Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino Archives d’histoire de l’art Art History Journal Izhaja od / Publié depuis / Published Since 1921 Nova vrsta / Nouvelle série / New Series LV Ljubljana 2019 ZBORNIK ZA UMETNOSTNO ZGODOVINO N.S. LV/2019 Izdalo in založilo / Published by SLOVENSKO UMETNOSTNOZGODOVINSKO DRUŠTVO, LJUBLJANA C/O FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA UNIVERZE V LJUBLJANI ODDELEK ZA UMETNOSTNO ZGODOVINO, AŠKERČEVA 2 SI – 1101 LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIJA Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board RENATA NOVAK KLEMENČIČ, glavna in odgovorna urednica / Editor in Chief JANEZ BALAŽIC, MARJETA CIGLENEČKI, MATEJ KLEMENČIČ, MATEJA KOS, ANDREJ SMREKAR, KATARINA ŠMID, SAMO ŠTEFANAC Mednarodni svetovalni odbor / International Advisory Board LINDA BOREAN, FRANCESCO CAGLIOTI, NINA KUDIŠ, VLADIMIR MARKOVIĆ, INGEBORG SCHEMPER SPARHOLZ, CARL BRANDON STREHLKE Tehnična urednica / Production Editor KATRA MEKE Lektoriranje / Language Editing KATJA KRIŽNIK JERAJ (SLOVENŠČINA), JOSH ROCCHIO (ANGLEŠČINA), ANA VIDRIH GREGORIČ (ITALIJANŠČINA) Prevajalci člankov, povzetkov in sinopsisov / Translators for Summaries and Abstracts RICCARDO BERTONI (ITALIJANŠČINA), MATEJ KLEMENČIČ (ITALIJANŠČINA) Oblikovanje in postavitev / Design and Typesetting STUDIOBOTAS Tisk / Printing TISKARNA KNJIGOVEZNICA RADOVLJICA Naklada / Number of Copies Printed 350 IZVODOV IZŠLO 2023 Indeksirano v / Indexed by BHA, FRANCIS, ERIH PLUS ZA AVTORSKE PRAVICE REPRODUKCIJ ODGOVARJAJO AVTORJI OBJAVLJENIH PRISPEVKOV. ISSN 0351-224X ZBORNIK ZA UMETNOSTNO ZGODOVINO JE DEL PROGRAMA SLOVENSKEGA UMETNOSTNOZGODOVINSKEGA DRUŠTVA, KI GA SOFINANCIRA MINISTRSTVO ZA KULTURO REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE. IZHAJA OB FINANČNI PODPORI JAVNE AGENCIJE ZA RAZISKOVALNO DEJAVNOST REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE. TEMATSKA ŠTEVILKA JE NASTALA NA POBUDO RAZISKOVALNEGA PROJEKTA NACIONALNO SAMOZAVEDANJE IN NADNACIONALNA ZNANOST: VPLIV NACIONALNIH DISKURZOV NA RAZISKOVANJE SREDNJEVEŠKE IN ZGODNJENOVOVEŠKE UMETNOSTI V SLOVENIJI (J6-9387), KI GA IZ DRŽAVNEGA PRORAČUNA SOFINANCIRA JAVNA AGENCIJA ZA RAZISKOVALNO DEJAVNOST REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE. Kazalo / Contents Umetnost istrskih obalnih mest: in memoriam Stane Bernik RAZPRAVE IN ČLANKI / ESSAYS AND ARTICLES ana jenko kovačič Škofovske in komunalne palače v luči institucionalnih sprememb v Istri v srednjem veku Episcopal and Communal Palaces in Light of Institutional Changes in Istria in the Middle Ages enrica cozzi La pittura gotica nell’Istria slovena e il polittico di Pirano di Paolo Veneziano Gotsko slikarstvo v slovenski Istri in piranski poliptih Paola Veneziana samo štefanac Antonio Rossellino’s Madonnas and the Problem of Mass-produced Florentine Renaissance Sculpture and its Early Diffusion on the Eastern Adriatic Coast Madone Antonia Rossellina in problem masovne produkcije florentinske zgodnjerenesančne plastike ter njenega zgodnjega širjenja na vzhodno jadransko obalo barbka gosar hirci Konservatorsko-restavratorski posegi na slikah Vittoreja in Benedetta Carpaccia iz koprske stolnice The Conservation and Restoration Treatments of Paintings by Vittore and Benedetto Carpaccio from Koper/Capodistria Cathedral 9 17 35 57 85 mojca marjana kovač Bonfante Torre. Il “taiapiera” veneziano e la sua bottega a Pirano »Taiapiera Bonfante Torre«. Beneški kamnosek in delavnica v Piranu andreja rakovec Štukature v palači Besenghi degli Ughi v Izoli Stuccoworks at Besenghi degli Ughi Palace in Izola sara turk marolt Da Capodistria a San Pietro dell’Amata. Il destino degli altari dopo la soppressione napoleonica Od Kopra do piranskega Sv. Petra. Usoda nekaterih koprskih oltarjev v obdobju francoske okupacije Istre rossella fabiani Pietro Nobile a Pirano. Progetti per la chiesa di San Pietro Pietro Nobile v Piranu. Načrti za cerkev svetega Petra katja mahnič The Presentation of the Works of Art in the Former Austrian Littoral Region during World War I Umetnostni spomeniki istrskih mest in njihova obravnava v času prve svetovne vojne claudia crosera L’attività di tutela della Soprintendenza nel primo dopoguerra. Restauri di opere d’arte in Istria e nella Venezia Giulia Dejavnost spomeniškega varstva med obema vojnama. Restavriranje umetnin v Istri in v Furlaniji - Julijski krajini neža čebron lipovec »Revolucija mesta«. Staro mestno jedro v povojnih urbanističnih načrtih za Koper “La rivoluzione della città”. Il centro storico di Capodistria nei piani urbanistici del secondo dopoguerra 111 141 159 183 193 209 245 57 ZUZ – LV – 2019 By the mid-15th century, clerics and nobility of the highest rank were no longer the only potential buyers of artworks in Florence; the emerging class of wealthy citi- zens, mainly merchants, bankers, and mercenaries, could now also afford an image of the Virgin with Child, destined for a home altar, typically located in the buyer’s bedroom. The high demand for the pieces of private devotion inevitably led to the development of some sort of art market, ultimately resulting in the mass production of sculptures in Florentine workshops. The term “mass production” may even be an understatement, if we keep in mind that it is not all about the number of the sculp- tures produced, but that the practice of creating dozens of the examples based on the same composition now developed, which allows for a discussion on series pro- duction, some sort of Kunstindustrie, as the sculptural pieces were no longer pro- duced exclusively upon a commission but also regularly manufactured for sale. The use of cheap materials such as stucco, terracotta, or even cartapesta made possible the creation of affordable pieces; these materials were easy to obtain and allowed for the use of molds, which made the production process itself faster and cheaper. The practice started in the first decades of the 15th century in the workshops of Filippo Brunelleschi, Jacopo della Quercia, Lorenzo Ghiberti, and Donatello 1 and spread more widely in the generation of sculptors that followed. It is worth men- tioning that, commercially, the most successful of all was undoubtedly the work- shop of the Della Robbia family, and the merit goes to the invention of terracotta invetriata by Luca della Robbia, a technique that no other workshop was able to adopt; it allowed for series production of sculptural pieces that were not only af- 1 For the early development of the new type of Madonna as an object of private devotion in Floren- ce, see Geraldine A. Johnson, Art or Artefact? Madonna and Child Reliefs in the Early Renaissance, The Sculpted Object, 1400–1700 (edd. Stuart Currie – Peta Motture), Adlershot 1997, pp. 1–17; Birgit Langhanke , Die Madonnenreliefs im Werk von Antonio Rossellino (doctoral dissertation, Ludwig- -Maximilians-Universität, typescript), München 2013, pp. 35–68. Antonio Rossellino’s Madonnas and the Problem of Mass-produced Florentine Renaissance Sculpture and its Early Diffusion on the Eastern Adriatic Coast samo štefanac 58 SAMO ŠTEFANAC fordable, but also durable and suitable for use both in- and outdoors, as well as for transportation, while their glazed surface could, to some extent, even compete with marble. 2 Beside Madonnas, which were the most common, similar mass produc- tion of images of the locally venerated saints also developed: in Florence, for exam- ple, it was S. Giovannino, the young St. John the Baptist, who was by far the most popular among the city’s patron saints and of whom a large number of statuettes, reliefs, and busts are still preserved. 3 2 Cf. e. g. Giancarlo Gentilini , I Della Robbia. La scultura invetriata nel Rinascimento, Firenze 1992; Bruno Santi , Una bottega per il commercio. Repertori, vendite, esportazioni, I Della Robbia e l’“arte nuova” della scultura invetriata (Fiesole, Basilica di Sant’Alessandro, 29 maggio – 1 novem- bre 1998, ed. Giancarlo Gentilini), Firenze 1998, pp. 87–96. 3 A large group of almost identical terracotta busts of San Giovannino (some paired with the bust of Gesù Bambino) from the workshop of Andrea della Robbia proves that these figures were also mass produced. The pieces are listed in a yet unpublished study by Giancarlo Gentilini, to whom I owe my gratitude for gently letting me read his text. 1. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, terracotta. Koper/Capodistria, Regional Museum 59 ZUZ – LV – 2019 Florence remained the center of the mass produced sculpture well into the 16th century and the pieces manufactured there can be found throughout the Apennine peninsula and beyond its boundaries. However, during the 15th century, a similar practice also developed, although to lesser extent, in minor centers of sculptural production, even reaching the eastern shore of Adriatic. In Dalmatia, a dozen reliefs depicting the locally highly venerated St. Jerome were carved in the workshops of Andrea Alessi and Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino. While they all follow the same iconographical type – the saint is depicted while studying in a cave in the desert – some of them vary slightly in composition, while the others repeat the same composition and the figure of the saint is almost identically. 