Reflections on the Reconstructed Medieval Elements of the Chancel of Saint Michael’s Parish Church in Cluj-Napoca

EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE NEMZETKÖZI TUDOMÁNYOS KONFERENCIA III–IV. FEHÉRVÁRCSURGÓ, 2019/ 2021 A PÉCSI TUDOMÁNYEGYETEM MŰVÉSZETI KARA MŰVÉSZETTÖRTÉNET TANSZÉKE OKTATÓINAK ÉS VENDÉGEINEK MŰHELYKONFERENCIÁI 2021 EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE NEMZETKÖZI TUDOMÁNYOS KONFERENCIA III–IV. FEHÉRVÁRCSURGÓ, 2019/2021 CURRENT TRENDS IN EUROPEAN HERITAGE PRESERVATION WITH A FOCUS ON THE CARPATHIAN BASIN A PÉCSI TUDOMÁNYEGYETEM MŰVÉSZETI KARA MŰVÉSZETTÖRTÉNET TANSZÉKE OKTATÓINAK ÉS VENDÉGEINEK MŰHELYKONFERENCIÁI 2021 WORKSHOP CONFERENCES FOR LECTURERS AND GUESTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ART HISTORY, FACULTY OF MUSIC AND VISUAL ARTS, UNIVERSITY OF PÉCS, 2021 Tartalom / Contents KÁROLYI György: Köszöntő . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Szerkesztői előszó / Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Konferenciaprogram – Fehérvárcsurgó, 2019. október 18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Európai műemlékvédelmi tendenciák, különös tekintettel a Kárpát-medencére III., The current European heritage preservation trends with focus on the Carpathian Basin III., Konferenciaprogram – Fehérvárcsurgó, Károlyi-kastély, 2021. október 22–23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Európai műemlékvédelmi tendenciák, különös tekintettel a Kárpát-medencére IV., The current European heritage preservation trends with focus on the Carpathian Basin IV., Konferenciaprogram – Pécs, 2021. június 22–23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A PTE MK Művészettörténet Művészettörténet Tanszéke oktatóinak és vendégeinek műhelykonferenciája Várkonyi György köszöntésére Szerkeszette: RAFFAY Endre, TÜSKÉS Anna Konferenciaprogram – Pécs, 2021. december 6–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A PTE MK Művészettörténet Tanszék Műhelykonferenciája Horler Miklós emlékére TÓTH Áron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Örökségvédelem: eltérő megközelítések Heritage Preservation from Different Perspectives © Szerzők, szerkesztők English proofreading: Bénédicte Williams FEJÉRDY Tamás . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Hogyan tovább, párizsi Notre Dame? Isten dicsőségére és az emberiség javára Tamás Fejérdy: Notre-Dame de Paris: et après ? Pour la gloire de Dieu et pour le bien de l’humanité What next for Notre-Dame de Paris? For the glory of God and for the good of mankind Béla Zsolt SZAKÁCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 The Preservation of Medieval Historical Monuments in the Spiš/Szepes/Zips Region ISBN 978-963-626-022-4 Kiadja a Pécsi Tudományegyetem Művészeti Kar Művészettörténet Tanszék Felelős kiadó: Raffay Endre tanszékvezető Grafikai tervezés, tördelés: Kútvölgyi-Szabó Áron Nyomdai munka: Felelős vezető: TOLNAI Gergely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Az esztergomi vár műemléki helyreállítása(i) The castle of Esztergom: restoration(s) of a historical monument RAFFAY Endre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Az esztergomi királyi palota Szent István-termének átalakítás-története History of the construction and transformation of the Hall of St Stephen in the Royal Palace, Esztergom VUKOV Konstantin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Az experimentális tervezés, mint a rekonstrukció módszerei: Az esztergomi érseki palota 15. századi nagytermének fadonga tetőszerkezete Experimental design as methods of reconstruction: The 15th century wooden stave roof structure of the Great Hall of the Archbishop’s Palace in Esztergom RAFFAY Endre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Megjegyzések III. Béla székesfehérvári temetkezéséhez Notes on the burial of Béla III in Székesfehérvár Rudolf KLEIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 The Restoration of Synagogues on the Territory of the Former Hungarian Kingdom, 1960–2022 VALTER Ilona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Templom körüli temető és az alapító Smaragd nemzetség sírjainak feltárása a zsámbéki premontrei prépostsági romban The church cemetery and the excavation of the graves of the foundering Smaragd family in the ruins of the Provostry of the Prémontré Order in Zsámbék Dubravka ĐUKANOVIĆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 The City Hall of Subotica as a Proving Ground for Considering Recent Tendencies in the Revitalization of Valuable Built Heritage SEBESTYÉN József . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 A sepsikilyéni középkori eredetű unitárius templomról és helyreállításáról The Unitarian Church of Sepsikilyén (Chilieni, Romania), Originally from the Middle Ages, and Its Rehabilitation Edina SZATHMÁRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Reflections on the Reconstructed Medieval Elements of the Chancel of Saint Michael’s Parish Church in Cluj-Napoca RAFFAY Endre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Az aracsi templomrom műemlékvédelmi beavatkozásokat dokumentáló XX. századi fényképeinek leíró katalógusa BOZÓKI Lajos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Bélapátfalva, apátsági templom, kutatási és helyreállítási kérdések Abbey Church of Bélapátfalva: issues of research and restoration BÍRÓ László . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Bélapátfalva, ciszterci apátsági templom barokk fa berendezésének különleges értékei Bélapátfalva: specific features of the wooden Baroque furnishings of the Cistercian abbey church BUGÁR-MÉSZÁROS Károly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Tévedések az enteriőrbemutatásokban I.: III. Béla király esztergomi várbeli írókabinetje; Mátyás király reneszánsz lakosztálya Kőszegen; víziváraink és vízivárkastélyaink; gödöllői lovarda; barokk alkóvos hálószoba; empire szobák, díszterem, ebédlő és lakótorony a gyulai kastélyban Károly Bugár-Mészáros: Errors in the presentation of interiors I. BUGÁR-MÉSZÁROS Károly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Tévedések az enteriőrbemutatásokban II.: A pécsi románkori „népoltár” inkább valami más Errors in the presentation of interiors II. The Romanesque “folk altar” of Pécs is something else instead BUGÁR-MÉSZÁROS Károly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Tévedések az enteriőrbemutatásokban III.: Középkori, reneszánsz és barokk konyhák jó és hibás bemutatásai Errors in the presentation of interiors III. Good and erroneous displays of medieval, Renaissance and Baroque kitchens BELASICS Edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 A változás tere: Szent András kastély: Kastélyrekonstrukció egy kicsit másképp The space of change: St Andrew (Szent András) Castle: Castle reconstruction with a difference VÁRKONYI György . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 A magyarok Dobrovicsa Der Dobrovics der Ungarn TÜSKÉS Anna. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 Bocz Gyula szobrászati munkásságának kutatása Teljesség és keresztmetszet: Beszélgetés Bocz Gyuláról Knapp Évával „Leginkább a természet titkai foglalkoztatták”: Beszélgetés Bocz Gyuláról Merényi Györggyel TÜSKÉS Anna. