Signs of Royal Beauty Bright: Word and Image in the Legend of Charlemagne

Home , Christ in Majesty, Thietmar (pilgrim)

Stephen G. Nichols, Jr. Signs of Royal Beauty Bright: Word and Image in the Legend of Charlemagne During the feast of Pentecost in the year 1000, there occurred an event which has been characterized as "the most spectacular of that year."1 It was the opening of Charlemagne's tomb at Aix-la-Chapelle by the emperor Otto III. Although the exact location of the tomb was not known, Otto chose a spot in the church and ordered the dig to begin. The excavations were immediately successful, and we have three progressively more elaborate accounts of what Otto found, one of them by a putative eyewitness. The first report is that given by Thietmar, bishop of Merseburg (975-1018), an exact contemporary of Otto. Thietmar reports that Otto: was in doubt as to the exact spot where the remains of the emperor Charles reposed. He ordered the stone floor to be secretly excavated at the spot where he thought them to be; at last they were discovered in a royal throne [a royal sarcophagus]. Taking the golden cross which hung from Charlemagne's neck, as well as the unrotted parts of his clothing, Otto replaced the rest with great reverence.2 While this account has found favor with historians for its comfort- ing lack of elaboration, it scarcely conveys the historic drama which came to be associated with the event. Happily that is provided by Otto of Lamello. Otto reports: We entered and went to Charles. He was not lying, as is the custom with the bodies of other deceased persons, but was sitting in a throne just like a living person. He was crowned with a gold crown; the hands were covered with gloves through which the fingernails had grown, and held a sceptre. There was, however, above him, a crypt, strongly built of marble. In order that we might reach him, we first had to have an opening broken through there. And when we came to him, we smelled a strong odor. Immediately, we worshipped him by kneeling, and then the emperor Otto covered him with white vestments, cut the nails, and repaired all that was in need of it around him. None of his members had decayed, but a small portion of the tip of his nose was missing, which the emperor restored with gold. He removed one of the teeth from the mouth, rebuilt the crypt, and then departed.3

1Robert Folz, Le Souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne dans l'empire germanique médiéval (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1950), p. 87. 2Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon, ed. Lappenberg, Scrip- tores Rerum Germanicarum (Hannover, 1889). L. IV, c. 47 (29), p. 90. 3Chronicon Novaliciense, III, xxxii, in Monumenta Germaniae histor., Scriptores, t. VII, p. 106. Quoted in the Dictionnaire d'archéologie chré- 21 22 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976

Count Otto's description vividly conveys the immediacy of the experience, while refraining from elaboration. That task was reserved for our last contemporary chronicler, Adhémar de Chabannes (ca. 988-1034), whose efforts have not been particularly appreciated by modern scholars. But whatever one's opinion regarding the historicity of Adhémar's account, there is no denying its distinction as the first contemporary report of the exhumation outside of Otto's domains; moreover, since Adhémar was a monk at the abbey of Saint-Martial in Limoges—a main stop on the pilgrim route south, right on the border of "Charlemagne and Roland country"—it testifies to the diffusion of the event over a wide area. In those days, the emperor Otto was advised in a dream to raise the body of the emperor Charlemagne, who had been buried at Aix. But having been obliterated by time, the exact place where he lay was not known. At the end of three days fast, he was found in that place which the emperor had perceived in his dream. He was found sitting in a golden throne, within an arched crypt, under the basilica of Saint Mary, crowned with a crown of gold and gems, holding a sceptre and a sword of purest gold, the body itself uncorrupted. After being raised, the body was shown to the people. A canon of that church, Adalbert, who was enormous and tall of sta- ture, put the crown on his head as if to take its measure, but found the top of his head too small for it, the size of the crown being bigger than the circumference of his own head. He also compared his leg to that of the king, and his was found to be the smaller. Immediately afterward, by a divine miracle, his leg was fractured, and although he lived another forty years, he remained a cripple. Charles's body was buried in the right transept of that basilica, behind the altar of Saint-John the Baptist and a magnificent golden crypt constructed over it, and it began to be known by means of many signs and miracles. There was no thought of a solemn feast day for him, aside from the common rites of the anniversary of the dead.4 If we isolate the elements common to the accounts, or at least to any two of the three, we find nine principal components. They function either to give structure to the ceremony or, equally important, to attach the action firmly to a given time—the feast of Pentecost—and to a given place—the basilica at Aix-la-Chapelle—built by Charles himself. These elements are as follows : 1) TIME: The feast of Pentecost of the year 1000, during a visit Otto III paid to Aix-la-Chapelle. 2) PLACE: The basilica of Our Lady, Aix-la-Chapelle, the former tienne et de liturgie, edited by dom F. Cabrol and dom H. Leclercq (Paris: Letouzey, 1913), III, cols. 793-794. 4Adhémar de Chabannes, Chronique, edited by Jules Chavanon (Paris: Collection de textes pour servir à l'étude ... de l'histoire, 1897), pp. 153-154. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 23

capital of Charlemagne's empire. Tomb known to be within precincts of the basilica. 3) DISCOVERY: Although the exact location of the tomb is unknown, Otto discovers or is divinely guided to it. 4) CAST: A restricted number of persons (four) make the visitation. 5) SPECTACLE: Charlemagne is discovered, enthroned in majesty, in a vaulted crypt. 6) ARTEFACTS: Charlemagne's body is found to be adorned with precious objects symbolic of religious and secular authority. 7) RITUAL: Veneration of the site and Charlemagne by visitors; sacred nature of the occasion stressed. 8) TRANSLATION: Body and objects associated with it treated as sacred relics. Remains replaced in tomb or resited in another. 9) REVELATION: Authoritative account of visitation conveys image and details of the event to audience. Our reading of the accounts of the exhumation as well as our summary of the structural elements should make clear the ceremonial nature of the occasion. The visit to the tomb is treated as a ritual of the highest religious significance. One critic has not hesitated to term it a préfigu- ration of the canonisation of Charlemagne in 1165.5 First, the time and the plaça of the ceremony are significant. Pentecost, the fiftieth day after Easter, was traditionally the end of the Easter season; it is also the feast which celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit.6 As such, it is the feast which confirms the full import, the truth, of the resurrection. The resurrection itself, as O. B. Hardison has observed, "is the moment when humanity, represented by the holy women visit- ing the tomb of Christ, first recognizes the full significance of the Incar- nation."7 We have thus a series of on-going moments—Incarnation, Crucifix- ion, Resurrection, Pentecost—each confirming the truth and significance of the preceding. Any event on the continuum at once depends upon and confirms the others, while all of them guarantee the future, conceived as eternal life. The Christian concept of time is evidently synecdochic, wherein one part may stand in reciprocal implicational relationship with all the others. The same is also true of Christian space, and, in fact, the place in which our drama unfolds is really one sacred space within another: a tomb within a place for worshipping the tomb. Even more, it is also a sacred space sequence (church—>tomb/tomb—>church) in one place, i.e., Aix-la- Chapelle, which represents other space sequences in other places, i.e., Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome. Let us see how this works, looking first at Charlemagne's church, the Palatine Chapel.

