UDC: 75.041.5(495.02)
^EDOMILA MARINKOVI] (Kragujevac)
FOUNDER’S MODEL — REPRESENTATION OF A MAQUETTE
OR THE CHURCH?*
The text deals with some terminological problems concerning the so-called founder’s model.Although it is commonly used to designate the depicted architecture
in the hand of the church founder,the expression“founder’s(ktetor’s)model”is often confusing and misleading.The main question is whether the Byzantine architects used actual model/maquettes for constructing their churches and if so, could these mod-els/maquettes have been used for the architecture depicted in founders’ portraits? In other worlds is the representation in the donor’s hand the image of a built church or its maquette,produced as a project model?The different aspects of the problem we ana-lysed—the legal,technical and symbolic functions of these representations support our assumption that the architectural design model/maquette did not serve as a specimen for representations of architecture on founder’s portraits.This specific type of architec-ture depicted was created after the building itself was completed.
Among the vast,wide-ranging repertoire of architectural imagery in Byzantine art,the representation of a church building as depicted in the founder’s portrait occu-pies an exceptional place,not only in monumental painting,but also in mosaics, re-liefs,and illuminations.The only exceptions,according to Nancy [ev~enko,are the icons where such representations generally have not been documented.1 Numerous representations of founders’ models have been found in the territories of the
*This paper is based on my master's thesis about various aspects of depicted founder‘s architec-ture,done at the Art History Department of the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade,under the direction of Prof.Marica [uput in the spring of2005.Besides my advisor’s support,I benefited a great deal from the insightful reading and suggestions by Academician Zaga Gavrilovi}, Prof. Marian Malet, Jelena Bogdanovi} and Prof.Richard Marx.I would like to express my gratitude to all of them.
1Nancy Patterson-[ev~enko,The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on four Byzantine Icons,Delt.Crist. ’Arc.‘Et.IZ’(1993–94) 157.The only exception regarding the above stated opinion is the two-sided icon representing the Trapezuntine emperor,Alexios III Komnenos,and Saint John the Forerunner,holding the very schematic representation of a domed church,today in the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou, Mount Athos, Greece. This icon is from 1349–90. Cf. Byzantium, Faith and Power
Byzantine Empire but most of them,rather,come from the countries under its cul-tural influence, such as Armenia,Bulgaria, Georgia, Sicily, Russia and Serbia.2
The representations of churches in founders’portraits from Serbian medieval monuments form the core of our research.Therefore,the visual material from forty Serbian churches is presented in a monographic way in order to provide a complete and chronological repertoire of these representations.Furthermore,over sixty images from Byzantine monuments are used as comparative material,and this enabled us to gain a more comprehensive idea of the material in medieval Orthodox Christian art as a whole.3
Our first step was to define the problem of the representation of a church build-ing and to establish precise and clear terminology,since the commonly used expres-sion “founder’s (ktetor’s) model” is often confusing and misleading.
Compared with other representations of architecture,the church buildings de-picted in founders’portraits belong to what Anka Stojakovi} has defined as “ essen-tial images”4 of the illustrated architecture and have, as well as the accompanying
2Armenia:the Holy Cross Church in Aght’amar(915–921).
Bulgaria: St. Michael's Church in Ivanovo (1218–1241), the Church of SS. Nicolas and Panteleimon in Boiana(1259),the Church of the Holy Virgin in Donja Kamenica (XIV century),St. Nicola’s Church in Stani~enje(1331–1332),St.Nicola’s Church in Kalotina(1331–1334),the Ossuary Chapel in Ba~kovo(1331–1371),and St.Marina’s Church in Karlukovo(mid.XIV century).
Georgia:the Church of St.Sion in Ateni(first half of the VII century);K’orgo(VIII century);St.
John the Baptist in Op’iza(923–937);Dolisquana(937–954);St.John the Baptist in Oskhi(963–973);
St.Nishan in Haghpad(967–991);the Church of the Holy Virgin in Tzarostavi(end of the X century);
the Chapel of the Catholicon in Udabno(mid.XI century);the Church of the Nativity of the Holy Virgin in Gelati(1106–1125);the Church of the Holy Virgin in Betania(mid.XII century);the Dormition of the Theotokos in Vardzia(1184–1186);St.Nicola’s Church in Qincvisi(around1207);
Sicily:Monreale,Cathedral (1171–1183).
