The Romanesque Sculpture of Dubrovnik Cathedral

Figuralna i dekorativna skulptura romaničkog stila u Dubrovniku je bila vrlo bogata, ali je preživjela samo u ostacima ostataka, jer je grad 1667. godine doživio katastrofalni potres. Tada je do temelja porušena i monumentalna katedrala S. Mariae Maioris koju su u povijesti smatrali „la piu bella in Illyrico“ ponajviše zbog originalne njezine plastičke raskoši. Arheološkim iskopavanjem na položaju nove barokne katedrale, posvećene 1713. godine, otkriveno je par tisuća vrlo kvalitetnih fragmenata različitih oblika i sadržaja. Njihova analiza je omogućila potvrditi inače iz arhiva već poznate guste veze glavnoga grada južne Dalmacije s umjetničkim centrima u Apuliji. U ovoj studiji se iznose mahom nova viđenja rezultata te komunikacije i proširuju dosadašnje spoznaje u važnim pitanjima oko datacija i atribucija pa i rekonstrukcija djela iz Ducenta. Najprije se raspravlja zapis o radu Eustasiusa iz Trania kao protomagistera dubrovačke katedrale iz 1199. godine radi čega je došao u Dubrovnik. Po tome se dokumentu njegovoj ruci tu odavno pripisalo par narativnih, vrlo oštećenih reljefa, koji repliciraju motive i oblike portala katedrale u Traniju. Kako se tom portalu nije znao autor, a u dotičnom ugovoru se Eustasiusa navodi kao sina „Belnardi, protomagistri civitati Trani“ njih se dvojicu proglasilo utemeljiteljima tamošnje katedrale S. Nicolo Pellegrino, zaslužnima za gradnju i oblikovanje još nekih crkava u Terre di Bari. Opravdano se na njihovim skulpturama prepoznao utjecaj iz južne i srednje Francuske, kojim odišu i dubrovački reljefi. Međutim se njih sada dopunilo s likom Krista suca posljednjeg suda pripadajućeg luneti portala kakve u Apuliji nema, pa se ona tumači ugledanjem dubrovačke crkve na ikonografiju mnogih hodočasničkih među koje je povijesno dokazano spadala. Ujedno se u morfologiji svih reljefa dokazuje kvaliteta nešto slabija od iskazane na portalu u Traniju, te razdvaja djela oca i sina uz pretpostavku da je Bolnardus bio nositelj, a Eustasius sljedbenik stila francuskih karakteristika fiksiranih u Palestini. Također se predlaže kronološka retrospektiva: 1187. pad Jeruzalema i povlačenje zapadnjačkih kipara s križarima, oko 1190. izvedba portala u Traniu kao njihovoj stanici, i to pod vodstvom Boltraniusa od kojeg se 1199. odvojio Eustasius preuzevši zadatke u Dubrovniku. Prema karakteristikama više ostale arhitektonske plastike cijeni ga se zaslužnim za podizanje katedrale po ukusu iz Apulije koji je i lokalnim naručiteljima bio ideal zbog permanentnih trgovačkih veza a i pripadnosti istom kulturnom ambijentu. Njega je definirala simbioza tradicija iz Bizanta i romaničkih struja nošenih od Normana temeljem činjenice da su Terre di Bari i Dubrovnik usporedno, makar ritmički nejednako priznavali vrhovnu vlast tih političkih sila. Autohtone crte romaničkog kiparstva u Dubrovniku iz druge četvrtine 13. stoljeća otkrivaju se na manjem broju djela, koji su ostavili odjeka u urešavanju javnih građevina iz gotičko-renesansnog doba. Svakako je izvor te difuzije bio u dekoraciji katedrale koju se gleda u svjetlu doticaja s jačom aktivnošću iz južne Italije, odakle je preuzimana ne samo tipologija nego i morfologija. Na toj je liniji morala nastati i oprema enterijera katedrale s naglaskom na pulpitu, arhivski spomenutom 1262. god. a arheološki mu je utvrđena dvanaesterostrana forma na stupovima. Skupa s ciborijem glavnog oltara hvalili su ga lokalni kroničari i strani putopisci tijekom 15. stoljeća, kao i prvi crkveni vizitatori od sredine seicenta. Po svemu sudeći oni su pripadali lancu tipiziranih apulsko-dalmatinskih ciborija i pulpita kakvi su sačuvani u katedralama Trogira i Splita a i u mnogim crkvama apeninskog juga, te se plediralo za jeruzalemsko podrijetlo. Ovdje se primat daje ciboriju rimske crkve S. Lorenzo fuori le mura iz 1148. g. a naročito ističe naturalistička obrada jednog kapitela poligonalnog presjeka nađenog u dubrovačkoj katedrali. Smatrajući sa sigurnošću da je bio dio pulpita, predlaže ga se cijeniti stilski inicijalnim za seriju ažuriranih kapitela s obje strane Jadrana, a također otvara mogućnost didira s manirom kipara Pietra di Facitolo u Bisceglie. Naglašava se, međutim, superiorna izvedba lika orla s pulpita i za njegova autora predlaže inače ničim potvrđenog Pasqua di Pietro, koji je zaposlen kao