5Folz, op. cit., p. 93.

6John Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels (London: S.P.C.K., 1971), p. 78. 7O. B. Hardison, Jr., Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), p. 178. 24 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 There is the main part of the basilica: "an eight-sided domed center room surrounded by an ambulatory on its lower, by a gallery on its upper floor and surmounted by an eight-sided dome."8 It is dedicated both to Christ and to the Virgin Mary. Below this main part, as we have seen, was Charlemagne's crypt, called by Otto of Lamello a turgurium and then a tur- guriolum. The strict sense of turgurium is 'little hut' or 'cottage', a fact whose importance will be apparent in a moment. In this spatial arrangement of a sacred tomb below ground, enclosed above by a basilica, we have the typical arrangement of the early medieval martyrium, but especially of that archetypal martyrium, the Anastasis in Jerusalem. We will have occasion to return later to the prototypes of the Palatine Chapel; for the moment it is less the iconography of the architecture which concerns us, than the iconography of its semiosis, if we may so speak. The Anastasis, constructed by Constantine over the cave-tomb of Christ, was a cherished goal of medieval pilgrims from the fourth century onwards. The tomb, a cave at the outset, had been enclosed by a colonnaded monument under Constantine's direction. This structure came to be called an edicule or 'little house', and all representations of the holy sepulchre per se may so be called. Eusebius reports that the cave was adorned by the Emperor with "choice columns and much ornament," and that he spared "no art to make it beautiful."9 Even so, as evidenced by early testimony and modern reconstruction, the edicule was but a small part of the original Anastasis; the magnificence of the latter was intended by Constantine to impress upon the faithful the importance of the former. In Eusebius' words, the Anas- tasis should "make conspicuous and an object of veneration to all" the Holy Sepulchre.10 Here again, we find a synecdochal relationship: the smaller object, the tomb, has the greater spiritual value, but it is the larger object, the basilica, that interprets the smaller; each implies the other in a reciprocal relationship, even though it was not that way at the beginning. That is, the tomb of Christ was the historical location of spiritual value to the believer. But from the fourth century on, it became the Anastasis that represented the tomb to the believer; its symbolic function was to stand as a guarantor of the authenticity of the tomb. In effect, the tomb had entered into the mouvance of the basilica, to borrow a term from the vocabulary of feudalism. More importantly, the author of that basilica, i.e., Constan- tine, had acquired, by his plan to adorn the holy sites with "the splendor of buildings," a spiritual as well as a political suzerainty over those sites. Soon that suzerainty was to be claimed for Charlemagne. Between the year 800 and the year 1000, and particularly in the

8Richard Krautheimer, Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (New York: New York University Press, 1969), pp. 108-109. 9Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 242.

10Vita Constantini, III, xxv. Translation by John Bernard, Eusebius (London: Palestine Pilgrims' Texts Society, 1896), p. 3. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 25 half-century preceding Otto III's discovery of Charlemagne's tomb, a consid- erable documentation had developed stressing the relations between the Holy Land and Charlemagne. After the year 1000, as we know, the literature becomes even more voluminous, as Charlemagne is metamorphosed into the archetypal crusader king conquering the Holy Land and protecting its sites for the faithful. Prior to the mid-eleventh century, however, the picture is more in keeping with the kind of rôle played by Constantine. That is, Char- lemagne is portrayed as an endower of monuments in Palestine, such as the hostel and church for Latin-speaking pilgrims in Jerusalem, Saint-Mary-the- Latin. He is also shown as being on amicable terms with the Saracen cali- phate, depicted as only-too-ready to turn over to him the custody of the Christian holy places. More interestingly, the documents also show the emperors in Constantinople as quite willing to concede to Charlemagne their nominal rights as custodians of the Holy Land. Besides the better-known early accounts in which Harun-al-Rachid sends the keys of the Holy Sepulchre to Charlemagne in 800—the same time as his imperial coronation—(see Einhard's Vita Karoli and the Annales Royales) and promises to place himself and his land under Charlemagne's protection (see Notker), there are further indications that the Holy Land was entering the mouvance of the Carolingian empire, at least in legend. The Translatio Sanguinis, composed at Reichnau around the year 950,11 tells the story of the abbey's most precious relic, a cross containing several drops of the blood of Christ, originally obtained and donated by Charlemagne. The Translatio recounts that this cross was given to Charle- magne, along with many other relics of the Passion, by the Prefect of Jeru- salem, who had travelled to Corsica to meet the Emperor. From Ravenna, Charlemagne went barefoot all the way to Sicily, with a large number of pilgrims, to take possession of the relics. He then brought them back to Aix, where he distributed them to various churches, keeping some for his own basilica. As Folz observes, the Translatio tells us two important things: Elle atteste en effet la persistence du souvenir des rapports amicaux que Charlemagne entretenait avec les princes de l'Orient. Elle montre également que certaines églises se rappellent l'arrivée en Occident, aux environs de l'an 800, de reliques particulièrement illustres, celles de la Passion du Christ à la possession desquelles elles participent grâce aux générosités de Charlemagne.12 Less than a quarter of a century after the Translatio, we find a narrative which actually has Charlemagne going to Jerusalem and Constan- tinople. Around the year 968, the monk Benedict of Mount Soracte wrote a chronicle in which Charlemagne mounts an expedition to the Holy Land.l3 According to Benedict, Harun-al-Rachid quickly concludes a treaty of peace

