was also in charge with identifying and ordering the demolition of buildings affected by past earthquakes.This position also included the fulfilment of certain responsibilities associated with the older position of "maimarbașa" 35 (from the Turkish words mimar -architect and bashaw or pasha -a high ranked official in the Ottoman political hierarchy), or some of the responsibilities incumbent on the Town Administrative Council ("Obșteasca Epitropie") established during the reign of Alexandru Ipsilanti, at the end of the 18 th century. 36The position of "maimarbașa" was assigned by the ruling Prince, through an act meant to grant the person who was the chief of the united guilds of carpenters, masons, brick makers, sand dealers and joiners a high rank ("ofichion de boierie") 37 and privileges.Each of these guilds (known until the 19 th century under the Turkish names of rufet or isnaf) continued to be led by a chief ("ceauș") assisted by "... four or five top masters, better, older and more reliable craftsmen, so as to constitute the lodge." 38It should be noted that the official status given by the princely act (issued by Alexandru Ipsilanti) to the position of chief of construction craftsmen and hence the reorganisation of their statute was not accidental but rather a consequence of the significantly damaged buildings in the earthquakes at the beginning of the 19 th century.
When the "maimarbașa" rank disappeared, the position of "ceauș" (chief of craftsmen) continues to be mentioned in various documents until mid 19 th century.This is a result of the legal reorganisation of guilds which acquire the right to have their own church and flag figuring their patron saint.During the entire Organic Regulations period no craftsman was entitled to practise as long as he was not registered in a corporation and did not pay the required fee ("patenta"). 39e town architect (also called "director architect") became chief of the "architecture department" 40 established in Bucharest in the autumn of 1834 under the direct supervision of the Town Council (Eforia).However, the legal provisions on the obligation to have a town architect for the important towns of Wallachia and Moldavia were applied inconsistently until the second half of the 19 th century when, during the reign of Cuza, the "Act for urban and rural communes" was adopted (31 March 1864). 41According to article 78 thereof, the town architect and the "public servants in charge with buildings or the conservation of communal edifices" were appointed by the local Council, the decisions of which were subject to approval by the Permanent Council and sometimes by the ruling Prince.The town architect had to refer to the Council "the construction, significant repairs or demolition projects which the community plans to undertake", "openings or closures of lanes and public squares, as well as alignment projects." 42Although the Act was amended in 1887 and later on in 1892 and 1894, the provisions regarding the town architects (and engineers) were maintained, with the additional one: following their appointment by the Communal Council, they also had to be confirmed by the Ministry of Public Works. 43 Bucharest the appointment of a town architect was a practice ever since the Phanariot times.For instance in 1816 this position was held by Joseph Hartl, involved in public construction works and the supervision of new buildings in the town. 44Hartl kept this position after the adoption of the Organic Regulations, and since 1832 he was assisted by the land surveyor Moritz von Ott. 45Both were members of the commission appointed by decree of General Kiseleff, aiming to "… consider all means regarding the cleanliness of the town and its inhabitants". 46After Hartl, through the Princely Act ("Ofisul Domensc") of 1834, 47 the "Architecture Service within the Town Council was established", for a short period of time, and the "director architect" position was assigned to Michel (de) Sanjouand, author of the interesting Examen et développement de la ville de Bucarest, based on the 12-plates town plan (not identified but certified by references in the period documents). 48anjouand was followed by Heinrich Gottfried Feusser von Mentzen (1836-1841) (who was assisted between 1837-1841 by Alexandru Orăscu One year after the devastating fire of 1847 the "Regulation for alignments and buildings" 54 was adopted, and according to it the town architect's involvement in the construction activity in Bucharest became more complex and more important; he had to verify and countersign the written projects, which became compulsory once the legal act was enforced.The project drawings -which could be prepared by a building craftsman -were to be submitted to the Town Council and the town architect was obliged to "go and check on site" (art.47).By signing the contract the building craftsmen undertook the project conditions, and failure to comply with such conditions made them directly accountable, together with the management of the corporation they belonged to (art.47).The legal act, applying only to buildings in the capital town, also defined the content and the scale of the drawing representations.Thus the project was supposed to include a general plan with the plot where the building was to be erected, the plans of all floors of the building, a cross section and the "building facade towards the public road" (art.1).Presenting the main façade of the building points to the important role given by local authorities to urban aesthetics.The aspects related to the presentation of the project are completed by very detailed information on the compliance of various parts of the building, execution details, materials, construction methods etc., all of these determined by safety measures against the burst and spread of fires in the town.Whereas in the capital most town architects were selected from among foreign professionals, many of them with specialised studies, in the country towns this position -where it existed -was often held by land surveyors or sometimes by amateurs, many of them Romanian.