4 Along with this, the 4 There is a group of four reliefs assigned to Andrea Alessi, based on the composition of the monu- mental relief in the baptistery of Trogir from 1467, and there are two pieces, also assigned to Alessi, where the figure of the Saint is slightly modified (Fondazione Roberto Longhi in Florence, St. John’s church in Zadar); furthermore, two almost identical pieces, attributed to Niccolò di Giovanni Fio- rentino, are preserved in Venice (S. Maria del Giglio) and Dubrovnik (Rector’s Palace). See Ivo Pe- tricioli , Tragom srednjovjekovnih umjetnika, Zagreb 1983, pp. 139–151; Samo Štefanac , Osserva- zioni sui rilievi di S. Girolamo nel deserto dalla cerchia di Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino e Andrea Alessi, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, 36, 1996, pp. 107–119. 2. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra (detail of the head). Koper/Capodistria, Regional Museum 60 SAMO ŠTEFANAC fact that the shields and inscription fields at the bottom are often blank leads to the assumption that most of them were actually made for sale. Some Madonnas by Niccolò di Giovanni Fiorentino 5 and the workshop of Gregorio di Lorenzo, the sculptor formerly known in the literature as “Master of the Marble Madonnas”, 6 5 Samo Štefanac , Nikola Firentinac i toskansko kiparstvo generacije poslije Donatella, Razmjena umjetničkih iskustava u jadranskome bazenu. Zbornik radova znanstvenog skupa “Dani Cvita Fiskovića” održanog 2014. godine (edd. Jasenka Gudelj – Predrag Marković), Zagreb 2016, pp. 69–77. 6 In the past, the master was occasionally also identified as Tommaso Fiamberti, Giovanni Ricci or simply as “follower of Mino da Fiesole”. It is also worth pointing out that most of the pieces on the eastern coast of the Adriatic are actually in territory that belonged in the 15th century to the Hungarian Kingdom (Senj, Bribir Vinodolski), while Orebić, where another Madonna is preserved, 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the Madonna of the Candelabra at the Regional Museum of Koper/Capodistria 61 ZUZ – LV – 2019 also suggest that there was some interest in images of private devotion among the local population, but they are preserved in relatively small number and it is not lies within the boundaries of the Republic of Dubrovnik, so none of the Madonnas by Gregorio di Lorenzo are located in Venetian territory. See Cvito Fisković , Dva reljefa anonimnog sljedbenika Mina da Fiesole, Radovi Instituta JAZU u Zadru, V, 1958–1959, p. 39; Marija Šercer , Djelatnost Giovannija Riccija i njegovih pomoćnika na području Hrvatskog Primorja, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, 38, 1999, pp. 179–214; Milan Pelc , Renesansa, Zagreb 2007 (Povijest umjetnosti u Hrvatskoj), pp. 367–370; Alfredo Bellandi , Gregorio di Lorenzo. Il Maestro delle Madonne di Marmo, Morbio Inferiore 2010, pp. 237–267 et passim; Ivan Braut , Skulptura 15. i. 16. stoljeća na prostoru Vinodola, Czriquenicza 1412, život i umjetnost Vinodola u doba pavlina, (Muzej grada Crikvenice, 2012, ed. Nina Kudiš), Crikvenica 2012, pp. 82–90, 151–154. 4. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, stucco. Rijeka, Maritime and Historical Museum 62 SAMO ŠTEFANAC difficult to explain why. In Dalmatia and elsewhere on the eastern coast, there was one serious limiting factor preventing development of the mass production on a larger scale: stone as the dominant material, though abundant in the region, did not allow fast and cheap production by using molds, but required a skilled stone carver even in the case of copying. It seems likely that the local workshops, working exclusively in stone, could not provide the affordable, mass produced images that 5. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, stucco. Rab, Collection of the Sacral Art 63 ZUZ – LV – 2019 were apparently in high demand, and in these circumstances the population resorted to buying the Madonnas from the Florentine workshops, just as those on the Apennine Peninsula and elsewhere. A number of the reliefs representing the Virgin with Child in stucco, terra- cotta and cartapesta can be found along the eastern shore of Adriatic as well as in hinterland. They all belong to the same type, known as Madonna of the Candela- 6. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, cartapesta. Hvar, Museum of the Cathedral 64 SAMO ŠTEFANAC bra, whose invention is ascribed to Antonio Rossellino. 7 The reliefs on the eastern shore of Adriatic are quite evenly spread between Istria, Carniola, Quarnero, and Dalmatia: there is a damaged terracotta piece in the Regional Museum in Koper (figs. 1–3) and a cartapesta relief in the Ursuline church in Ljubljana (fig. 9). 8 Two stucco Madonnas are in Rijeka, one in the Maritime and Historical Museum (fig. 4) and the other in Our Lady’s church at Škurinje (fig. 8), 9 while there is one in the collection of sacral art (formerly in the cathedral) in Rab (fig. 5). 10 Further down in Dalmatia, two pieces can be found in Šibenik, one in stucco at the Franciscan monastery (fig. 10) and one carved in wood in the county museum (fig. 11), 11 and there is also a cartapesta relief in Hvar (fig. 6) 12 and a stucco version is preserved in the Dominican church in Dubrovnik (fig. 14). 13 At first glance it seems most likely that the individual specimens came to the mentioned places in the 19th and 20th centuries as collector pieces, as is the case with most Madonnas of the Candelabra now in museums and private collections, or those that occasionally appear on the market of antiquities. As most of these Madonnas were produced as pieces destined for private devotion, it is nearly impossible to trace their origins and their fate prior to the mid-19th 7 It was Allan Marquand who first ascribed the composition to Antonio Rossellino: Allan Marquand , Antonio Rossellino’s Madonna of the Candelabra, Art in America, VII, 1919, pp. 198– 296; John Pope-Hennessy , The Altman Madonna by Antonio Rossellino, in: John Pope-Hennes- sy, Studies and Criticism of Italian Sculpture, New York – Princeton 1980, pp. 135–154; Giancarlo Gentilini , Dal rilievo alla pittura. La Madonna delle Candelabre di Antonio Rossellino, Firenze 2008; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, pp. 266–270, 369–396. 8 Samo Štefanac , Terakota iz kroga Antonia Rossellina v Kopru, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodo- vino, n. s. XXIV, 1988, pp. 45–51; Samo Štefanac , Kopija Madone s kandelabri Antonia Rossellina v uršulinski cerkvi v Ljubljani, Varstvo spomenikov, 34, 1992, pp. 113–118; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 375. 9 For detailed analysis of the relief in the museum and an accurate description of its recent resto- ration, see: Marta Budicin , Bogorodica s kandelabrima iz Pomorskog i povijesnog muzeja Hrvatskog primorja u Rijeci, Portal. Godišnjak Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, VI, 2015, pp. 67–80. The re- lief at Škurinje was first published after its recent restoration: Nevena Krstulović , in: Portal. Go- dišnjak Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda, I, 2010, p. 159. 10 Davor Domančić , Trag Antonija Rossellina u Dubrovniku, Likovna kultura Dubrovnika 15. i 16. stoljeća (ed. Igor Fisković), Zagreb 1991, pp. 137–140; Miljenko Domijan , Rab grad umjetnosti, Barbat – Zagreb 2001, p. 144; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 382. 11 Ksenija Kalauz , Kroz crkvenu umjetnost, Na slavu Božju. 700 godina šibenske biskupije (Žu- panijski muzej Šibenik, 250. povremena izložba, 22. 9. 1998–31. 3. 1999), Šibenik 1998, pp. 122, 134; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, pp. 383, 394. 12 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, p. 137, 139; Francesco Caglioti , in: Tesori della Croazia restaurati da Venetian Heritage inc. (Venezia, Chiesa di S. Barnaba, 9. 6.–4. 11. 2001), Venezia 2001, pp. 79–83, cat. 23; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 375. 13 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, pp. 137–140; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, pp. 369–370. 65 ZUZ – LV – 2019 century or even later. Even the pieces that can be found in the churches were usually not part of original altars, but were often donated by their owners, gen- erations after the acquisition. And indeed, there is no evidence concerning the origin of the relief in Koper, the one in the museum of Rijeka, or either of those in Rab and Hvar. Nonetheless, some of the pieces mentioned above hint that they were present in the area well before the 19th century. As a pre-World War II postcard of Our Lady’s church at Škurinje in Rijeka (fig. 7) suggests, the mentioned relief was a venerat- ed image at the time and there is an unverified story that it originally came to the hospital of Holy Spirit in Rijeka in 1573 as a gift from Charles II, the Archduke of Austria (1540–1590). 14 In light of the lack of any firm evidence, it remains a mere legend at this point; however, if somewhere in the future it turns out that there is some truth to the story, it would be an important proof of the presence of Rossel- lino’s Madonnas in the Habsburg territory in the 16th century. 14 Budicin 2015, cit. n. 9, pp. 74, 78, nn. 48–49: Budicin cites the paper of Damir Sabalić, entitled Prilozi za Bogorodicu s kandelabrima Antonija Rossellina, which was presented at the conference XI. Dani Cvita Fiskovića: Umjetnost i naručitelji in 2008; however, two years later the text hasn’t been published in the acts of the symposium. Cf. Umjetnost i naručitelji: Zbornik znanstvenog skupa XI. Dani Cvita Fiskovića (ed. Jasenka Gudelj), Zagreb 2010. 