beat brenk, spolia from constantine to charlemagne

7/27/2019 BEAT BRENK, Spolia From Constantine to Charlemagne

1/8

Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus IdeologyAuthor(s): Beat BrenkSource: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 41, Studies on Art and Archeology in Honor of ErnstKitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (1987), pp. 103-109Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291549 .

Accessed: 12/08/2011 04:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toDumbarton Oaks Papers.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doakshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1291549?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1291549?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks


2/8

SPOLIA FROM CONSTANTINE TO CHARLEMAGNE:AESTHETICS VERSUS IDEOLOGY

BEAT BRENKThe concept of "spolia" is an entirely modernone, based on a word from the realm of arthistorical terminology in architecture. It is derivedfrom the Latin "spolium," which means "removedhide of an animal" and, in a more general sense,"a soldier's booty" or "spoils of war."The modernconcept of "spolia" refers to the reused parts ofarchitectural constructions that are taken from ademolished building-a building, therefore, to re-main with the hunter's terminology, stripped of itshide.As early as the era of Constantine, columns, cap-itals, and architraves of old buildings were reusedin new structures. To clarify this issue I would liketo explain the second part of my title. When some-one removes the hide of a building or tears out itsinnards, he resembles a cannibal. A cannibal doesnot devour his enemies mainly because he wants tonourish himself but because he hopes that in sodoing he will acquire his destroyed enemy'sstrength. Therefore, he eats human flesh not somuch because he is hungry or because he prefershuman flesh to a sirloin steak but rather for ideo-logical reasons. Consequently, ideology plays a fargreater role with cannibals than aesthetics, andthus we have reached our theme.Another comparison from the cannibalistic do-main may be allowed: just as the cannibal neverexplained, in writing, his occasional preference forhuman flesh over animal meat, thus none of thearchitects of Early Christian and medieval timesexplained why they reused construction materialsfrom destroyed buildings. In other words, thereare no texts clarifying the ideology of despoliation.To be quite honest, therefore, I should add a sub-title to my paper: ideology without texts.Any art historian and archeologist following thephilological-historical method will refrain fromspeaking of ideology without having any textsat his disposal. On the other hand, iconologists,

semioticians, experts in hermeneutics, and histor-ians of the "nouvelle histoire," the so-called historyof mentality, display a more tolerant attitude inmanaging to read ideologies into the monumentswithout a single written line available for refer-ence. Relying entirely on so-called visual symbols,they propose hypothetical, but often fertile, inter-pretations. The question of despoliation has beentreated by two noted representatives of these twomethods, F. W. Deichmann and R. Krautheimer.In his monograph on spolia published in 1975Deichmann states two main reasons for their use:the change in aesthetic attitudes and the increas-ing economic weakness of late Antiquity.' Kraut-heimer, on the other hand, would like to interpretthe spolia of the Roman churches, especially thosedating from the first half of the fifth century, asproof of a "renascence of classical antiquity."2Thetwo standpoints could hardly be more contradic-tory. Subsequently, I would like to introduce twonew points: first, the problem of the origins of de-spoliation in the era of Constantine and, second,the transport of spolia over long distances as op-posed to the local reuse of construction materials.

I. THE ORIGINS OF SPOLIA IN THE ERA OFCONSTANTINE

Spolia were first used extensively in the era ofConstantine. The most important early examplesare the Arch of Constantine, the Lateran Church,

'F. W. Deichmann, Die Spolienin derspaitantiken rchitektur, BMtinch, Philos.-hist.K1. (1975), Heft 6, 95; idem, "Saule undOrdnung in der fruhchristlichen Architektur," RM 55 (1940),114-30.2R. Krautheimer, "The Architecture of Sixtus III: A Fifth-Century Renascence?" Studies in Early Christian, Medieval andRenaissanceArt (New York, 1969), 181-96; idem, "Success andFailure in Late Antique Church Planning," in TheAge of Spiri-tuality: A Symposium(New York, 1980), 121-39; idem, ThreeChristianCapitals. Topographynd Politics(Berkeley, 1983), 105.