The names and activity of Wallachia's town architects are little known to us, being usually mentioned in relation with the development of some important projects or initiatives.
For instance we know only few things about Karl Weyrach, the architect of Craiova,55 who was co-opted in the team led by Borroczyn to perform the land survey of Bucharest (completed in 1846), with his place being taken in 1844 by architect "Teodor Tili" (Achille August Theodor Thillaye)56 and later on, towards 1850 by Alexandru Orăscu, granted the noble rank of "pitar"57 for his services to the state.Having probably a background of land surveyor, Weyrach was involved in the discussions held in 1854 on the necessity to appoint an architect in Râmnicu-Vâlcea; he was also required to prepare a plan for the regulation of streets and alignment of houses in this town. 58here is also little information about the land surveyor Alexandru Popovici, an amateur archaeologist, appointed at the end of the 1830's as the "engineer" of the new town of Turnu-Severin.Despite his title of engineer, he most likely had the same responsibilities as the town architect.Praised by Mihail Kogălniceanu in his writings 59 for his historical knowledge, Popovici was mentioned in the monographs of the town of Severin for his initiatives as an antiquarian rather than for his skills as administrator of the town's construction problems.In 1839 in Craiova he was filing a request for the founding of a periodical called "Dacia veche şi nouă" ("Old and New Dacia"), where he envisaged publishing archaeological discoveries and the writings of ancient authors pertaining on the historical region of the old Dacia. 60owever his initiative was never put into practice.Together with Weyrach, Popovici was a member of Borroczyn's team for preparing the map of the capital town.His amateurish disposition in the field of archaeology appears to have been also displayed in his activity as land surveyor; his failure to fulfil his commitments entailed his exclusion from Borroczyn's team in May 1845. 61ings were not the same in other towns.For instance, in Ploieşti, starting with the 1840s, documents mention the names of several town architects selected from among experienced foreigners.In the spring of 1843, Johann Schlatter (later on "monastery architect", a key figure in the interventions upon the Wallachian medieval heritage) signed an alignment plan in his capacity of town architect, 62 probably one of his many responsibilities fulfilled in this capacity.Schlatter was followed in 1846 by Karl Hartl (Hartel), author of projects for the headquarters of the magistrate (the town hall) and the police. 63The town hall building was only completed in 1869 under the coordination of one of Hartl's successors, the Hungarian Iosif Varga, who also managed the construction works of the fire tower (watch tower) located above the main entrance.The town hall compound was also modified after the town architect position was assigned to Christian Kertsch (Cherciu) of Brasov in 1873; he gave it its eclectic aspect, with many elements belonging to the widespreaed Rundbogenstil, which was of course very familiar to the author from his years spent at the Polytechnic University of Vienna and at the Akademie der Bildenden Kunst in Munich. 64Kertsch held this position until 1877, being responsible for important buildings and urban and construction interventions: the Boys' School, the design of the first section of Independence Boulevard, the town water supply and sewage system (which was not achieved), etc. 65 Kertsch was followed by the Austrian Franz Wessel, the German Rudolf Lieber (author of the new town hall headquarters, completed in 1894), etc.Only towards the end of the century was this position held by Romanian professionals. 66 Mihail Kogălniceanu (1817-1891), one of the most outstanding personalities of the 19 th century Moldavia and Romania.Kogălniceanu was a Romanian luminary, a historian, publicist, lawyer, politician and diplomat.Between 1860 and 1861 he was president of the Council of Ministries in Iaşi and in 1863-65 president of the Council of Ministries of romania.Towards the end of his life, in 1887-90 he was the chairman of the romanian Academy.However there were also many towns with no architects to coordinate their development.This appears from archive documents in which local authorities were requesting the Ministry of Internal Affairs to send specialists (often referred to as "conductors" or "engineers") "with knowledge of architecture" to coordinate construction activities.In Câmpulung Muscel, for instance, at the beginning of the second half of the 19 th century "people used to build their houses as they could: lopsided, askew, with no regard to the alignment along the street and to the principle of withdrawing the house 4 hands back". 