Encounters, Excavations and Argosies Essays for Richard Hodges

Home , Indiction, Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Santa Maria in Domnica, Santa Susanna, Santi Cosma e Damiano, Santi Nereo e Achilleo

Encounters, Blurb Moreland Mitchell Leal (eds) Excavations and

Encounters, Excavations and Argosies: Essays for Richard Hodges Argosies Essays for Richard Hodges

Access

Open

Archaeopress

edited by John Moreland, John Mitchell and Bea Leal

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com Archaeopress © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017.

Moreland cover.indd 1 14/08/2017 15:04:56 Access

Open

Archaeopress

edited by Access John Mitchell, John Moreland and Bea Leal Open

Archaeopress

Archaeopress Archaeology

ISBN 978 1 78491 681 7 ISBN 978 1 78491 682 4 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2017

Cover illustration: Two eagles, dado in the crypt of Abbot Epyphanius, San Vincenzo al Volturno, c. 820 (Photo: Sarah Cocke) Access

Open

Archaeopress All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Open

Archaeopress

Bone plaque with hunting dog leaping over eye. Butrint, Triconch Palace, c. AD 400. (© Butrint Foundation)

Open

Archaeopress

Contributors ��iii Introduction �� 1 John Mitchell and John Moreland

Richard Hodges �� 2 Mother Miriam Benedict

Richard a San Vincenzo al Volturno, il 23 settembre 1985 �� 2 Franco Valente

An ode to New Light on Early Medieval Monasticism �� 3 Neil Christie

Looking beyond the local: Richard Hodges’ extraordinary journey from Box to Butrint �� 7 Jim Symonds

Cutting history in slices. Periodization and the Middle Ages: an archaeological perspective �� 21 Andrea Augenti

Stone Age Economics: a new audit ��Access 30 Graeme Barker

Richard Hodges and Tuscany: from the pioneering excavations of the 80s to the ERC-Advanced nEU-Med Project �� 44 Giovanna Bianchi Open

From villa to minster at Southwell �� 56 Will Bowden

Islamization and trade in the Arabian Gulf in the age of Mohammad and Charlemagne �� 73 Jose C. Carvajal López

Remembering the early Christian baptistery, the Venetian castle and Art-Deco Saranda: a personal view of the future of heritage and development in Saranda and Butrint �� 91 Prue Chiles

The popes and their townArchaeopress in the time of Charlemagne �� 105 Paolo Delogu

The rebirth of towns in the Beneventan principality (8th-9th centuries) �� 116 Alessandro Di Muro

The monastery of Anselm and Peter. The origins of Nonantola between Lombards and Carolingians �� 127 Sauro Gelichi

Farfa revisited: the early medieval monastery church �� 137 Sheila Gibson, Oliver J. Gilkes and John Mitchell

Butrint’s death and resurrection: the medieval lime-kiln in the Roman forum �� 162 David Hernandez

i © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. ʿAnjar: An Umayyad image of urbanism and its afterlife �� 172 Bea Leal

Lively columns and living stones – the origins of the Constantinian church basilica �� 190 John Mitchell

The survival and revival of urban settlements in the southern Adriatic: Aulon and Kanina in the early to late Middle Ages �� 208 Nevila Molla

Powerful matter – agency and materiality in the early Middle Ages �� 217 John Moreland

We do it indoors and sitting down, but still call it archaeology – unravelling and recording block- lifted hoards �� 236 Pippa Pearce

Albanian archaeology in the new millennium and the British contribution �� 240 Luan Përzhita

‘Moi Auguste’ – Les images de l’empereur Auguste dans les collections des musées albanais �� 253 Iris Pojani Butrint in the late 6th to 7th centuries: contexts, sequences and ceramicsAccess �� 262 Paul Reynolds

Athens, Charlemagne and small change �� 275 Alessia Rovelli Open From villa to village. Late Roman to early medieval settlement networks in the ager Rusellanus �� 281 Alessandro Sebastiani

Scandinavian monetisation in the first millennium AD – practices and institutions �� 291 Dagfinn Skre

