The Only (Self)Portrait of Quaglio and the Consequences of Its Renovation

Home , Andrea Pozzo, Ljubljana Cathedral

Varstvo spomenikov, 44

Mateja Neža Sitar

The Only (Self)Portrait of Quaglio and the Consequences of its Renovation

Key words: Ljubljana cathedral, Giulio Quaglio, self-portrait, monument preservation service, conservation and restoration procedures, Baroque painting technique, removal of impurities, retouching

Abstract

In the early 18th century, in the heyday of Baroque art in Ljubljana, the dean and patron of the construction of the new Ljubljana cathedral, Janez Anton Dolničar, commissioned the northern Italian painter Giulio Quaglio (1668–1751) to adorn the cathedral of St Nicholas with frescoes. The Lombard Baroque painter, who was born in Laino on Lake Como, was a distinguished mural painter in Friuli and Gorizia, and he created his greatest masterpiece of his virtuoso artistic career in the illusionist murals in the interior and on the exterior of the Ljubljana cathedral (1703–1706). Later, in 1721–1723, he returned with his son and completed the murals in the chapels of the nave. At that time the frescoes in the Ljubljana cathedral represented one of the largest cycles in Slovenia, and moreover, they were the most important commission of the artist. Because of this, he added his self-portrait to the images, which, according to research, is the only such example in his oeuvre in Italy, Austria and Slovenia. In 2002 a team from the Restoration Centre initiated one of its most complex and demanding conservation and restoration projects on approximately 532 square metres of murals on the vault and western wall of the Ljubljana cathedral. The difficulty level of the project is evident from the methodology and organisation of the four-year work process, which in addition to concrete restoration procedures on the murals also entailed ongoing research, analysis, verification, study and documentation from various expert points of view. The explicitly interdisciplinary approach combined many different areas of expertise, as well as Slovenian and international experiences from a broad range of scientific disciplines.1 Alongside the restoration process, the research at the site included the investigation of the murals from the point of view of art history and conservation and in the light of the broader cultural/historical context. For this reason and due to the scarce data and poorly preserved documentation, many different sources (written, photographic, graphic, literary, journalistic, video, oral and other) from public and private collections of documentation, plans and photographs, as well as from libraries and archives, were explored. Our objec- tive was to monitor and carefully search for any type of renovation procedures done to the murals as would be evident from information in the preserved documentation, various sources and literature. We were interested in information about the type of procedures, materials employed, the time of the renovation, who commissioned and implemented it, etc. Research on renovation and restoration procedures on the murals – regardless if these entailed only “cleaning” or removal of impurities2 or dirt (washing, rinsing) or other “renovation” and conservation/restoration procedures – can shed light on the problems connected with the present-day condition of the murals; it also helps uncover the causes of certain injuries and define the consequences of individual procedures on the surface of the murals. Last but not least, the results of the research can contribute to a broader knowledge of the characteristics of the murals and help select the correct, most suitable and most efficient approach to the renovation, protection and