Russia:Kiev:St.Sophia(1045);the Church of the Holy Saviour in Neredica(1245);the Church of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin in Volotovo(1352).
Serbia:the Church of the Ascension in Mile{eva(1219–1228),the southern chapel of the exonarthex in the Theotokos Evergetis Church in Studenica(around1235),the Church of the Holy Trinity in Sopo}ani
(1270–1276),the Church of the Annunciation in Gradac(around1275),King’s Dragutin Chapel in Djurdjevi Stupovi(1282–1283), the Church of St.Achilleos in Arilje(1295–1296),the Church of SS.Joachim and Anna in Studenica(1314),St.George's Church in Staro Nagori~ino(1316–1318),the Church of the Annunci-ation in Gra~anica(around1320),St.Peter’s Church in Bijelo Polje(around1320),St.Nicola’s Church in Stani~enje,the Holy Virgin Hodegetria Church in the Patriarchate of Pe}(before1337),St.George's Church in Gornji Kozjak(around1340),the Church of the Annunciation in Karan(1340–1342),the Church of the Annunciation in Dobrun(1343),the Church of the Holy Saviour in De~ani(1343),St.George's Church in Polo{ko(1343–1345),the Church of the Holy Archangel Michael in Lesnovo(1346–1347),the Chapel in the Church of the Holy Virgin in Treskavac(1350–1360),the Church of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin in Matei~(1355–1360),St.Nicola’s Church in Psa~a(1365–1371),the Church of the Ascension in Ravanica
(after1389),St.Nicola’s Church in Rama}a(around1395),the Church of St.Elias in Rudenica(1402–1405),
the Church of the Holy Trinity in Manasija(before1418),the Theotokos Evergetis Church in Studenica( re-painted in1568),St.George’s Church in Vra}ev{nica(repainted in1737).Some other examples of depicted founder’s architecture have dissappeared and are known only from written sources.
3^.Marinkovi},Image of a completed church:The representation of architecture in founder’s portraits in Serbian and Byzantine Art,Belgrade(forthcoming).Hereafter:Marinkovi},Image.
4A.Stojakovi} uses this term as opposed to“framing images”or Tania Velman’s term“decor
inscriptions, a fundamental role in establishing the iconographic motif of the church founder.The ability of the observer to recognise the actual building emphasises one of the basic functions of these motifs.These representations show a certain level of stylisa-tion.But,a church building as depicted in a founder’s portrait preserves the basic fea-tures of its original(such as domes and,where they exist,towers,as well as many spe-cific details),enabling one to recognise the entire structure and connect the image with the completed architecture.Similarly,the inclusion of the founder,by means of his por-trait,as a historical character in the painted assembly of the timeless heavenly dwellers,
the representation of a church in his hands,indicates the introduction of architectural re-ality in the broader repertoire of mainly symbolic architectural backdrops.
The representation of the church building in founders’portraits,as part of the iconographic motif of the founder,is usually called afounders’modelormodel of the church. This expression is widely used in both Serbian and Byzantine literature.5 Our question is whether these terms are the appropriate ones?
1970, 34.E.Lipsmeyer shares the same opinion as Stojakovi}.Cf.E.Lipsmeyer,The Donor And His Church Model In Medieval Art From Early Christian Times To The Late Romanesque Period, unpub-lished PhD Thesis(Rutgers University,New Jersey1981), 121.Hereafter:Lipsmeyer,Donor.
