Chapter 2 - Choice of Architectural Forms

Summary

ANY DISCUSSION OF the new dynasties evolving between the ninth and tenth centuries in Central and Eastern Europe inevitably brings up the matter of their conscious participation in the Christian European world. Were their gestures—as princes and future kings—intentional political decisions, or did they choose to blindly emulate their surroundings? Were they consciously developing power, or simply replicating recently acquired content? Or, alternatively, was it the influence of their personal advisors who grafted an array of behaviours, practices, and rules? One way of exploring these questions is through examining the choice of architectural forms.

Who were the people behind the choice of architectural formats of individual establishments? What “purpose” or use was served by the forms employed in architectural solutions? Were they merely intended to help create a functional building—whether palace or church? Or did the choice of form follow specific rules, important to particular cases? Last but not least, did the Piasts, Přemyslids, and Árpáds develop new models once they began ruling or reach back for lessons from their ancestors?

Any building's form and size are the key components obvious to any viewer, including researchers wanting to analyze architectural forms. Yet connecting these elements to the issue of the display of power is rarely researched. Initially, the focus of researchers was on the issue of adapting ancient forms to the language and needs of Christian liturgy.It was only later that analyses of change in architectural forms over the centuries yielded a link to displays of power. Later research has looked at the genealogy of structural forms, stylistic inspiration, and the design of interior space. This method offers an opportunity to form a more detailed image of architecture and its users—the direct or indirect founders.

Founding patrons mainly hailed from centres of power. Let me outline how power could be wielded. In the case of dynastic rule, where all or most power was held by a single person, two basic types of architectural patron can be distinguished. One was more conciliar and was based on the royal house and the associated circle of beneficiaries from noble families whose representatives could also constitute the ecclesiastical hierarchy (familiae infulatae).