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 „Mintha álmodnám erdővé válva, – hiába tornyok, sírásók, falak – lombozok legbelül” Bazsonyi Arany 1981–2001 közötti grafikai munkássága Arany Bazsonyi’s Graphic Work between 1981–2001 MECSI Beatrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 Falfestmények életnagyságú másolatai nemzetközi kontextusban: Egy európai gyakorlat hatása Kelet -Ázsiában és felhasználása az örökségvédelemben Life-size replicas of mural paintings in an international context: The impact of a European practice in East Asia and its use in heritage protection MECSI Beatrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 A művészettörténet narratívái a felső-középiskolás művészetoktatásban Dél-Koreában az 1950-es évektől napjainkig Narratives of Art History in Upper Secondary School Art Education in South Korea, from the 1950s to the Present EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. Edina SZATHMÁRI 1 Reflections on the Reconstructed Medieval Elements of the Chancel of Saint Michael’s Parish Church in Cluj-Napoca Abstract Saint Michael’s parish church in Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár, Klausenburg), Romania, is a building which is representative of the medieval Gothic architecture of Transylvania. Research in recent decades has significantly corrected the interpretation of its construction history. Since 2018, renovation has been ongoing on the church, and the documentation and research work carried out simultaneously with it have made it possible to clarify the architectural history of the church and the later repairs and interventions, and to supplement it with new data. Considering this, the paper examines the 20th century reconstruction works concentrated on the church’s chancel. Extensive renovation was carried out between 1956 and 1964, with the first stage of the works (1956-1957) putting the emphasis on inner reinforcements and reconstructions. Therefore, the paper examines the four results of the reconstructions in the church’s chancel. Thus, it critically evaluates the period’s guidelines, and serves as a case study of possible attitudes and approaches towards the reconstruction of Central and Eastern European historical monuments.2 1 Keywords: Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca Gothic vault, reconstruction, keystones, traceries, sacrament niches, evangelists Saint Michael parish church has been a subject of art historical research since the 19th century, and in many respects, it is still unresolved. (Fig. 1) The problem of the architectural history is caused by the complexity of mapping the alternating construction sites and stages, which are present in several places at the same time and therefore difficult to track. Many scholars have different opinions about the beginning of the construction of the present church, but in all cases the starting point is a document from Avignon, dated 1349, after which, in the third quarter of the 14th century, the construction of the church with its chancel3 may have begun. The church was built over at least six periods until the beginning of the 16th century, without being completely finished. The chancel and the two side chapels connected to it by internal windows and openings with the southeast spiral staircase were built first. (Fig. 2) Changes in the mouldings of the nave’s side walls suggest that the construction continued on the south-western corner with one of the two towers. The nave’s south wall between the south tower and south apse was then built, and in the fourth phase the nave’s north wall with the first gallery was finished. The fifth period dates to the time of Gregorius Schleuning (1450–1481), when the western portal and façade were completed and the chapel vault named after the parish priest, the second gallery and the nave vault were built. The last period consisted of the rebuilding of the choir’s second vault in 1498, the raising of the crown wall around the choir and the construction of the north-west tower. The western part was originally supposed to have two towers, but eventually only the northern one was completed before 1521. The southern one was built to the height of the crown of the nave walls.4 During its existence, the church of St Michael has been repaired several times, mainly due to damage caused by natural disasters such as lightning, fire and earthquakes. The north-west tower of the west façade, designed with two towers, was completed by 1521, and by 1697 it was so badly damaged that it was replaced by a Baroque tower built between 1740-1744. The tower was devastated by an earthquake and completely dismantled Introduction Saint Michael’s parish church is situated on the northern part of the main square in ClujNapoca. The construction works lasted for 150 years, incorporating various phases in the evolution of the Gothic style from the end of the 14th century until the beginning of the 16th century. Even if the construction periods can be clearly differentiated, their dating has caused a lot of debate. The problem of the masonry and the architectural history of 1 2 Edina Szathmári, first year doctoral student at Eötvös Loránd University Doctoral School of Philosophy, Art History Program, Budapest. [email protected] This work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. The author would also like to thank the KÉSZ Romania, the rehabilitation’s management company and the Archdiocese of Kolozs-Doboka for their help and support. 180 3 4 In this article I will use the word chancel for the sanctuary of the church and side chapels for the north and south chapels of the chancel. For the history of the construction and art historical questions of the church, see: Edit Grandpierre, “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály templom története és építészete 1349-től napjainkig” [The History and Architecture of St. Michael Parish Church in Cluj from 1349 to the present day], Erdélyi Múzeum 41 (1936): 19-60; Géza Antal Entz, “Die Pfarrkirchen von Klausenburg und Mühlbach in der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Baugeschichte und Stilbeziehungen“, Acta Historiae Artium 30 (1984): 65–109; Tamás Emődi, „Kolozsvár, Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom“ [Cluj-Napoca, St. Michael Parish Church], in: Takács Imre (ed.), Sigismundus rex et imperator. Művészet és kultúra Luxemburgi Zsigmond korában 1387–1437, Budapest, 2006, 657–659; Radu Lupescu, „A kolozsvári Szent Mihálytemplom nyugati kapuja“ [The Western Portal of the St. Michael Parish Church of Cluj-Napoca], in: Péter Levente Szőcs (ed.), Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben V., Szatmárnémeti, Editura Muzeului Sătmărean, 2012, 177–197; Szilárd Papp, „Előzetes tanulmány a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom építéstörténetéről“ [Preliminary Study on the Construction History of the St. Michael Parish Church of Cluj-Napoca], Helyreállítási elődokumentáció része (manuscript), Budapest, 2013. 