5In Serbian:model crkve(F.Gerke,Kasna antika i rano hri{}anstvo,Novi Sad1973,218;V. \uri}, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji, Beograd 1975, 35, 44, 57, 75, 80 (Hereafter: \uri}, Vizantijske freske);Grupa autora, Istorija primewene umetnosti kod Srba, Beograd 1977, 221;
\.Bo{kovi},Osvrt na neka pitanja arhitektonskog re{enja crkve sv.Mihajla u Stonu,Gunja~in zbornik
(1980) 141; R. Qubinkovi}, Crkva Sv. Nikole u Stani~ewu, Zograf 15 (1984) 77. B. Todi}, Gra~anica, Beograd–Pri{tina 1988, 130, 170, 171; Idem, Srpsko slikarstvo u doba kraqa Milutina, Beograd 1998, 33, 36, 44, 49, 55, 57, 62, 299, 328, 333;S. Gabeli}, Manastir Lesnovo, Beograd 1998, 31, 32, 33, 114, 116, 117;V. Kora}, Spomenici monumentalne srpske arhitekture
XIVveka u Povardarju, Beograd 2003, 43, 50, 57, 66).
in English:Model of the church(O.Demus,The mosaics of Norman Siciliy,London1949, 302, 304;C.Morey,Early Christian Art,London1953, 164, 179;A.and J.Styilianou,Donors and dedicatory inscriptions,supplicants and supplications in the painted churches of Cyprus,JOBG IX(1960) 98, 99, 103, 104;Idem,Painted churches of Cyprus,Stourbridge1964, 53;V.Lazarev,Old Russian Murals and Mosa-ics,London1966, 48, 127, 236;J.Spatharakis,The portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts,Leiden
1976, 189, 248; T. Malmquist, Byzantine 12th Century Frescoes in Kastoria, Uppsala 1979, 85, 87;
Lipsmeyer,The Donor, 56, 59et passim;S.Kalopissi-Verti,Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth Century Churches in Greece,Wien 1992, 99, 101;A.Kirin-G.Gerov,New Data on the14th Century Mural Painting in the Church of St.Nikola in Kalotina, Zograf 23 (1993–94) 53;A.Eastmond,
Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia,Pennsylvania1998, 56, 61, 62, 103, 104, 113, 144, 149, 156, 201).
Model of the church building (H. Franses, Symbols, Meaning, Belief: Donor portraits in Byzantine Art,PhD thesis,London University1992, 8).
in German: Das Modell der Kirche (O. Benndorf, Antike Baumodelle, Jahreshefte des Osterreichisches Archaologishen Instituts in Wien Bd.V, 1 (1902), 178;F.W.Deichmann,Ravenna. Hauptstadt des Spateantiken und Abendlandes.I–III,Wiesbaden 1969–1976, 178, 180, 345, 373;Ch. Ihm, Die Programme der Christlichen Apsismalerei vom 4. Jahrhundert bis zum Mitte des 8.
Jahrhunderts,Stuttgart1992, 24, 139, 142, 144, 164, 173, 194;Naumann-Belting,Die Euphemia Kirche
an Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken,Berlin1966, 190;H.und H.Buschhausen,Die Marienkirche von Apollonia in Albanien:Byzantiner,Normanien und Serben im Kampf um die Via Egnatia,Vienna
1976, 155, 170, 178, 179, 180, 181).
in French:le modele de l’eglise(T.Velmans,Les fresques d’Ivanovo et la peinture byzantineala
S. Radoj~i} in his book “Portraits of Serbian medieval rulers” discussed the representations of church buildings in the founders’hands and used the term model of endowment.6This expression is based on the fact that it is the founder’s privilege to be depicted with the church he is endowing.Only the founder of the church had such a privilege, while other donors could not exercise the same authority. Cecilia Davis-Weyer,in her study dealing with the establishment of Roman apsidal compo-sition in early Christian Art,includes a large number of examples ofmodels of en-dowmentdating from the IV to the VIII century,and concludes that the founders, es-pecially the popes, offer their models to Christ in the presence of the Apostles,St.
Peter and St. Paul.7 Peter Bloch in his lexicographic entry — votive representation
(Dedikationsbild)uses the termarchitectural modelfor church buildings in the hand of the founder.He considers that founders offered churches to Christ as a symbolic sacrifice,which resembles the martyr wreaths carried by other figures depicted in the scene.8 Dirck Koks, Ludwig Heinrich Heidenreich and Elisabeth Lypsmeyer, also dealt with this problem and used similar terminology.9
The termfounder’s modelis,therefore,widely accepted for architectural repre-sentations in the hands of founders. It is based on two assumptions.