67In addition to this uncontroled development, another important issue which required the presence of an architect was the need to keep evidence of the state of constructions and the hazard they would pose in case of fire.The lack of experienced practitioners delayed some concrete measures to be taken by the Ministry of Internal Affairs which, at least at the level of statements, was taking into account the needs of country towns.The Communal Act of 1864 transformed the villages, market-towns and towns into independent administrative sections, with the Communal Council being in charge with appointing or dismissing "the architects and public servants in charge with the construction or conservation of communal buildings" (art.78).Even if such public servant had existed, its freedom to decide upon projects of major importance was limited, and so was the freedom of the Council to decide.Similarly to the restrictions imposed by the "Regulation for the town councils in the Wallachian Principality" (1832), "the projects for buildings, significant repair works or demolition works...", those for opening and closing streets and public squares as well as alignment projects, required approval from the permanent ministerial Committee and in some cases even a princely ordinance or even a law (art.71).
In Moldavia the measures adopted took a different course.Similarly to the Wallachian capital, the Moldavian Organic Regulations also included special provisions for the town of Iaşi ("Municipal Regulation for Iaşi" 68 ) with the Town Council (Eforia) in charge of their application.Although the legal act contained detailed provisions regarding the administrative division, water and air hygiene, as well as fire prevention measures, according to which houses should be built in compliance with architectural rules", 69 or regarding the aesthetic aspect of the town, the text does not specifically mention those specialised officers (town architects or engineers) who should have ensured the application of prescriptions.The architects active in Moldavia in the first half of the 19 th century were mostly foreigners from the Austrian Empire.Although involved in commissions funded by state budget (the Eforia's budget), until the fourth decade they did not hold any positions established as such in the administrative hierarchy but mostly carried out their work according to contracts for clearly defined projects.Such an example is the often mentioned architect Martin Kubelka, author of the gate tower and the residence ("The Palace on the Walls") at Frumoasa Monastery near Iaşi (about 1819).
While quite similar from many viewpoints to the "Architectural section" in the Wallachian capital, the "Committee for the supervision of construction of houses in the town of Iaşi" was established in Moldavia in 1834; the committee was funded by and subordinated to the Eforia and led by architect Johann Freywald 70 and the military engineer Nicolai Singurov.Freywald had returned to Moldavia at the beginning of the Organic Regulation period, after having been in charge in Bucharest with the deepening of Dâmboviţa river bed and the stone paving of the main streets of the town, and after having spent some time in Ioannina, in the service of Ali Pasha. 71The setting-up of the "Direction for the town embellishment" and the "project for the establishment of the committee for communications and public buildings" are owing to these two men. 72We could therefore assume that the first architect of Iaşi was Freywald, subordinated to the Town Council and in charge with construction or architecture-related public responsibilities, whereas Singurov was in charge with engineering issues.One of the most important projects supervised by Singurov was the consolidation of the structure and the rebuilding of the collapsed vault of the monumental Metropolitan Church in Iaşi, commenced on the project of Gustav Freywald 73 in 1833.In 1840, Singurov had proposed a lighter wooden structure, but despite the solution adopted the church walls continued to crack and the new structure yielded in 1857; 74 at that time religious services were no longer performed in the church.Except for a few attempts to repair and redesign the church vaulting, owing to architect Anton Kaietanovici and engineer François Cazaban, the site was closed around 1854 75 for almost four decades.The building was completed between 1880 and 1886, under the coordination of Alexandru Orăscu.