Mateja Neža Sitar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre

107 Varstvo spomenikov, 44

preservation of works of art for the future. The most important aspect of the study of a painting technique – in our example, Quaglio’s Baroque technique – is the research and knowledge of the structure of the murals both in terms of the materials employed and their subject matter. Based on this knowledge, it is possible to distinguish the original, first layer from subsequent layers, retouchings and other various changes to the surface of the paint, which influence the art-historical interpretation of the work. In individual periods of the history of the Ljubljana cathedral, various more or less suitable renovations took place for different reasons (changes of artistic taste, injuries caused by earthquakes, air pollution, moisture, differences in temperature, dirt, etc.), which effectively changed the appearance of the building and Quaglio’s murals, as is evident from the article. When speaking about different renovation procedures in the cathedral, we cannot ignore the fact that the Baroque building was constructed because of changes in artistic tastes, to be a new aesthetic ideal for the initiators of its construction. According to Historia (1701), the “bad shape of the old Gothic building” was given as the main reason for its de- molition.3 Only a handful of artefacts have remained of the old medieval church; they were saved from destruction by Janez Gregor Dolničar. This clearly speaks about the low awareness of the significance of preserving cultural heritage at that time, although the general thinking and ideals that were part of the identity and national roots called for a return back to the time of ancient Emona. Nevertheless, we must take into consideration the historical situation at that time and the spirit of the age, which through the “new” and “modern” nevertheless yielded admirable works of art. One of the largest and most daring architectural changes in the structure of the Baroque building and comprehensive mural decoration was the construction of a new, high dome in 1841–1843, which with the exception of three fragments completely destroyed Quaglio’s trompe-l’oeil frescoes in the previous dome. Other murals by this painter from Lombardy were subjected to several renovations, three of which are relatively well and officially documented as major ones and are in general known to experts: the renovation carried out by Matevž Langus in 1846–1853, the renovation by Anton Jebačin in 1905–1906 and the renovation by Peter Železnik in 1944–1947. The fourth, unofficial and so far generally unknown and undocumented, is Železnik’s renovation in 1959–1961.4 The final, fifth renovation, part of which was the aforementioned research, was carried out by the Restoration Centre under the auspices of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia in 2002–2006. Several other minor, usually more frequent and poorly documented renovation procedures were carried out on more exposed and more accessible parts of the murals, for example on the walls of the presbytery, transept and chapels in the nave and on the exterior, for which more or less skilful “renovators” were commissioned (decorators, painters, restorers, etc.), who implemented these renovations independently or under the auspices of the monument protection service of the 20th and 21st century. The article focuses on the part of the research into the history of the previous renovation procedures on Quaglio’s murals at the Ljubljana cathedral which best presents relevant key monument protection issues. These are the protection, salvage, preservation, maintenance and conservation/restoration of those murals that have lost their original appearance and authenticity due to various renovation procedures in the past. One such example is Quaglio’s only self-portrait, which he himself painted, complete with a signature and date, in the scene to the right on the southern wall of the presbytery of the Ljubljana cathedral. Because of the condition of Quaglio’s self-portrait, it has been proven that the murals in the presbytery have undergone more renovation procedures than is officially acknowledged. In 1703 and 1704, Quaglio painted two scenes of the miracles of the cathedral’s patron saint, Nicho- las, on the two side walls of the presbytery5; the motifs are based on the well-known hagiography Flos Sanctorum by Pedro de Ribadeneira.6 At a time when the traditional early Baroque style, according to which the painted scenes were usually placed in stuccowork frames or decorative sections, was waning, Quaglio painted the murals in the presbytery in the same fashion as many of his previous commissions in Lombardy, Friuli, Veneto and Gorizia (with some exceptions).7 Each of the four scenes measures 440 x 310 cm and is placed in a protruding, ornate, gilded stuccowork frame with concavely trimmed corners.8 Due to the poor condition of the murals, which hardly resemble Quaglio’s work, at the moment it would be unwise and difficult to define the Baroque painting technique that Quaglio employed for these scenes. Moreover, the generic usage of the word frescoes is not completely correct, because the technique might not be true or exclusively true fresco. More accurate data could be obtained by scientific investigation of the plasters and colour layers (pigments,

108 Varstvo spomenikov, 44 binding agents) and an examination performed by an experienced restorer.9 According to the research and information in literature to date, it is evident that the Baroque painting technique was very popular because of new features that allowed the artist a more relaxed timing of the painting and facilitated more intense, daring and majestic effects demanded by the client, and because of the new spirit of the age that called for lush Baroque backdrops on the walls and ceilings of secular and church buildings; however, the technique was not as durable as true fresco. If we turn our attention to the results of the renovation of the murals on the vault and western wall of the nave, which was completed in 2006, we find out that detailed inspection and comparison of the top colour layer with other murals created by Quaglio in approximately the same period showed that the colour layer in Ljubljana is much poorer and flaking10 (Figures 1, 1a). The bright areas11 and colour intensity have disappeared, although they are the most recognisable features of Quaglio’s murals in Udine, for example at Monte di Pieta (1694), Palazzo Anto- nini (1697/98) and S. Chiara (1699). Effective, soft, thickly applied bright patches that give the murals a certain vivid, contrasting, voluminously plastic expression can also be noticed in Descent from the Cross at the Puštal castle chapel; the scene was painted immediately after the painter completed his work at the Ljubljana cathedral and stopped at Puštal on his way to Laino (1706). Murals at the Puštal chapel show that the condition of the murals at the Ljubljana cathedral is a result of the previous renovations, which greatly impaired their visual impression (colours seem to be duller, colder), and was not brought about by a change in the artist’s style, as some researchers believe. According to Perusini, Quaglio’s works in Friuli are characterised by recognisable colourfulness; in Ljubljana his colours became more moderate, whereas later they turned Rococo.12 Today, the renovated murals on the ceiling are above all vivid and colourful. Maybe the choice of painting technology and technique is the reason for the more deteriorated condition of the murals in the presbytery and consequently the frequent restoration of individual scenes. It must be pointed out that (like in other examples, such as the murals at Palazzo Antonini) Quaglio did not necessarily use the same painting technology and technique for all scenes; it is probable that he adjusted them to the thematic significance and location of the scene in question (whether the scene is observed from a distance of one or twenty metres), funding (better materials, e.g. pigments, are more expensive), the demands of the client, etc.13 In the case of the Ljubljana cathedral, so far no information has been uncovered about the type of pigments, binding agents and other materials or tools and where these were purchased, about the procedures of tracing drawings on the plaster and the process of painting, about lighting methods, the name of the builder who prepared mortar for the painter and applied it to the walls, about the contribution of assis- tants and apprentices, preparatory drawings, cartoons, sketches and models (this information is known anyway only in a handful of examples). Nevertheless, there is a very detailed history of the Ljubljana cathedral with a description of the entire building process of the new church, as well as a description of its predecessor and a detailed account of the motifs of the murals and the furnishings. The history was written by the faithful chronicler and dean’s brother, Janez Gregor Dolničar. For the year 1704, he wrote: “On the first of June, when all work at the sanctuary was stopped because of the feast day, Giulio Quaglio retired to the church and with the help of a mirror painted his likeness on the wall in the choir with such skill that he seems to be alive and breathing in the picture. When they asked him why he chose to paint the portrait on that particular one of the four large paintings, he replied that he placed himself where bread is handed out to the poor because he had received a sufficient share from the patron of the church, the miracle-maker Nicho- las.”14 At the bottom right of the scene, in which St Nicholas rescues the people of Myra from famine (Figure 2), Quaglio painted himself to his waist, in three-quarter profile and in Baroque clothing, sitting behind a stone block15 on which he leans with his left arm and on which we find his signature, place of birth and the year of the making of this image. In the left hand, he holds a partially unravelled scroll as a hint to his participation in planning the content of the murals, whereas in his right hand, which is placed across his left, he holds the attribute of his profession – a bunch of brushes. Because of various renovation procedures that decisively changed the visual appearance of the cathedral, as well as the painter’s image, the self-portrait and the signature underneath have changed considerably over the last three hundred years. Written sources and findings of key photographs reveal that at least six renovations were carried out on the scene with Quaglio’s self-portrait. As part of the large, overall renovation in the 19th century, Matevž Langus restored the four scenes from the legend of St Nicholas in