7. Pre- World War II postcard of Our Lady’s church at Škurinje (Rijeka) 66 SAMO ŠTEFANAC The only piece so far known in the hinterland, the cartapesta relief in the Ur - suline church in Ljubljana, is now placed on the altar of St. Francis of Paola and on its gilded background there is an inscription “HAUS MUTTER 4. 7br i638.” (fig. 9), so one would assume that it is a very late copy of Rossellino’s original. However, two inscriptions, one on the back and the other inside its late-baroque frame, tell a dif- ferent story: on 4 September 1638, the relief was in the monastery of Mekinje near Kamnik, when the figure of the Child suddenly began to sweat during the mass in presence of all the nuns as well as the priest, and, according to the inscription, an earthquake followed soon after. As in many similar cases, this event led to venera- tion of the relief as a miraculous image. 15 This proves that the piece was present in the region at least in the first half of the 17th century, while the use of cartapesta technique rules out the possibility that it was manufactured as late as in the 17th century: cartapesta required a mold and as neither the proportions of the figures nor the treatment of details differ from the other relief in the series, it must have been cast in one of the original molds and it is unlikely that those molds were still available in the 17th century. All this points to its possible Florentine origin and dating in the late 15th century. Another Madonna of the Candelabra, whose whereabouts can be traced back to the 16th or even 15th century, is the polychrome stucco piece at the Franciscan monastery in Šibenik (fig. 10). 16 There is no direct evidence that this relief was present in Šibenik as early as mentioned; however, the local museum houses another relief based on the same composition (fig. 11). 17 Unlike most of the Madonnas of 15 Štefanac 1992, cit. n. 8, pp. 116, 117, n. 13. The relief and the vessel containing the napkin with the sweat, absorbed from the Christ’s figure, were transferred from Mekinje (Münkendorf) to the monastery of Velesovo (Michelstätten) in 1782 and in 1796 to the Ursuline church in Ljubljana. 1796 is likely the date of the frame and inscriptions in it. Since the transcription of both inscripti- ons in the forementioned article (1992) is inaccurate due to some missing special characters, I pro- vide the corrected version below. The inscription inside the frame: “i638. am 4. 7ber. ŭm. 9. Uhr hat das Christ= kindlein / dießes Bilds, in Beÿßein des gesamten Fraŭen= Convents / Von Münken- dorf sowohl, als des daßelbstigen Beicht=/=Vaters so haüfig Natürlichen Schweiß Von sich gege- ben / daß es abgetricknet werden mŭste, voraŭf ein Erdbeben er=/=folgte. Das Betröfende Schweiß= düchel wŭrde bis i782. / als der zeit der Uberßiedlung nacher Michelstätten, / allwo es Verschlei- dert wŭrde, sorgfältig aŭf=/=bewahred. Doch befindet sich das Uhralte / Cristaltene, ŭnd ovalle in Vergoldentem Silber / gefaste Gläßlein, worinnen das obangefihrte / Dichel sich befande, annoch Vorfindig in / dem Laÿbacherischen Urßŭliner= Closter, als / wochin es nebst dießen Bild, ŭnd der lateini=/=schen alten, das obgesŭgte wŭnder bestättigenden /Authentic, am i7. Jänner i796. dŭrch Vermittlŭng /Franzens Freÿherns Flödnik gelanget. ist.“ The inscription on the back of the fra- me: “Mächtige Jŭngfer / Vorzüglichst wider das /Ungewitter, gegen welhes /Selbe am 14. Maij i796. das heißige / unter damelliger Aufßicht Fraŭen / Catharina Jgnatzia Von Melak / stehende Fraŭen Ursuliner= Closter / ganz wŭnderbarlich beschützet / hat.” 16 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, pp. 137, 139; Kalauz 1998, cit. n. 11, pp. 122, 134. 17 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, p. 139; Kalauz 1998, cit. n. 11, pp. 122, 134. 67 ZUZ – LV – 2019 the Candelabra, which were cast in mold, this one is carved in wood and it is not an exact copy after Rossellino, but rather a simplified imitation: the candelabras with the garland in the background are missing, the proportions of the figures are slightly different and it is also less accurate in details. In the literature, the relief has been attributed to an anonymous local master and dated in 16th century and there is no reason to have any doubt about it. The fact that it was carved by a mediocre local woodcarver proves that it was made in Dalmatia, and, before we even start 8. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, stucco. Rijeka, Our Lady’s church at Škurinje 68 SAMO ŠTEFANAC guessing what kind of drawing or other secondary source could have inspired the artist, we should resort to the simplest and most obvious solution that Davor Domančić proposed decades ago: 18 that it was actually copied from the Madonna now in the Franciscan monastery and this would be an important indication that the latter was already in Šibenik at the time. The wooden Madonna in the museum of Šibenik cannot be dated precisely: a relief of this kind could have been carved at any time between the first decade and mid-16th century or even later, but the possibility that the Franciscan Madonna was acquired first hand and appeared 18 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, p. 139; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 394, agreed with Domančić. 9. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, cartapesta. Ljubljana, Ursuline church 69 ZUZ – LV – 2019 in Šibenik as early as in the late 15th century as a newly produced piece therefore cannot be ruled out. These examples alone hint that the composition of Madonna of the Candelabra was known on the eastern shore of the Adriatic in the Renaissance period and we can assume that at least some of the Madonnas we know today have been in the area since the very beginning. To get more evidence to support this thesis, we have to go all the way to the southernmost point of Venetian territory: in the treasury of the cathedral of Kotor, there is another Madonna of the Candelabra (fig. 12), which reportedly comes from the church of St. Joseph in the town. However, in this case, it is not a relief but a panel painting and to my knowledge one of only three paintings based on this composition, one of the other two being the work of Giovanni Antonio da Pesaro at Sassoferrato and the other piece of presently unknown whereabouts. 19 It does not take much to identify it as a copy of Rossellino’s Madonna as some scholars have already pointed out, 20 but there is something unusual about it; unlike the rest of the picture, the heads of the Virgin and the Child are painted in a byzantine manner and this led some scholars to the conclusion that the heads are actually older, possibly from the late 15th century, and that the new picture was painted around them in the 16th century. 21 However, it would be nothing short of a miracle if the position of the heads and relation between them on an older icon fitted exactly into the composition of Madonna of the Candelabra. I believe it was just the opposite: new heads were painted over the old ones (or replacing them), converting the Renaissance painting into a byzantine icon. The surface of the painting is today in poor state of preservation and it has not been restored recently: an accurate restoration would certainly reveal the 19 Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, pp. 21, 23; Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 471, fig. 84. 20 The painting was first published by Cvito Fisković without illustration and dated to the late 15th or early 16th century, while Ivana Prijatelj was the first to notice that it follows the composition of Madonna of the Candelabra. See Cvito Fisković , O umjetničkim spomenicima grada Kotora, Spo- menik SAN, CIII/5 (Zbornik izveštaja o Istraživanjima Boke Kotorske), Beograd 1953, p. 96 (reprinted in: Cvito Fisković , Spomenička baština Boke Kotorske, Zagreb, 2004, pp. 88–89); Ivana Prijatelj , O nekim primjerima spajanja istočnih i zapadnih ikonografskih shema u djelima “dalmatinske sli- karske škole”, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, 32, 1992 (Prijateljev zbornik, I), pp. 386–389; Zoraida Demori Staničić , in: Zagovori svetom Tripunu. Povodom 1200. obljetnice prijenosa moći svetoga Tripuna u Kotor, (Zagreb, Galerija Klovićevi dvori, 14. 12. 2009–14. 2. 2010), Zagreb 2009, pp. 211–212, cat. 42; Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić , U potrazi za izgubljenim slikarstvom. O majstoru Lo- vru iz Kotora i slikarstvu na prostoru od Dubrovnika do Kotora tijekom druge polovice XV. stoljeća, Dubrovnik 2013, pp. 317–318. 21 Vojislav Đurić , Ikone iz Jugoslavije, Beograd 1961, pp. 103–104; Vojislav Đurić , Dubrovačka sli- karska škola, Beograd 1963, pp. 212–213; Prijatelj 1992, cit. n. 20, pp. 386–388; Demori Staničić 2009, cit. n. 20, p. 212. 70 SAMO ŠTEFANAC relation between the layers of paint, 22 yet there is another clue to support the idea about its conversion into an icon. On the main altar of the church of St. Claire in Kotor there is a silver frame that also corresponds to the composition of Rossellino’s Madonna and it seems likely that it was covering the painting after its 22 According to Đurić (Đurić 1963, cit. n. 21, pp. 212–213), who developed the thesis about the picture’s byzantine origin and provided the most detailed analysis of its surface, all the layers of byzantine paint were removed (except for the faces of both figures) before the new figures were be painted in the third decade of the 16th century. However, if there is no trace of an older layer underneath the actual painting, this could also mean that the older painting never existed. 10. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, stucco. Šibenik, Franciscan convent 71 ZUZ – LV – 2019 conversion (fig. 13), 23 leaving only the faces of both figures visible, as was common with the byzantine icons, especially when highly venerated. It seems likely that the painting was “byzantinized” upon the occasion of covering it by the silver frame, and this would explain why only the faces were modified, as they became the only visible part after the conversion. Unfortunately, so far I have not been able to take 23 Massimo De Grassi , Venecijanska skulptura u Boki Kotorskoj, Podgorica 2001, pp. 46–50; Tomislav Grgurević . Kotor i okolica. Građevine, utvrde i crkve, Zagreb 2008, pp. 132–134. 11. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, wood. Šibenik, County Museum 72 SAMO ŠTEFANAC measurements of both works to verify the thesis. 24 If they do not match, it would complicate the matter further, suggesting that yet another painting of Madonna of the Candelabra was in the town at some point. 24 The composition on the silver frame corresponds to Madonna of the Candelabra but with slight variation regarding parts of the drapery and the half-moon added on the bottom, while the Child Christ is holding the globe on his knees with his left hand and the right hand is raised in a gesture of benediction. As on the painting in the treasury, Madonna is depicted to just below the knees. The faces of the figures on the painting contained in the frame today (the only visible part) are byzantine. 12. Lovro Dobričević or his follower, Madonna of the Candelabra. Kotor, Treasury of the Cathedral 73 ZUZ – LV – 2019 Apart from those byzantine heads, both figures on the painting in Kotor fol- low the original composition quite faithfully, including their proportions and details, especially the hands, while parts of the drapery are slightly modified. There are some modifications in the lower part, where, unlike on the original, the figure of the Virgin is portrayed further below the knees and there are some major differences in the background. The garland is hanging on the top, but not from the candelabras, which are omitted from the composition. Furthermore, two angels are added below the garland and there is a view to the landscape on 13. Silver frame covering the image of Madonna of the Candelabra. Kotor, church of St. Claire 74 SAMO ŠTEFANAC both sides of the figure. Both the red tunic and the gilded cloak of the Virgin are richly decorated with brocade. We can conclude that the painting in Kotor is a free interpretation of An- tonio Rossellino’s composition in terms of the format and the treatment of the background, but since it follows the original accurately in depiction of details, we can assume that it is based on one of the reliefs rather than on some second- ary source like a print or drawing as has been suggested. One should also keep in mind that, as mentioned above, an example of the Madonna of the Candelabra is actually preserved in the Dominican church in Dubrovnik (fig. 14). 25 This al - 25 Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, pp. 137–139. 14. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, stucco. Dubrovnik, Dominican convent 75 ZUZ – LV – 2019 lows us to speculate that it served as a model, which would mean that the piece could have been present in Dubrovnik as early as the late 15th century. As to the attribution, the absence of the original faces is a major obstacle, yet the richly brocaded drapery alone gives an important clue. At first glance it resembles the paintings of Carlo Crivelli from his marchigian period, but in reality it is not necessary to look that far. As Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić pointed out, the Madonna can be linked to the local school of Dubrovnik and in particular to the circle of Lovro Dobričević. 26 She also timidly mentioned that the brocade on the red tu- nic is very close to the ornament on the cloak of St. Blaise in the Rector’s Pal- ace in Dubrovnik, the painting that has also been associated with the circle of Lovro Dobričević in the past. 27 Connecting the painting in Kotor to Dobričević also makes sense because he was actually a native of Kotor and there are several works, either documented or merely attributed to him, in the area. 28 His career is documented from the 1430s to his death in 1478 and, though he was probably trained in Venice with Michele Giambono in tradition of the international goth- ic, he was certainly more influenced by the style of Antonio Vivarini and other painters of Murano. He might have died too soon to become familiar with Ros- sellino’s composition unless it was actually already present in Dubrovnik before his death, which would hypothetically date the arrival of the relief in the Domini- can church as early as in the mid-1470s, assuming that this very piece served as the model for the painting. However, there is a greater probability that the pic- ture was painted by a follower of Dobričević and in this case the most likely can- didate for the attribution of the piece would be one of his sons, Vicko or Marin. They were both active in Dubrovnik in the final decades of the 15th century and survived well into the second decade of the 16th century. 29 The cases mentioned above clearly indicate that Madonna of the Candela- bra was known on the eastern coast of Adriatic as early as in the late 15th cen- 26 Prijatelj Pavičić 2013, cit. n. 20, pp. 317–318. 27 Vladimir Marković , in: Zlatno doba Dubrovnika XV. i XVI. stoljeće (Zagreb, Muzejski prostor Jezuitski trg 4 – Dubrovnik, Knežev dvor, 1987, ed. Ante Sorić), Zagreb 1987, p. 350, cat. Sl/9; Kruno Prijatelj , Tri doprinosa o umjetnicima “zlatnog doba” Dubrovnika, Likovna kultura Dubrovnika 15. i 16. stoljeća (ed Igor Fisković), Zagreb 1991, pp. 205–213; Prijatelj Pavičić 2013, cit. n. 20, pp. 315–316. 28 Rajko Vujičić , Djelatnost Lovre Dobričevića u Boki Kotorskoj, Likovna kultura Dubrovnika 15. i 16. stoljeća (ed Igor Fisković), Zagreb 1991, pp. 179–184; Prijatelj Pavičić 2013, cit. n. 20, passim. 29 For an attempt at reconstructing their careers and oeuvre see Prijatelj Pavičić 2013, cit. n. 20, pp. 311–318. 76 SAMO ŠTEFANAC tury and we can assume that the local patricians were also among the custom- ers of these works, just as their Tuscan counterparts were. After all, today there is enough evidence to show that, in the 15th century, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Republic of Dubrovnik were not all isolated from the development on the Apen- nine peninsula in the late 15th century. Among the patricians in Zadar, Šibenik, Trogir, and elsewhere, there were quite a few humanists, not to mention numer- ous merchants and diplomats, and most of them had close contacts with the ter- ritories across the Adriatic, including Florence. It is likely that the wealthy local patricians also became familiar with the lifestyle in Florence in terms of habits, such as placing an altar in the bedroom, 30 as well as with the Madonna of the Candelabra, probably the most fashionable type of Madonna at the time. It does not take much to determine that the number of the reliefs on the eastern coast of the Adriatic is comparable to the number of pieces in the territories along the opposite shore (Romagna, Marches etc.) as well as in Veneto, which leads to the conclusion that in the 15th century the coastal areas around the Adriatic basin belonged to the same cultural sphere. The composition of Madonna of the Candelabra itself poses some questions which do not only concern its early dissemination on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. The practice of producing Madonnas in series was common in the work - shop of Antonio Rossellino and it is believed that they were usually cast after the original in marble, as is the case of Madonna in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, which is known in several copies, mostly in stucco and terracotta. 31 On the other hand, it is worth noticing that the Altman Madonna in the Metro- politan Museum, one of Rossellino’s finest works in marble, has probably never been copied, which suggests that it was carved upon a private commission. 32 It seems that Madonna of the Candelabra was by far the most popular among all of them and dozens of pieces can be found today spread all over the world, most of them in public or private collections, yet no marble original is preserved; the only known example in stone is a now badly damaged relief in Calle de la Pietà in Venice (fig. 15) and even this piece may be a reproduction from the 19th centu- 30 It is necessary to point out that, by the time, this practice was also present and already widely spread in Venice. For further reading see various articles in: Pregare in casa. Oggetti e documenti della pratica religiosa tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (edd. Giovanna Baldissin Molli – Cristina Gu- arnieri – Zuleika Murat), Roma 2018. 31 Pope-Hennessy 1980, cit. n. 7, p. 145. 32 Pope-Hennessy 1980, cit. n. 7, pp. 135–143. 