This doctoral thesis argues that the Charter of Florence is now ineffective in ensuring the restoration of historic gardens. 

The work begins by showing the two dominant restoration movements in Europe during the last two centuries. One majority, the followers of Viollet-le-Duc called restoration in style and the other opposed to it, the conservative, led by Ruskin. 

In gardening, the dominant way shall be that one of the followers of Viollet being the most important figures the Duchâne (father and son) that reach half of the twentieth century. 

In 1931, with the publication of the Charter of Athens, won the conservative movement. However, after the Second World War, the experience of having to rebuild the damaged heritage causes the two streams live together which was contained in the Charter of Venice of 1964. 

In 1981, the Charter of Florence is approved. The Franco-Belgian group of the ICOMOS-IFLA, headed by Rene Pechêre, gets the theories of Viollet-le-Duc post mortem succeed as such document contains the old stylistic theory applied to restore the gardens. 

Right there in that meeting, the reaction was led by the Italian Isa Belli Barsalli that manages to avoid the term "repristino" in the Italian version but not in the other languages in which the document is published. 

Almost all interventions that occurred in Spain and the rest of Europe in recent times have seen that the practice of reconstruction has been the dominant style, ending with the recreation of many gardens. Perhaps the most radical examples are those of Het Loo (e.g. reconstruction from zero) in the Netherlands and Hampton Court (e.g. destruction and reconstruction of the ancient garden in style) in the UK. 

In Spain, although there have been deplorable cases, there are examples of restorations that have retained the imprint of time. Examples are the Casitas del Escorial or the restoration in Madrid of the Royal Botanical Garden led by Leandro Silva. 

After analyzing a few examples of interventions on gardens in Spain and Europe, criteria are tried to be set that respect the passage of time on this work of art so fragile that is the garden retrieving it from ruin and abandonment. This will apply the concepts of appearance and structure of Cesare  Brandi´s theory to the garden and leave the repristino practice established by the Charter of  Florence that have allowed and served as an argument for the destruction of many gardens in our history with the intention of recreating  what existed in the past. Is there really anyone so arrogant to think that can replay, create, give rise to a garden as it was the one that existed in the past? 

Ultimately, any intervention on artistic goods not only have aesthetic issues to consider, but also ethical as those which require the preservation of our heritage for the future without performing experiments or high-risk actions that may let old gardens disappear. 

And finally, the list of the gardens visited, studied and photographed in situ personally that make this work: 

In Spain: 
Toledo: Cloisters of the Cathedral. 
Madrid: Alameda de Osuna or "El Capricho", Royal Botanic Gardens, Casa-Museo of Sorolla painter and El Retiro. In Aranjuez the King's Garden. In El Pardo Quinta of the Duke of Arco and in  El Escorial Las Casitas de Arriba y Abajo. 
Segovia: Laberinto in the Royal Sitio de La Granja de San Ildefonso. 
Sevilla: Courtyard of the House of Trade. 
Cáceres: Cloister of the Convent of Guadalupe. 
Valencia: Gardens of Monforte, and Botanical Garden of the University of Valencia. In Xàtiva the Garden of Kiss and in Gandia the garden of the Culture House of the Marquis González-Quirós. 
In Italy: 
Bagnaia, Villa Lante. 
Naples: Palazzo Marigliano and Cloister of the Convent of Santa Clara. 
In the Netherlands: 
Amsterdam: Museum and Museum Willet-Holthuysen van Loo. 
Het Loo: Het Loo Palace.