XIVeCongres International desetudes byzantines(Bucarest1971) 312;D.Panayotova,Les portraits des
donateurs de Dolna Kamenica, ZRVI 12 (1970) 150, 152;A.Grabar,L’Empereur dans l’Art byzantin,
London19712, 109;T.Velmans,Le portrait dans l’art des Paleologues,L’art et societeaByzance sous
les Paleologues,Venice1971,110, 113, 122, 131;A.Grabar,L’eglise de Boiana,Sofia1978,69;D.
Pignet-Panayotova,Recherches sur la peinture en Bulgarie du bas Moyen Age,Paris1987, 103, 114, 115, 225, 227; S. Tomekovi}-Reggiani, Portraits et structures sociales au XIIe siecle. Un aspect du
probleme.Le portrait laique.Actes du XV Congres International desetudes Byzantines II B(Athenes 1976) 826.
in Italian: modello di una chiesa, G. Ieni, La rappresentazione dell’oggetto architettonico nell’arte medievale con riferimento particolare ai modelli di architettura caucasici, Atti del primo simposio internazionale di arte armena(Venezia1975) 250, 252.Hereafter:Ieni,La rappresentazione.
in Russian:modelâ cerkvi ([. À Amirana{vili, Istoria gruzinskogo iskustva, Moskva
1950, 116, 117;V. N. Lazarev, Istorià Vizantièskoè `ivopisi, Moskva 1986, 85, 111, 159;G. I. Vzdornov, Volotovo, freski Uspenià na Volotovom posle bliz Novogoroda,Moskva 1989, 15, 16).
in Bulgarian:model na cãrkvata(A. Vasiliev, Ktitorski portreti,Sofià 1960,6, 7, 24, 25, 26, 30, 45, 46.Hereafter:Vasiliev, Ktitorski portreti;E. Bakalova, Ba~kovskata kostnica,
Sofià 1977, 35).
in Macedonian:modelot(Z. Rasolkoska-Nikolovska, Crkvata Sv. Gorgi vo Goren Kozjak vo svetlinata na noviete ispituvawa, Simpozijum 1100 godi{nia smrtta na Kiril Solunski I
(Skopje 1970) 224, 225; N. No{pal-Nikuqska, Za ktitorskata kompozicija i natpisot vo Markoviot manastir — selo Su{ica, Skopsko, Glasnik Instituta za nacionalna istorijaXV,II
(Skopje 1971) 229;E. Dimitrova, Manastir Matej~e, Skopje 2002, 185).
6S. Radoj~i}, Portreti srpskih vladara u sredwem veku, Beograd 19972, 74.
7 C. Davis-Weyer, Das Traditio-Legis Bild und seine Nachfolge, Munchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst,dritte Folge,XII(1961), 1–34.
8P.Bloch,Das Dedikationsbild,Lexicon der christlichen Ikonographie,Bd.I,Freiburg1968. 9 Model of a church:D. Kocks, Stifterdarstellungen in der italienischen Malerei des 13–15. Jahrhunderts, Inauguraldissertation der Universitat zu Koln, 1971, 41; Architectural model: L. H. Heydenreich,Architecturmodell,Reallexicon zur deutchen Kunstgeschichte I,Stuttgart1937, 918–940;
First, there is an evident similarity between the actual architecture and its painted representation.Numerous authors emphasise that the similarity between the represented and the real architecture in the founders’setting is significant.10
The second assumption is rooted in the institution of the donation of an object.
AndreGrabar in his book “L’empereur dans l’art Byzantin”discusses the architec-tural models that the Byzantine emperors,like the Roman ones,either received from enslaved barbarians,or offered to a god or deity.11These models represented a sub-stitute for those conquered possessions (cities, for instance) that could not be“ up-rooted”and exhibited during triumphal imperial ceremonies.These models were not only characteristic of Roman or early Christian art but also existed in the Syrian and other Middle Eastern cultures before the Classical period. The Latin term for this kind of model wassimulacrum and it also referred to the similarity of the model to the structure it represented.12
Therefore,it is reasonable to ask whether the Byzantine architects used actual maquettes for constructing their churches and if so,could these maquettes have been used for the architecture depicted in the founders’ portraits? In other words is the representation in the donor’s hand the image of a built church or its maquette created as a project model?