77 ZUZ – LV – 2019 15. After Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, Istrian stone. Venice, Calle de la Pietà 78 SAMO ŠTEFANAC ry. 33 Many scholars agree that the example that is the closest to presumably lost marble original is the terracotta relief at Victoria & Albert Museum in London, which might be one of the earliest casts from the original (fig. 16). 34 The sheer number of these reliefs clearly indicates that they were not all made by Antonio Rossellino himself; moreover, he personally probably did not even touch some of the pieces produced in his own workshop; however, there is the question of whether they were all produced in his workshop at all. It is worth noticing that the level of quality varies significantly between single examples, and one can as- sume that the copies of lesser quality were actually cast in the secondary molds, which had been taken from the reliefs cast in the original molds. This allows the speculation that they were not even produced in Rossellino’s workshop, but else- where. It has been suggested that some of the pieces that are preserved in vari- ous places in the Marches and Romagna (Urbino, Forlì, etc.) could have been produced in the workshop of Gregorio di Lorenzo. 35 However, no detailed com- parative technical research, similar to the recent study on Andrea della Robbia’s Madonna Foulc, has been carried out so far. 36 An accurate comparative analy- sis of as many reliefs of the series as possible, which would include taking meas- urements of the figures and the distances between the parts of their bodies and other details, as well as measurements of the depth of the reliefs, would help de- termine which pieces were cast in the same molds and how many molds were in use. 37 The other problem concerns the dating of the reliefs: it is believed that 33 According to Alberto Rizzi the relief in istrian stone could be a reproduction from the early 19th century (Alberto Rizzi , Scultura esterna a Venezia. Corpus delle Sculture Erratiche all’aperto di Ve- nezia e della sua Laguna, Venezia 1987, pp. 89, 91, 675), while Giancarlo Gentilini believes it to be an authentic copy after Rossellino from the late 15th century (Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, pp. 19, 21); Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, p. 395: remains cautious, dating it either to 15th or 19th century. 34 John Pope-Hennessy – Ronald Lightbown , Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria and Albert Museum, I, London 1964, pp. 132–133; Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, pp. 16–18. 35 Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, p. 20. On the other hand, Langhanke (Langhanke 2013, cit. n. 1, pp. 132–142, 273–274) believes that the a number of the reliefs in northern Italy were made by Antonio’s brothers Giovanni and Domenico. 36 Roberta Jeanne Marie Olson – Daphne Barbour , Toward a New Method for Studying Gla- zed Terracottas: Examining a Group of Tondi by Andrea della Robbia, Apollo, CLIV/475, 2001, pp. 44–52; Daphne Barbour – Roberta Jeanne Marie Olson, New Methods for Studying Serialization in the Workshop of Andrea della Robbia: Technical Study and Analysis, Della Robbia, dieci anni di studi – dix ans d’études (edd. Anne Bouquillon – Marc Bormand – Alessandro Zucchiati), Genova 2011, pp. 56– 61. 37 A detailed analysis could reveal even more than this: for example, maybe it could answer the question whether the reliefs in different materials (stucco, terracotta, cartapesta) were cast in the same mold or not; moreover, as in the case of Andrea della Robbia (see n. 36), it would probably give the answer as to whether the details were finished manually after removing the relief from the mold. 79 ZUZ – LV – 2019 16. Antonio Rossellino (?), Madonna of the Candelabra. London, Victoria & Albert Museum 80 SAMO ŠTEFANAC the composition of Madonna of the Candelabra was around 1460 or possibly in the late 1460s, 38 and we can assume that the first copies followed soon after, but there is no way of knowing how many years or decades after the invention the copies were still being made – according to some experts it could have extended well into the first decades of the 16th century. 39 None of the copies is dated by an inscription and we can only speculate that the reliefs of higher quality level, which are presumably closer to the original, are probably earlier than the more mediocre examples. 40 Though it is nearly impossible to list all the reliefs, I believe it is safe to say that among all the types of the Virgin with Child that were mass produced in the Quat- trocento, Antonio Rossellino’s Madonna of the Candelabra was the most popular, yet it is not clear what caused its vast popularity. Was it purely because of its aes- thetic qualities or affordability, or is there something more behind it? As mentioned above, there is no marble original from which the reliefs would be copied and we do not even know whether one ever existed. One could speculate that the presumably lost original piece could have been a highly venerated image at the time and this would be decisive for the wide dissemination of its copies. Nevertheless, there is no testimony or even popular legend related to the origins of any of the known reliefs in the series, that would go back to the 15th century. 41 It is also worth mentioning that beside the reliefs in terracotta, stucco, and cartapesta, several plaquettes of small dimensions depicting the Madonna of the Candelabra are also preserved. 42 As they were not cast within the same process of mass production by using molds 38 John Pope-Hennessy dated the composition to the early 1460s based on comparison with the marble Madonna in the Pierpont Morgan Library, the Altman Madonna at the Metropolitan Muse- um, both in New York, as well as with the piece in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (Pope-Hennessy 1980, cit. n. 7, p. 146), while Giancarlo Gentilini proposed a slightly later dating between 1465 and 1470, pointing out that it actually shows a certain grade of maturity that Rossellino reached while working on the tomb of the Cardinal of Portugal at S. Miniato al Monte, finished by 1465 (Genti - lini 2008, cit n. 7, pp. 14–16). 39 Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, pp. 16–17. 40 It is worth mentioning that many of the pieces have been heavily repainted, some of them more than once, and a judgement of their quality is possible only after removing layer(s) of secondary pa- int. A good example is the relief in Hvar, which revealed a much higher level of quality after the re- storation. See Domančić 1991, cit. n. 10, p. 140 (before the restoration); Caglioti 2001, cit. n. 12, p. 80 (after the restoration). 41 The above-mentioned story about the 17th-century miracle of the relief from Mekinje, now in Ljubljana, is related to an event that happened while the piece was at the mentioned location long time after it had been made and does not offer any hint about possible previous veneration of this particular type of the Madonna. 42 Štefanac 1988, cit. n. 8; Gentilini 2008, cit. n. 7, pp. 20–21. 81 ZUZ – LV – 2019 in Antonio Rossellino’s workshop, but were produced separately, probably in the workshops specialized in bronze, we could ask the question whether this indi- cates that the image could have had some special devotional value, similar to the Madonna di Trapani, of which numerous small copies were made available to the pilgrims as sort of a souvenir, or is it just more proof of its popularity among the population, unrelated to some special veneration? 43 I am afraid that this question will have to remain unanswered until some new evidence emerges. Illustration references: author’s archive (1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15); Rijeka, Maritime and Historical Museum (4); Matej Klemenčič (5, 14); after Krstulović 2010, cit. n. 9, p. 159 (8); after Kalauz 1998, cit. n. 11, p. 134 (10, 11); Victoria & Albert Museum, London (16). 43 The practice of producing plaquette versions of the reliefs which were originally concieved on a larger scale is also known in other workshops: for example, there are reliefs of Donatello’s circle da- ted in the 1420s and 1430s that exist also in plaquette version, such as the so-called Madonna with the Child Turning Away and Madonna and Child under an Arch. See Anna Jolly , Madonnas by Donatello and his Circle, Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – New York – Paris – Wien 1993, pp. 143–152. The present paper is an output of the research and infrastructure programme History of Art of Slo- venia, Central Europe and the Adriatic (P6-0199), which is co-funded by the Slovenian Research Agency and the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Art (ARRS). 