3/8

104 BEAT BRENKand St. Peter's in Rome. All three buildings areclosely connected with Constantine, and we have toassume that the extensive use of spolia in thesethree buildings may have occurred on his or hiscourt architect's strict orders.

The Lateran Basilica, begun in 313 by Constan-tine, intended, as Krautheimer suggested, as anex-voto to Christ who had granted Constantine vic-tory,3 was a building with five aisles. The doubleaisles on either side of the nave were separated byarcades resting on green-speckled verde anticocolumns. The red columns in the nave differed inmaterial and size, and the capitals in type andheight. Specific details concerning the form andthe historical position of the spolia in the LateranChurch cannot, unfortunately, be understoodfrom the documents. Gagliardi's fresco, datingfrom 1651 and showing the interior of the Lat-eran, is not fully reliable since he could, at best,have seen only a reproduction of the original in-terior.4 The variations in color and form of thecapitals may not be freely invented, and the vary-ing height of the columns in the fresco merit seri-ous consideration. The Lateran Basilica is, then,not only the first church but also the first sacredstructure built by an emperor where spolia wereused extensively as part of the construction.The same concept can be seen in the Arch ofConstantine, consecrated in 315. It was erected bythe Senate and the people of Rome in Constan-tine's honor to commemorate his victory over Max-entius at the Milvian bridge. Almost all of the con-struction parts of the arch were taken from olderbuildings. H. P. L'Orange, A. v. Gerkan,5 and H.Kahler6 were able to trace the dates and origins ofthe individual constituent parts. The historicalrepresentations, for example, the reliefs showingConstantine's entry into Italy and his triumph overMaxentius at the Milvian bridge, are, however, newand ad hoc works; they are, in fact, homogeneousachievements of one workshop. A noted artisttransformed the original portraits of the spolia re-liefs into those of Constantine and Licinius. Thosereliefs taken over from older triumphal monu-

ments are of Trajanic, Hadrianic, and Aurelianorigin.After scrupulous analysis of the entire program,L'Orange reached the following conclusion: "Therange of ideas on the arch is homogeneous; ideallythe monument is of a single cast."'7 For Constan-tine, the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and MarcusAurelius, whose triumphal monuments he had pil-laged, personified the lost saeculaaurea. This polit-ical propaganda by Constantine should be consid-ered all the more seriously, as on the relief of theOratio are represented the two sitting statues ofHadrian and Marcus Aurelius.

L'Orange's positive, ideological interpretation ofthe program is not, actually, based on the inscrip-tions on the arch itself but rather on an identifica-tion of the statues in the Oratiowith Hadrian andMarcus Aurelius. This interpretation receives fur-ther support from the spolia reliefs, which werenot selected without some deliberation, since theportraits would not have otherwise been readaptedto represent Constantine and Licinius. This, in it-self, was a novum on a triumphal arch. JacobBurckhardt8 maintained that the adjustment ofolder reliefs to fit the Arch of Constantine oc-curred rapidly. Also, Ferdinand Lot9 said: "Thebuildings of Constantine's reign bear the samehasty character of improvisation as the social re-forms of that Emperor." But the remodeled por-traits display high quality and care.'0 I do not at allsee how it could have been possible to save moneyby using spolia. Someone capable of erecting suchnumerous and great buildings as Constantine hadvast funds available to him. There cannot havebeen a lack of artists, either, since the actualtriumph of Constantine was carved by contempo-rary sculptors. Their work was believed to be goodenough to fit this purpose. Interestingly the verysame sculptors have carved numerous Christiansarcophagi, too. Besides, the arch is of consider-able size and virtually flooded with reliefs and or-naments. One cannot avoid thinking that thistriumphal arch was commissioned by someonewho clearly intended to use spolia. The arch,therefore, is not precipitous patchwork but aprominent monument of imperial propaganda byKrautheimer, Three ChristianCapitals, 12; R. Krautheimer etal., Corpus basilicarum christianarumRomae, V (Vatican City,1977), 89.'Krautheimer et al., Corpus,V.64-65, 79-80; col. pl.: A. Gra-bar, Die Kunst desfrithen ChristentumsMunich, 1967), fig. 179.