Behrendt Pick in his studyDie tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Munzen questions whether the construction represented on
coins is the architectural model of a temple(Modelle),or an illustration of the actual temple(Abbild der wirklichen Tempel),alluding to the wayNeokorosprivileges were depicted on the coins of Asia Minor.It is well known,and many authors agree,that theNeokoroscoins represent a direct iconographic model for the founder’s motifs in early Christian art. Pick concludes in his study that the Neokoroscoins depict real structures,but because of the specific medium(a minted coin)and the limited space,
the architecture represented was subject to substantial schematic abbreviation and,
therefore,they bear little resemblance to their prototype.13Analysing classical
archi-10œ (…)vrlo realisti~kinaslikanom modelu hramaŒ. \uri}, Vizantijske freske, 100; œ
(…) na osnovu ktitorskih modela naslikanih u rukama donatora mogu se donositi prili~no pouzdani zakqu~cio prvobitnom izgledu i fazama izgradwe pojedinih crkvenih gra|evinaŒ.D. Vojvodi}, Leksikon srpskog sredweg veka, Beograd 1999,ktitorski portret; œVàrnoe predal arhitekturnoto ustroèstvo na sgradata i ni dava predstava za neè nià pãrvona~alen vidŒ.
Vasiliev, Ktitorski portreti, 25; “Une donnesupplementaire en faveur de l’exactitude des details (underline by ^. M.)du tableau votif nous aetefournie par l’analyse de l’architecture du monument qui
nous a permis d’avancer et de soutenir l’opignion qu a l’origine l’eglise de St. Nicolae presentait
reelment les deux invraisemblables tours-clocher qui figurent sur le dessin de la maquette soutenue par
les donateurs”.C.L.Dumitrescu Le voivode donateur de la fresque de Saint Nicolae-Domnesc(Arges)et le probleme de sa donation sur Vidin au XV siecle,Revue desetudes Sud-Est europeens,XVII n. 3, (1979) 545,n. 16; “Una corrispondenzapuntualefra oggetto rappresentato si puo riconoscere general-mente soltanto nelle scene di donazione del edificio”.Ieni,La rappresentazione, 250.
11A.Grabar,L’Empereur dans l’Art byzantin,London19712, 154.
12 P. Azara, La representation des modeles dans l’art ancien: un embleme de la creation
architecturale?Maquettes architecturales de l’Antiquite,Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 3–5decembre 1998,Paris2001, 431–432.
13B.Pick,Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Munzen,
tectural project models/maquettes, Otto Bendorf reached a similar conclusion: the temples in the hands of the emperors or gods on the coins with theNeokoros privi-lege frequently are not replicas of the architectural project model/maquette
(Wiederholung des Modells)butillustrations of the completed building(Nachbildung des fertigen Werkes), in this case the donated temple.14
The production of architectural project models was quite widespread in Antiq-uity,especially established in Greece after the VII century BC.Therefore,the termi-nology related to this phenomenon was quite developed,precise and adequate.Apart from the technical terms Hypographeus and Anagrapheus, the terms Typos and Paradigma were most frequently used to indicate a sketch or a schematic drawing used for construction.15In his first book,Vitruvius mentions the graphic representa-tion of the exterior appearance of the construcrepresenta-tion, which he calls exemplaribus pictis.16The Latin termexemplaris frequently used as a synonym for the Greek term paradigma, about which we have just spoken.
We know that realistic models (architectural and votive) existed in Classical art.However,in Christian art the representations of the founder with the church oc-cur in a completely altered context.Inherited from the Classical past,the previously used expressionfounder’s modelremained unchanged,even though it should neces-sarily have been adapted to the idea which explains why the church was being con-structed and donated.Therefore,the expressionfounder’s modelis a misplaced inter-pretation because it is imprecise and has more than one meaning.
Founder’s model, above all, can mean the miniature version of an existing structure,which is the original for the depiction.The meaning of this term in the me-dieval context reflects other frequently used terms“the depicted church”, “ represen-tation of the church in founder’s portraits”,and“depicted model”.Subsequently,the term founder’s model implies that it is a model of the structure it represents.