11Folz, op. cit., pp. 24-25. 12Ibid., p. 25. 13Ibid., pp. 135-137. 26 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 and friendship with Charlemagne and makes him the protector of the Holy Sepulchre at the moment when Charlemagne visits the tomb to embellish it with precious gifts brought for the purpose. Harun and Charlemagne then move on to that other center of Christian heritage, Alexandria, where they preside over a joyous demonstration of peaceful coexistence between the Saracen and Christian inhabitants. Leaving Alexandria, Charlemagne moves on to Constantinople, where he is acknowledged as an ally by the emperors [sic], who do not challenge his suzerainty over the Holy Land. Finally, Charlemagne goes to Rome for a triumphal welcome by the Pope and the people who proclaim him Augustus. This chronicle represents a significant step forward in the legendary substitution of Charlemagne for Constantine as the religio-secular suzerain of the Holy Land. For the first time, Charles actually "takes possession" of the holy sepulchre in person: physical presence at a sacred site was an important part in the transference of symbolic powers. We have now evidence for a homology which runs, Holy Sepulchre :Constantine::Holy Sepulchre:Charlemagne in which the common element establishing the authority of both Constantine and Charlemagne is the all-important title "emperor," extended to include suzerainty over the Holy Land. That is, the term "emperor" now figures as a sign of religious authority—protector of the sacred places of Christian- ity—as well as temporal dominance. To mention the Holy Sepulchre at this point is no longer automatically to evoke Constantine, but rather Charle- magne. Nevertheless, the authority of Charlemagne derives from his implicational relationship with Constantine. Hence Constantine and Charlemagne come to stand in synecdochic relationship. Thanks to the special nature of Christian time, discussed above, Charlemagne is seen less as a successor to Constantine than as a renovatio of him, a re-creation of what he was perceived to have stood for. Once again, just as in the case of Constantine's first association with the Holy Sepulchre, the new view imposes itself as canonical, even though it was not that way at the beginning. This is part of what I have called, in a related study, "the Peregrinatio Principle."14 We will have occasion to return to this point later; suffice it to say, for the moment, that the homology, Holy Sepulchre:Constantine::Holy Se- pulchre : Charlemagne , is also repeated in Benedict of Mount Soracte's Chroni- cle in respect to Charlemagne's relationship to all of the cities over which Constantine once held temporal control: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantin- ople, Rome. In effect, Benedict of Mount Soracte asserts the yet more sweeping homology: Constantine:Empire : :Charlemagne :Empire where "Empire" clearly holds a spiritual as well as a temporal value. This is perfectly In keeping with the image Charlemagne and his advisers had of

14"The Interaction of Life and Literature in the Peregrinationes ad loco, sancta and the Chansons de Geste," Speculum 44 (1969), 51-77. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 27 the rôle he was assuming from 800 onwards,15 but to find it reasserted so clearly, with such elaborate detail in this chronicle, does suggest the symbolic authority accorded to Charlemagne in the second half of the tenth century. It also provides important testimony regarding the elements which would have been part of the horizon of knowledge about Charlemagne possessed by the actors in the drama of the exhumation when they descended to Charlemagne's tomb in that millenial year of 1000. Before abandoning our consideration of the significance of the place in which the opening of the tomb occurred, we should be aware of the iconographie significance of the Palatine Chapel itself in what Krautheimer has called "The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture."16 Kraut- heimer has argued persuasively that symbolic value and liturgical function were stressed more than the technical aspects of ecclesiastical architecture in the Middle Ages. "The 'content' of architecture," he says, "seems to have been among the more important problems of medieval architectural theory; perhaps it was indeed its most important problem."17 In comparing different edifices which medieval sources saw as related, then, the modern scholar must look less for exact physical resemblances than for symbolic and functional points de repère. On this basis, Charlemagne's Palatine Chapel at Aix may be compared to two kinds of models whose prototypes may be found in Jerusalem and Rome. The description of the basilica, given earlier, places it in a group of "round" churches associated on the one hand with the Anastasis and, on the other, with martyria dedicated to the Virgin. Strictly speaking, the Pala- tine Chapel does not fall into the group of conscious "copies" of the Anas- tasis which were built in Europe beginning in the first half of the eleventh century, soon after the events we are discussing.18 Based loosely on its use of the two story rotunda with galleries, and its dedication to Christ, the Palatine Chapel may be said to conform to the typology of the copies of

15"All Charlemagne's political ideas, his conception of a new Empire, and of his own status were based upon the image of the first Chris- tian emperor. Numerous documents testify to the parallel which time and again was drawn between the Carolingian house and Constantine: the scribes of the papal chancellery . . . referred to [Charlemagne] as the 'New Constantine'; the crown which Constantine was supposed to have given to Pope Sylvester was allegedly used in 816 by Stephen V for the coronation of Charlemagne's son, Louis the Pious; Aix-la-Chapelle was in Carolingian terminology a Nova Roma, like Constantinople in the phraseology of the fourth century." Krautheimer, op. cit., pp. 235-236. 16Ibid., ch. 13. 17Ibid., p. 115.

18"Introduction to an 'Iconography of Medieval Architecture'," Ibid., ch. 8. See also, Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, "Les Imitations du Saint- sépulcre de Jérusalem (IXe-XVe siècles)," Revue de l'Histoire de la spiritualité 50 (1974), 319-342. 28 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 the Holy Sepulchre, especially since Krautheimer points out that even the "approved" copies resembled their prototype in little more than the use of the rotunda and gallery motif and their dedication to Christ.19 Given Charlemagne's close association with the Holy Sepulchre, it hardly seems radical to assume that, as the archetype of the Anastasis became more prevalent in Europe, the Rotunda at Aix, itself a martyrium dedicated to Christ, would assume a typological association with the Holy Sepulchre. There is another prototype for the Palatine Chapel in the Valley of Josaphat, outside of Jerusalem. This is the church over the Tomb of the Virgin, described by Arculfus, a Frankish pilgrim of the seventh century as follows: "The church of St. Mary is double-storied; its lower part is found with a wonderful stone ceiling; in the eastern part is an altar and to its right the empty tomb of the Virgin hewn in the rock. The upper story is likewise round; it contains four altars . . ."20 This Church seems to have been almost as important an influence on ecclesiastical architecture in the East and West as the Anastasis.21 Its immediate derivative in the Eastern Empire was the Hagia Soros in Constantinople; both the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin and Hagia Soros are suggested as models for the Palatine Chapel. The Palatine Chapel, in its turn, was "greatly admired by contemporaries and by later generations; and the structure was reflected in derivatives all over Charles' Empire from the ninth through the eleventh centuries."22 Once again we find the filiation, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Aix: Christ (Mary), Constantine, Charlemagne. But what about Rome? In Rome, the Pantheon had been rededicated as Sancta Maria Rotunda on May 10, 609 or 610 by Pope Boniface IV.23 Krautheimer cogently asks why the Pantheon, a domed rotunda with niches, should have been suddenly considered appropriate as a martyrium dedicated to the Virgin in the early seventh century?24 The answer apparently lies in the axis, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome. In the mid-sixth century, a church was either built or rebuilt over the Tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Josaphat by the Emperor Maurikos (582-602). "In commemoration of this structure," Krautheimer asserts, "the chapel of the Hagia Soros may have been set up in Constantinople."25 At any rate, from the early seventh century the chapel of Hagia Soros is cited as one of the "great sanctuaries of the capital, for at that time it sheltered the ker-