5H. P. L'Orange and A. v. Gerkan, Der spcitantikeBildschmuckdes KonstantinsbogensBerlin, 1939), 33, 161; E. Kitzinger, Byz-antineArt in theMaking (London, 1977), 7-14.6H. Kahler, Rimische Gebdlke, I.1. Die GebgilkeesKonstantins-bogens(Heidelberg, 1953).

7L'Orange and v. Gerkan, op. cit., 191.8J.Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantinsdes Grossen,ed. B. Wyss(Bern, 1950), 315, 395.9F. Lot, The End of theAncient Worldand theBeginnings of theMiddleAges (New York, 1965), 137.

10L'Orange and v. Gerkan, op. cit., 161, 165, 168, pls. 41 a-b, 43-44.


4/8

SPOLIA FROM CONSTANTINE TO CHARLEMAGNE 105definition. In my opinion, these spolia may not beconsidered as a sign of economic necessity, lack ofartistic imagination, or superficial haste. If Con-stantine had not disposed of large funds, he wouldnot have built the Lateran at the same time as hebuilt the arch and he would probably have chosenmore modest dimensions for the Lateran itself.Furthermore, it is unlikely that he would havetransformed the Maxentius basilica (one of thelargest buildings of the entire Roman period), andit is unlikely that he would have initiated the con-struction of the Thermae on the Quirinal in 315.The cost of all these buildings must have beenquite considerable. Although Constantine was onlyin Rome three times for any length of time (312/13, 315, 326), he had the city virtually flooded withnew constructions. His passion for building com-peted with that of Diocletian. But the monumentalstructures of Diocletian are not, with the exceptionof the Arcus Novus, spolia buildings. It was Con-stantine who introduced spolia, simultaneously ina state building and in a religious building: thetriumphal arch and the Lateran Basilica. In myopinion, this is evidence of a deliberate buildingprogram.What kind of statement was intended? The arch,like all triumphal arches, was a monument of po-litical propaganda. The reused reliefs of formertimes evoked early Roman tradition. With thismonument, as a whole, Constantine placed himselfin the midst of a venerable line of Roman emper-ors. As a nonaristocratic ruler of Illyrian origin(born in Naissus; his mother, Helena, had earlierowned an inn), he was very anxious to put himselfin the true light. Reused triumphal reliefs, remod-eled to fit his person, expressed his desire for sov-ereign legitimacy.What about the numerous capitals and friezesfrom older buildings, however? A reused archi-trave is hardly an apt expression of "sovereign le-gitimacy"! The ornaments used on the Arch ofConstantine cannot be interpreted separately butonly within the total concept. Ornamental buildingelements, combined with historical reliefs, wereapplied to the Arch of Constantine in such a wayas to form a whole. The ornamental elements ofthe structure may not, therefore, be interpretedideologically but aesthetically. They correspond toa new, hitherto unknown taste, possibly inaugu-rated with the Arch of Constantine.In the first Christian basilica built by the em-peror all of the columns and capitals are spolia.Under no circumstances could Constantine have

introduced older historical reliefs here. The spoliain the Lateran certainly do not serve the purposeof demonstrating sovereign legitimacy. They are tobe considered seriously as a new artistic mediumwhich by the character of tradition and time-honored norms could be transmitted to a building:a new aesthetics, operating not with the concept ofthe brand-new but rather with the concept ofreuse. The basilica, serving Christian purposes,was a novelty, while the decorative elements wereto be traditional or archaic. In reusing these orna-mental parts it was possible to accentuate betterand in a new way (e.g., red columns for the nave,green columns for the aisles) than by using con-temporary construction parts which, at that time,were of highly varying quality. Most of all, how-ever, one was able to strive for varietas: a centralconcept of late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.Constantine's new aesthetics did not call for unitybut rather for varietas. Permission was nowgranted to mix the long-established architecturalorders. That was entirely new. The old canons ofform had served their time in Rome and in Italy.Corinthian capitals alternating with Ionic capitalsare seen for the first time in the Lateran Church."Varietass displayed in Constantinian floor mosaicsas well. In the aula at Aquileia are put together tendifferent kinds of ornaments and themes facingdifferent directions. Kahlerl2 has tried to identifythe panel with the five portraits with Fausta andher four sons. Fausta, however, did not have fourbut only three sons. Besides, there is not the slight-est resemblance between this hypothetical render-ing and the authentic portraits of Constantine.Furthermore, the heads in medallions are com-bined with medallions enclosing a fish. This indi-cates clearly that different kinds of motives wereintended to be mixed.With this new aesthetic of spolia in the Arch ofConstantine and in the Lateran Church, I do notintend to ignore an economic explanation alto-gether. But I should like to consider it as beingonly of marginal importance. The emperor was af-fluent enough to build generously. Material neces-sity alone cannot account for the use of spolia onConstantinian buildings. Later on, in the laterfourth and in the fifth and sixth centuries, how-ever, the use of spolia may, more and more, reflecteconomic distress.