protomagister katedrale od 1255. do 1282. bio stekao veliki ugled. Za zasluge mu je dodijeljen civitet i imetak te se s vlastitim sinom u dokumentima bilježio „de Ragusio“. Sasvim hipotetički se pretpostavlja da je Pasqua bio sin Pietra di Facitolo i s time završava mrežu praćenja kiparskog razvoja apulske romanike na tlu Dubrovnika i šire Dalmacije. Na kraju se propituje jedino poznato djelo Simeonusa Ragusinusa, koji se kao „incola tranensis“ potpisao na portalu crkve S. Andrea odnosno S. Salvatore u Barletti. U hibridnom izrazu tog eklektičara mršave darovitosti koji znanja skuplja s raznih strana, razabire se ikonografske motive možda preuzete sa skrhanog portala Eustasiusa ili druga dva na katedrali S. Mariae maioris. U cjelini studije mjestimice su promaknute slutnje prijašnjih autora o pojedinim pitanjima, neke i otklonjene ili preusmjerene, ali se ističe da argumenata nema mnogo jer je stalno riječ o vrlo rastrganoj građi. Primarni cilj mi je bio upozoriti na nove nalaze i time proširiti horizonte uvida u problematiku. U tom smislu ovaj tekst predstavlja doradu kraćeg referata iznesenoga 2014. godine na međunarodnom simpoziju „Majstor Buvina i njegovo doba“ u Splitu, koji će se objaviti na stranom jeziku. Dosta proširen s komentarima i opskrbljen s temeljitijim instrumentarijem u većem broju bilješki nadam se da će biti lakše dokučiv hrvatskim istraživačima sličnih tema i doprinijeti pri stvaranju sinteza o umjetnosti srednjeg vijeka u prostornom okruženju Jadrana.Medieval Dubrovnik was rich in Romanesque figural and decorative sculpture but only a small group of fragmentary carvings has been preserved to date due to the fact that the town suffered a devastating earthquake in 1667. The earthquake completely destroyed the monumental Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin which had been considered “la piu bella in Illyrico” on the basis of its sculptural abundance. Archaeological excavations undertaken beneath the present-day Baroque Cathedral, consecrated in 1713, unearthed several thousand fragments of high-quality sculptures. Their analysis has confirmed the close connections between Dubrovnik and artistic centres in Apulia, which are well known from archival records. This article re-assesses the results of the excavations and the information from the primary sources in a new light and deepens our knowledge about the date, authorship and reconstruction of the thireenth-century pieces under consideration. The article opens with a discussion about the archival record informing us that Eustasius of Trani came to Dubrovnik in 1199 to work as a protomagister of Dubrovnik Cathedral. The document in question was the reason why art historians attributed to him a number of rather damaged, narrative reliefs which replicate the models and forms that can be seen on the portal of Trani Cathedral. Since the sculptor responsible for that portal was not known and given that the contract preserved in Dubrovnik referred to Eustasius as a son of “Belnardi, protomagistri civitati Trani”, the two artists came to be considered as the builders of the Cathedral of S. Nicola Pellegrino at Trani and of several other churches in the Terra di Bari. The sculptures produced by Eustasius and his father were convincingly deemed to display the artistic influence of southern and central France and the same can be observed in Dubrovnik. The article assigns the figure of Christ the Judge from a portal lunette depicting the Last Judgement, which has no parallels in Apulia, to the same group of sculptures and interprets the subject matter as being inspired by the iconography of numerous pilgrimage churches to which Dubrovnik Cathedral also belonged. The assessment of the formal qualities evident in all the carvings demonstrates that they are less refined than those on the portal of Trani Cathedral. Furthermore, the article separates the works of the father from those of the son and suggests that Bolnardus introduced the aforementioned French-style carving method, which had already taken root in Palestine, and that Eustasius followed it. The starting point in the proposed chronology was the Fall of Jerusalem in 1187 and the associated withdrawal of western master carvers alongside the Crusaders. During their stopover at Trani, around 1190, Boltranius was in charge of the carving of the portal of Trani Cathedral