connected the reality of survey to conceptuality of it, and of 
numbers related to it. The easiness, not of the subjects, but of 
the word, through which he argued about them, still 
remember me, the master which dissert with his pupils, or 
disciples in the ancient meaning. Cunietti practised culture, 
he was really a master: he loved teaching, explain and, above 
all, acquaint his interlocutors with subjects different from the 
ones usually thaught. 
1 remember, among many others, a long period of systematic 
meetings with some colleagues architect teaching at the 
IUAV in Venice, for the draft of a book on survey. He always 
arrived with a lot of pages, hand-written with a pencil (his 
means of written communication), which were the sketch on 
which discuss to arrive to something unitary fit for 
publication. Well, we never succeed in this, since it was 
immediately clear, that so great was the pleasure of 
discussing together, that this prevailed over the production of 
the book. We continued for a couple of years our meetings. 
The book has remained in the mind of each of us. The pages 
written, mostly by Cunietti, has remained too but no one 
never dared to give birth to something which was suffered 
discussion. That result didn’t no longer need, for a kind of 
inner nobleness which should break in its necessarily 
compromise written draft. 
These are my memories of Cunietti: a friend, since he really 
was that, in spite of the disparity of age, always ready to give 
a hand, to explain, to correct the works which I submitted to 
him during my first years at the Institute. Submitted to a close 
examination by Cunietti, they returned with pages and pages 
of notes and suggestions, usually more pages than those 
forming the paper itself. Beyond the initial bewilderment, it 
was clear, that what he noted was right and necessary: the 
result both of his experience and of his great easiness and 
passion, in writing and in teaching, to write and to express 
oneself clearly. 
The pages, in advance, were the result of his way of intending 
“correction”, very intimist. A word substitute by him (or 
better one should say “suggested”) necessitated of 
explanations which justified it. The reasons were a kind of 
sentences which one could share or not, but which were 
deeply meditated and which obliged, at least, to a careful 
reconsideration of what written. I can say, in all sincerity, that 
I used to submit, with some pretext, my papers to Cunietti, 
even after many years and with a certain experience, since I 
knew that, if he had marked or noted something, he was 
surely right and I wrong or, at least, I didn’t express myself 
clearly. 
I spent a lot of time with him, during almost 30 years of life 
in the same Institute, and I can say that I miss him very much, 
as well as all his colleagues, since Cunietti was a reference 
person, a friend, a master. He gave very much to the 
community, not only as docent and researcher, but also 
passing culture. Talking with him, even of futile things, 
wasn’t hardly ever only a pleasant way of spending time, but 
simply arrive, from a banal starting point, to conclusion not 
trivial and sometimes, to degenerate on “maximum systems”. 
We all miss him very much, but he left us a strong sign of his 
presence and we will never forget him. 
Carlo Monti 
Director of D.I.I.A.R. - Polytechnic of Milan 
It is my desire to greet all participants, also on behalf of the 
SIFET (Italian Society of Surveying and Photogrammetry), 
together with the thanks of the community of people working 
in the surveying and photogrammetry field for the initiative 
that Luigi Mussio brought to this successful conclusion. 
This event must be placed in the context of joint efforts that 
the Italian community should do in order to replace the 
Italian national representation in ISPRS to the level that our 
scientific research deserve. I would like to remember that the 
dream of the generation of scientists who the regretted 
Mariano Cunietti, together with the late Giuseppe Inghilleri, 
belonged was in the seventies to host in Italy an ISPRS 
Congress. 
Luciano Surace 
President of the SIFET 
Cunietti and I met for the first time in the Autumn of 1940. 
We were both freshmen at the Institute of Physics of the 
University of Milan and we were attending the courses of the 
degree on Pure Physics. 
We met again several times during the courses of the studies 
and definitely in 1949. We were both assistants at TU Milan, 
Cunietti at the Institute of Geodesy, Topography and 
Photogrammetry and I at the Institute of Applied Geophysics. 
These two Institutes had in common the teacher and director 
Prof. Solaini. 
In that period, the beginning of Fifties, some companies 
producing hydroelectric energy and manager of artificial 
basins in the Alps, but above all the SADE company had 
given to the Institute of Geodesy, as a technical advice, the 
task of measuring deformation in time of their dams, 
depending both from environmental conditions and especially 
from water level variations in artificial basins. The assistants 
in charge for this research were Cunietti and his colleagues 
Inghilleri, Marazio and Mazzon. The deformations object of 
the study were very little, the sides of triangulations 
necessarily long, the environmental conditions very 
changeable, so that work didn’t appear particularly easy. 
Attending, when possible, their discussions on which strategy 
follow in planning and executing measures, I learned how far 
reliability of numbers, resulting from measures, could be due 
to a well-designed work program and that this keep into 
account, as much as possible, incidental disturbing causes. 
Another important operational experience was the execution 
of the Italian Fundamental Gravimetric Network, 
commissioned to the Institute of Geodesy by the Italian 
Geodetic Commission and decided following international 
agreements. The network was carried out between August 
1952 and May 1953. Measurements of the relative gravity in