109 Varstvo spomenikov, 44

the presbytery in 1847.16 The next to renovate the scenes was Anton Jebačin in 1905.17 The work done in the presbytery by Peter Železnik is documented in 1935 and again during the large renovation of the cathedral murals below the main cornice in 1944–1948, which encompassed the murals next to the high altar.18 Železnik reported that he cleaned and restored the walls in the choir in 1946 and 1947.19 In connection with this last renovation, the archive of Indok Centre keeps two personal letters of Marija Železnik, the wife of the aforementioned “renovator”, from 1935. Both of them were probably intended for conservator Stele and contain a request that the renovation of Quaglio’s murals would be entrusted to her husband Peter, who had just done an excellent job with Jelovšek’s murals in the Church of St Peter in Ljubljana.20 Today we know that Železnik received the commission, because the renovation of the scenes in the presbytery is documented with bills and three receipts from 1935,21 as well as Stele’s report from 1938. According to Stele, in 1935 Peter Železnik “removed all over-painting from after the war” from Quaglio’s frescoes in the presbytery and correctly restored them. He also stated that the damaged areas were crudely painted over and that “the condition of certain areas was hopeless”. He maintains that the careful “tapping” of the missing parts gave satisfying results, and that after the renovation “the murals, albeit injured and patched up in parts, display a very colourful, authentic character”.22 For the next period, no preserved official documentation can be found, so alternative sources of research were examined. One of the few concrete clues is a postcard depicting the Ljubljana cathedral (figs. 3, 4).23 The view of the presbytery clearly shows scaffolding erected along the entire south wall, including Quaglio’s self-portrait, which might be a sign of renovation taking place in that part of the church. An oral source – an oral account and newly discovered documents from the cathedral’s rectory – revealed that the painter and specialist Miloš Lavrenčič24 unofficially renovated the paintings in the presbytery in 1979; this was later confirmed after the discovery of a private photo archive.25 As will be shown later, the procedure was highly unsuitable and a complete failure. It was officially stopped and its grave consequences were later remedied by the restorer Tomaž Kvas in 1985.26 The procedure carried out by Kvas was the sixth and last renovation of the scene with Quaglio’s image as it has been preserved until today. Due to the lack of written sources, we must do with a very interesting comparison of a handful of photographs discovered from various periods, which for now are the best record of the consequences of restoration procedures. The comparison of the present-day indistinct “middle-aged man” (figs. 2, 10) with the image of the earliest known reproduction is simply unbelievable. The earliest known reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait was published in Dom in svet magazine, where the photographs taken by J. Kotar accompanied an article on Giulio Quaglio, which was written by Vik- tor Steska in 1903.27 In the reproduction of the scene depicting the legend of St Nicholas and featuring Quaglio’s self-portrait (figs. 5, 5a) the painter’s likeness differs greatly from the one we know today. The face belongs to a young man with well-painted, long, wavy hair. His thoughtful eyes gaze seriously at the observer. A narrow, bright collar, buttoned up below the chin, a dark undergarment and a necktie fastened in front are clearly visible in the image. The striped painting robe organically covers the body and gives the impression of plasticity. Although the reproduction is black and white, it is evident that the painter achieved the impression of plasticity and naturalness with convincing modelling by means of light and different colour nuances; this is particularly obvious in the tonality of the face and hands, the large Baroque hairstyle, brushes, etc. A certain degree of Quaglio’s mastery and the quality of his painterly skills are revealed in the young man’s gaze, which because of its virtuoso accuracy discloses the character and thoughts of the man portrayed, as well as in the striped pattern and refined shading of the folds in the robe. The slightly unravelled upper part of the scroll features a clearly visible sketch of a woman’s head or a bust with an outlined background that could symbolically represent a plan for a mural or even the preparatory study that painters usually prepared before the beginning of each project for themselves or at the request of a patron. There is a correctly written inscription below the portrait.28 On the reproduction of Kotar’s photograph from 1903, the following inscription can be read (visible state): “IVLVS QVALEVS DE LAYNO COMENSI INVEN: ET PINX (PINX:T) ANNO MDCCIIII.”29 Ko- priva translated it as follows: “Invented and painted by Giulio Quaglio of Laino near Como in the year 1704.”30 The next known reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait, which is similar to the first, was published in Ilustrirani Slovenec on 27 November 1927 (Figure 6).31 The high-quality, accurate reproduction of the painter’s bust image has an oval format and appears to be slightly corrected (possibly the photograph was