"Grabar, op. cit., fig. 179; Krautheimer et al., Corpus,V.65,fig. 77.12H. Kahler, Die Stiftermosaikenn derkonstantinischenitdkirchevonAquileia (Cologne, 1962).


5/8

106 BEAT BRENKTo summarize: the use of spolia in the largeChristian basilicas has to be viewed in connectionwith Constantine the Great's building program, in-

cluding public and sacred Christian buildings.Spolia were not selected for Christian basilicas onlybut were used on Constantinian buildings in gen-eral, mainly for aesthetic reasons, to obtain varietaswithin the context of traditional forms of construc-tion but disconnected from their canonical use.Constantine's court architects deliberately gave upthe time-honored form canon and mixed the ar-chitectural orders. In this we may see decadenceand/or new creations but by no means classicism.Constantine, unlike his predecessors, did not cre-ate a style of his own in architectural sculpture butrefrained from new creations by substituting spo-lia for them. Urban Roman buildings under Con-stantine displayed an attitude toward despoliationthat differs considerably from other uses of spoliaat that time.In using spolia the monumental buildings ofConstantine initiated a long-lasting tradition re-flected mainly in the papal basilicas of Rome. It isremarkable that spolia were first used extensivelyon monumental imperial and luxury buildings,not on insignificant churches in the provinces.With these monumental buildings, dating from theera of Constantine, the use of spolia had becomelegitimate; more than a hundred years later, in458, it became legalized by law.'3There is some ideology inherent in any kind ofaesthetics. In the use of spolia on Constantine'smonumental buildings, we can observe the mate-rialization of the innovating principle of varietasaswell as a traditionalistic, conservative gesture. Pres-ervation and conservation are the obvious themesof Constantine's buildings. The spolia in them areevidence of a conservative, retrospective mentality.For these reasons they are also the witnesses toprotective measures, whereby the most valuableconstruction materials (such as columns, capitals,and architraves) from ruined and dilapidatedbuildings were saved from demolition and reusedin new structures. Such a transference of buildingmaterials was by no means inexpensive, let alonepractical, since the different heights of the col-umns (e.g., in the Lateran) had to be adjusted andleveled. In other words, it is far more difficult andinconvenient to work with spolia than with newlymade, homogeneous building materials. In view ofthese reflections, Constantine's use of spolia can no

longer be considered as economical ploy butrather as an impressive protective and aestheticmeasure.As we have seen, the use of spolia did not be-

come customary by degree but was instituted on alarge scale by Constantine's imperial art policy. Noone but the emperor had juridical authority to pulldown dilapidated public buildings and to havetheir construction materials removed. For this rea-son despoliation was practiced repeatedly afterConstantine, although not exclusively by emperorsand kings. It is obvious that old structures in theprovinces were more and more frequently pulleddown or plundered by private individuals, thecomes or the bishops. However, the constructionmaterials for S. Sabina in the Aventine can havebeen procured only by imperial consent. A pagantemple of the second century provided the twenty-four columns and capitals, presumably the templeof Juno Regina, destroyed by the Goths in 410."'The bishops in the provinces assumed very earlyon the right to pillage antique buildings in orderto provide construction materials for churches.Gradually the bishops became heirs to the operapublica. They took charge of the restoration ofpublic buildings and city walls. A note in the LiberPontificalisdatable to the time of Pope Sixtus IIIsays: "hic constituit columnas in baptisterium basi-licae Constantinianae, quas a tempore ConstantiniAugusti fuerant congregatas, ex metallo purphy-retico numero VIII, quas erexit cum epistolis suiset versibus exornavit."'5 Constantine had appar-ently put in storage eight porphyry columns andentablatures for which he had no use at the time,with the intention of using them for the construc-tion of the Lateran baptistry. But it was Sixtus IIIwho eventually made use of these valuable spolia.This is a model case: the bishop becomes the heirof the emperor.As early as the fifth century despoliation had be-come a universal custom. Y.Janvier has examinedthe legislative side of the problem in his thesis; theimperial construction laws dating from 320 on-ward are all too well known.'6On the other hand, sources pertaining to the useof spolia in Constantinian buildings are very rare.I just quoted the case of the Lateran baptistry.

