Original scientific paper
Renovation of Buvina door in 1908
Franko Ćorić
orcid.org/0000-0003-3585-8843
; Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Department for Art History, Zagreb, Croatia
Zlatko Jurić
; Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Department for Art History, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
The monumental Romanesque door on the Split cathedral, work of Master Andrija Buvina (1214), was renovated in 1908. The protagonists of the renovation were the chief conservator of the Second Department of the Central Commission, art historian–Max Dvořák and the technician, teacher at the Wood Processing School in Chrudim, Bohemia–Anton Švimberský. In 1907, the conservator of the Central Commission for Artistic and Historical Monuments, don Frane Bulić, initiated the renovation with a view to harmonizing it with the completion of works on the cathedral belfry. Upon the suggestion of Kaspar von Zumbusch, Švimberský was engaged to do the job by Max Dvořák. He developed renovation guidelines that respected the principle of preservation of age-value. He requested that the door leaves not be supplemented, that the damage be repaired and wormholes prevented from spreading, and that the most severely damaged panels be physically protected.
Švimberský found that the door was covered with dirt, the wood was dry and damaged (see fg. 2), and five to ten percent of the wooden material was infested with wormholes. He also established that the front side of the door was made of carob wood. The figural reliefs and ornaments were dismantled, cleaned, impregnated and petrified with hot turpentine. The impregnating liquid, which had to be boiled for 15 minutes in an enamel pot, and then cooled, filtered and kept in a closed receptacle, consisted of 1.5 l of vinegar, 12.5 g of garlic, 25 g of onion, 11.5 g of salt, 80 g of absinthe leaves and 2.25 g of crushed pepper. Depending on the scope and degree of infestation, the damaged pieces of wood had to be placed in their own specially made wooden receptacles containing impregnating liquid for 10–20 minutes. The liquid was to be heated to a temperature between 30 and 50 ºR. The new elements for the front side were made in walnut wood, while the sections of the core and the rear side were made in oak wood. To allow for it to be reused, the core had to be reinforced with steel screws with heads that served as plugs, and they were kept in place by a metal frame extending along three sides of the door leaf.
Švimberský, who had originally planned just to make the conservation interventions, impregnate the door and display it in Opera del duomo, found himself torn between the local community, which requested that the bottom parts be replaced with new ones that would feature motifs analogous to those on the door leaves, and the Dvořák guidelines that prevented any such supplementations. Having learned about the engraving of the bottom-most lines, Dvořák suspended the works on September 1st 1908, and on October 6th he personally visited the site. He proposed that holes be made in new planks and the old ornamented planks inserted into them, that hollow ornaments be lined with impregnated canvas and worm- holes filled. The newly engraved planks were, however, covered with smooth planks. Later, they were removed and nowadays the interventions of Švimberský are visible Continuation and again. The numbers in the chapter on Completion of Works indicate that the interventions on the door were indeed numerous. The door was coated with hot linseed oil, filled and coated with wax. The indications of renovation were sited on the back of the door, and after the works were completed, a gypsum cast was also made. Following a request by Bulić, Dvořák compiled a list of museums and institutions in the country and abroad to which the cast could be offered for sale.
In line with the Riegl concept of the protection of cultural heritage, the key fgures in this renovation were the technician Švimberský, who endeavoured to preserve the item, and the art historian Dvořák, who protected the historical value and judged what the impact of the proposed measure would be on the overall appearance. The renovation of one of the most important artefacts of mediaeval Dalmatian sculpture, and a well-known monument on a
European scale, had a decisive effect – together with the preservation of the old diocese building – on the sway of new principles in Split, which was significantly marked by the stylistic restoration, and also in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, since some of the leaders of the new concept participated in the project: Max Dvořák, Julius Deininger and Karl Holey, personages who led the Central Commission towards its reorganization in 1911.
Keywords
Buvina door; Central Commission; Frane Bulić; Max Dvořák; Anton Švimberský
Hrčak ID:
103577
URI
Publication date:
20.12.2010.
Visits: 2.894 *