Mikó Árpád szerk.: "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" M S Mester vizitáció-képe és egykori selmecbányai főoltára (A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiadványai 1997/1)

TANULMÁNYOK / ESSAYS - MENRÁTH PÉTER-HERNÁDY SZILVIA: M S mester Vizitáció-képének restaurálása

rather awkwardly. Scraping against the roughened surface of the rear of the panel, the wooden runners had a rather limited freedom of movement.

7 The other factor that led to the continuous deterioration in the painting's condition was obviously to be found in the unbalanced climatic conditions. Low humidity tends to shrink the wood, and the paint layer blisters and lifts at the weak points. In order to reduce the shrinking force, the thickness of the limewood was thinned from the original 2 cm to 1.5—1.3 cm, before it was fitted with the cradle. However, this strengthening system failed to provide satisfactory protection for the painting. The roughened surface of the wood rendered the painting even more sensitive to the frequent climatic changes, above all to the changes of humidity, and the stiff movement of the cradling system could not protect the painting from damages due to all the transporting, packaging and moving, which the panel was frequently subjected to. As it was mentioned before, the restoration carried out in 1952 merely meant to give an aesthetic improvement to the painting. After the restoration by György Kákay Szabó, the painting's condition presumably continued to deteriorate, which necessitated the panels reinforcement in the middle with the help of five dovetail joints between the fourth and the fifth board. The primary goal of the current restoration was to stabilize the panel's condition and to afford it adequate protection. The modernization of the cradling system involved removing some of the too closely placed members and making the remaining ones functionally sound on the one hand, and reinforcing the weakened structure with a cradling system consisting of metal parts and synthetic resin. In this system the friction between the runners and the fixed members is so minimal that it yields to the slightest tension, thus guaranteeing that the panel be held in a flat position. The other very important operation carried out in the interest of the panel's protection was the conservation of the wood. This reduced its sensitivity to changes in relative humidity. Assuming reasonably stable climatic conditions, the redesigned cradling system of the conserved panel is now able to guarantee the safety of the painting. Before starting the restoration work on the rear, we protected the paint layer with the help of a two layer facing paper glued on a wax layer applied earlier (1990), using thirty-per-cent toluene solution of Paraloid B 72 synthetic resin. After the total evaporation of the solvent we laid the painting face-down on a workbench covered with grease-proof paper and felt and fixed it in position with clamps. With the painted surface now adequately protected, work on the reconstruction of the cradle could commence. The work began with the removal of the parts, which were to be thrown out. After cutting through the fixed members, we lifted the runners, then we used a chisel to remove the glued fixed members. Next we had to ensure the proper functioning of the remaining elements of the cradling system. We scraped the brown stain and the thick layer of varnish at the runners. In this way the runners could be moved and - if not easily then at least safely - could be tapped out from the side. It was at that point that we discovered that in the course of the years the runners had become slightly curved, showing just how much the panel had changed since it had been fitted with the cradling system. In order to support the panel in its existing state during further restorations two rows of members were left in position at the top and at the bottom. After partially removing the old cradling system and making the remaining parts function again, we conserved the wooden panel, using the toluene and Paraloid B 72. The fixed members of the new cradling system were made of Danamid synthetic resin, and its runners of chromium-plated hard copper pipes. The fixed members which are 1.5 cm wide and 6 cm long, were glued to the board in the middle and at the joints, using epoxy resin. In this way we have 15 fixed members in each row. Shifted towards the ends, the runners were placed at a distance of 53.5 cm from one another, in such a way that they would be able to hold the panel firmly in position without actually concealing useful information about the history of the painting. The Cleaning and Preservation of the Panel We evaluated the performance of the modernized cradling system by continuous observation and regular checks. About six months later, when we compared the present cross-section of the painting's top edge with its earlier condition recorded before fitting the new cradle, not even the slightest changes were detected in the panel's shape. Now the restoration of the painted surface could begin. First we removed the facing paper. Along with the layer of wax which we laid on the surface to provide temporary protection, the varnish added during the restoration carried out in 1952 was also thinned by the solvent. As a result, some of the retouchings using a medium of saponified wax were also damaged. These now clearly stood out. An examination of the painted surface did not reveal the appearance of any new areas of loose paint, providing evidence that the cradling had stabilized the panel. In several areas, and mainly in the top and the bottom third of the panel - i.e. in places where we found a fibrous material is glued to the panel in the manner of a strap - we discovered, however, that the ground was not sticking firmly enough to the panel. To refix these areas, it was wisest to wait until the surface was cleaned of the material filling the cracks, along with any other traces of earlier restorations. Therefore, in plan-