110 Varstvo spomenikov, 44 retouched for printing), but at the same time it clearly displays the characteristics listed before (plastic modelling of the drapery, necktie, hairstyle and facial features) from Kotar’s photograph, which is probably a more faithful rendering of Quaglio’s original likeness. In subsequent restoration procedures the image was changed even more. The signature and date are not visible in this reproduction. An important discovery made in the photo archives of Indok Centre consists of two photographs from 1952 and 1958. The reproduction of the 1952 photograph (Figure 7)32 depicts the painter as a very young and very handsome man, but without the solemn, thoughtful gaze that is evident in the earliest reproduction. The face and the hairstyle are again slightly beautified, but still similar to the reproduction from 1927. If the preserved black-and-white reproductions can be relied upon for correct interpretation, we can say that slight changes or beautification can be detected in the shape of the eyebrows, eyes which are slightly more elongated, the slightly changed line of the otherwise still full lips, and in the shading. The inscription below the image is identical to the inscription in the reproduction from 1903, except that due to the larger format of the reproduction, we can clearly read the superscript letters SI in COMENSI and T in PINXT. The next reproduction from 1967 is of lesser quality, but still clear enough; it was based on a photograph taken in 1958 (Figure 8),33 and shows a greatly altered image. In a larger format that includes the face of the male allegorical figure below, a child with bread to the left and part of the drapery of St Nicholas, a heavily damaged colour layer is visible. If we compare the faces of the child and the male figure below from 1958 with the present-day state, we notice that the child’s face from 1958 is still characteristic of the type that Quaglio in general used for painting children’s faces, whereas in the present-day reproduction, the child has a completely different, distinctly hard expression. The face of the male figure was already heavily damaged in 1958, most probably during renovations, the result of which is the present- day, new, altered version of the long-gone original expression. The surface of the mural is abraded and washed; the painter’s face, particularly his hair, the female figure on the scroll and the inscription below are less visible than in Kotar’s photograph. The hair is not so thick, and the previous youthful gallantry and refined facial features and shading have disappeared from the face. The beautification is most probably the consequence of a restoration procedure in the 19th or early 20th century, or maybe the photograph was retouched. The otherwise young man has a shorter, broader nose and rounder eyes and lips that are heavily retouched, whereas his cheekbones are emphasised with shading.34 The dark undergarment with the narrow bright collar is no longer visible. We can only see that the luxurious necktie fastened in front and protruding from the top garment has lost its voluminosity. The individual parts display sharp edges of folds that can be the result of retouching or the visible under-drawing due to the destroyed colour layer; the final effect is lesser plasticity. The inscription is still correct and identical to the one from 1903, but it is less visible. It must be pointed out that a more precise interpretation of the image based on the only preserved medium of black-and-white photographs of varying quality is difficult and probably also unreliable. Nevertheless, the next photograph of Quaglio’s image from 1985 (Figure 9)35 shows the consequences of highly unsuitable renovation procedures. It is clear proof of what happened to the originally excellent self-portrait that the painter created with distinct Baroque virtuosity. Obviously the renovator tried to save the mural in a very clumsy and unprofessional way after it suffered considerable damage from the past washing and cleaning with water, soap and bread (according to the sources). Although the condition of the murals immediately before he set to work is not known, the final result was disastrous. The clumsy, rigid, monochromatic and hermetic retouching killed the gaze in the eyes and destroyed the natural colour of the complexion, body, clothes and attributes. The retouched or literally painted-over areas appear as planes of paint that do not allow the mural to breathe; they kill its vividness, three-dimension- ality and sense of movement in the space of the painting. In addition, they do not display appropriate colour nuances, contrasts, shades, light and softness. The photograph shows a numb, dead, clumsy, flat two-dimensional image of a puppet staring from the wall. As we said before, in 1985 the restorer Kvas attempted to save the scene with the most urgent restoration procedures, but the final result is the self- portrait as seen today. In this way Quaglio’s youthful likeness drastically changed from the first half of the 20th century to the present, resulting in the image of an older man (fig 10)36 which is very different from the painter at the peak of his artistic creativity at the age of 36. In comparison with earlier images, it seems to be very

