THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ALTAR FROM TROGIR CHAPELL BY NICCOLO FIORENTINO

Na temelju ugovora 4. 1. 1468. autor rekonstruira izgled prvobitnog oltara u trogirskoj kapeli prema navedenim mjerama. Ujedno argumentira tezu da je reljef anđela svijećonoše Nikole Firentinca, u Muzeju grada Trogira, bio predeviđen kao jedan od dva anđela na stipesu oltara. Uz grafičku rekonstrukciju oltara u prostoru kapele autor ističe njegovu snukturalnu povezanost s arhitekturom, kao i središnje mjesto koje je svećenik zauzimao, te se ponovno zalaže za adekvatnu redukciju baroknog oltara u cilju revalorizacije cjeline.After analyzing a contract dated January 4 1568, containing a detailed description of an altar project for tiie Renaissance chapel of the blessed Ivan of Trogir, the author presents its verbal and graphic reconstrution. Tehe altar was to have three fihures of angels graphic reconstruction. The altar was to have three figures of angels on the mensa and two reliefs of angels on the stipes, whilw four sculptures/caryatids holding the saint\u27s sarcophagus were to be placed at the back of the altar. Analyzing the iconography, form and dimensions of Nicolo Florentine\u27s "sorrowful angel" with candelabra from the museum in Trogir, the author concludes that this relief is the only surviving part of the Renaissance altar which was never built, but received instead the presnt Baroque altar. It was to stand on the right edgeof the altar stipes. This very fine Early Renaissance relief of a standing boy/angel with candelabra, today at the municipal museum in Trogir, certainly belongs among Nicolo\u27s best works. Among the numerous reliefs of winged children created by this artist torch-bearing genii, telamon putii, little angels -this angelic boy is not only zhe largest in format but also comes closest to a full three-dimensional sculpture. This relief was published and attributed to Nicolo of Florence long ago (1940) by Cvito Fisković. Fisković first supposed that this was one of two angels flanking Nicolo\u27s Pieta under theCross on the Čipiko altar in the Benedictine church in Trogir, and later (1959) suggested that it may also have stood near the statute of Saint Sebastian in the small church of the same name. The iconography of the figure, and the candelabra, place this angel into the context of the funerary cult, an idea which is also supported by his camposed posturewith slightly incliined head and closed eyes with The attitude of this moumful sympathetic angel directs us to imagine it as parzt of some sepulchral ansamble, and the author believes that this light-bearing angel was made for the altar of the Renaissance chapel in the Trogir mausoleum which has a Gothic sarchophagus (de Sanctis, 1345) with the figure of the blessed Bishop Ivan of Trogir. The contract of January 4 1468finally offers an unequivocal solution of this problem: the figure belongs to the composition of an altar for this chapel — designed but never completed or put in place. It helps us to gain a more defiinite idea of what the nausoleum, which is a masterpiece of the European Early Renaissance, would have looked like if it had ever been completed. (The author remainds us in passing that the original stone mensa of the altar has been preserved, placed on a stipes inAlexius\u27 baptistery (1467) in the immediate neighbourghood). On the present Baroque altar the sarcophagus seems welded into one unified mass with the mensa and stipes to which are added the two large marble angels. The contract clearly shows that instead of this one mass two separate, and also lighter and more "airy\u27 structures were to be elevated above floor level with twosteps: the altar and mensa (2 1/2 x 4 1/2 feet) placed in front on four supports (columns), along with three statues of angels (three feet each) ; the sarcophagus was to be placed behind the altar, supported by four statues/caryatids (4 feet each). The Gothic sarcophagus was also to have one releif on each side and four more reliefs ancased in the two existing framed areas in ront (two on the left and two on the right side). Described the altar, which was to have a stone mensa of 41/2 to 21/2 feet, the contract stipulates an altar either placed on four columns — which was customary at that time and marked on the designed added to the contract — or "closed on three sides with two angels in half-relief in front" (... laso davanti con doi angoli del mezo relevo). The author concludes that the relief of the angel discussed in this paper was one of two angels to be carved in mezzo-rilievo and placed at the front of the altar stipes (more precisely, considering the position of the body and inclination of the head, at its right edge). The height of the relief is 82 cm, which corresponds to 2 1/3 feet, which with the undeđyig stone and mensa height amounts to 2 1/2 feet — a height proportionate with the width of the mensa accordance with the principle of equality of a structure\u27s front (facade) and plan. (The other figures of the altar mentioned in the contract were to be statues, not relefs and of larger dimensions: 3 and 4 1/2 feet). The statues of the caryatids placed on two steps (total height one foot) were thus to come level with the floors of the sculpture niches on the walls, which would bring the sarcophagus they supported to the waist of the Resurrected Christ placed in the altar niche. The priest standing before the altar would be placed directly under the medallion with the figure of God the Father at the centre of the casetted barrel valting of the chapel. This type ofcomposition:Christ blessing thr figure of the deceased on the sarcophagus, and God blesseing the priest, reminds us of other designs by Juraj Dalmatinac (e.g. the medallion with God the Father above a child on the baptismal font of the Baptistery in Šibenik Cathedral); it also corresponds to Nicolo the Florentine\u27s method of composing thematic groups. The replacing of the columns supporting the mensa with two reliefs of angels on the stipes is in accordancewith the obvious intention of the Florentine to increase the number and broaden the role of human figureschildren in particular — in the chapel. It also shows his customary preference for the figurative rather than decorative alternative, in the words for the alternative that was more demanding and as a rule closer to the Renaissance programme. The same applies to the geniitorchbearers at the pilaster baes which replaced the garlands stipulated in the contract, or the sculptures of the Annunciation on the triumphal arch which replaced the rosettes. The latter changes have been pointed out by the author in a series of studiesof the Chapel in Trogir