In 1841 Freywald is followed by Joseph Raschek 76 (who had a technical rather than artistic background, being often mentioned as an engineer: Staatingenieur und Nivellant 77 ), who takes over the coordination of the construction works for paving the town streets.Singurov had probably kept his position, as long as in 1842-1843 he was completing the restoration works at the old princely palace affected by the fire of 1827.With its new structure project signed by Singurov and approved by Raschek, 78 the "ruling prince palace" became the headquarters of the central administration of Moldavia.The building -which had maintained the classicist architecture of the previous stage of 1804-06, from the reign of Alexandru Moruzi 79 -was one of the most important references for the 19 th century architecture of Iaşi, raising both admiration and criticism from the capital's visitors.In 1844 Matei Niţman (Mathias Nitschmann) 81 became the architect of Iaşi and was assisted between 1849-1851 by Ştefan Bersak (Berzac), the architect of the military barracks in Copou, deceased in 1852. 82For a short period of time, around 1850, Niţman's team also included Moritz Hartl, author in 1846 of the standard projects for the facades of the public and private buildings in the town centre; this initiative of the Committee established in 1834 was aiming to control the architectural image of the streets in the town centre and in its outskirts. 83The project plans came to complete some detailed regulations (in force since 1841) on the restrictions imposed to building methods, after previously obtaining an approval from the Town Council through the town architect. 84On 12 December 1851 Carl Kugler (Karl von Kugler) was appointed architect-in-chief of Iaşi, his main recommendation for this position being the construction of the hospital within the Spiridon Monastery. 85The main responsibilities of the town architect were still of bureaucratic nature, Kugler mentioning in a report to the ministry the fact that in his position he was "called for all responsibilities associated with the embellishment and safety of the town". 86Until after 1866 Kugler was in charge with supervision of the execution works, and was also supposed to make some necessary additions for the completion of the Copou military barracks commenced by Bersak.Although he prepared a project which was "imposing in terms of aspect", 87 the building was not completed according to his recommendations but instead on Peter Tabai's project.This example or some of the few church architecture projects preserved show Kugler Kugler as an experienced architect, his works being in line with the neo-medieval architectural experiments in the Central European area.From Kugler's correspondence with the ministry we see that town architects were supposed to get directly involved in public construction projects only in exceptional cases; 88 however their names are frequently quoted in the correspondence and documentations of some of the important interventions: for instance Kugler was requested to get involved in the repair works at the unfinished building of the Metropolitan Church in Iaşi, in the intervention at the Galata monastery church 89 or in the preparatory measures for the necessary restoration works at the Trei Ierarhi monastery church. 90His involvement and interest demonstrated in all such cases pleaded for his being appointed in the position of architect in the Moldavian Ministry of Religions and Public Education, while his place at the Iaşi Town Council was taken by another foreign architect (most probably Austrian), Josef Gruber. 91e provisions of volume I of the Administrative Manual of the Principality of Moldavia (1855) established the annual salary of the town architect at 6,000 lei, a relatively low amount which nonetheless could ensure a decent living.These provisions also mentioned the obligation to draft the town master plan, as a requisite instrument for a controlled development, based on the engineering and land surveying knowledge the public officer should hold. 92Thus Iancu Volber, architect of Fălticeni, was assisted by the surveyor Iancu Staiber for preparing the map of Fălticeni; later on Ignat Rizer, "serdar" (army-related nobility rank) undertook, through a contract signed with the Town Council, to prepare the map of the town of Galaţi.Joseph Raschek had fulfilled the same task in Iaşi; given his technical background he accomplished this task as early as 1844, his map being an update of the measurements carried out by Giuseppe Bayardi in 1819.Rascek's activity was continued in the following decade with the map drawn by the French engineer Frederic Peytavin (1857).
