PotamianosHomem_ImageAnnotation7

One of the Greek inscriptions of this plaque refers to Archbishop of John of Piacenza, later antipope John XVI. John was an influential advisor to Theophanu and the godfather of Otto III (Britannica). Upon the death of Pope John XV, Otto III named Gregory V as his successor; however, the Crecscentii, “a powerful Roman family, opposed Otto’s choice” and tried to use John as a pawn in their revolt (Britannica). Otto, accompanied by his army, returned to Rome where he “captured both Crescentius and John”, the latter of whom was “blinded and mutilated” and then “wither imprisoned or confined to a monastery” (Britannica).

Archbishop of John of Piacenza

The text on either side of Christ’s head reads “Otto, Emperor of the Romans, Augustus” in Latin and Greek and “Theophano, Empresses Augusta” in Greek and Latin. Next to the body, the inscription states, “Lord, come to the aid of your servant John…(monk?), (Amen?),” in Greek, referring to the figure of Archbishop John of Piacenza prostrating himself below Otto.

Bilingual Inscriptions

Empress Theophanu (959/960-991)

Theophanu (959/960-991) was the niece of Jean Tzimiskes, who was elevated to the role of Emperor after his marriage to Empress Anastasio Theophanu following the murder of her husband, Nikephoros Phokas on December 11, 969. Her marriage to Otto II on April 14, 972, was part of a much longer political and diplomatic negotiation between the Byzantine and Ottonian courts relating to “territorial control in southern Italy” (Garrison, 224). Empress Anastasio’s previous husband, Phokas and Otto I had fought over southern Italy for much of the 960s, and after “the marriage negotiations between the Ottonians and the Byzantines” fell apart in January 698, Otto II sent “forces to invade the contested area of Apulia, which would have extended Ottonian control over much of the trade on the eastern Italian coast” However, by March of the same year, the Ottonian army “was forced to retreat” following a “defeat at Bari”(Garrison, 225). Thus, as a result of this defeat,” marriage negotiations” were renewed as “both sides viewed such an exchange as the best way to achieve a measure of peace” (Garrison, 225). Initallly, Otto II’s parents, Otto I and Empress Adelhied, wanted his bride to be Empress Anastasio’s daughter, “the purple-born princess Anna”; however, this was simply too much of a dynastic gamble for the Byzantine court (Garrison, 218). Therefore, they offered Theophanu instead, and in “972, Theophanu [and] her retinue…sailed for the Italian peninsula” and travelled to Rome, “where Otto I, Otto II, and the rest of the imperial court met them” (Garrison, 225). Theophanu’s arrival did not meet with resounding approval, and many “nobles at Otto I’s court felt that [her] arrival was an affront to [Otto’s] honour, and they advised [him] to send the girl back to Constantinople” (Garrison, 225). However, Otto, I was conscious of the possible repercussions this action might cause, in particular the certainty that this would “protract and intensify the long-standing political antagonism”(Garrison, 225). Moreover, Theophanu’s acceptance was advantageous as her marriage to Otto II almost guaranteed that he would “[father] a healthy and legitimate heir” (Garrison, 225). Following her marriage, Empress “Theophanu adapted quickly to” life in the Ottonian court and the expectations placed upon her as an empress, as “she bore five children…including a male heir to the throne” (Garrison, 225). Empress Theophanu also “took an active hand in the governance of the empire during Otto II’s lifetime”, and even more so during the reign of her son Otto III for whom she served as “imperial regent…until her [untimely] death in 991” (Garrison, 225, 225-6). Empress Theophanu was interred at “St Pantaleon in Cologne, in proximity to the relics” that were “procured in Constantinople” during her wedding negotiations (Garrison, 226).

Here, Theophanu is dressed in the style of a Byzantine empress, and her outfit resembles the mosaic of Empress Zoe in Hagia Sophia.

Depicting Christ post-Iconoclasm

The decision to depict Christ on this plaque is notable, as it clearly emulates Byzantine types, yet its patron must have been cognisant of the Iconoclastic controversies that wracked the Byzantine empire for much of the eighth and ninth centuries. The iconoclastic controversies were catalysed by Byzantine losses against the Islamic Umayyad army, which were interpreted as God being displeased by Byzantine use of icons. However, concerns about the function and appropriateness of icons as devotional aids originated far earlier, as theologians worried that Christians would confuse artifice and idolatry. It was not until the Triumph of Orthodoxy, March 11, 843, the first Sunday in Lent, when Empress Theodora processed the Hodegedria through the streets of Constantinople, that iconoclasm officially ended. To rebut claims that icons were a form of idolatry, theologians asserted that icons must be understood as an imprint of Christ, who was Himself an imprint of God. Thus, devotion was never diverted. Additionally, artists became increasingly concerned with preventing confusion between image and archetype and thus tended towards abstraction and the circumscription of Christ’s nature. In “From Transformation to Desire”, Charles Barber stresses “the imaginary quality” of icons, which require “projection” on the part of the viewer (Barber, 14, 15). Moreover, he asserts that icons functioned as sites of desire, as “the resolution promised can only be met within the discourse of the icon”; the medium of the icon “acts as a barrier between desired full presence and actual absence” (Barber, 15). This plaque can be understood in similar terms, as it does not represent an actual event, as the “encounter exists only within the terms of the visual language employed” (Barber, 15).