19Krautheimer, op. cit., p. 141. 20Ibid., p. 111. 21Ibid., p. 111. 22Ibid., p. 109. 23Ibid., p. 107. 24Ibid., p. 108. 25Ibid., p. 111. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 29 chief of the Virgin, or else her belt, her dress or her shroud."26 In dedicating the Pantheon to the Virgin, then, Pope Boniface IV was simply demonstrating the kind of symbolic transference which we have already witnessed on several occasions. That is, the Pantheon resembled the archetypal Church of the Tomb of the Virgin, therefore it could become a martyrium dedicated to the Virgin, and very shortly, as it became "the fountainhead for a whole group of early medieval round churches with niches all dedicated to the Virgin,"27 legend quickly asserted that it had been that way from the beginning.28 Given the fact that the model for Charlemagne's palace—which was attached to the Chapel by a kind of long arcade—was the Lateran in Rome which tradition, as laid down by the Donation of Constan- tine, claimed to have been Constantine's own palace, we can hardly doubt that a connection would have been made between the Palatine Chapel and Sta. Maria Rotunda. After all, Carolingian documents do explicitly refer to Aix-la-Chapelle as the Nova Roma, and this is due in no small measure to the "splendor of buildings," a Constantinian lesson that had not been lost on Charlemagne. In essence, then, we can argue that the Palatine Chapel is trinitarian: representing the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin, Hagia Soros, and Santa Maria Rotunda—Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome—all within the mouvance of Aix-la-Chapelle. The symmetry between Constantine and himself, the old empire and the new, seems to have been the height of Charlemagne's own ambition, and no mean one at that. By the year 1000, however, Charlemagne's successors seem to have entertained even greater ambitions for him. Their design was to put Charlemagne directly in association with Christ Himself; not on the same level, of course, but immediately below Him. We know that this was already an accepted view in the early thirteenth century when the Chronique Sainton- geaise, written in the heart of "Charlemagne and Roland Country," gave the following gloss on Charlemagne's name: "Karles si est lumeire de char, car il sormonta toz les / rois de terre charnaus apres Jesu Crist, per la lumeire de totes vertuz / e de science e de proece."29 This view is already implicit in the Digby 23 manuscript of the Chanson de Roland where Charlemagne is portrayed as of patriarchal age, dous cenz ans ad passet (v. 524), and during which he is in direct communi- cation with God via the angel Gabriel who descends to Charles four times in the poem, most notably to accomplish the Biblical miracle of making the sun stand still for Charlemagne. The last laisse of the Roland makes even more explicit Charlemagne's rôle as divine agent. Now that we have a clearer picture of the symbolic valorisation of Charlemagne around the year 1000, let us consider the structure of Otto

26Ibid., p. 109.

27Ibid., p. 108.

28Ibid., p. 107.

29Chronique dite Saintongeaise, ed. André de Mandach (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1970), p. 330. 30 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 III's descent to Charlemagne's tomb as conveyed by our three accounts. First of all, let there be no doubt as to the significance of Pentecost in the representation of the event. Pentecost was to Easter what the birth of Christ was to the Annunciation: a revelation confirming the truth of divine purpose. All of the medieval liturgical materials celebrating Pentecost treat it as the moment when the complete meaning of the Trinity is revealed to man. It is the feast of the Coming of the Spirit of Truth, as the ninth century hymn, Veni creator spiritus, ascribed to Hrabanus Maurus reminds us: Veni creator spiritus, mentes tuorum visita, impie superna gratia quae tu creasti corpora. Qui paracletus diceris, donum dei altissimi fons vivus, ignis, caritas et spiritalis unctio. (vv. 1-8)30

Pentecost provides a resounding answer to the question posed by Easter as interpreted by the three Maries who went to the Holy Sepulchre on Easter morning to anoint the body of Christ, only to find the tomb empty. That moment, with its explicit question, was seized upon and rendered drama- tic by the most famous dialogue in medieval literature, the Quem Queritis. In its simplest form, the Quem Queritis dialogue consists of a question, an answer, and a reply: Quem queritis in sepulchro, o Christicole? Ihesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o celicole. Mon est hic, surrexit sicut ipse dixit; ite nunciate quia surrexit. (Whom do you seek in the tomb, 0 followers of Christ? Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, 0 Heaven-Dwellers. He is not here, he has arisen as he said; go announce that he has arisen.)31 Hardison reminds us that the Quem Queritis

became quite literally, the bridge whereby medieval culture made the transition from ritual to representational drama . ... It is not a

30The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928), p. 47. Line 10: dextrae Dei tu digitus, suggests the spiritual rôle of Christ, whose secular counterpart Charlemagne is shown to be when cast as the strong right arm of God in the Chanson de Roland and elsewhere. 31Quoted by Hardison, op. cit., pp. 178-179. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 31

tentative and blurred effort to express a felt experience in representational form but a decisive realization of experience in terms of the history that the Middle Ages regarded as its basis.32 We should bear in mind that the earliest versions of the Quem Queri- tis come from Saint Martial of Limoges and St. Gall. Is it coincidental that these two abbeys, so much in the forefront of developing new forms for the symbolic representation of liturgical materials, should also have played prominent roles in the elaboration of the Charlemagne legend, particularly as regards the metamorphosis of Charlemagne into the most important seculo- sacred archetype of the Middle Ages? However that may be, the Quem Queritis was a masterpiece of functional symbolic representation in which persons, site, gesture, music, words combine to make the revelation of the resurrection a stunning recognition scene. At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Quem Queritis had attained widespread popularity, already undergoing elaborations which would eventually culminate in a full-blown play of the Passion-tide. It had also served as a model for other forms of liturgical drama. Even in its simplest form, the Quem Queritis incorporates the essential elements of the tomb visitation of Easter morning, whose significance was of such prime import for Christian belief. The Quem Queritis could not help but provide a ceremonial archetype for the perception and representation of a tomb visitation, especially one with as much at stake as this one. This is especially true when we recall that the place of Otto III's visitation is a rotunda martyrium of the type associated with both the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin. Otto of Lamello provides two details, in his account, which make the parallel between the representation of the tomb visitation in the Quem Queritis and the discovery of Charlemagne's tomb the more striking. Based on Biblical authority, the Quem Queritis represents five people present in the tomb: the three Maries and two angels. We find the same overall number in Otto of Lamello's account where four notables proceed to find a Charlemagne erect in his throne ceu vivus residebat. We will have occasion to return to the representation of Charlemagne in these accounts, but for the moment it is important to grasp that he is treated very much as a presence in the tomb visitation. It is his presence that dominates the scene, that is highlighted by the procession towards the throne. Note also that the reverences made to the enthroned emperor are not dissimilar to those which would have been accorded him by courtiers were he giving a royal audience. Indeed, he is represented with all the imperial regalia, symbols of authority—both secular and religious—which he would have held on state occasions. His posture, attitude, appurtenances are dramatically rendered by the chroniclers, and, as with the three Maries in the Quem Queritis, it is the attitude of the visitors, the attitude of reverence and awe, that reminds us that we are being made witnesses to a revelation, a revelation of a truth which could only take place in the tomb. The second detail of Otto's account which deserves comment is the