111 Varstvo spomenikov, 44

impoverished. Because of the dark retouching of the eyeball, the painter’s eyes have lost the clear, distinct gaze directed at the observer, which was replaced by a blank stare directed at nothing in particular to the left. As a result of the thick and unsuitable retouching that covers the original surface of the mural, which was damaged during mechanical cleaning several times, the voluminosity and plasticity of the original high-quality tonal modelling has disappeared. This is visible on the painter’s face and hair, as well as on his robe, hands and elsewhere. The female figure on the unravelled scroll disappeared, and the inscription is different: “IVLIVS QALIVS DE LAYNO CON INVEN BT PINX ANNO MDCCIIII.” If we compare the reproduction, we discover that three words have been changed: QALIVS, CON and BT. Kopriva has already pointed out there might be a mistake in the word QALIVS, which should be written QVALEVS.37 Like Bergamini,38 he maintained that this was the result of unsuitable restoration procedures. The change of COM into CON was also pointed out by Lavrič, who published a correct version and stressed that there should also be ET instead of BT.39 Because of incorrectly reconstructed words (images of figures, details, attributes), the meaning can be incorrectly interpreted; therefore it is very important that the restorer closely cooperates with art historians, historians, palaeographers and other experts, all of whom must pay special attention to and be very consistent in the reading of the original traces of images and inscriptions. Because the inscription in the reproduction from 1958 is still correctly written and because later additional photographic evidence has been discovered, it can be concluded that these important changes – both in the inscription and Quaglio’s image – date from after 1958 and originate from one of the subsequent renovation procedures: Lavrenčič’s unofficial renovation in 1979. The appearance of the original portrait that most resembled Quaglio remains unknown, and the most approximate answer can probably be found in Kotar’s photograph. In view of the aforementioned quality, the refined individu- alised faces of true portraits of the kind that are painted only by the most skilful and talented painters, the naturalistic effect, the vivid and effectively painted space and images, we can say that the portrait in the photograph published in 1903 is the closest to the original likeness. Quaglio’s skill as a painter is also evident from the portraits in the scene Appointment of St Nicholas as the Bishop of Myra (Figure 11) behind the organ case on the west wall; it is most clearly apparent in portraits that are not based on con- ventional face types. The exceptional, simply and naturalistically painted portrait of the cathedral’s dean, J. Anton Drobnič (Figure 12), which is also placed in correct perspective, is recognisable and comparable with Putti’s sculptural bust portrait of the dean in the transept.40 The highly authentic, youthful face from 1903 was drastically transformed into the present-day reduced, impoverished image bereft of its Baroque charm. The various versions of the portrait can be understood as more or less failed consequences and interpretations by various renovators and restorers. During the next conservation/restoration project of the images in the presbytery, including Quaglio’s self-portrait, it should be correctly ascertained which portions of the murals have been painted over and how much of the original colour layer is still preserved and could be saved. Consequently, a more satisfactory appearance of the murals should be created with the help of various sources. As we have said, according to verified material from the artist’s oeuvre in Slovenia, Italy and Austria, Quaglio’s likeness at the Ljubljana cathedral is the only example of a confident self-portrait of the artist, who always signed and dated his works, with which he put an additional emphasis on the significance of his commission. A more suitable and expert renovation would restore at least a part of the original image and give a more decent appearance to the self-portrait of Giulio Quaglio, a popular and influential Italian fresco painter who was a guest in Slovenia during the Baroque period, so that future generations will be able to admire it in as authentic a form as possible. Because of the research into the course of various renovations, it is easier to define the original painting and some injuries, but due to the lack of documentation (for example, regarding the renovation of 1959–1961), it is once again evident that careful documentation of all implemented procedures plays an important role in renovation. Documentary material is a source of information and a collection of “bio- graphical data” about a work of art, thereby becoming a constituent part of it. As in the case of Quaglio’s self-portrait, in the practice of conservation and restoration – or at least in imagination – fortunately photographs faithfully depict the past and help reconstruct the true authenticity of many today almost destroyed or unrecognisably damaged artefacts from the Slovene cultural heritage, which is our respon- sibility. With the help of interesting photographic and written material, part of which was published for

112 Varstvo spomenikov, 44 the first time, we followed the changes in the painter’s image, which is heavily worn by the passage of time and the traces and consequences of various renovations, some of which were highly unsuitable. Once again we have learnt a very important fact that sometimes we do not take into consideration: in the assessment and preservation of a work of art, both fundamental aspects of a monument must be taken into account – its material and its spiritual (or symbolic, aesthetic, art-historical) value. But this can be achieved only through joint, interdisciplinary cooperation of various professions at the point where natural science and the arts closely intertwine.