Then again,the idiomfounder’s modelcould stand for a maquette—the design of a structure that was made prior to its realisation.There are very few models of this kind preserved in Byzantine art, with the exception of one found in ^erven, Bul-garia, and several others in Russia and Armenia.17 Their meaning and role in the
14O.Benndorf,Antike Baumodelle,Jahreshefte desOsterreichischen Archaologishen Instituts in Wien,Bd.V, 1.Heft(1902) 175–197.Recently the same problem with similar conclusions was discussed by S.Friesen.Cf.S.J.Friesen,Twice Neokoros:Ephesus,Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family.Religions in the Graeco-Roman World,Leiden1993, 65.
15Toparadigma.Also:protipon,upodeigma,proplasma.A.Orlandoj,Lexikon Arcaiwn ArcitektonikwnOrwn,Aqhna1986, 198 (with the quotation from ancient sources).See also:M.-Chr. Hellmann, Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l'architecture grecque d’apres les inscriptions de Delos,
Paris1992, 317–21, 318.
16Vitruv,De architectura libri decem Textus,ed.:C.Fensterbusch,Darmstadt1964/76,cap. 1, 4. 17V. Dimova, Model na cãrkva v ^ãrven, Muzei i pametnici na kulturataXII(Sofià
1972) 21–22;A. L. Àkobson, Modelâ hrama iz raskopok Åski-kermen v Krámu i problema novogo arhitekturnogo stilà v Vizantii, Zograf 8 (1977) 30–34;P.Cuneo,Les modeles en pierre de l’
archi-tecture armenienne, REArm VI (1969) 202–215. Although the architectural model from the
constructing process has not been verified,and the termfounder’s modelapplied to them is similar to the one used for the depicted architectural representation of the church building.
Similarly,a substantial number of founder’s modelsmade in relief,with their three dimensional aspect,very closely resemble the actual appearance of the archi-tectural model.These reliefs do not differ from the architectural models in appear-ance, but in their votive function. P.Cuneo thus makes a difference between three other, similar models — model reliquary, acroteria model and technical model.18 These kinds of models are typical only for Armenian and Georgian art.The phrase commonly applied for these kinds of models is“architectural objects”, “architectural models” or “stone models”.
The sophisticated relationship between the depiction of the architecture in the hand of the founder and the architectural design model-maquette is further compli-cated by the possible existence of another type of depiction—the depiction of the ar-chitectural design model or maquette. Generally applied terms, such as founder’s modelor church model, can, in particular, incorrectly refer to “the depiction of the model”, “depicted model”or even“maquette drawing”,also applied to indicate the representation of a church building in a founder’s portrait.The precise phrase is fur-ther complicated by the continual application of the terms“model”and“maquette”
often applied as synonyms.
Usually,the church was painted only after the finalisation of the construction work,which often started from the dome and the apse at the east end and proceeded westwards.Following this order,the representation of the founder’s portrait with a church,at least in Serbian art,was one of the last images depicted in the line of the compositional scheme of the nave or narthex.Even when the church was painted in-side,immediately after the architectural works were completed(which was rarely the case) this scheme would make it possible for the artist to depict the church in the hands of the founder,according to the structure which had already been built. There-fore,I suggest that the most suitable terms are founder’s architecture or more pre-cisely the image of a completed building.
It is reasonable to assume that the representation of the church was that of the completed building, using certain drawing principles of architectural representa-tions.19 In most of the cases we analysed, we were able to establish the viewpoint from which the painter most probably observed the church before he depicted it in-side the building.Even more interestingly,the position of these compositions in the church interior and the standpoint in the vicinity of the church,show a very strong relationship, at least in Serbian art.20
18Cuneo,op.cit., 215, 218, 223.
19Some of these principles are:theaugmentationof some structural features of the church buil-ding(such as domes and portals), reductionin the number of the same architectural or decorative ele-ments and aninversionof180oin the position of some architectural elements(for example windows).Cf.
Marinkovi},Image, 69–72.
