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, conser- vation 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 construc- tion 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 inte- rior 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 conserva- tion 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 ex- pert 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 renova- tion, 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 in- juries 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 tech- nique – 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 build- ing and Quaglio’s murals, as is evident from the article. When speaking about different renovation pro- cedures 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 is- sues. 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 stucco- work 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 paint- ing 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).