Notes 1 Much could be written about the issues of interdisciplinary and inter-institutional cooperation and teamwork, which are so widely dis- cussed and which are absolutely necessary in our profession, in light of the actual conditions and openness to teamwork of individuals from different professions and institutions. Apart from knowledge and experience, teamwork demands a certain level of professional and personal maturity, professionalism and communication, as well as a certain interest in other professions involved in the same project and its joint aim. In Slovenia this can sometimes be difficult to attain. Because of its extent and the high number of experts involved, our project was a big challenge and a test, as well as a good experience for the future. 2 Here, it is necessary to point out that according to Prof Bogovčič, the expression “removal of impurities” is the most appropriate, but since quotations from earlier documents have been used for the article, I decided to keep the expression “cleaning”. 3 Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ed. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003, p. 222; original title: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher,Historia Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (printed in 1882), Seminary Library Man. 5 (manuscript copy kept at the Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana (NŠAL), ŽA/Zg. zap. (Parish Archive/Historical Notes), file 2). In note 27 Lavrič points out: “These formulations are not completely reliable, because in the past, the construction of new buildings was often justified by the derelict state of their predecessors (although they were still solid).” 4 The latest material is presented in the research paper: Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje historiata s poudarkom na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre, Ljubljana 2004–2006. 5 For the year 1703: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 298 (Historia, str. 130), for the year 1704, and p. 302 (Historia pp. 135/136); for the description of individual scenes: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), pp. 321–323 (Historia, pp. 158–161). 6 The book Flos Sanctorum by the Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneira (1526–1611) was published in Madrid in 1599 and was reprinted several times; the scenes at the Ljubljana cathedral are most probably based on the Cologne edition from 1630, a copy of which is kept at the Seminary Library: Ana Lavrič, n. 627 in: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 322. Accordingly, they depict likovno najbolj dramatične čudeže sv. Miklavža (“artistically the most dramatic miracles of St Nicholas”): Ana Lavrič, Janez Gregor Dolničar in njegova zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve, in: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 59. One of the scenes in which St Nicholas saves the pilgrims from the stormy sea is based on the engraving by Jean Couvay, which in turn follows a composition by Simon Vouet: Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996, p. 65, n. 50. 7 In the nave the murals appear autonomous and embrace the entire interior; here we can speak about a uniform trompe-l'oeil approach, for example in the dome and on the vault of the nave, where the painter used a less demanding, looser and more decorative variety of Baroque trompe-l'oeil painting; cf.: LAVRIČ 2003 (n. 6), p. 57, LIPOGLAVŠEK 1996 (n. 6), pp. 67–68, Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992, p. 90, or: Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ed. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006, pp. 109–110, including the most recent critical evaluation of other authors and sources on this topic. 8 Stuccowork in the presbytery (which initially was not gilded) was carried out by Tomasso Ferrata of Milan with three of his students in 1703 (DOLNIČAR 2003 [n. 3], p. 293), whereas the gilding is the work of three gilders from Vienna and dates from the time of Zupan’s restoration in the 19th century (from November 1859 to July 1860): Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, 2–3, no. 44, Ljubljana 1996, p. 31. The dimensions of the murals are taken from the notes of the private documentation of restorer Tomaž Kvas. 9 Here, the “mezzo fresco” painting technique, also known as pittura a calce or pittura a bianco di calce must be mentioned. It was very popular and widespread in the 17th and 18th century and was used as early as the late 16th century. The pigments were mixed with calcium hydrate and applied to dry or wet plaster, which facilitated many practical innovations. Important instructions for this type of fresco painting can be found in the famous treatise (an edition kept at the National and University Library in Ljubljana was used – Vol. II, Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi): Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, in: Prospettiva de pittori e architetti, I–II, Rome 1693 and 1700; earlier theoretical writings about this fresco technique can be found in: Cennino Cennini, Il libro dell` arte, 1437 (ed. F. Brunello), Vicenza 1982; Giorgio Vasari, Intruduzioni alle arti del disegno, 1568 (ed. P. Mora – L. Mora – P. Philippot), Bologna 1977, pp. 432–442; cf.: Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Udine 1999, where the authors closely explored Quaglio’s painting technique in the murals at the church of S. Chiara in Udine. I express my sincere gratitude to the authors, to the restorer Marta Bensa and conservation/restoration consultant Rado Zoubek for their assistance and advice. 10 Grains of sand fall off from the typically rough surface of a Baroque mural for various reasons, particularly mechanical cleaning, exposing the surface to dirt and various climatic as well as chemical processes; moreover, layers of paint of varied thickness that even originally do not stick to the base well enough begin to flake over centuries for various reasons; cf.: DUDINE, FIORINO, MARESIA, MARINI, ZAMBON 1999 (n. 9) and Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wand- malerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 213–346.