181 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA between 1764 and 1765. The neogothic tower, which can be seen today, was built between 1837 and 1862, in front of the north-eastern portal of the church. In addition to the construction of the towers, further repairs were made to the east of the church, the nave vault, the east wall of the south-west tower, the foundations and the area around the triumphal arches. The south porch was rebuilt in the 18th century and demolished in 1892. In addition, new furnishings were added, and stained-glass windows were installed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the repairs and maintenance, the church managed to remain largely in its original, medieval form before the institutionalisation of the preservation of the monument in the 19th century. Before the current rehabilitation – which began in 2018 and is still in progress – the church’s latest renovation took place between 1956-1957 and 1960-1964. The lead architects were Radu (?) Udroiu, Duiliu Marcu and Ion Dumitrescu5 and, as the periods show, under Lajos Bágyuj’s guidance the works were carried out in two phases for which they took into account the preliminary assessment made by Hungarian architects Jenő Rados and Mihály Rácz.6 During the first phase, the tasks focused on the interior of the church: the weakened, 18th century chancel vault was reconstructed, the inner windows walled up in the 18th century were reopened, new baldachins were linked to the six piers in the nave and new gothic wall paintings were revealed and conserved. After 1960, the second phase consisted of external repairs: the surface of damaged ashlars was replaced by new limestone slabs mined from the Baciu quarry.7 The external surface walls were reinforced by applying cement in the joints between the ashlars, and damaged quoins have been replaced. Reconstruction work was also carried out on the exterior of the church to replace the very damaged pinnacles and carved elements on the buttresses. On the tower, too, elements were replaced, not by reconstructing the ornamentation but by replacing it with simpler forms.8 We can read a widespread opinion about the works on the neogothic tower in the volume from 1967 which summarises the contemporary concepts in Romania: “The adaptation of this restoration criterion was determined by the fact that this part of the monument is considered an anachronistic achievement in terms EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. of style and lacking architectural purity.”9 The main concepts of the work that started in 1956 were the structural reinforcement, the removal of “inappropriate” previous restorations, the restoration of the original, first architectural forms, and the replacement of the damaged parts. The architects focused on reconstructing the original forms and vaulting, eliminating the lateral pressure on the chancel’s walls.10 However, the period of 1953–1964 was not researched until 2012, when Ioana RusCacovean briefly described the renovation works in her doctoral dissertation. She examines the church as a case study of the conservation of monuments in Transylvania between 1945 and 1977.11 In 2016, Liliana Iuga dedicated a separate chapter to monuments in Cluj-Napoca in her dissertation,12 where she also presents Saint Michael’s church.13 The most comprehensive overviews on the subject are the two articles by Anna Kinde on the preparation and the actual renovation works on the parish church between 1956–1964, presenting the stages of the constructions and the preliminary plans as well as examining the history of preservation in Cluj-Napoca and Transylvania in a wider sense. She also provides insight into the general state of monument preservation in Romania and Hungary around the 1950s and 1960s.14 They used the same Romanian archival resources, such as the plans, surveys, reports and calculations which can be found in the Archive of the National Heritage Institute15 in Bucharest. Kinde also examined a report by Lajos Bágyuj kept in the Hungarian Museum of Architecture, Monument Protection Documentation Center16, the first part of which, about the work on the interior, is practically the same as the report published in 1957.17 Another important description of the works, which also counts as a source, is the article written by Ion Dumitrescu and Rodica Mănciulescu.18 They present mostly statical interventions. As these studies of the previous renovation 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 Anna Kinde: “Adalékok a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom 20. századi helyreállításának történetéhez (1956–1964)” [Contributions to the history of the 20th century restoration of the parish church of St Michael in Kolozsvár]. In: Ezerarcú Erdély. Politika, társadalom, kultúra, Tőtős Á., Markaly A., Koloh G., Horváth I. (szerk.), Studia Historica Transylvaniensia 2., Kolozsvár, 2019, pp. 408. Ibid. Geologists’ examinations today differ from what was believed in the 1950s: that the limestone used for the construction originally came entirely from Kisbács. Ion Dumitrescu – Radu Mănciulescu: “Metode aplicate la restaurarea a două monumente gotice din Cluj, biserica Sf. Mihail și biserica Mathias” [Methods applied to the restoration of two Gothic monuments in Cluj, St Michael’s Church and Mathias Church], In: Monumente Istorice. Studii și lucrări de restaurare, 1967, p. 19. Dumitrescu – Mănciulescu, op. cit. p. 26. 182 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ibid. Ibid. 19. Rus-Cacovean, Ioana: “Conservarea monumentelor din Transilvania în perioada1945–1977 (studii de caz)” [Conservation of monuments in Transylvania between 1945 and 1977 (case studies)]. PhD thesis, manuscript, 2012. Iuga Liliana, “Reshaping the Historic City Under Socialism: State Preservation, Urban Planning and the Politics of Scarcity in Romania (1945-1977)”, dissertation in history, Central European University, Budapest, 2016, pp. 253–327. Iuga, op. cot. Pp. 280–282. Kinde, 2019, op. cit; Anna Kinde, “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom 1956–64-es felújításának előzményei” [The preparations for the 1956–64 restoration of Saint Michael’s parish church in ClujNapoca], Opus Mixtum VI. A Centrart egyesület évkönyve, 2020, pp. 47–50. Arhiva Institutului Național al Patrimoniului Magyar Építészeti Múzeum, Műemlékvédelmi Dokumentációs Központ. Kinde, 2019, op. cit. pp. 406-407. Lajos Bágyuj: “Beszámoló a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-templom 1956/57. évi helyreállítási munkálatairól” [Report on the restoration works of St Michael’s Church in Kolozsvár in 1956/57]. In: Emlékkönyv Kelemen Lajos születésének nyolcvanadik évfordulójára. ed. Bodor András et alii, Bucharest-Cluj, 1957, pp. 24–32. Dumitrescu – Mănciulescu, op. cit. pp. 13–38. 183 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA and the reconstructional “wave” influence suggests, while some elements – such as the chancel’s vaulting issues – recur in some surveys, there is no interpretation focused on the exact recreations. Were these elements incorporating medieval aspirations, encased in a narration about aesthetic aims? The present research is being carried out in parallel with the renovation works on the church. Through the on-site documentation, we were able to observe the reconstructed medieval-like details of the church and to strive to answer the related questions. The already published data were completed by further archival sources19 and a more detailed description of the reconstructed elements, concentrating on the chancel. Following a brief overview of the church’s history and previous research, the paper will attempt to find the context between the original and reconstructed forms and structure: the reconstructed cross-ribbed vault, a reinterpretation of the first Gothic vault with its keystones; a late medieval corbel with a winged lion; two traceries which were rebuilt after dismantling the walled-in openings; and lastly, parts of a medieval sacrament niche, parts of which were found during the architectural