32Ibid., p. 178. 32 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 estate of the four tomb visitors. These are not witnesses chosen at random, but highly placed representatives of the ruling estates: the monarchy, the Church, and the nobility. There is even a suggestion, in the Chronicle of Novalèse, which reports Otto of Lamello's narrative of a processional of the four notables down to the tomb from the church above.33 So, as in the Quem Queritis, a small number of authoritative witnesses experience the event and then go forth to announce the news: ite nunciate quia surrexit. And just as in the Quem Queritis, it is the existence of the concrete artefacts—the tomb, the relics taken, etc.—which are meant to attest the authenticity of the experience; but even more importantly, in both cases, it is the representation of the event in verbal accounts that constitutes a mythos which becomes an article of historical fact upon which far-reaching political and spiritual claims will be based. We find here the same kind of synechdochal transference from sacred person to sacred site and vice-versa which we witnessed in connection with the sites in the Holy Land. And once again, even though the discovery of Charlemagne's tomb occurs almost two hundred years after his interment, there is a retrospective reconstruction of the mythos to the effect that the situation represented as existing in the tomb in the year 1000 must have been that way from the beginning. This retrospective reconstruction may best be seen by comparing the account of Charlemagne's interment given by Einhard in his ninth century Vita Karoli with the report which Adhémar de Chabannes includes in his eleventh century chronicle. Einhard's version is relatively explicit: [Charlemagne's] body was washed and cared for in the usual manner, and was then carried to the church and interred amid the greatest lamenta- tions of all the people ... He was buried there the same day that he died, and a gilded arch was erected above his tomb with his image and an inscription. The words of the inscription were as follows: "Under this tomb is interred the body of Charles, the Great and Orthodox Em- peror, who gloriously extended the kingdom of the Franks and reigned prosperously for forty-seven years. He died at the age of seventy, in the year of our Lord 814, the 7th Indiction, on the 28th day of Janu- ary.34 Now Adhémar's: Charles was interred at Aix in the basilica of Our Lady which he had built. His body, having been anointed with spices, was placed sitting in a golden throne in a vaulted crypt. The body was girt with a golden sword and was holding a golden book of the gospels (evangelium) in the hands and [resting] on the knees. The shoulders were leaning back

33"Otto imperator . . . declinavit utique ad locum sepulturae illius cum duobus episcopis et Ottone comité Laumellensi; ipse vero imperator fuit quartus." Dictionnaire d'Archéologie chrétienne, III, col 793. 34Life of Charlemagne, ch. 31. Translated by Samuel Turner (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960), p. 60. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 33

against the throne and the head was held boldly erect, linked by a golden chain to the diadem. In the diadem was fixed a piece of the True Cross. They filled the crypt with aromatic spices, balsam, musk, and treasures. The body was dressed in the imperial robes and a handker- chief (sudarium) was placed on the face under the diadem. The gold sceptre and the golden shield which Pope Leo had blessed were placed before him and his sepulchre was sealed. [One ms. adds:] The hair shirt which he secretly always wore was placed next to his flesh, and over the imperial robes was placed the gold pilgrim wallet which he used to wear to Rome.35

As Dom Leclercq pointed out many years ago,36 there is nothing in Adhémar's account which contradicts Einhard; but there is an incredible difference between them from the standpoint of imagery and detail. Consider first of all the concrete artefacts. Einhard refers only to a gilded arch and an image, devoting most of his report to the text of the inscription above the tomb. Adhémar, on the other hand, provides a rich inventory of articles which will soon become sacred relics associated with religio- political ceremonies of the highest importance. The stone throne in the Palatine Chapel in which Otto I was consecrated in 936, and in which other German kings subsequently received their consecration, became known as the "Throne of Charlemagne."37 The sceptre, sword, and crown, after having been translated to St. Denis, where they were preserved as principal relics of the royal abbey, became essential features of the ceremonial regalia utilized by French kings for their sacre at Reims.38 As a matter of fact, the sceptre was last used by Napoleon I at his imperial coronation.39 Space permitting, much could be said about the relationship of these relics to the development of the concept of the divinity of medieval kings. Suffice it to recall for the moment that the use of the crown in the consecration of monarchs first appeared in the West at the imperial coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in the year 800. It was modelled on an Eastern rite in which Christ was represented as crowning the emperor in Constantin- ople.40 Once again, the Jerusalem-Constantinople-Rome-Aachen axis. The most striking aspect of Adhémar's account of the interment, as it was of the tomb, is the overall representation of Charlemagne sitting in

35Chavanon, op. cit., p. 105. Quoted in Dic. d'Archéol. chrét., op. cit., III, cols. 791-972. 36Ibid., III, col. 792. 37Folz, op. cit., pp. 49-50, p. 93. 38Jean-Pierre Bayard, Le Sacre des rois (Paris: Editions du Vieux Colombier, 1964), pp. 101-120.