' Deichmann, Die Spolien, 100.

' Ibid., 16-17; A. Merlin, L'Aventin dans l'antiquiti (Paris,1906), 430.19GSG..Giovenale, II battisteroLateranense Rome, 1929), 6.16Y.Janvier, La ligislation du Bas-Empireromainsur les idificespublics,Diss. (Aix-en-Provence, 1969).


6/8

SPOLIA FROM CONSTANTINE TO CHARLEMAGNE 107

From Eusebius we know only that Constantine hadthe foundations of the temple of Aphrodite at Je-rusalem dug up and removed before he built thechurch of the Holy Sepulcher on the site.17Con-stantine thought the pagan construction materialsin Jerusalem to be impure and abstained fromusing them again.II. THEODORIC AND THE "NOVA GLORIA

VETUSTATIS"There are no indications in the texts regardingConstantine's conservative mentality, nor is such amentality known before Theodoric. The mainsources for Theodoric are Cassiodorus' Variae.Sofar art history has not paid much attention to

them.'8 Theodoric was not only one of the greatbuilders of Ravenna but of all Italy. He, unlikeother rulers before him, applied all of his effortsto the task of conserving antique art and architec-ture. A few passages from the letters collected byCassiodorus in the Variae suffice to demonstratethe point: "The old solidity must be renewed"("antiqua soliditas innovetur"; II.39). "We wish tobuild new edifices, but even more to preserve theold ones" ("nova construere, sed amplius vetustaservare"; III.9). "We are striving to bring back allthings to their former state" ("ad statum stude-amus pristinum cuncta revocare"; III.31). "In ourtimes Antiquity appears to be decently renewed"("nostris temporibus videatur antiquitas decentiusinnovata"; IV.51).In a letter of 507-509 addressed to Agapitus,prefect of the city of Rome (I.6), Theodoric re-quests "marmorarios peritissimos" to be sent fromRome to Ravenna for the restoration of the "basi-lica Herculis." He ordered that the faded marblesurfaces be embellished with paintings ("discoloreacrusta marmorum gratissima picturarum varietatetexantur"). In the same letter we find the note-worthy aesthetic statement: "Let us not lag behindthe ancients' desire for adornment" ("absit enimut ornatui cedamus veterum"). Time and againTheodoric compares himself to the Roman emper-ors, whose building fervor he aimed to imitate. Forthis reason the AnonymusValesianus ays about him:"erat enim amator fabricarum et restaurator civi-tatum."In one of Theodoric's letters (III.9) spolia are

expressly mentioned as being transferred fromRome to Ravenna: "We wish to build new edificeswithout despoiling the old. But we are informedthat in your municipality (of Aestunae) there areblocks of masonry and columns formerly belong-ing to some building now lying absolutely uselessand dishonored. If it be so, by all means send theseslabs of marble and columns to Ravenna, that theymay be made beautiful again and take their placein a building there." A similar letter (III.10) con-cerns the order for the transport of marbles fromthe Pincian Hill (in Rome) to the palace of Ra-venna, by catabulenses,hat is, freighters or contrac-tors who effected the transport of heavy goods bymeans of draught horses and mules. Theodoric'sletter, handed down by Cassiodorus in the Variae,III.9-10, is our chief witness to Theodoric's con-servative mentality. However, I do not believe thatTheodoric attempted a new aesthetic position.Constantine might have expressed the samethoughts. In the letter (Variae, III.10) sent byTheodoric to Patricius Festus in Rome, it is re-quested that "marmora, quae de domo Pincianaconstat" (marble slabs from a house situated in thePincio and lying about unused) be transported toRavenna. This passage deserves our special atten-tion because in it are mentioned slabs of marblethat are to be transported from Rome to Ravenna,that is, over a great distance.