execution and embedded on the wall with the reimagined missing parts. In sum, the paper studies what determined the scale and concept of the reconstructions, how authentically it depicts the period it is intended to represent and the wider effect of revaulting, keystone rendition and the relocation of the corbel. The chancel’s new vault The first step of the works started in 1956 consisted of the reconstruction of the chancel’s vault. The architects concentrated on recreating the original vaulting structure which was a cross-ribbed vault, reducing the side pressure of the lunette vault to ensure the resistance.20 It was believed that interlocking of reinforced concrete would considerably decrease the weight of the vault,21 but as we will see the main concept of the rebuilding was more aesthetic than related to statics. The first phase concentrated on the chancel. In the description of 1967, it is stated that the lunette vault exerted horizontal pressure on the walls and therefore the chancel’s sidewalls started to lean outwards. Anchor plates were used before, and the vault was also hung onto five new concrete rafters mounted in the loft for structural reinforcement. The architects of the time were not only concerned with the problem of stability, but also found the aesthetic considerations important. The hybrid form was mentioned as an example, as it was only an imitation of the Gothic wall EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. with brickwork and false ribs built with plaster. Furthermore, another element incompatible with the Gothic forms based in the period’s perceptions was the elliptical arches of the vault, as well as the rebuilt chancel arch, which was “foreign to the style”. The cracks on the caps were filled out with plaster and bricks and the damaged details of the 14th century capitals were complemented with the same materials as during the 18th century works.22 In addition to the aesthetic “problems”, due to the low height of the baroque vault the windows traceries were half-covered.23 As Anna Kinde’s examination pointed out, the main reason for the reconstruction was more aesthetic.24 As has been mentioned, the weight of the vault was transferred directly onto the walls. The reconstruction made it possible to change the system of thrust to a lighter solution. Based on the reports from 195325 and 1955, however, the cracks were situated only below the windowsills. During the masonry investigation made during the current renovation, it turned out that all the plaster which covered the walls was originally from the 18th century interventions. This means that no serious consolidation works to the sidewalls were made between 1956-1957, and that the renovation only included rebuilding the vault and enforcing the reopened inner windows on the western wall-shafts. Even though the 18th century vault had a lunette shape, made with brick and ribs built of plaster, it was divided into four sections with four bays like the supposedly original and reconstructed medieval form of the vault. As can be observed from many archival photographs and on an elevation made in 1895 by Mari Reiner, a student of the Hungarian architect professor Imre Steindl, the 18th century vault imitated the cross-ribbed vault structure. (Fig. 3) The only aesthetic distraction was the half-covered traceries and the basked-handle arch forms. (Fig. 4) The 14th century vault had four bays divided by transverse arches and with threesided apse. Based on the 14th century rib profiles traced on the top of the capital’s abacuses, the architects could justify the reconstructed, “original”-like form. The first plan for the restorations and executions was proposed in 1953. The first striking point on the list of the project was the demolition of the chancel’s vault because its style and “artistic form” did not correspond with inner space, and even diminished it, covering the windows and potentially causing further damage to the walls. In fact, the renovation only aimed at the reconstruction of the chancel’s vaulting. The new, replaced vault would revive the 22 19 20 21 The author owes thanks to Ioana Rus-Cacovean and Imola Kirizsán, who have helpfully made available the resources they have photographed and scanned. Dumitrescu –Mănciulescu, op. cit., p. 23. Rus-Cacovean, op. cit. 184 23 24 25 For example, one of the broken parts of the south capital of the triumphal arch was completed by a small head with a mitre made of plaster on a brick, today placed in the church’s loft. Some of the capitals still have reconstructed Gothic-like leaves made of plaster. Dumitrescu –Mănciulescu, op. cit., p. 16. Kinde 2019, op. cit. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3375, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1953, Memoriu, p. 4. 185 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA original one and restore the original visual appearance of the whole chancel. Another aesthetic approach was the elimination of the wall ties inserted between the walls and the rebuilding of the chancel arch from elliptic to ogival, also on the side chapel’s arches.26 Due to a lack of knowledge and sources on the original vault, the proposal during the preparation of the plan was to find parallel chancels from the region with original vault structures or to create or reconstruct the church’s vault based on traces of existing remains.27 The architects also searched for other examples of 14th century vaults that they could use for the reconstruction plan: the cathedral of St. Michael in Alba-Iulia, the Black Church in Brașov, the Lutheran cathedral in Sibiu and the Lutheran church in Sebeș. They also attached ground plan sketches.28 But none of the examples mentioned had the specified design for the choir: interior windows and openings between the side chapels and chancel. Perhaps based on Ernő Marosi’s analogies for the interior design, the choir of Saint Michael’s church also shows Silesian influences, with the choir of St. Elisabeth’s church in Wroclaw perhaps being the closest to it.29 Despite the basilica shape of its spatial design, the side chapels and the chancel are connected with arcades and the chancel is trilateral with four-bay crossed rib vaulting. While Marosi assumed of the first phase of the Saint Michael’s choir that it was started as a basilica type,30 the 2020 masonry investigations have proven beyond doubt that the two side chapels were built at the same height as the chancel. Do we know the “original” vault of the chancel? First, the evolution of the forms of the chancel’s vault and the number of vaults should be examined to answer the question of how similar it looked to the original vault which they wanted to recreate in 1956. Certainly, the chancel’s first vault was built right after the walls and piers were completed in the last quarter of the 14th century. First, this refers to the remains of the rib springings on the north chapel’s capitals, and the ribs found in the 15th century walled coffin.31 On the other hand, the traces of the ribs’ preparing lines can be found on the abacus of the capitals, both in the side chapels and the chancel. Considering the ribs – which appeared in secondary usage – and a keystone, we know that the first vault was realized. The latter element, which links to the first 14th century vault, is a keystone with a depiction of the Agnus Dei (Fig. 5).32 It has the same profile as the ribs and the