82 SAMO ŠTEFANAC Madone Antonia Rossellina in problem masovne produkcije florentinske zgodnjerenesančne plastike ter njenega zgodnjega širjenja na vzhodno jadransko obalo POVZETEK Proti sredini 15. stoletja se je v florentinskih kiparskih delavnicah dodobra uveljavila masovna produkcija del, predvsem Marijinih reliefov, izdelanih ne samo po naročilu, marveč namenjenih tudi prodaji, kot predmetov zasebne pobožnosti v obliki hišnih oltarčkov. Med najbolj produktivnimi je bila delavnica Antonia Rossellina, ena najbolj popularnih podob pa je bila t. i. Madona s kandelabri (Madonna delle Candelabre, Ma- donna of the Candelabra). Precejšnje število primerov te kompozicije se je ohranilo tudi na vzhodni jadranski obali in v njenem zaledju: poškodovan terakotni relief se nahaja v koprskem Pokrajinskem muzeju, primerek v tehniki cartapesta v ljubljanski uršulinski cerkvi, kar dva reliefa v štuku sta na Reki (Pomorski i povijesni muzej, Marijina cerkev na Škurinah) in eden v Rabu (zbirka cerkvene umetnosti). Južneje, v Dalmaciji, se dva reliefa nahajata v Šibeniku (primerek v štuku v frančiškanskem samostanu in leseni relief v Županijskem muzeju), v Hvaru (muzej katedrale, cartapesta) ter v Dubrovniku (dominikanski samostan, štuk). Temeljno vprašanje, ki se poraja ob teh reliefih, zadeva njihovo provenienco: gre zgolj za zbirateljske predmete, ki so prišli na današnje lokaci- je mnogo let po nastanku, ali so med njimi tudi taki, ki so prišli že v renesančni dobi? Medtem ko za reliefe v Kopru, reškem muzeju, Rabu in Hvaru nimamo nikakršnih po- datkov ali namigov o provenienci, lahko o nekaterih sklepamo, da so bili prisotni v regiji že kmalu po nastanku. Ljubljanski relief je nameščen v poznobaročno vitrino, v kateri je opis čudeža, ki ga je podoba leta 1638 povzročila v samostanu Mekinje, kar dokazu- je njeno prisotnost na Kranjskem vsaj že v 17. stoletju. Madona na Škurinah na Reki je bila po nepreverjenem izročilu dar Karla II., avstrijskega nadvojvode, špitalu sv. Duha na Reki leta 1573. O morebitni zgodnji prisotnosti Rossellinove Madone v frančiškan- skem samostanu v Šibeniku nimamo pisnih virov, a na to namiguje leseni relief z ena- ko kompozicijo v tamkajšnjem muzeju, ki je nedvomno delo lokalnega mojstra iz prve polovice 16. stoletja in verjetno se zdi, da gre prav za kopijo frančiškanskega reliefa, ki bi bil torej lahko v Šibeniku že v poznem 15. stoletju. Najbolj nenavaden primerek dela, nastalega po Rossellinovi kompoziciji, najdemo v zakladnici kotorske katedrale. Gre za tabelno sliko, ki so ji za nameček v poznejšem času še preslikali glavi obeh figur v bi- zantinskem slogu, sicer pa gre glede na njen slogovni značaj najverjetneje za delo Lo- vre Dobričevića ali njegovih naslednikov, torej delo poznega 15. stoletja. Glede na po- vezanost Dobričevića in njegove delavnice z Dubrovnikom se zdi smiselno domnevati, da bi bil predloga za sliko lahko relief v tamkajšnjem dominikanskem samostanu. Vsi navedeni primeri namigujejo na možnost, da je bila kompozicija Rossellinove Madone s kandelabri, ki je bila tudi sicer ena najpopularnejših florentinskih Madon zgodnje re- nesanse, že v poznem 15. stoletju dobro znana tudi med prebivalci vzhodne jadranske obale, med katerimi so bili najverjetneje tudi kupci omenjenih reliefov. 268 PROF. ENRICA COZZI Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Trieste Androna Campo Marzio, 10 I-34123 Trieste cozzi@units.it DR. CLAUDIA CROSERA Soprintendenza archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio del Friuli Venezia Giulia Ufficio di Trieste Piazza Libertà, 7 I-34132 Trieste claudia.crosera@beniculturali.it DOC. DR. NEŽA ČEBRON LIPOVEC Oddelek za arheologijo in dediščino Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem Titov trg 5 SI-6000 Koper neza.cl@fhs.upr.si DR. ROSSELLA FABIANI Promozione e attività culturali, Polo museale del Friuli Venezia Giulia Palazzo Economo, Piazza Libertà, 7 I-34135 Trieste rossella.fabiani@beniculturali.it MAG. BARBKA GOSAR HIRCI Restavratorski center ZVKDS Poljanska cesta 40 SI-1000 Ljubljana barbka.hirci@rescen.si DR. ANA JENKO KOVAČIČ Oddelek za zgodovino, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana ana.jenko@ff.uni-lj.si DR. MOJCA MARJANA KOVAČ Obzidna ulica 9 SI-6000 Koper mojca.kovac@zvkds.si DOC. DR. KATJA MAHNIČ Oddelek za umetnostno zgodovino, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana katja.mahnic@ff.uni-lj.si SI-1000 Ljubljana mojca_jenko@ng-slo.si Avtorji / Authors 269 ZUZ – LV – 2019 MAG. ANDREJA RAKOVEC Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitut Franceta Steleta ZRC SAZU Novi trg 2 SI-1001 Ljubljana andreja.rakovec@zrc-sazu.si RED. PROF. DR. SAMO ŠTEFANAC Oddelek za umetnostno zgodovino, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana samo.stefanac@ff.uni-lj.si SARA TURK MAROLT Oddelek za umetnostno zgodovino, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana sara.turk@ff.uni-lj.si 272 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Ana JENKO KOVAČIČ, Škofovske in komunalne palače v luči institucionalnih sprememb v Istri v srednjem veku Ključne besede: Istra, srednj vek, škofje, komuna, škofovska palača, komunalna palača Članek obravnava omembe škofovskih in komunalnih palač v Istri, natančneje v Trstu, Kopru, Poreču in Pulju v 12. in 13. stoletju. Zaradi različnih specifik posameznih mest glede na institucionalne spremembe in razvoj škofovskih sedežev, predstavljajo ti primeri plodno podlago za vzpostavitev primerjalnega okvira. Medtem ko pri škofovskih palačah ni mogoče v celoti zajeti vseh vidikov rabe palače v mestu, kjer poleg cerkvenega upra- vljanja prevladujejo primeri uporabe za urejanje fevdalnih zadev škofovskega zemljišča, omembe komunalnih palač v grobem odražajo pomembne politične spremembe v mestih. 1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Ana JENKO KOVAČIČ, Episcopal and Communal Palaces in Light of Institutional Changes in Istria in the Middle Ages Keywords: Istria, Middle Ages, bishops, commune, diocesan palace, communal palace The article deals with mentions of diocesan and communal palaces in Istria, more pre- cisely in Trieste, Koper, Poreč, and Pula in the 12th and 13th centuries. Due to each town’s diverse starting points in regard to institutional changes and the development of diocesan seats, these examples in Istria present fertile ground for the establishment of a compara- tive framework. While in the case of diocesan palaces it is not possible to fully cover all aspects of the usage of the palace in the town – in addition to the church administrations, cases of use for the regulation of feudal affairs of bishopric lands predominate – mentions of communal palaces are approximately in line with important political changes in towns. 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Enrica COZZI, Gotsko slikarstvo v slovenski Istri in piranski poliptih Paola Veneziana Ključne besede: gotsko slikarstvo, Istra, Koper, Piran, Paolo Veneziano, poliptih, zaščita, konserviranje V mestih ob istrski obali (Koper, Piran) je ohranjena vrsta pomembnih del slikarstva iz časa gotike. V članku so analizirane nekatere freske iz 14. stoletja in poliptih, ki ga je za Piran izdelal Paolo Veneziano. Pozornost je usmerjena na nekatere nenavadne in manj znane vidike: prve objave iz zgodnjega dvajsetega stoletja, fotografska dokumentacija, shranjena v tržaških arhivih (Civici Musei di Storia e Arte; Soprintendenza), in tudi no- vosti, ki so jih prinesli nedavni restavratorski posegi na poliptihu.  Sinopsisi / Abstracts 273 ZUZ – LV – 2019 1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Enrica COZZI, Gothic Painting in Slovenian Istria and the Polyptych from Piran by Paolo Veneziano Keywords; gothic painting, Istria, Koper, Piran, Paolo Veneziano, polyptych, protection, conservation Painting from the Gothic period preserves significant evidence in the towns along the Istrian coast (Koper, Piran). Some frescoes datable to the 14th century are analyzed, as well as the polyptych painted for Piran by Paolo Veneziano. Attention is focused on some peculiar and lesser-known aspects: the first critical fortune, in the writings of the early 20th century; the photographic documentation preserved in the Historical Archives of Trieste (Civici Musei di Storia e Arte; Soprintendenza); as well as the new features high- lighted by recent restorations.   1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Samo ŠTEFANAC, Madone Antonia Rossellina in problem masovne produkcije florentinske zgodnjerenesančne plastike ter njenega zgodnjega širjenja na vzhodno jadransko obalo Ključne besede: Antonio Rossellino, Madona s kandelabri, Koper, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Rab, Šibenik, Hvar, Dubrovnik, Kotor, florentinsko kiparstvo 15. stoletja Članek obravnava vrsto reliefov t. i. “Madone s kandelabri” po Antoniu Rossellinu na vzhodni jadranski obali in v zaledju (Koper, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Rab, Šibenik, Hvar, Du- brovnik). Določeni indici namigujejo na to, da nekateri izmed obravnavanih reliefov na današnje lokacije niso prišli šele kot zbirateljski kosi, marveč že kmalu po nastanku (Ko- per, Rijeka, Šibenik, Dubrovnik). Na podlagi tega lahko sklepamo, da je masovna pro- dukcija zgodnjerenesančne florentinske plastike dosegla vzhodno jadransko obalo že v poznem 15. stoletju.  1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Samo ŠTEFANAC, Antonio Rossellino’s Madonnas and the Problem of Mass-produced Florentine Renaissance Sculpture and its Early Diffusion on the Eastern Shore of Adriatic Keywords: Antonio Rossellino, Madonna of the Candelabra, Koper, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Rab, Šibenik, Hvar, Dubrovnik, Kotor, 15th century Florentine sculpture This paper discusses a series of the reliefs depicting the “Madonna of the Candelabra” after Antonio Rossellino spread along the eastern coast of Adriatic and its hinterland (Koper, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Rab, Šibenik, Hvar, Dubrovnik). Certain indications suggest that some of the reliefs in question did not come to their present-day locations only as collector’s items, but rather shortly after being produced (Koper, Rijeka, Šibenik, Dubrovnik). Based on this, is can be assumed that the mass production of early Renaissance Florentine sculp- ture reached the eastern Adriatic coast already by the late 15th century.  