In many towns of Moldavia, however, the lack of resources and the frequent professional limitations of the technicians employed by the Town Council generated delays in the preparation of town maps, or even resulted in the maps not being drawn.For instance in 1862 the architect of Bacău, Ştefan Horvath, was complaining to the minister about the insufficient financial resources for "... such a huge work, and even less for the expenses associated with the assistance without which such a work is not possible." 93milarly to Wallachia, experienced professionals only activated in larger towns, while skilled practitioners were lacking in less important towns.For instance in Fălticeni the town architect between 1836 and 1849 was a Saxon, Iancu Volber, already mentioned, appointed by contract with the Ministry of Internal Affairs.Surprisingly, after more than ten years since his appointment, during which we do not know very much about the town architect's activity, the central administration was notifying the Council of the town of Fălticeni on the following: "… the architect of this town is also the said Iancu Volber, as he has no capacity, being not even able to write (emphasis added), lacking skills in the field of architecture, as proved by the state architect Hartl himself." 94Perhaps the town architect of Bacău, Andraş Tefner, was less unacquainted with architecture, being skilled in the "stone hewing craft" (also called in the documents "building master" 95 ) -thus probably a stone mason lacking a solid technical background but supported by local noblemen and merchants who, in their memorial of 1850 requesting his appointment, called him a "honest and diligent man". 96spite the lack of professionals and resources for their remuneration, in 1849 the ruling prince Grigore Alexandru Ghica approved the decision of the State Council according to which, following the model of Iaşi, Galaţi or Botoşani, there should be "... architects appointed in all regions", 97 paid from the town budgets or, in case of lack of fund availability, paid from the reserve of the Department for Public Works. 98Following this princely decision, the archive documents over the next two decades mentioned many names of architects or merely holders of the position of architect for the majority of important towns in Moldavia: 99 Ignat Rizer in Galaţi, Ştefan Horvath in Focşani and then in Bacău, 100 Fridrich Dirth ("building master") in Botoşani and later on in Bârlad and Târgu Ocna, Ignat Lorenzo in Bârlad, C. Udrischi in Botoşani, Anton Kaietanovici (architect with studies at the Polytechnic University in Vienna 101 ) in Roman and Botoşani (replacing a certain Prinsperg, "… a simple worker, a stone carver (…) lacking the necessary skills" 102 ), Johann Peter Bordon in Piatra Neamţ, Johann Făgăraş (?) in Bârlad, Franz Kurek in Fălticeni, Tecuci and Focşani, 103 Rudolf (von) Kugler in Botoşani and Dorohoi, Wilhelm Lefelman (deputy) in Botoşani, Ioseph Grispek (sub-architect) and Franz Kramer ("building master") in Roman, Friedrich Veseli in Roman, Bacău and Ismail, Johann Brandel in Tecuci, 104 Iosef Gherghel in Huşi etc.In Fălticeni, a certain Haubitz was appointed to replace Volber, shortly afterwards followed by Franz Kurek, Bobinski, Poplaski and, towards the end of the 19 th century, Peceny, author of the project for the town hall (about 1896-1899). 105None of the names listed above is Romanian, most of them originating from the Eastern regions of the Austrian Empire.Some of them, although permanently settled in Moldavia, had not received yet the citizenship ("the naturalisation certificate"). 106The conditions imposed by the ministry could often be inconvenient: relocating from one town to another, taking over the architect position for two towns at the same time, managing works in other areas in a time when transport and roads were more than difficult, low salaries and delays in payments, etc. However many of the mentioned architects proved flexible and devoted to the responsibilities assigned to them.Moreover, a certain competition appeared after the first series of students graduated from the Academy in Iaşi.I. Pancrati, expert "in the field of architecture and engineering which he had studied at the Academy in Iaşi"107 submitted in 1852 an application to the Department of Public Works whereby he was applying for the position of architect of Galati upon termination of Ignat Rizer's contract, bringing as argument the fact that he was Romanian.However the competent "serdar" Rizer maintained his position until the beginning of the 1860s, as mentioned somehow ironically in a short sentence in the Arhondologia of Constandin Sion, as being "...Jewish by nationality and religion". 108spite the inherent gaps and inconsistencies associated with the first stages of the institutionalisation of the "state architect" and "town architect" positions, the modernisation drive of the elites and particularly the large number of foreign architects (mostly not recorded by the specialised historiography), brought that decisive Western trend in the reorientation of fashions, which was the basis of the progress towards the Romanian architectural modernity.With administrative duties, being mostly in charge with the bureaucracy and the control of constructions, by taking over public orders or by free practice, some of these foreign architects had a consistent contribution to the aesthetic modernisation of architecture and its associated practice.In a world without drawn architectural designs, where the requirements or wishes of the commissioner prevailed, influenced to a smaller or larger extent by the taste and experience of the contractor ("ispravnic")109 and the craftsmen, the period after the adoption of the Organic Regulations marks a clear break with the past.Although the involvement of foreigners in projects and construction works of significance for the evolution of architecture in the Principalities had commenced before the Organic Regulations, a new orientation became obvious only in the 1830s, with the first legal and institutional initiatives.