rib traces on the abacuses. Research EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. has linked this to the parish church’s vault, mainly because it was lying in the churchyard next to the south apse until 1899, when Béla Posta – a well-known professor and archaeologist from Cluj-Napoca – moved it to the Transylvanian Museum.33 Furthermore, it was surveyed in 1895 by Pál Lukács, a student of Imre Steindl, marking the churchyard as the location of the stone carving.34 The first rebuilding of the chancel’s vault and crown wall took place after it was damaged by a fire in 1489, known from a document of king Matthias Corvinus.35 We do not know exactly to what extent it was rebuilt, but in the south chapel the later corbels and late Gothic rib springings can be seen, which refer to the second vault from the late 15th century.36 The masonry investigations and building archaeology revealed another aspect related to the late 15th century constructions around the chancel. First, we found the original cornice’s height and profile on the inner sides of the eastern buttresses, which is located 137 cm below the current cornice. Secondly, on the inside of the wall, above the vault’s extrados and the line of the previous cornice, there is a change in the style of the masonry. After the repairs in the late 15th century, the stone carvings of the cornice were reused in the elevated new part of the wall. Today’s cornice was built at the latest at the beginning of the 16th century. This is mainly indicated by the frieze style on the north side of the chancel and the mason’s marks appearing repeatedly on the frieze’s fleur-de-lis motifs and on different parts of the cornice. The fire of 1697 affected the chancel’s vault; it became so ruined that it had to be rebuilt in the 18th century.37 This new vault was the main concern for renovations in the 20th century. The first proposals to solve the static problem of the 18th century vault were made by the Hungarian architect Jenő Rados.38 Áron Márton, the highly respected bishop of that period, initiated39 the thought of a new vault or of reconstructing the Gothic vault, but the war made it impossible to carry out the works. The first suggestions, based on Jenő Rados’s observations, for the church’s rehabilitation were made in 1953 by two architects, Ion Silvan and Ștefan Balș, with the support of the Workshop for Historic Monuments in 33 34 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3374, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 347/15, 1953, pp. 4-5. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3380, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 8 / 1955-1956 P.E. Ibid. Ernő Marosi, „Einige tendeziöse Planänderungen. Beiträge zur Stilgeschichte der ungarischen Architektur des vierzehnten Jahrhunders”, Acta Technika 77, 1974, p. 323. Ibid. According to the archaeological research in the northern side chapel done by Lupescu Radu. The keystone can be found in the lapidary of the National Museum of Transylvanian History, catalogue nr. F 2669, VI. 1671. 186 35 36 37 38 39 Papp, op. cit. 14. Hungarian Museum of Architecture Monument Protection Documentation Center, Document Archive, A Kir. József Műegyetem építész hallgatói felmérések, Steindl Imre vezetése alatt, 1895, Ltsz. R_31551; Elek Jakab, “Oklevéltár Kolozsvár története első kötetéhez, I.” [Documents for the first volume of the History of Kolozsvár], Buda, 1870, nr. CLXXIX pp. 289-290. Papp, op. cit. p. 17; Sas Péter, “A heraldikus - Köpeczi Sebestyén József élete és munkássága I.” [The Heraldist – The Life and Work of József Sebestyén Köpeczi], Miercurea Ciuc, Pallas Akadémia Könykiadó, 2011, p. 91. Sas Péter, “A heraldikus - Köpeczi Sebestyén József élete és munkássága I.” [The Heraldist – The Life and Work of József Sebestyén Köpeczi], Miercurea Ciuc, Pallas Akadémia Könykiadó, 2011, p. 91. Jenő Rados, “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály templom restaurálása”, Technika, 1942, 5. Kinde, op. cit. 407. 187 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA Bucharest.40 In addition to urging the replacement of the vault and the reinforcement of the walls, they also proposed opening the interior windows.41 The work of rebuilding the vault was originally planned to start in 1954.42 Because they could not find a civil engineer, the work, which was financially supported by the Department of Religious Cults and the Department for Historic Monuments, could only start in 1956.43 The new keystones (with a 60 cm diameter) for the new vault were designed by József Sebestyén Köpeczi and sculpted by János Szedlacsek and István Molnár Kocsis.44 Starting with the western boss, he designed one with the coat of arms of bishop Áron Márton and a description – “RENOV AD 1956” – referring to the year of reconstruction, as well as to the initiator of the renovations. The second keystone presents the alpha and omega, framed with grape branches and leaves. The third boss reimagines the Agnus Dei (Fig. 6) and on the easternmost one is a rosette. During the keystone reconstructions, the coat of arms of Lajos Bágyuj – also designed by József Sebestyén Köpeczi – was also created and placed up on the triumphal arch in two copies, and one was carved on the western transverse rib together with a Hungarian inscription.45 The act of designing his own mason’s mark suggests that he truly believed that the original, medieval vault was recreated by himself, in the 20th century. Designing his mark also refers to the period of reconsideration of the importance of the mason’s marks. The research and collection of medieval mason’s marks became popular, and, following this model, Bágyuj made plaster copies of a great number of marks from different parts of the church.46 Interior windows As we can read in Bágyuj’s documentation of the restoration on 29 August 1956, two interior windows were uncovered above the already existing ground level openings in the walls between the side chapels and the chancel.47 (Fig. 7) They found only the archivolt, then they reconstructed the traceries’ forms after the chancel’s windows with outwards opening.48 In order to open the covered windows, the infill masonry was 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3380, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail.doc. 9320/1955. Arhiva INP, Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3375, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1953. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1954-1955. Arhiva INP, Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3381, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Doc. 690/1958. Sas, op. cit. p. 91. The restoration is commemorated with two further Latin inscriptions. He also had his bust carved with the inscription “AD 1957”. Kinde, op. cit. 2019, p. 418-419. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1956. Dispoziție de șantier, 29. 08. 1956. Dumitrescu –Mănciulescu, op. cit., p. 26. 