39Dict. d'Archéol. chrét., op. cit., III, col. 743. 40Bayard, op. cit., pp. 109-110. 34 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 enthroned majesty. With Adhémar, we undoubtedly begin a long and fruitful development in the iconography of Charlemagne, especially as concerns the parallels with Christ. It will be important for our understanding of the dual nature of mythos—verbal and iconographic—to remember that Adhémar's description constitutes, in essence, a verbal portrait which is self-authen- ticating, i.e., it calls attention to the very objects in the composition which may later be used to establish the "authority" of the portrait. This is slightly different from a graphic representation where all the same objects may be present but cannot "explain themselves" without a legend. In the case of Adhémar's portrait, we have an explicit identification of not only the content of the immediate picture, but also a well-defined frame- work for the two portraits of Charlemagne interred and Charlemagne redivi- vus. This context, in turn, not only draws upon the historical develop- ments of the Charlemagne legend in word, image, and architecture as we have traced its development during the tenth century, but also upon the associa- tions of the immediate situation: the desire of Otto III to make Charle- magne the fountainhead of the "Universal Roman Empire" as Christ was the fountainhead of the Universal Roman Church. In effect, the mythos of Char- lemagne is to be placed squarely and without the mediation of Constantinian reference, into the mouvance of the Christ mythos with all of the reciprocal implication implied by that feudal term. We have seen this trend developing verbally in the chronicles; Adhémar's description marks the beginning of a corresponding iconographical tradition of a frontally portrayed "Charlemagne in majesty" which shows a striking resemblance to the iconography of the "Christ in majesty," a romanesque theme par excellence particularly favored in the eleventh century. Without pretending to trace the development of the iconography of the enthroned Christ, let us simply examine quickly some significant examples. The first is, appropriately, representative of the work done by the Palace School at Aix-la-Chapelle and is found in an evangelium attributed to Godescalc, the pupil of Hrabanus Maurus, and dating from the last part of the eighth century (Figure 1). It is thus contemporary with Charlemagne himself. Christ is portrayed frontally, holding a decorated gospel in his left hand, his right engaged in a gesture of blessing. He is seated on an ornate cushion which in turn is placed upon a raised and handsomely carved throne. One of the earliest sculptural representations of Christ in Majesty is the small relief found in the ambulatory of the pilgrimage church of Saint Sernin in Toulouse, dating from the latter part of the eleventh century (Figure 2). This beautiful sculpture, on the wall separating the ambulatory from the choir, almost immediately behind the main altar, is close to the spot where pilgrims could peer through holes cut in the stonework of the ambulatory to look down into the crypt where the most precious relics of the church reposed. Unlike the psaltar Christ in Majesty, this one is enclosed by a man- dorla, while the whole relief is framed by an arch (not shown in the repro- duction) . There is a significant change in the representation of the gospel which, as in the Godescalc psaltar, Christ holds in his left hand. In this case, instead of clasping the gospel to his breast, Christ is portrayed Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 35

Figure 1. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. latin 1203, f. 34, Godescalc's evangelistry (Aix-la-Chapelle, Palace School, 781- 783), Christ-in-Majesty. 36 Olifant / Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976

Figure 2. Toulouse, Ambulatory, Christ-in-Majesty. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 37 holding it in his hand and on his knee, precisely in the manner Adhémar ascribes to Charlemagne. Emphasizing this posture is the greater prominence accorded by the sculptor to the left knee and the decoration on the drapery covering the left leg. The same emphasis is noted by the gathering of the drapery over the left side of the torso and left arm, immediately beside and over the left hand. Again we find the elaborately carved throne and ornate cushion. By its restrained size and execution, the Saint-Sernin Christ conveys its relationship to the miniature ivory carvings and goldsmith work that inspired it. On a larger scale however, we find precisely the same representation of Christ as at Saint-Sernin in different locations throughout France from early in the twelfth century. In passing, we might mention the Christ of the tympanum of Cervon (Nièvre) which retains the iconographical details of the Saint-Sernin Christ, although the artistic execution is more reminiscent of Giselbertus's elongated forms at Autun. Two obviously related examples are to be found in the Saône-et-Loire at Anzy-le-Duc and Perrecy-les Forges. These are of interest for the disproportionately large- sized gospels held between the hand and the knee of the enthroned Christ. For our purposes, the most significant development in the iconography of the sculptural representations of the Christ in Majesty, after Saint Sernin, may be found, appropriately enough, at Moissac, whose early twelfth-century reconstruction was influenced by Saint-Sernin. As in other instances, however, the artists at Moissac went beyond their models. The Christ which dominates the tympanum at Moissac (Figure 3) resembles far more a secular ruler than the ethereal Christs of the Godescalc Psalter and of Saint-Sernin. First, the full beard provides a patriarchal air to the figure not found in the clean-shaven earlier images. Secondly, and signifi- cantly, the Christ of Moissac not only has the requisite halo with cross behind his head, but also wears a very prominent crown. This Christ, in fact, is the Pantokrator, Christ-king of the universe, and under him, grouped in three registers, are the twenty-four kings of the apocalypse. No wonder local peasants took the statue to represent King Clovis until very recently.41 The Christ of Moissac has only one iconographical counterpart among eleventh and twelfth century representations of secular rulers that I have found, and that counterpart is Charlemagne. Only Charlemagne is represented, at least in sacred settings, as enthroned in majesty. To go no further than the end of the twelfth century, we can find two striking representations of the "Charlemagne in majesty" worthy of comment. One is a vitrail, executed around the year 1200, the original of which used to be in the cathedral at Strasbourg; the other is on an ornate reliquary containing Char- lemagne's mortal remains, preserved in the Palatine Chapel. Aix-la-Chapelle and Strasbourg were the first two cities to celebrate the cult of Charle- magne after his canonization in 1165.42 The Charlemagne in majesty of

41Ernest Rupin, L'Abbaye et les Cloîtres de Moissac (Paris: Picard, 1897), p. 24.

42Rita Lejeune et Jacques Stiennon, La Légende de Roland dans l'art 38 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976

Figure 3. Moissac, Saint Pierre, tympanum, Christ-in-Majesty. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 39