What was the true reason for this long-distancetransport of spolia? Could it be that Theodoric wasable to find satisfactory construction materials onlyin Rome, or did he wish, as it were, to import itfrom Rome in order to perpetuate Roman an-tiquity in Ravenna? Or could he have wished to le-gitimize himself politically with Roman buildingmaterials?Theodoric did not have to depend on Rome forhis political legitimation since he was king andruled over Italy with the consent of the Byzantineemperor at Constantinople. On the other hand,the cost of transporting spolia in this manner musthave been considerable, and we have to ask our-selves why Theodoric did not turn to Milan orsome other northern Italian city for his buildingmaterial.

Ideology as well as aesthetics cannot be excludedfrom Theodoric's motivations. It was especially hisconservative aesthetics or monument-protectingaesthetics that caused him to import spolia fromRome. Theodoric's aesthetic observations deserveserious consideration in this context. In one of hisletters he says: "nothing but the newness of the'VEusebius,VitaConstantini, III.30.'8But see, recently, J. B.Ward-Perkins, FromClassicalAntiquityto theMiddle Ages. UrbanPublic Building in Northern and CentralItalyAD 300-850 (Oxford, 1984), 158-66, 203-18.


7/8

108 BEAT BRENK

buildings must distinguish them from the con-structions of the ancients."19 Further on he says:"Let us renew the works of the ancients faultlesslyand unmask the new glory of their venerable an-tiquity."2"This conservative mentality of Theo-doric did not refer to the material alone but to thehistorical tradition of Rome represented by spoliaand emphasized by the concept of "nova gloria ve-tustatis."In plain terms this means reverence for Romanhistory. In any event, spolia can be considered nei-ther a cheap nor a particularly convenient materialto work with. Their transport was expensive, andthey were most troublesome for the architect.To our great surprise spolia are a rarity in thesurviving buildings of Theodoric at Ravenna.2'The mausoleum is built, ex novo, of Istrian lime-stone. Only Theodoric's sarcophagus is a reusedpiece-an antique porphyry sarcophagus. InTheodoric's palace church, S. Apollinare Nuovo,all of the building materials (except for the impostsof the pilasters in the arcades of the nave at thewest and east ends) were new. All of the columnsand capitals were newly made in Constantinople.Theodoric did not use spolia in his churches. Heused them in his palace (III.10). This was no co-incidence, since he referred to his palace as a sym-bol of political representation: "These are the joy-ful witnesses of our government, the sparklingembodiment of our reign, the herald's call of sov-ereign power. We show these things with admira-tion to the ambassadors who can easily identify thesovereign with his residence."22This sentence en-titles us to interpret Theodoric's imports of spoliaas an expression of his power politics: the spoliarecall the historical tradition of Rome on the siteof Theodoric's sovereignty.

A few concluding observations concerning theuse of spolia by Charlemagne may be added. It iswell known that Charlemagne imported spoliafrom Rome and Ravenna for the decoration of hispalace chapel at Aachen. As early as 787 he ex-