Manuscript illumination of Otto II. The illumination makes reference to the depiction of Justinian in San Vitale.

Otto II

The Ottonian dynasty was founded by Otto II’s father Otto I (r. 962-973), upon his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor, a title first held by the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 800-814). While Otto I differed from his predecessor in that he was a Saxon, they shared similar goals of building legitimacy through a revival of Roman glory. As emperor, Otto sought to put himself on par with the Byzantine Empire, the other greatest power in Europe, who considered themselves the true inheritors of the Roman Empire. As such, Otto embarked on massive building projects. Attempted to reform the Church and promoted the visual arts. Ottonian art was incredibly sumptuous and combined biblical types with secular, political imagery to establish a rhetoric of legitimacy. By far, the greatest source of influence for Ottonian art was Byzantium, and both Otto I and his son Otto II relied on Byzantine style and old, established types to craft legitimising propaganda. This conscious emulation, with the inclusion of some Germanic elements, demonstrates the Ottonian anxiety concerning their status in relation to that of Byzantium. Additionally, the wedding charter of Otto and Theophanu “is written in the voice of Otto II” with “small gold dots at key points throughout the text” (Garrison, 222). Garrison has noted that “these gold dots” imply “the charter would have been read on repeated occasions as…Theophanu was introduced to her subjects” (Garrison, 222).

Ivory Icon with the Crucifixion, mid 10th century

Ivory

Ivory was an immensely popular and highly prised medium for carving in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, Constantinople had a near monopoly on the ivory trade, given its status as the locus of all trade from Africa and the Levant. Ivory was not reserved for a specific type of carving and was used for consular diptychs, carved boxes, and icons. The existence of post-iconoclastic ivory icons appears to reaffirm the legitimacy of creating these images while also demonstrating the increasing abstraction adopted by Byzantine artists (Barber, 15). This plaque is not the only instance in which Ottonian artists referenced Byzantine ivories, as Otto and Theophanu’s marriage contract imitated a “sixth-century Byzantine ivory diptych of Justinus” (Garrison, 218)

Marriage contract of Theophanu

Byzantine types in an Ottonian context

Theophanu and Otto II’s marriage was a humongous boon for Ottonian identity building, as demonstrated by their marriage charter's construction, imagery, and text. The entire work is a masterpiece of artifice: the parchment “[simulates] purple Byzantine silk” (Garrison, 212). As such, Theophanu’s wedding charter was a masterpiece of artifice, which replicated the imagery and appearance of silk. Purple, the colour of the parchment, had significant imperial symbolism for the Byzantines and Ottonians. Purple dye in Byzantium was made from crushed murex snails, but its use “was restricted solely for luxury goods made specifically for the Byzantine emperor”(Garrison, 213). Its use was so highly restricted that when Otto I’s diplomat “illicitly obtained a cache of murex purple silks” to bring back to the Ottonian court, they were “confiscated, for possession of such silks was tantamount to treason and punishable by death” (Garrison, 220). Additionally, by evoking multiple Byzantine types, including “carved ivory, hammered gold, and cloisonne enamel), the marriage contract was a testament to “cultural sophistication” and indicated the Ottonain’s anxiety about meeting Byzantine standards of production, even if they lacked the materials to do so literally (Garrison, 218, 220). Regardless of the marriage contract's visual splendour, it was at its heart a legal contract, written to confirm the legitimacy of Otto and Theophanu’s future children Garrison asserts that the marriage charter's use of mimesis and “simulative illusionism…echoed its call to Theophanu to understand her function at court”, that is to be “both a faithful helpmeet and a fecund imperial body” (Garrison, 213). As such, the duty to procreate “is presented as a reflection of a heavenly order,” and there is an “explicit focus on creation as generative, replicative, and artful” (Garrison, 218, 222).

1. When and why did John commission this book cover? Was there a back cover, too? 2. Where was the plaque produced? In Southern Italy or at the Ottonian court? The finesse of carving seems to indicate that regardless of location, it was produced by a Byzantine craftsman 3.Did Theophanu commission any works of art during her reign?

Questions