Figure 4. Strasbourg, Musée de l'Oeuvre Notre Dame, Charle- magne-in-Majesty, flanked by Roland and Olivier. 40 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 Strasbourg (Figure 4) is seated on a square-backed throne, like the Christ at Moissac, with a prominent crown and halo. The ornate cushion associated with the thrones of the Christ in majesty is found here too. The sitting posture, unusual for the representation of an emperor, was long remarked as a significant feature of this vitrail.43 The iconography of the Strasbourg vitrail differs from that of Adhé- mar's description and of the Christ in Majesty tradition in that Charlemagne does not hold an evangelium in his left hand and on his knee, but rather clutches an imperial globe to his breast. Like the Christ in Majesty, however, he is surrounded by symbolic figures associated with his mythos. In this case, it is not the evangelists or their symbols, but representatives of Charlemagne's twelve disciples, the twelve peers. Here the peers are represented by Roland and Olivier. They play an analogous rôle, icono- graphically, to the Gospel authors surrounding the Christ in Majesty: they authenticate the mythos by pointing to its verbal incarnation. The iconography of a recently discovered reference to another Char- lemagne window in Alsace was even more striking in its rapprochement of Charlemagne and Christ.44 The window, now destroyed, was in the church at Lièpvre, near Ribeauvillé. Il représentait, en dessous d'une crucifixion, la Vierge et les saints patrons de l'Eglise répartis dans trois bandes lancéolées. Dans le registre inférieur on distinguait, de gauche à droite: à genoux l'abbé Fulrad de Saint-Denis, fondateur du monastère; l'empereur Charlemagne assis sur un trône, tenant un sceptre à la main; Roland et Olivier, armés de toutes pièces.45 We come finally to the Aachen reliquary, dating from the first de- cade of the twelfth century. This work of extraordinary beauty, more than two meters in length, is covered with reliefs and statuettes representing all of the facets of the life of Charlemagne. Since it was meant to reveal to the onlooker the foundation for Charlemagne's saintly status, it literally represents four hundred years' worth of historical tradition conven- iently translated into an iconographie hagiography. As the reliquary would prove an inexhaustible subject once embarked on it, we must forebear to comment on more than the "front end" or that part which would constitute the entrance to the nave of the church of which the reliquary is a model (Figure 5). This "portal," if we may so call it, is strikingly symmetrical in design; its symbolic symmetry is no less remark- able. The figure of Charlemagne (Figure 6) enthroned in majesty in the center, is the largest statuette on the reliquary. In his left hand, Char- lemagne holds the sceptre, while in his right hand, a model of the church du Moyen Age (Bruxelles: Arcade, 1966), I, p. 139b. 43Ibid., p. 140a.

44Ibid., p. 142b-143a. 45Ibid., p. l43a. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 41

Figure 5. Aix-la-Chapelle, Cathedral Treasury, Reliquary of Charlemagne, Charlemagne-in-Majesty, flanked by Pope Leo III and Archbishop Turpin. 42 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976

Figure 6. Aix-la-Chapelle, Reliquary of Charlemagne, Charlemagne- in-Majesty, detail of Figure 5. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 43 which he is depicted elsewhere on the reliquary as offering to the Virgin. The primacy given to Charlemagne's rapport with the church, as signified by placing it in his right hand—whereas the symbol of temporal authority is in his left—is of great import. The religious authority vested in Charlemagne rather than in the usual ecclesiastical hierarchy, is further elaborated in the horizontal register of statues by the lesser figures flanking the Em- peror-saint. It is not Roland and Olivier this time who represent Charle- magne's twelve peers, but Archbishop Turpin and Pope Leo III, both labelled as saints. Looking at the symmetry of the horizontal register, we find that the three niches containing the statues form a triangle with Charlemagne as its center and apex. This triangle thrusts upward to form a vertical axis, at the summit of which is a medallion containing a bust of the Pantokrator. Christ holds the gospel in his left hand, while with his right, he blesses Charlemagne. To emphasize the reciprocal nature of the vertical axis, the artist has made Christ's hand point down toward Charlemagne, rather than having it upraised; he even emphasizes the gesture by having the hand extend out beyond the edge of the medallion. The triangular theme of the lower register is repeated by the three medallions in the upper register. The fact that the medallions above Leo and Turpin are empty, whereas the largest one, above Charlemagne, contains the Pantokrator, is yet another visual delineation of the Christ/Charlemagne rapport. Both as Saint and Emperor, then, Charlemagne surpasses in significance and authority the representatives of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Pope Leo and Archbishop Turpin. He is, as the Chronique Saintongeaise claims, "the light of flesh who surpasses all earthly kings after Jesus Christ." The reliquary thus constitutes an iconographie assertion that the Charlemagne mythos is within the mouvance of the Christ mythos, giving us the homology, Christ:celestial empire::Charlemagne:terrestrial empire. The reliquary, containing Charlemagne's bones, was solemnly sealed and consecrated in the Palatine Chapel by the Emperor Frederick II on July 27, 1215. No chronicler was needed to recount, à la Adhémar, the significance of this new resting place, for the reliquary itself told the story. The word and image of Charlemagne had indeed become a thing of royal beauty bright leading westward, if not to the perfect light of Christ, as the hymn would have it, then certainly to the intensely iridescent political luminos- ity shining over the thrones of Frederick and Philip Augustus, each vying to prove that he was in the mouvance of Charlemagne and thus a king in Christ's light with all the political and spiritual power invested in that concept. In closing, we may rightly ask what we have learned from this rapid survey of the iconography and legend of Charlemagne from 1000 to 1215. We have seen first of all that the legend of Charlemagne expanded steadily as the concept of national monarchy, and western domination over Palestine, developed along with the struggle to realize the imperial ideal which Char- lemagne and Leo III had established in the West on Christmas day—Christ's birthday—of the year 800. The need for a Christ-sized Charlemagne reminds us that, representationally speaking, the establishment of authority in the Middle Ages was a process of symbolic transference from an idealized, Christian archetype to an historical place or person. The basis for this process is synecdoche as illustrated by the Incarnation. In this process of symbolic transference—I am not speaking as a theologian—two things, god 44 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 and man, are brought into a reciprocal implicational relationship. The second is supposed to become like the first, and, to a lesser extent, vice- versa. In the binary relationship thus created, the original element remains the dominant one—it is the second element that is to be valorized by the first—although the second element will always be necessary to complete the sense of the first. I have borrowed the term mouvance from the vocabulary of feudalism to express the nature of the relationship.46 We have seen that the homologies created at any given period were the product of a long accretion of meanings crystallizing around a certain figure or place, or frequently both. These accretions were manifested con- cretely in "texts," that is in verbal or graphic expressions. The accretion of meaning that generates any given text, and which is recoverable through it, I call a mythos. Obviously, text and mythos are inseparable in prac- tice, although it is possible to discuss them separately, as we have been doing throughout the paper. The mythos, then, is the state of the legend incarnated in any given text. It is that aspect of the legend which the text is meant to call attention to, or more frequently, to add to. The Translatio Sanguinis, for example, adds to the dimension of the Charlemagne mythos concerned with his role in Palestine. When we consider the relationship of text/mythos to maker/audience, we can understand how this concept is helpful as an analytical device permitting a more sensitive demonstration not only of the purpose of any given manifestation of the legend, but also in demonstrating the relationship of any given text to the tradition of the Charlemagne legend as a whole. We have seen that there existed a Charlemagne legend and that that legend was utilized for purposes of establishing claims to authority or authenticity. We saw that the motivating force behind any particular text was generally interested and occasional: someone or someplace stood to gain by circula- ting the text, and that someone or someplace generally figures in the text, just as Fulrad appeared in the vitrail at Nièpvre described above; simi- larly, Otto III, designated by Adhémar, Thietmar et alii, or Frederick II, designated by the reliquary. Each of these figures is contemporary with the text in which he appears, and each seeks to enter into the mouvance of the person or place designated by the mythos, i.e., to Charlemagne. At the same time, as I have shown elsewhere, the immanence of the mythos in the present, its power to maintain its authority, depends very much on the con- tinued recourse which powerfully-placed contemporaries have to it.47 Each time a Philip Augustus or a Frederick Barbarossa seeks to enter into the mouvance of Charlemagne, he renews the symbolic power of Charlemagne's mythos just as certainly as he derives symbolic power from it. The above process would not succeed if there were not a specific audience for the work, an audience capable of perceiving the text/mythos and of accepting it as an article of belief. At the same time, when the text is