274 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Barbka GOSAR HIRCI, Konservatorsko-restavratorski posegi na slikah Vittoreja in Benedetta Carpaccia iz koprske stolnice Ključne besede: Koper, cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja, konserviranje in restavriranje, Vittore Carpaccio, Benedetto Carpaccio, slike na platnu Konservatorsko-restavratorski projekt Carpaccio se je začel leta 2010. Vanj so bile vklju- čene slike Vittoreja Carpaccia Pokol nedolžnih otrok in Predstavitev v templju ter Marija s svetnikoma njegovega sina Benedetta Carpaccia. Natančen popis stanja umetnin, ra- zumevanje avtorjeve tehnologije in prepoznavanje starih restavratorskih posegov so bile začetna stopnja kompleksnega projekta. Leta 2015 so se začeli konservatorsko-restavra- torski posegi z odstranjevanjem potemnelih lakov, kar je z vidika etike, estetike in tehno- logije eden izmed najzahtevnejših posegov. Sledili so postopki, ki so zaustavili propada- nje nosilcev in estetsko dogradili manjkajoče dele naslikanih motivov. Decembra 2018 so bila dela na vseh treh slikah končana. Projekt Carpaccio je združeval znanje domačih in tujih strokovnjakov, ki delujejo na različnih področjih varovanja kulturne dediščine, ter se nadaljuje s konservatorsko-restavratorskimi posegi na najmogočnejši sliki iz koprske stolnice, Vittorejevi veliki oltarni sliki Marija na prestolu z detetom in šestimi svetniki.  1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Barbka GOSAR HIRCI, The Conservation and Restoration Treatments of Paintings by Vittore and Benedetto Carpaccio from Koper/Capodistria Cathedral Keywords: Cathedral of Mary’s Assumption in Koper, conservation and restoration, Vittore Carpaccio, Benedetto Carpaccio, paintings on canvas The Carpaccio conservation and restoration project began in 2010. The paintings in - cluded in this project were Vittore Carpaccio’s The Slaughter of the Innocents and The Presentation in the Temple, as well as the Madonna with Two Saints by his son, Bened- etto Carpaccio. This complex project commenced with a detailed description of the art - works’ condition, gaining an understanding of the technologies used by the artists, and recognising the old restoration treatments. In 2015, conservation and restoration began by removing darkened varnishes, which is one of the most complex procedures from the perspective of ethics, aesthetics, and technology. This was followed by procedures to stop the canvas from deteriorating and to aesthetically add the missing parts of the painted motifs. In December 2018, work on all three paintings was completed. Project Carpaccio brought together the expertise of Slovenian and foreign experts from a variety of fields in protecting cultural heritage, and continues with the conservation and restoration of the most impressive painting from the Cathedral of Mary’s Assumption in Koper, Vittore’s large altar paintings of the Madonna with Child on the Throne and Six Saints.   275 ZUZ – LV – 2019 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Mojca Marjana KOVAČ, »Taiapiera Bonfante Torre.« Beneški kamnosek in delavnica v Piranu Ključne besede: Bonfante Torre, kamnosek, Benetke, delavnica, Piran, cerkev sv. Jurija, pročelje, oltarji, arhivski viri Članek je v prvem delu rezultat poglobljenega pregleda arhivskih virov, hranjenih v Po- krajinskem arhivu Koper, Enoti Piran, in sicer v fondu Varia Piranensia in v župnijskem arhivu sv. Jurija v Piranu, Libro di Fabbrica di S. Giorgio 1608–1689 in bratovščinska knji- ga Libro dela scola di Sancto Giorgio de Pirano – MDCXIII. Zato je lahko sistematično predstavljen podrobnejši seznam del mojstra Bonfanta in njegovih dveh sinov Stefana in Girolama, ki so bila izvedena v času obnove piranske cerkve v prvi polovici 17. stole- tja. Večinoma so to dokumenti v knjigah izdatkov in prihodkov v času gradnje piranske cerkve, med temi dokumenti pa najdemo tudi pogodbe za posamezna naročena dela. V drugem delu je strokovno opredeljen opus izvedenih del v Benetkah izučenega mojstra Bonfanta, ki je v svoji piranski delavnici zagotovo izdelal cerkveno opremo v obnovljeni cerkvi. Pomen njegovega opusa nedvomno temelji na ugotovitvah, da je mojster poznal za tedanji čas sodobne sakralne arhitekturne interierne rešitve, poleg tega pa kaže poznava- nje oltarnih rešitev, zato se njegova dela primerjajo z možnimi vzori iz beneških cerkva.    1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Mojca Marjana KOVAČ, “Taiapiera Bonfante Torre”. The Venetian Stonemason and his Workshop in Piran Keywords: Bonfante Torre, stonemason, Venice, workshop, Piran, church of St George, facade, altars, archival sources In the first part, the article is the result of a deepened review of archival sources kept in the Koper Provincial Archives, Piran Unit, namely in the Varia Piranensia fund and in the parish archive of St. George in Piran, Libro di Fabbrica di S. Giorgio 1608–1689, and the brotherhood book Libro dela scola di Sancto Giorgio de Pirano – MDCXIII. There - fore, a more detailed list of the works by master Bonfante and his two sons Stefano and Girolamo, which were carried out during the renovation of the Piran church in the first half of the 17th century, can be systematically presented. These are mostly documents in the expenditure and income books during the renovation of the Piran church, and among these documents, we also find contracts for individual ordered works. In the second part, there is a professionally defined opus of the works completed by the Venice-educated master Bonfante, who certainly produced the church equipment in the restored church in his workshop in Piran. The importance of his work is undoubtedly based on the find - ings that the master was familiar with contemporary sacral architectural interior solu- tions, as well with altar solutions, which is why his works are compared with possible models from Venetian churches.  276 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Andreja RAKOVEC, Štukature v palači Besegnhi degli Ughi v Izoli Ključne besede: palača Besenghi degli Ughi, štukature, Izola, ikonografija, personifikacije, 18. stoletje, Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, Schiavi Palača Besenghi degli Ughi v Izoli, zgrajena med letoma 1775 in 1781 za Pasqualeja (II) Besenghi degli Ughija, je ena najrazkošnejših mestnih palač v slovenskem Primorju. Okra- šena je z bogatimi rokokojskimi štukaturami. Kljub skromni kakovosti so ikonografsko najbolj zanimive štukature v stranskem salonu, ki predstavljajo personifikacije po Iconolo- gii Cesareja Ripe. Motivi bi lahko opozarjali na ideale, h katerim je stremel humanistično izobražen naročnik. Istemu mojstru ali delavnici lahko pripišemo štukature v cerkvi sv. Marije Alietske v Izoli in cerkvi sv. Mihaela v Lokvi. V štukaturah odmeva slog štukatur v koprski stolnici, ki so delo delavnice Schiavi s sredine 18. stoletja.  1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Andreja RAKOVEC, Stuccoworks at Besenghi degli Ughi Palace in Izola Keywords: Besenghi degli Ughi Palace, stuccoworks, Izola, iconography, personifications, 18th century, Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, Schiavi The Besenghi degli Ughi Palace in Izola, built between 1775 and 1781 for Pasquale (II) Besenghi degli Ughi, is the most sumptuous city palace along the Slovenian Coastline. It is decorated with rich rococo stuccoworks. Despite their poor quality in general, icono- graphically the most outstanding are the stuccoworks in the side salon, which present personifications based on Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia. The depicted motifs may refer to the ideals to which the humanistically educated commissioner aspired. The stuccoworks in the church of St. Mary of Alieto in Izola and the other in the parish church of St. Michael in Lokev can be attributed to the same master(s). There are stylistic links with the stuc- coworks in the Koper Cathedral, made by the Schiavi workshop in the mid-18th century. 