188 EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. dismantled, reinforcing the void by framing it with a reinforced concrete element. All the missing pieces (tracery and mullions) were reconstructed with stone, by repeating the exterior window’s forms with the same dimensions and proportions.49 (Fig. 8) If we did not know that it was a reconstruction, we could observe the difference in the quality of the carving. There is also a small “1957” carving. In the case of the windows, the estimates of the works submitted in 1955 included the rebuilding or redoing of the inner windows and the widening of the arcades at the request of the church.50 The reconstructed traceries recall the chancel’s three-sided apse windows. The two mullions split the three sections which are closed by geometrical tracery. The central trefoil head is lower than the other two. We can observe that the ends of the cusps have triangular forms.51 Returning to the narrative of the first supposed construction phase of the choir, according to which it was originally started as a basilica type52, the revealed internal windows were also considered first as façade windows and the arches as external entrances.53 Marosi revealed that the arches were part of the original structuring of the chancel and the interior windows were opened later, as the archivolt moulding indicates.54 The Saint Mark corbel In the first phase of the works, a corbel with the symbol of Mark the Evangelist was relocated from the south aisle to the end of the chancel. The other three Evangelists’ symbols were then made on corbels, for decorative purposes only. (Fig. 9) Edit Grandpierre mentioned the Saint Mark corbel in its previous place – but already in a secondary place – on the south aisle’s easternmost wall-shaft, under the window where she saw a corbel with a winged lion symbol. (Fig. 10) She remarked that there was another corbel with an angel on the other side of the portal.55 Gheorghe Arion also mentioned the corbel’s figure of Mark but already in its new place in the chancel, and also noted that, of the four, this was the only evangelist’s figure that was preserved from the Gothic period. Furthermore, he noticed that the other three corbels – of Matthew, Luke and John – are modern carvings.56 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Rus-Cacovean, op. cit. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 8 / 1955-1956 P.E. Deviz Suplimentar Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1956-1960. Marosi, op. cit. p. 323. Bágyuj: op. cit. 27. Marosi, op. cit. p. 324. Grandpierre, op. cit. 34. Unfortunately, we have no information about what happened to it afterwards. Gheorghe Arion, “Sculptura gotică din Transilvania. Plastica figurativă din piatră” [Gothic Sculpture in Transylvania. Figurative stone sculpture]: Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 1974, pp. 30, 45. 189 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA (Fig. 11) It can be concluded that he only draws on previous literature, especially regarding the capitals. Virgil Vătășianu wrote about the medieval corbel first in its latest position, in 1960. He describes the responds on the north side as if they do not continue down to the floor but are interrupted by corbels. Moreover, he added that only one of the corbels is left, the one with a winged lion in the north corner of the chancel ending. The lion keeps a spherical phylactery in his left arm, the apocalyptic being represented by the evangelist Mark. Vătășianu mentioned the likelihood of the corresponding corbels of the other three corners of the chancel bearing the symbols of the other three evangelists.57 The relocation of the corbel and the other three reconstructions were strongly criticized by Vătășianu in a report written on 7 May 1958, mentioned above. Firstly, this was because there were no traces of previous corbels on the piers. Secondly, the corbel of Mark dates to the mid-15th century and does not fit with the 14th century chancel. Another problem was that the new corbels did not imitate the same moulding of the original’s abacus and the ogee with the hollow chamfer were considered to be Renaissance. Vătășianu also mentioned that, if the church was already attached to reconstructing saints’ sculptures, it would have been better to make modern sculptures.58 What do we know about the original place of the medieval corbel? The corbel of Mark was also connected to the supposed second plan modification of the chancels mentioned by Marosi, when the height of the vaulting and of the windowsill was increased. Since the corbel was placed later, it does not determine the vaulting’s period, and the changes in the sills’ height were carried out because of the increased ground level, just as the external string course was moved up.59 Nevertheless, Marosi’s other suggestion is that the corbel is connected stylistically, functionally and ichnographically with the west portal’s console with the symbol of John the Evangelist, which he dated to the portal’s 1444 inscription.60 It is beyond doubt that the two corbels are connected by their style – both have the same carved gloria, and the wings are very similar in shape – but the moulding of the abacuses is different, and John’s corbel does not have any support, like Mark’s rosette element. Furthermore, this part of the portal was dated to the time of Gregorius Schleuning (1450–1481) in the latest research on the portal.61 The provenance of the corbel’s original place remains an open question. 57 58 59 60 61 Virgil Vătășianu: “Sculpturile din corul bisericii Sf. Mihail din Cluj” [The sculptures in the choir of St Michael’s Church in Cluj]. in Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani, s. n., s. l., 1960, p. 539. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1956-1960. Papp, op. cit. p. 7. Marosi, op. cit. p. 325. Lupescu, op. cit. p. 190. 190 EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. Sacrament niches During the building masonry investigations and building archaeology carried out in the chancel in 2020, we found the original sacrament niche on the northern wall-shaft of the chancel’s apse, which can be dated to the 14th century. It was sculpted together with the string course and later probably demolished during the Protestant period. The segmental arched niche part and the chopped surface of the string course and niche frame, which were walled in with bricks and covered with 18th century plaster, have remained. Additionally, on the north side, on the easternmost wall-shaft before the apse, behind the early 20th century chancel stalls, we found another niche in its visible entirety, placed on the next wall section, to the west. (Fig. 12) The second niche’s uniqueness lies in the mixture of reused medieval and 20th century reconstructed elements. The gable and the western jamb with the upper part of the eastern jamb are reconstructions based on the elements found near it. The lower part of the eastern jamb, the sill and a fragment of a profiled arch with a crocket and a finial infiltrated under the niche, are all medieval. With the same hollow chamfer mouldings, profiles and the iron-oxide reddish colour, the medieval pieces were part of the same structure. Several questions have been raised about the eastern jamb. We can see on the external surface a fillet with the place of the hinge of the missing grid and a hollow; on the inner side, the same hollow shape is repeated on the eastern edge with an engraved round shape. The hollows and the inner surface are covered with the red colour, so was the original external surface reinstalled inwards in the works of 1956-1957? The sill’s external surface was subsequently broadly carved down, but the cavettos remained on the sides with the iron-oxide surface. The detail with the crocket and the finial – placed under the sill – preserved a part of the arch profile, due