113 Varstvo spomenikov, 44

11 When the painter applied the final strokes of paint, which are visible as thick brushwork, he moved away considerably from the basic form of the engraved drawing on the cartoon and resorted to modelling by means of light: KOLLER 1990 (n. 10), p. 333. On the other hand, other reasons that could cause visual changes in the murals must be taken into account, such as chemical processes in the plaster and on the surface, etc. 12 Teresa e Giuseppina PERUSINI, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003, p. 386. Here it must be taken into account that the range of damage in a church interior is more complex and broader because murals there are more exposed to unsuitable climatic conditions than in private palaces and private chapels. 13 For the master’s painting technique in various scenes at Palazzo Antonini cf.: PERUSINI 2003 (n. 12), pp. 380–392. 14 DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 302 (Historia, p. 136). 15 According to Kopriva, the painter stands behind a low marble block: Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih napisih in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989, p. 19. 16 According to archival sources: Ana LAVRIČ, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, 2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996, pp. 22–29. 17 Between June and 16 December 1905 he cleaned the frescoes in the presbytery, the transept and below the dome; according to archival sources: Viktor Steska, Obnova ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924, p. 39. 18 In the side chapels: Inventar imovine stolne cerkve sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani … (III. Notranji okras): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 22, year 1951. 19 The remaining five chapels: Peter Železnik, Poročilo o čiščenju in restavriranju Quaglievih fresk in toniranju ostalih ploskev stolnice sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, 15 Feb. 1948; NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 26, essays – misc. and Franc Kimovec,Kronika stolnice sv. Nikolaja, začeta 6. 12. 1944, NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 28, essays. 20 In the unaddressed first letter, written on 11 April 1935, Marija Železnik recommends her husband for the renovation of Quaglio’s frescoes in the cathedral, whereas in the second letter (to Stele and the diocese) dated 29 October 1935, she writes about Železnik’s renovation of Jelovšek’s frescoes at St Peter’s and their financial problems, because of which her husband would greatly appreciate if he were hired to perform the work in the cathedral. Because of Article 41 of the Archives and Archives Material Act (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 20–10. IV. 1997, p. 1622) the letters are only mentioned: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, text archive. For her untir- ing help, I thank Ms Metka Košir of Indok Centre. 21 Invoices issued by Peter Železnik for his work in the cathedral, 1935 (4,000 dinars paid to my account for cleaning the paintings in the presbytery by the management of the Cathedral of St Nicholas in Ljubljana, Ljubljana, 19 April 1935; 1,000 dinars paid to my account for cleaning the frescoes by the management of the cathedral, Ljubljana, 25 May 1935; I have received the rest of the total sum of 3,500 dinars for cleaning the frescoes in the presbytery and on the exterior walls, Ljubljana 1935, 18 June 1935): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 19, cathedral – church bills. Three invoices for 1935: NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 27, essays – cathedral – misc. I sincerely thank the personnel of the Ljubljana Archbishop’s Archive for their help thus far. 22 France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1.1.1935 do 10.10.1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938, p. 98. 23 The postcard (ad 1987/1661–9) depicts the interior with scaffolding next to the scenes to the right of the presbytery; on the back it says that the reproduction was taken from the book Orgle na Slovenskem from 1985 (Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Lju- bljana 1985, p. 25, where a smaller and less visible reproduction was printed); in 1987 it was stored in the photo archive of the National and University Library in Ljubljana. Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986, p. 247, fig. 393. 24 Thisinformation was kindly brought to my attention by Dr Ana Lavrič, Jadranka Šumi, Prof Ivan Bogovčič, Dr Ksenija Rozman, Majda Frelih Ribič (new discoveries are currently under scrutiny: material from NŠAL, Diocesan Palace and the rectory of the cathedral). 25 Source: photo documentation of Dr Josip Korošec and restorer Tomaž Kvas (photo: Tomaž Kvas, Marjan Smerke). I sincerely thank all three of them for their help and for making the documentation available to me. 26 The condition before and after the procedures was documented in written form and photographed. In 1985–1987 the murals in the chapels of the transept and the nave were renovated and the renovation of the side murals in the presbytery began: Assessment of costs for the restoration of the mural on the right wall of the presbytery, St Nicholas Calming the Storm at Sea, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 April 1985; Bill for the restoration of the fresco on the left wall of the presbytery, St Nicholas Saving the Condemned, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 November 1985; Bill for the restoration of the fresco on the left side of the presbytery, St Nicholas Saving the Sailors, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 November 1985; on the back of the details from the scene St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine, Kvas wrote (in June 1985) that thick layers of over-paint were applied by M. Lavrenčič in 1979, who according to currently known information worked on the last two of the scenes. 27 Viktor STESKA, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, p. 488. Three scenes from the legend of St Nicholas in the presbytery (pp. 488, 489, 529) and two reproductions of the view of the interior towards the east (p. 486) and the ceiling in the Seminary Library were published. Some of Kotar’s photographs are kept at: NŠAL, ŽA, Cathedral, file 14 (the interior – view towards the east, St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine with Quaglio’s self-portrait, St Nicholas Saving Pilgrims from the Devil’s Trick, St Nicholas Saving the Condemned, Langus’ altarpiece of St Nicholas, Langus’ copy of Quaglio’s paintings in the false dome). 28 Steska probably made a mistake in the spelling of the surname, because Quaglio usually signed his name as QVALEVS (cf: Giuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Udine 1994, p. 180): IVLIVS QVALAEVS DE LAINO COMEN INVENIT ET PINXIT ANNO MDC- CIIII: STESKA 1903 (n. 28), p. 489. 29 According to the reproduction from 1952, the original inscription contained the word COMEN, but the syllable -EN is less visible because of poor quality, and it completely disappeared during subsequent restoration procedures. 30 KOPRIVA 1989 (n. 15), p. 19. 31 Ilustrirani Slovenec, l. III., 27 Nov. 1927, No. 270 (No. 48), p. 393. 32 Quaglio’s self-portrait, reproduction Gorjup 1996 after a photograph from 1952 – courtesy of Mr Bogataj: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive.