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Sara TURK MAROLT, Od Kopra do piranskega Sv. Petra. Usoda nekaterih koprskih oltarjev v obdobju francoske okupacije Istre Ključne besede: Koper, koprska stolnica, oltarna arhitektura, kamniti baročni oltarji, 17. stoletje, sv. Peter, Piran V času francoske okupacije Istre je na tem območju prišlo do razpustitve velikega števila cerkvenih ustanov in posledično do premikov cerkvene opreme. Konec leta 1806 je kopr- ska stolnica dobila pet novih marmornih oltarjev iz ukinjenih cerkva, s katerimi je zame- njala pet že obstoječih cerkvenih oltarjev. Prav tako pa naj bi bila po pričevanjih ustnega vira tudi v cerkev sv. Petra v istoimenskem kraju občine Piran prenesena dva oltarja iz Kopra, posvečena Mariji in Valentinu (kasneje razstavljena in odstranjena iz cerkve). Na podlagi nekdaj videnega napisa na Marijinem oltarju in drugih v oltar vzidanih elementov, je bilo mogoče ta oltar identificirati z nekdanjim oltarjem sv. Barbare iz koprske stolnice, ki ga je dala postaviti bratovščina Bombardierov leta 1670 v času škofa Francesca Zena.   277 ZUZ – LV – 2019 1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Sara TURK MAROLT, From Koper to Sv. Peter in Piran. The Fate of Two Giustinopolitan Altars during the French Occupation of Istria Keywords: Koper, Koper Cathedral, altar architecture, 17th century, marble baroque Altars, Church of St. Peter, Piran The French occupation of Istria took place at the beginning of 19th century and resulted in the suppression of a large number of ecclesiastical institutions and the relocation of their furnishings to other, still active churches. At the end of 1806, the Koper Cathedral received five new marble altars from such suppressed churches and replaced its five exist- ing altars with them. According to oral sources, the church of St. Peter in its eponymous village in the municipality of Piran bought two altars from Koper (later dismantled and removed from the church). Based mostly on the inscription once seen on the altar dedi- cated to the Coronation of Mary, it was possible to identify this altar with the former altar of St. Barbara from the Koper Cathedral, commissioned by the Bombardieri fraternity in 1670 during the reign of Bishop Francesco Zeno.  1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Rosella FABIANI, Pietro Nobile v Piranu. Načrti za cerkev svetega Petra Ključne besede: Piran, Pietro Nobile, cerkev sv. Petra V zbirki risb Pietra Nobila, ki jih hrani tržaški urad za spomeniško varstvo (Soprinten- denza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio del Friuli Venezia Giulia), je serija desetih arhi- tektovih lastnih akvareliranih risb, variant projekta za fasado cerkve sv. Petra v Piranu. Pri tej cerkvi je imel Pietro Nobile vlogo konservatorja-restavratorja in tudi projektanta. Nova fasada, ki jo določa majhnost srednjeveške cerkve in zamejenost lokacije, se je odlič- no vklopila v obod piranskega mandrača in ustvarila njegov mogočen, neoklasičen zaklju- ček.  Pri njenem oblikovanju se je Nobile skliceval na svoje študije v Rimu, izbiral je tudi med bližnjimi vzori, kot je na primer Avgustov tempelj v Pulju, pozna pa se tudi vpliv so- časne arhitekture, kot je na primer Valadierjeva cerkev San Pantaleo v Rimu iz leta 1806.   1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Rosella FABIANI, Pietro Nobile in Piran. Projects for the Church of Saint Peter Keywords: Piran, Pietro Nobile, church of San Pietro.  The Pietro Nobile collection of drawings (Trieste, Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio del Friuli Venezia Giulia) includes a series of watercolored drawings by Pietro Nobile himself, all of the same size and showing ten versions of the façade of the church of St. Peter in Piran. For this project, Nobile was working in the dual role of conservator/ restorer and designer. The building only had a small interior and space was restricted. Accordingly, he saved all his creative energy for the façade, where he was able to work freely in an urban setting, creating a monumental front for Piran’s mandracchio, or small inner harbor. In his proposals, Nobile recalls the classical architecture he admired dur- ing his studies in Rome, as well as architectural works in the region, like the Temple of Augustus in Pula, as well as some contemporary works, for example, the church of San Pantaleo, built by Valadier in Rome in 1806.   278 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Katja MAHNIČ, Umetnostni spomeniki istrskih mest in njihova obravnava v času prve svetovne vojne Ključne besede: umetnostni spomeniki, Primorska, prva svetovna vojna, umetnostna zgodovina, propaganda V času prve svetovne vojne so pri ozaveščanju o pomenu umetnostnih spomenikov in njiho- vega varovanja igrale pomembno vlogo tudi t. i. vojne publikacije, namenjene najširši javno- sti. Istrska mesta in njihove spomenike je v posebnem poglavju obravnaval Leo Planiscig v publikaciji o spomenikih na južnih vojnih področjih iz leta 1915. V njej je podal kratek oris kulturnozgodovinskega razvoja Istre in predstavil njene najpomembnejše spomenike, na- stale od obdobja antike dalje. Dve leti kasneje je izšla še ena publikacija, ki je bralcem pred- stavljala umetnostne spomenike področja od »Posočja do Balkana«. Njen izid je bil vezan na dejavnost vojaškega arhiva oz. njene posebne literarne skupine, katere naloga je bila popu- larizacija vojnih dogodkov. Ima obliko dnevnika vojaškega oddelka, bogato opremljenega s slikami. Na podlagi obeh besedil ter ob primerjavi z leta 1916 izdano Planiscig Fonesicsevo monografijo o arhitekturnih in umetnostnih spomenikih Primorske prispevek osvetljuje pomen in vlogo umetnostnih spomenikov istrskih mest v kontekstu prve svetovne vojne.  1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Katja MAHNIČ, The Presentation of the Works of Art in the Former Austrian Littoral region during World War I Keywords: works of art, Austrian Littoral Region, first world war, art history, propaganda During World War I, so-called war publications played an important role in raising aware- ness about the importance of works of art and their protection. Istrian towns and their artworks were discussed by Leo Planiscig in a special chapter of his publication on art in the southern war zones from 1915 onward. In it, he gave a brief outline of Istria’s cul- tural and historical development, and presented its most important works of art, creat- ed from antiquity onwards. Two years later, another publication was issued, which pre- sented to its readers works of art from the region of “Posočje (the Soča River Valley) to the Balkans”. Its publication was a product of the military archive or its special literary group, whose task was to popularise war events. The publication was written in the form of a richly illustrated military journal. Based on both texts and in comparison with the 1916 “Folnesics” and Planiscig’s monograph on the works of architecture and art of the Primorska region, the article sheds light on the importance and role of the works of art in Istrian towns in the context of World War I. 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Claudia CROSERA, Dejavnost spomeniškega varstva med obema vojnama. Restavriranje umetnin v Istri in v Furlaniji - Julijski krajini Ključne besede: Trst, Regia Soprintendenza, Achille Bertini Calosso, Antonio Morassi, Antonio Leiss, restavratorstvo, Giuseppe Cherubini, Sergio Sergi, Lorenzo Cecconi Principi, Augusto Vermeheren, Istra, Oglej, Gradišče ob Soči, Koper, Izola, Poreč, Piran Prispevek prinaša pregled delovanja spomeniško varstvene službe – uradov Kraljevega nad- zorništva antičnih in umetnostnih del v Trstu (Regia Soprintendenza alle opere d’antichità e d’arte di Trieste) – v dvajsetih in tridesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja s pomočjo študija posa- meznih restavratorskih posegov v Furlaniji - Julijski krajini, v Istri in na kvarnerskih otokih. 279 ZUZ – LV – 2019 1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Claudia CROSERA, Monument Protection Activity Between the Two Wars. Restoration of Works of Art in Istria and the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region Keywords: Trieste, Regia Soprintendenza, Achille Bertini Calosso, Antonio Morassi, Antonio Leiss, painters-restorers, Giuseppe Cherubini, Sergio Sergi, Lorenzo Cecconi Principi, Augusto Vermeheren, Istra, Aquileia, Gradisca, Koper, Izola, Poreč, Piran This paper examines some crucial events in the history of cultural heritage protection between the 1920s and 1930s through the study of certain art restorations carried out by the offices of the Regia Soprintendenza of Trieste in Venezia Giulia, Istria, and the Quarnaro Islands. 1.01 IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK Neža ČEBRON LIPOVEC, »Revolucija mesta«. Staro mestno jedro v povojnih urbanističnih načrtih za Koper Ključne besede: povojna arhitektura, staro mestno jedro, Niko Bežek, Edo Mihevc, Koper/Capodistria Članek predstavlja odnos do starega mestnega jedra Kopra v urbanističnih načrtih v dveh desetletjih po 2. svetovni vojni. Na osnovi arhivskega gradiva predstavljamo tri faze urbanega razvoja mesta, predvsem dve po letu 1954. Koprski urbanist je sprva bil arhi- tekt Niko Bežek, ki je predvidel sodobno modernistično mesto, odmaknjeno od prete- žno ohranjenega starega jedra na nekdanjem otoku. Z letom 1957 ga je zamenjal arhitekt Edo Mihevc, ki je postal vodilni urbanist v obalni regiji ter za Koper predvidel radikalne posege z rušenji in visokimi gradnjami. V teh prepoznavamo tako funkcionalistične kot še historistične vzorce.  1.01 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Neža ČEBRON LIPOVEC, “Revolution of the City”. The Historic Urban Center in the Post-war Urban Plans for Koper/Capodistria Keywords: post-war architecture, historic center, Niko Bežek, Edo Mihevc, Koper/ Capodistria The article presents attitudes towards the historic center of Koper/Capodistria within the urban plans, designed in the two decades after WWII. Based on archival documents, three phases of the city’s urban development are outlined, particularly those starting af- ter 1954. The first city planner was the architect Niko Bežek, who designed a contempo- rary modernist neighbourhood, away from the mainly preserved historic center on the former island. By 1957, his role was taken over by the architect Edo Mihevc, who had become the coastal region’s principle urban planner and who foresaw for Koper radical transformations through demolition and high-rise construction. His approach shows both functionalist as well as historicist patterns.