where he was helped by his son who left for Dubrovnik in 1199. Based on the visual characteristics of the fragments of architectural decoration, Eustasius is identified as being responsible for the building of Dubrovnik Cathedral according to Apulian taste which appealed to the local patrons as a consequence of their constant exposure to it through numerous trade links and the overall cultural milieu. In fact, Apulian taste was a symbiosis of Byzantine traditions and Romanesque novelties introduced by the Normans, and its allure was grounded in the fact that both the Terra di Bari and Dubrovnik acknowledged the supreme power of these two political forces albeit not at the same time and in unequal measure. The vernacular current in the Romanesque sculpture of Dubrovnik during the second quarter of the thirteenth century can be noted in a small number of works which influenced the decoration of Gothic and Renaissance public buildings. The source of this diffusion can be identified in the decoration of the Cathedral which epitomized the strong artistic connections with southern Italy from where typological and morphological models were borrowed. The redecoration of the Cathedral’s interior, especially the pulpit – recorded for the first time in 1262 – the archaeological remains of which reveal a polygonal structure resting on twelve columns, drew on those very models. Together with the ciborium above the altar in the main apse, the pulpit was praised by local chroniclers and foreign travel writers during the fifteenth century but also by the earliest church visitation records of the mid-seventeenth century. These two monuments belonged to a group of standard Apulian-Dalmatian ciboria and pulpits which also included those that can today be seen in the cathedrals of Trogir and Split but also in many south Italian churches. Some scholars have argued that the source model for this group can be found in Jerusalem but this article suggests that the ciborium from the church of S. Lorenzo fuori le mura in Rome, dated to 1148, presents a more likely option. Particular attention is given to the naturalistic workmanship of a polygonal capital from Dubrovnik Cathedral, which is assigned to the aforementioned pulpit. It is argued that the style of the capital inspired a series of capitals carved à jour on both sides of the Adriatic and that they display characteristics consistent with the manner of carving of Pietro di Facitolo seen at Bisceglie. The exceptional workmanship of the eagle from the same pulpit is attributed to Pasquo di Pietro who was recorded as a protomagister of the Cathedral from 1255 to 1282 and who well regarded as a master carver. His good reputation earned him the citizenship and an estate; he and his son were mentioned in the local documents as “de Ragusio”. The author of the article hypothesizes that Pasquo may have been Pietro di Facitolo’s son, with which he concludes the outline of the sculptural development of the Apulian Romanesque in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia in general. The final part of the article focuses on the only known work of Simeonus Ragusinus who signed himself as “incola tranensis” on the portal of the church of S. Andrea, that is, S. Salvatore at Barletta. The hybrid artistic expression of this eclectic sculptor with a limited gift, who gathered his knowledge from a variety of sources, reveals that he may have borrowed some iconographic motifs from Eustasius’ portal of Dubrovnik Cathedral or from the other two portals. Overall, the article corroborates several hypotheses that were previously expressed in the scholarship while dismissing and rerouting others. At the same time, it emphasizes the scarcity of solid evidence because of the fragmentary nature of the material. The main goal of the article is to present new research findings and widen our perspective on the issue. The article is a revised version of a brief paper presented at the international conference “Master Buvina and his Time” which was held at Split in 2014 and which will be published in a foreign language. I hope that with the addition of new comments and the scholarly apparatus the article will be a useful point of reference to Croatian researchers of similar topics and that it will contribute towards the creation of syntheses about the medieval art in the Adriatic