changed letters with Pope Hadrian regarding thislong-distance import of spolia, shortly after histhird visit to Rome. The pope allowed the king toremove marble spolia from the palace in Ravennaand to transport them to Aachen. It is evidentfrom this correspondence that Charlemagne,though he was king, had no authority to importspolia.23It is even more curious that Charlemagnewanted to have spolia from Theodoric's palace atRavenna, whose building material itself, as we haveseen, came from Rome.I feel bold enough to venture a hypothesis to theeffect that Charlemagne did not recognize, on hisown, the Roman origin of the spolia in Theodoric'spalace, but possibly knew of their Roman originfrom his reading of Cassiodorus' Variae, hat is, heprobably wanted to imitate Theodoric.24 This isfurther supported by the fact that in 801 Charle-magne had a bronze equestrian statue of Theo-doric transported from Ravenna to Aachen. It wasplaced between the audience hall and the palacechapel.25 In addition, he copied S. Vitale in his pal-ace chapel at Aachen, possibly because he recog-nized Theodoric, and not Justinian, in the famousimperial mosaics of S. Vitale.26These reversions to Early Christian prototypeshave to be viewed together with the Roma secundaideology and the renovatio dea in general in Char-lemagne's surroundings. In 829 Walahfrid Strabowrote a highly critical poem about Theodoric'sstatue at Aachen.z: He even accused Charlemagneof destroying antique buildings and of carrying offantique building materials to Aachen: "Whateverthe emperor wants, whatever the evil one de-stroys-everything is abducted to the Frankishstronghold" ("velit Caesar magnus, migrabit adarces Francorum quodcumque miser conflaveritorbis").Hartmut Hoffmann had the excellent idea of in-terpreting the importation of Theodoric's statue as

1"... ut ab opere veterum sola distet novitas fabricarum";Cassiodorus, Variae,VII.5.0"... ut et facta veterum exclusis defectibus innovemus etnova vetustatis gloria vestiamus"; ibid., VII. 15.

21Ward-Perkins, op. cit., 214-15.22"Haecnostra sunt oblectamenta potentiae, imperii decorafacies, testimonium praeconiale regnorum: haec legatis sub am-miratione monstrantur et prima fronte talis dominus esse cre-ditur, quale eius habitaculum comprobatur"; Cassiodorus, Va-riae, VII.5.

23Ward-Perkins,op. cit., 205; G. Bandmann, "Die Vorbilderder Aachener Pfalzkapelle," Karl der Grosse. 3: KarolingischeKunst (Dusseldorf, 1965), 424 note 5.21The Variae of Cassiodorus are mentioned in the 9th-century library catalogue of Lorsch abbey: M. Manitius, Ge-schichteder lateinischenLiteraturdesMittelalters,I (Munich, 19111;19592), 41.25F.Thurlemann, "Die Bedeutung der Aachener Theoder-ich-Statue fur Karl d. Gr. (801) und bei Walahfrid Strabo,"Ar-chivfiir Kulturgeschichte 9 (1977), 25-65.26F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna. HauptstadtdessplitantikenAbend-landes, I (Wiesbaden, 1969), 241-43; idem, Kommentar. . Teil(Wiesbaden, 1976), 184-86.

27Thoirlemann, op. cit.


8/8

SPOLIA FROM CONSTANTINE TO CHARLEMAGNE 109

a translatio artium in analogy to the translatio im-perii.28Thus the imitation of S. Vitale as well as theimportation of spolia from Theodoric's palace hasto be understood as a translatioartium of great im-portance. The design of this translatiowas to bringto mind and to exhibit publicly the monumentalguarantors of Early Christian Roman-imperial tra-dition.

Charlemagne's abduction of building materialfrom Theodoric's palace is a form of imperial le-gitimation and not simply an importation of ma-terial. It is not by mere accident that spolia fromRome and Ravenna were used in Charlemagne'spalace at Ingelheim (Poeta Saxo). The idea of along-distance importation of spolia was so new at

the time that it was soon stylized into a literary to-pos. However, for Charlemagne, the spolia fromRome and Ravenna were something prominent.With this gesture of the importation as such aswell as with the material from Italy, Charlemagneintended to place himself in the midst of the Ro-man imperial succession. In Aachen, therefore,the spolia were to guarantee the Christian Romanimperial tradition. In contrast to Charlemagne,Constantine and Theodoric had used spolia forthe purpose of protecting monuments. Constan-tine wanted to preserve antiquities, and in doingso he created a new aesthetic which lent spolia aconservative ideological content. For this new aes-thetic Theodoric had coined a new formula, "novagloria vetustatis."

University of Basel28H. Hoffmann, "Die Aachener Theoderichstatue," Das erste

Jahrtausend.Kultur und Kunst im werdendenAbendland an Rheinund Ruhr, I (Duisseldorf, 1964), 318 if, esp. 331.

beat brenk, spolia from constantine to charlemagne

Documents