Despite legal and administrative measures, often applied inconsistently -particularly in provincial towns -both the profession itself and the current architectural practice have not been regulated distinctly, being assimilated to artistic activities rather than to technical ones.The status of the technical sections within the ministries in the Principalities was amended with the adoption of the "Regulations for Organisation of the Civil Engineering Corps"110 of 1862, which included 105 Gorovei, Folticeni, 166.106 "Naturalisation" was granting the holder the same political and civil rights held by romanian citizens.
According to the organic regulations provisions, granting citizenship to a foreigner (of Christian religion) was only possible with the written agreement of the ruling prince who made his decision based on a report from the state Council.For a positive answer the foreigner had to demonstrate his usefulness to the state.Although the normal waiting time was 10 years, some of them had to wait for much longer to acquire their citizenship rights.For instance Franz Kurek was complaining to the minister in 1859 that, although he was in the country for more than 14 years and had worked in the state service (as architect) for 10 years, he had still not been granted citizenship, being under control from the Austrian Consulate (N.A.r.-C.H.N.A., M.P.W. Collection, file 97/1858, f. 237).Indigenous Aliens.Mediators of Architectural Modernity detailed provisions only for engineers and technical conductors.The public works service, in addition to the ordinary or "permanent" sections and extraordinary or "potential" section, also included a "detached" section, to address those works which were not funded by the ministry: "the regulation and paving of the main towns as well as their water supply, which is to be covered from municipal budgets".The article on the "detached" services made the only reference to the architects in various ministry departments who were in charge with erecting the public buildings in their responsibility.Except for those employed in the central or local state structures, architects continued to work outside any guild and without specific regulations, until the last decade of the 19 th century when the Society of Romanian Architects was established (1891), chaired by Alexandru Orăscu.Architects were still not included in the Technical Corps of Romania not even after they became organised in a recognised corporation; the discussions in the Senate in 1894 concluded that they could not be in any way subject to the same law as engineers. 111e architecture of the first Romanian modernity of the 19 th century is still insufficiently studied, being little appreciated by a posterity which was very subjective in selecting representative works.Moreover, the activity of many foreign architects (or architecture practitioners), freelancers or state employees, at central or local level, remained mostly unknown, just like their names.However the foundations of the Romanian architectural modernity were laid in this transition period, and it was the experience and experiments of these foreign professionals that shaped both the tastes of the elites and the general public, as well as the course taken by architecture until the first decades of the 20 th century.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Iacob Melik, architect in the engineering department within the Ministry of Internal Affairs: Main elevation for the county administration office buildings; standard project designed in 1845

Fig. 4 .
Fig. 4. Xavier Villacrosse, architect of the town of Bucharest -Project for the headquarters of the National Archives on the Metropolitan Church Hill (not realised)

Fig. 5
Fig. 5, 6.The old town hall of Ploieşti (demolished) completed during the mandate of the town architect Iosif Varga, based on the project of architect Karl Hartl (above) and the consolidation project for the fire tower above the access to the town hall, drawn in 1873 by town architect Christian Kertsch (opposite page)

Fig. 7 .
Fig. 7. Anton Kaietanovici -Metropolitan Cathedral in Iaşi (Northern façade), project dated around 1854, for the repair and completion of the building initiated by Gustav Freywald in 1833 (above) Fig. 8. Nicolai Singurov -Project for the restoration of the princely court in Iaşi, destroyed by fire (project approved by the state engineer Iosef raschek), not dated (following page)