46I follow the definition of mouvance given by Ganshof in his book, Feudalism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961), p. 129. 47"The Spirit of Truth: Epic Modes in Medieval Literature," New Literary History, 1 (1970), pp. 372-375. Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 45 a work of art of great beauty, the audience must be able to appreciate it esthetically as testimony to the inspiration generated by the mythos. In their own way, the beauty of the reliquary, the Christs in Majesty, the vi- traux, the edifices, and the epic literature authenticate, by their splendor —to use Eusebius's term—the all-embracing importance of the legend. They represent the concrete light of truth, Keats's famous dictum inverted, as it were. The following diagram (Appendix) is offered as an attempt to make graphic all the complexities inherent in any individual manifestation of the legend. It may be helpful to think of the collective legendary tradition as a chain, where each link, or text, is the product of all of the complex of extrinsic and intrinsic elements contained in the diagram. By exploring as many of the elements as possible for each manifestation of the legend, it would be possible to achieve a very rich description of the entire legend of Charlemagne as it unfolds in its full historical and artistic context. This is what I have attempted to illustrate in exploring the accounts of Otto III's exhumation of Charlemagne in the year 1000.

Stephen G. Nichols, Jr Dartmouth College 46 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976 APPENDIX* DIAGRAM OF FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE GENERATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL 'TEXT' OF LEGEND

HORIZON OF EXPECTATION

POLITICAL/CULTURAL HORIZON OF ERA

HORIZON OF EXPECTATION = Cultural potentials which may be shown or assumed to be reasonably shared by encoder and audience alike, enabling audience to comprehend form of text and to interpret mythos through text. As this factor is specifically related to problematic of text/mythos, it is of necessity more limited than the entire political/cultural horizon of era. 'LANGUAGE' = a) Traditional range of expressive material available to encoder at moment of creation of 'text'; b) total tradition of available material, with its forms of expression, of legend prior to for- mation of a new 'text'. (MESSAGE) = Potential of material to assume concrete meaning given mythos/ text. MYTHOS = Specific value of legend at moment of creation of text. Value represented by text. Mythos is mediate form between legend and text. 'TEXT' = Any concrete artefact which represents the mythos and modifies our perception of mythos and thus of general legend. The mythos/text is shown as a processual phenomenon in diagram because the nature of making and perceiving any artefact is not immediate, but an event in time which requires repeated reference to model(s) and tradi- Nichols/Legend of Charlemagne 47

tion(s). E.g., one cannot appreciate Charlemagne's reliquary at a single glance; each statue or relief sends one back to mythos and to relief as we appreciate and interpret it. 'MOUVANCE1 = An enabling concept making explicit possible applications of text/mythos in world (i.e., concrete situations). Actual way in which any given artefact may be applied depends upon historical, cultural, political factors in world (i.e., context). POLITICAL/CULTURAL HORIZON OF ERA = Context into which artefact is thrust. This is not the specific event in the world that occasions the artefact (see paper), but rather the context of audience and maker alike.

The diagram is adapted from a model which I proposed for precisely this kind of practical application in an article entitled "A Poetics of Historicism? Recent Trends in Medieval Literary Study," to appear soon in the 1976 volume of Medievalia et Humanistica, edited by Paul Clogan (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

-o-oOo-o-

Medieval Spanish Epic Meeting A seminar devoted to "The Spanish Epic: Trends in Contemporary Research" will be held at the Modern Language Association in New York this year. The meeting, Special Session 26, will take place between 7:00 and 8:15, Sunday evening, December 26, in Room 529 of the New York Hilton. The participants, all members of the Société Rencesvals, include: Miguel Garci- Gomez, Duke University (Discussion Leader); Erich Von Richthofen, University of Toronto, member of the Editorial Board of Olifant (Panel Participant); H. Salvador Martínez, New York University (Panel Participant). For further information, write Professor Garci-Gomez, Department of Romance Languages, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706. 48 Olifant/Vol. 4, No. 1/October 1976

Forthcoming Meetings of Interest The sixth Medieval Workshop of the University of British Columbia will be held on November 12-13, 1976, and will be devoted to Relics and Pilgrimages. Among the papers to be presented are: Patrick J. Geary (Princeton University), "Relics and Pilgrimages in Popular Religion: His- tory or Anthropology?"; Jan Malcolm Phillips (University of Washington), "The Cult Appeal of 'loca sanctorum' and the Changing Topography of Late Roman Town Life"; Bernhard Schimmelpfennig (Free University, Berlin), "Holy Years and Pilgrimages: Rome and Santiago"; Ludwig Schmugge (Free Univer- sity, Berlin), "Pilgrims' Privileges in the Middle Ages"; Claire Wheeler Solt (Catholic University of America), "Relics and Reliquaries of French Saints on the Pilgrimage Roads to Santiago in the Romanesque Era." For further information concerning this workshop, contact Dr. Derek C. Carr, Department of Hispanic & Italian Studies, The University of British Colum- bia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1W5. -o-oOo-o-

The eighth annual Ohio State University Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Studies will be held in Columbus on Friday and Saturday, Febru- ary 25-26, 1977. The title of the Conference will be "Harmonia: A Musical Perspective on the Middle Ages. The Conference will be held this year in honor of Dr. Richard H. Hoppin of the School of Music. Speakers will include Alison Stone of the Art History Department, University of Minnesota, on Illuminations in Musical Manuscripts; Janet Knapp of the Music Depart- ment, Vassar College, on the Latin Conductus tradition; Ralph McInerny of the Philosophy Department, Notre Dame University, on the De Musica of Boe- thius, and Richard Hoppin of the School of Music, Ohio State University, on the French Motet Tradition. Two additional speakers are anticipated. For more information, write: Cheryl Frasch, Conference Coordinator; Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies; The Ohio State University; 322 Dulles Hall; 230 W. 17th Avenue; Columbus, Ohio 43210.