However,precise iconographic instructions as to the place and manner of de-picting founder’s portraits do not exist,to the best of my knowledge.There is noth-ing about the subject in the painter’s manualsErmeneia.Moreover,the privileges of founders to have their portraits in their foundations, and to be buried and annually commemorated in them, were the principal founder’s ritual privileges.21 Thus, the founder’s portrait with depicted architecture potentially represents the artistic equiv-alent of the founder’s charter as a legal document.22Therefore,the artistic language of such an image should have been formulated accordingly so as to precisely and re-alistically express the architectural features of the foundation.
In our investigation of the problem we also analysed the legal,technical and symbolic functions of these representations which support our conclusion that the ar-chitectural design model/maquette did not serve as a specimen for representations of architecture on founder’s portraits.23This specific type of architecture depicted was made after the building itself was completed. Furthermore, architectural mod-els/maquettes are very rarely documented in the Byzantine and the Serbian tradition,
though this fact does not exclude their potential existence.Even if they existed,these maquettes certainly could not have been models for the architecture depicted in the founder’s portrait.Above all,the idea on which the church endowment is based,and the consequent privileges arising from it,for example the privilege of being depicted holding the church,are eschatological.The founder stands before the Lord’s throne hoping for mercy at the Day of Judgment,carrying his church — not its maquette.
Hence,almost certainly the design models/maquettes,even if they were in use,could not have acted as models for the painted churches in donor portraits,but,rather,this kind of architectural imagery was produced according to the completed building.
^edomila Marinkovi}
KTITORSKI MODEL — SLIKA MAKETE ILI CRKVE?
U {irokom repertoaru predstava arhitekture u vizantijskoj umetnosti, predstavacrkve na ktitorskom portretu zauzima posebno mesto — kako u monu
-mentalnom zidnom slikarstvu, tako i u drugim umetni~kim rodovima. Wihov
three-quarters of the Serbian examples of depicted founder’s architecture,this so-calledparallelismis ob-vious.Cf.Marinkovi},op.cit., 77–83.
21V. Markovi}, Ktitori, wihove du`nosti i prava, PKJIFV(1925) 113–116.
22According to V.Djuri}’s conclusions,the custom of inscribing the founder’s charter near the founder’s portrait was widespread in Byzantine Art.Cf.V. \uri}, Portreti na poveqama vizantij-skih i srpvizantij-skih vladara, Zbornik FF,VII/1 (1963) 257, 261.
broj je veoma veliki na ~itavom podru~ju koje obuhvata ne samo Vizantiju u u`em smislu, nego i najve}i deo zemaqa wenog kulturnog uticaja. Za razliku od ostalih predstava arhitekture, predstava arhitekture u okviru ktitorskog portreta pripada tzv. sadr`inskom krugu slikane arhitekture i ima, pored
natpisa, su{tinsku ulogu u formirawu izgleda ktitorskog motiva.U ovoj vr
-sti naslikane arhitekture, mogu}nost prepoznavawa uzora predstavqa osnovnu funkciju slikane arhitekture. Pored odre|ene stilizacije ona zadr`ava osnovne odlike svog realnog predlo{ka, ~ime je omogu}eno prepoznavawe ali i veza izme|unaslikanei stvarne arhitekture. Slikana predstavacrkve u okvi
-ru ktitorske kompozicije uobi~ajeno se naziva ktitorski model, ili model crkve,{to je termin koji je u {irokoj upotrebi u literaturi. Postavqa se pi
-tawe u kojojjemeri on odgovaraju}i. Da li su arhitektonski modeli mogli slu
-`iti kao predlo{ci za slikanu arhitekturu na ktitorskim portretima? Da li, dakle, slika u ruci ktitora predstavqa slikuizvedene gra|evineili wenog ar
-hitektonskog modela?
Smatramo da arhitektonski model nije slu`io kao predlo`ak za slikanu arhitekturu na ktitorskim portretima, ve} da je ova specifi~na vrsta slikane arhitekture nastala na osnovuizvedene gra|evine. Dokazi za ovakvu tvrdwu, za sada, samo su posredni — arhitektonski modeli su veoma malo dokumentovani u vizantijskoj, a samim tim i srpskoj tradiciji, {to svakako ne iskqu~uje wi