114 Varstvo spomenikov, 44

33 Quaglio’s self-portrait, reproduction from 1967 after a photograph from 1958: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive. At the photo archive of France Stele Art History Institute of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, I discovered another image of Quaglio in negative No. 1680 of a scene from the legend of St Nicholas. The image is identical to the reproduction from 1958 kept at the photo archive of Indok Centre. Unfortunately, there is no information about who took the shot and when. 34 The image (raised etouchingr on the cheeks and lips in the mural and not a subsequent retouching of the photograph) can be compared with a detail of Quaglio’s self-portrait in Stele’s photograph – photo: view of the presbytery (neg. No. 12829 S), date of origin unknown: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive. 35 Photo: M. Smerke, June 1985: photo documentation of Dr Josip Korošec. 36 Photo: Tine Benedik, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre. A reproduction depicting the “present-day image” of the artist was also published by BERGAMINI 1994 (n. 29), p. 12. 37 He published the inscription with a note that the surname is incorrectly written by mistake and that Quaglio usually added the word COM(ensis) to his name – a native of Como – which means that Con is definitely a mistake and should read COM; this was also ascertained during the comparison of the photographs: a restorer changed the letter M to N because of its illegibility: KOPRIVA 1989 (n. 15), p. 19. 38 According to Bergamini, this is a consequence of 18th century restoration procedures: BERGAMINI 1994 (n. 23), p. 180. 39 CON instead of COM(ensis) and BT instead of ET, as Lavrič points out in n. 537: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 302. 40 These are supposedly images of other initiators of the cathedral’s construction: Provost Janez Krstnik Prešeren, Bishop Ferdinand Küen- burg: LAVRIČ 2003 (n. 6), pp. 59, 60, 450, 494; for the dean’s portrait bust by Angelo Putti (1715) cf. Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica. Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007, pp. 80–82 and pp. 121–122; today next to the altar of St Dismas.

Literature Giuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Udine 1994. Izidor Cankar, Giulio Quaglio. Prispevek k razvoju baročnega slikarstva, Dom in svet, Vol. 33 (doctoral dissertation), Ljubljana 1920, pp. 77–84, 131–137, 186–192, 240–245. Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992. Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ur. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003; original title: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher, His- toria Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (printed in 1882), Seminary Library Man. 5 (manuscript copy at the Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana (NŠAL), ŽA/Zg. zap. (Parish Archive/Historical Notes), file 2). Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Udine 1999. Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986. Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wandmalerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 213–346. Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih napisih in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989. Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, pp. 2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996. Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica, Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007. Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996. Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ed. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006. Teresa e Giuseppina Perusini, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003. Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, in: Prospettiva de pittori e architetti, II, Rim 1700 (Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi). Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje historiata s poudarkov na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, Institute for the Protec- tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre (typescript of a research paper), Ljubljana 2004–2006. Mateja Sitar, Povzetek poteka restavratorskih del na poslikavi oboka glavne ladje v stolni cerkvi sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana July 2004 (report for expert committee), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre. France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1.1.1935 do 10.10.1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938. Viktor Steska, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, pp. 486–490, 527–533. Viktor Steska, Obnova ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924. Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1985.

Sources: Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana; National and University Library; Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre; France Stele Art History Institute, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Historical Archives of Ljubljana; Institute for the Protec- tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre; Diocesan Palace; Rectory of St Nicholas in Ljubljana; private documentation of Dr Josip Korošec, restorer Tomaž Kvas and photographer Marjan Smerke.

115