to the same cavetto between two narrow splays as we can observe on the two other details, which doubtless link to them. Lajos Bágyuj’s report mentions that parts of the medieval niche were found during the works in the chancel. According to his description, it appeared in a very poor, fragmented condition, but despite this they “have been restored”. Strictly speaking, they only rebuilt them in the wall as they thought they looked. The third piece of the original forms with the crocket – which, as he says, could not be used for the reconstruction – was embedded in the plaster and placed under the sill. At the end, he points out that, over the centuries, the walking level has been raised by 70 cm, which is why the niche only rises by 70 cm from the actual ground level.62 In the latter case, he was right: as mentioned above, the choir’s floor level was increased in the 15th century by 85 cm, then in the 18-19th centuries by an additional 60 cm. Therefore, the original 14th century ground level was 145 cm shorter than today.63 This also explained the 62 63 Bágyuj, op. cit. 30. Based on the archaeological research done by Radu Lupescu. 191 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA low location of the 14th century niche found during the investigations. On the other hand, the three medieval details originate from another tabernacle. While the first niche’s jamb width is similar to that of the reused one, the latter was higher and could not have belonged to the 14th century niche. Furthermore, in this era the wall-shaft’s masonry has been converted before and this repair or modification is related to the corner’s pier missing lower part. The missing part between the two sacrament niches was covered partially with 18th century plaster from the 1950s. Conclusion The recovery of Northern Transylvania by Romania in 1945 meant a change of era in terms of monument protection. But what could not be done and solved by the Hungarian government between 1940 and 1945, the new Romanian Cultural Section of the Regional People’s Council have been trying to do from 1952 onwards. In 1952, they sent a letter to the local administration with guidelines aimed at encouraging the organization of committees for monument protection at different levels. Ideally, every administrative unit would have its own group of experts, including history teachers, intellectuals and workers, collaborating with the local museums. Independently of the local level, the Bucharest-based Department for Historic Monuments conducted works on some of the city’s most important monuments in the 1950s and the 1960s.64 In case of the church, as Virgil Vătășianu described, the works were not documented effectively: neither photographically nor graphically was the restoration process documented correctly. He also points out the lack of interest in supervision by an art historian and discussions of the reconstruction questions. Virgil Vătășianu mentioned the found elements of the medieval niche, and added that Bágyuj was not reporting to the Commission of Monuments, and neither was the question of reconstruction discussed.65 He also complained that the project was fully handed over by the Central Institute for Systematization of Towns and Regions, an institution which was not specialized in restoration. Furthermore, no art historian was consulted, thereby missing an opportunity to acquire more information.66 During the International Congress of Architects and Technicians for Historic Monuments in Paris, the church was also advertised in 1958 as showcasing restoration activity in Romania.67 As a result, the reconstructed ribs do not imitate the original profiles: the use of materials of the age indicates the ambition of differentiation. As Anna Kinde indicated, we are witnessing the preliminary provisions of the 1964 Venice Charter, 68 but at the same time 64 65 66 67 68 Iuga, op. cit. p. 280. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1956-1960. Iuga, op. cit. pp. 281. Ibid. Kinde, op. cit. 2019, p. 418. 192 EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. the stylistic reconstruction and architectural integrity were even more important.69 The importance of works of arts as historical evidence was validated by the Charter. This was contradictory to the aesthetic criteria which took precedence over the historical value, promoted after the Second World War.70 The Charter also declares that all periods of the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of restoration.71 Based on the Venice Charter, items of sculpture may only be removed if this is the sole means of ensuring their preservation.72 The replacement of the other three evangelists is distinguishable from the original one. Thus, the reconstructions do not falsify the artistic or historic evidence, but their location is too clumsy. Placing them on the lower section of the pilasters suggests that this solution was carried out without any preliminary documentation, and furthermore all the pedestals are located under today’s floor level. In this case, the only driving force behind the move was aesthetic. In conclusion, not only had the renovation a strong aspiration towards creating a neoGothic interior which reimagines the medieval appearance of the chancel, but it finished the initiatives of rearrangement, already started in the 19th century. The overall transformation was started with the chancel’s furnishing, when in 1869 as a first step the ecclesiastical council changed the Baroque main altar to a neo-Gothic one. Then on the end of the 19th century it was continued by inserting new stalls, clergy chairs and wainscot around the apse’s wall shafts, for to extend the wanted effect. Lastly, the 20th century architectural modifications have finished the reconstruction of the medieval image. The importance of this restoration for the contemporaries was also enhanced by three Latin inscriptions: on the keystone with Áron Márton’s coat of arms, on the reinforced triumphal arch and on a board above the apse’s south-western window. The latter one also underlines the role of the government of Socialist Republic of Romania. The fourth inscription was uncovered recently under the current restoration, which assumably was hidden consciously. First, this does not mention the parish priest’s name, nor the Republic, secondly it is in Hungarian and appreciatively mentions only Lajos Bágyuj, the person “who revaulted the chancel in 1956”. The present article was a brief overview of what might have influenced the reconstructions and their prefiguration. The ideas presented here could and hopefully will be elaborated further, as they connect to a wider area of research. 69 70 71 72 International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (the Venice Charter 1964), adopted by the IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964, Article 9. Renato Bonelli: “La ‘carta di Venezia‘ per il restauro architettonico” In: Italia Nostra, May-June (1964) pp. 1–6. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (the Venice Charter 1964) op. cit. Article 13. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (the Venice Charter 1964) op. cit. Article 8. 193 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA Archival sources: Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3374, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 347/15, 1953, 4-5. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3375, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1953. EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. I. Rus-Cacovean: “Conservarea monumentelor din Transilvania în perioada1945–1977 (studii de caz)” [Conservation of monuments in Transylvania between 1945 and 1977 (case studies)]. PhD thesis, manuscript, 2012. Her doctoral summary: https://doctorat.ubbcluj.ro/sustinerea_ publica/rezumate/2012/istorie/Rus%20Veronica_Ro.pdf (2021. 09. 29). Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3377, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1954-1955. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (the Venice Charter 1964), adopted by the IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3380, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 8 / 1955-1956 P.E. J. Rados: “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály templom restaurálása“, Technika, 1942, 5 sz. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. dosar 3381, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiectul nr. 8 / 1955-1956 P.E. L. Bágyuj: “Beszámoló a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-templom 1956/57. évi helyreállítási munkálatairól” [Report on the restoration works of St Michael’s Church in Kolozsvár in 1956/57]. In: Emlékkönyv Kelemen Lajos születésének nyolcvanadik évfordulójára. ed. Bodor András et alii, Bucharest-Cluj, 1957, pp. 24–32. Arhiva INP,Fond DMI, nr. Dosar 3375, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Proiect 347/15, 1953. Arhiva INP, Fond DMI, Biserica romano-catolică Sf. Mihail. Doc. 690/1958. Hungarian Museum of Architecture Monument Protection Documentation Center, Document Archive, A Kir. József Műegyetem építész hallgatói felmérések, Steindl Imre vezetése alatt, 1895, Ltsz. R_31551; L. Iuga: Reshaping the Historic City Under Socialism: State Preservation, Urban Planning and the Politics of Scarcity in Romania (1945-1977), dissertation in history, Central European University, Budapest, 2016. Bibliography: A. Kinde: “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom 1956–64-es felújításának előzményei” [The preparations for the 1956–64 restoration of Saint Michael’s parish church in ClujNapoca]. In: Opus Mixtum VI. A Centrart egyesület évkönyve 2020, pp. 47–58. A. Kinde: “Adalékok a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom 20. századi helyreállításának történetéhez (1956–1964)” [Contributions to the history of the 20th century restoration of the parish church of St Michael in Kolozsvár]. In: Ezerarcú Erdély. Politika, társadalom, kultúra, Tőtős Á., Markaly A., Koloh G., Horváth I. (szerk.), Studia Historica Transylvaniensia 2., Kolozsvár, 2019, pp. 405–425. E. Grandpierre: A kolozsvári Szent Mihály templom története és építészete 1349-től napjainkig [The history and architecture of St Michael’s Church in Cluj from 1349 to the present day]. Erdélyi Múzeum, 41. 1936. 19-60. E. Jakab: “Oklevéltár Kolozsvár története első kötetéhez”, I. [Documents for the first volume of the History of Kolozsvár], Buda, 1870. E. Marosi: “Einige tendeziöse Planänderungen. Beiträge zur Stilgeschichte der ungarischen Architektur des vierzehnten Jahrhunders”, Acta Technika 77, 1974, pp. 297–304. P. Sas: A heraldikus - Köpeczi Sebestyén József élete és munkássága I. [The Heraldist – The Life and Work of József Sebestyén Köpeczi], Pallas Akadémia, 2011. R. Lupescu: A kolozsvári Szent Mihály-templom nyugati kapuja [The west portal of the Church of St Michael in Cluj Napoca]. In: Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben V. Szőcs Péter Levente (szerk.) Szatmárnémeti, Editura Muzeului Sătmărean, 2012, 177–197; R. Bonelli: “La ‘carta di Venezia‘ per il restauro architettonico” In: Italia Nostra, May-June (1964) pp. 1–6. Sz. Papp: Előzetes tanulmány a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom építéstörténetéről. [Preliminary study on the construction history of the parish church of St Michael in Cluj] Helyreállítási elődokumentáció része (kézirat). Budapest, 2013. T. Emődi: “Kolozsvár, Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom.”. In: Sigismundus rex et imperator. Művészet és kultúra Luxemburgi Zsigmond korában 1387–1437. Takács Imre (szerk.), Budapest, 2006, 657–659. V. Vătășianu: Sculpturile din corul bisericii Sf. Mihail din Cluj [The sculptures in the choir of St. Michael‘s Church in Cluj]. In: Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani, s. n., s. l., 1960, 535–347. G. A. Entz: “Die Pfarrkirchen von Klausenburg und Mühlbach in der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Baugeschichte und Stilbeziehungen“. Acta Historiae Artium, 30. 1984, 65–109; G. Arion: Sculptura gotică din Transilvania. Plastica figurativă din piatră [Gothic Sculpture in Transylvania. Figurative stone sculpture]. Cluj, Editura Dacia, 1974. I. Dumitrescu – R. Mănciulescu: “Metode aplicate la restaurarea a două monumente gotice din Cluj, biserica Sf. Mihail și biserica Mathias” [Methods applied to the restoration of two Gothic monuments in Cluj, St Michael’s Church and Mathias Church], In: Monumente Istorice. Studii și lucrări de restaurare, 1967, pp. 13–38. 194 195 EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA 196 1. The chancel of Saint Michael’s Parish Church, 2021. Photo by the author. 2. The interior of the chancel of Saint Michael’s Parish Church, 2021. Photo by the author. 4. The chancel’s second wall-shaft from the West with the trace of the 18th century vault and the reconstructed pointed arch and caps, 2020. Photo by Radu Lupescu. EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. 3. Manual elevation of the chancel’s 18th century vault with the sections of the narrowed ground level openings in the walls between the side chapels and the chancel, 1895. Resource: Hungarian Museum of Architecture, Monument Protection Documentation Center, Architectural student surveys of the Hungarian Royal Joseph University of Technology, under the direction of Imre Steindl. 5. The 14th century keystone originating from Saint Michael’s parish church, today located in National Museum of Transylvanian History’s lapidary, 2021. 6. 197 The reconstructed keystone with the Agnus Dei, on the chancel’s vault, 2021. Photo by the author. EDINA SZATHMÁRI: REFLECTIONS ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MEDIEVAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHANCEL OF SAINT MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH IN CLUJ-NAPOCA EURÓPAI MŰEMLÉKVÉDELMI TENDENCIÁK, KÜLÖNÖS TEKINTETTEL A KÁRPÁT-MEDENCÉRE IV. 10. Postcard from around 1940, down in the middle with the console’s second place, the south wall of the nave. Property of Radu Lupescu. 7. Longitudinal section with the northern side of the chancel, with a ground level opening with the window not yet opened to the left and the north side of the chancel’s ending, 1895. Resource: Hungarian Museum of Architecture, Monument Protection Documentation Center, Architectural student surveys of the Hungarian Royal Joseph University of Technology, under the direction of Imre Steindl 8. The reconstructed tracery on the south side, 2021. Photo by the author. 9. 198 Corbel with Mark the Evangelist’s lion symbol in its third place, the north side of the chancel’s ending, 2021. Photo by the author. 11. Reconstructed corbel with Luke the Evangelist’s bull symbol, 2021. Photo by the author. 12. Partly reconstructed sacrament niche, 2021. Photo by the author. 199