Philosophiana in central Sicily in the late Roman and Byzantine periods: settlement and economy ��300 Emanuele Vaccaro

Appunti, grezzi, per un’agenda di Archeologia Pubblica in Italia �� 314 Marco Valenti Archaeopress Leiderdorp: a Frisian settlement in the shadow of Dorestad �� 329 Arno A. A. Verhoeven and Menno F. P. Dijkstra

Saranda in the waves of time: some early medieval pottery finds from a port in the Byzantine Empire �� 341 Joanita Vroom

Richard Hodges and the British School at Rome (BSR) �� 351 Christopher Smith

Richard Hodges: an intellectual appreciation �� 355 Chris Wickham

ii © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Contributors

Professor Andrea Augenti Professor David Hernandez Dipartimento di Storia Culture Civiltà, Università Department of Classics, University of Notre Dame, degli Studi di Bologna USA

Professor Graeme Barker Dr Bea Leal McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Art History and World Art Studies, University of University of Cambridge East Anglia

Mother Miriam Benedict Professor John Mitchell Monastero Santa Scolastica, Cassino Art History and World Art Studies, University of East Anglia Professor Giovanna Bianchi Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche e dei Beni Nevila Molla Culturali, Università degli Studi di Siena Institute of Archaeology, Tirana

Professor Will Bowden Professor John Moreland Department of Archaeology, University of Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield Nottingham Pippa Pearce Access Dr José Carvajal López Senior Conservator, Department of Conservation University College London, Qatar and Scientific Research, British Museum, London

Professor Prue Chiles Professor Luan Përzhita School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, InstituteOpen of Archaeology, Tirana University of Newcastle Professor Iris Pojani Professor Neil Christie Department of Archaeology, University of Tirana Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester Professor Paul Reynolds Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats Professor Paolo Delogu (ICREA) ICREA Research Professor, ERAAUB, Dept Dipartimento di Storia Medievale, Università degli de Historia i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” Professor Alessia Rovelli Alessandro de Muro Dipartimento di Scienze dei Beni Culturali, Dipartimento di ScienzeArchaeopress Umane, Università della Università degli Studi di Tuscia, Viterbo Basilicata Dr Alessandro Sebastiani Dr Menno F P Dijkstra Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield Amsterdam Archaeological Centre, University of Amsterdam Professor Dagfinn Skre Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo Professor Sauro Gelichi Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente, Professor Christopher Smith Università Cà Foscari di Venezia School of Classics, University of St Andrews

✝ Sheila Gibson Professor James Symonds Department of Archaeology, University of Oliver Gilkes Amsterdam Andante Travel, Salisbury

iii © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Dr Emanuele Vaccaro Assistant Professor Arno Verhoeven Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche e dei Beni Amsterdam Archaeological Centre, University of Culturali, Università degli Studi di Siena Amsterdam

Architetto Franco Valente Professor Joanita Vroom Venafro Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University

Professor Marco Valenti Professor Chris Wickham Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche e dei Beni Faculty of History, University of Oxford Culturali, Università degli Studi di Siena

Access

Open

Archaeopress

iv © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. The popes and their town in the time of Charlemagne

Paolo Delogu

Many years ago, Richard Hodges invited me to collaborate on a volume of studies dedicated to the rebirth of towns in the West after the demise of the ancient urbanism. In the essay that I prepared for the occasion, I paid special attention to the material resources deployed by the 8th- and 9th-century popes to carry out an imposing scheme of renewal and ornamentation in the city of Rome, in an age in which they combined political power in the city with the supreme religious authority in the West and became preeminent partners of their contemporary political powers, above all the Carolingian empire (Delogu 1988).

The quantitative data which abound in the Liber Pontificalis (henceforward LP) highlight the extraordinary availability of precious metals, that the popes used to enrich the liturgical furnishings of the churches of Rome, as well as to finance their other projects, like the restoration or reconstruction of churches in disrepair and the importation of precious fabrics of Eastern origin. I was struck by the quantity, sometimes enormous, of silver and gold employed in these activities. On that occasion, the problem to be solved was the origin of all this wealth and how the popes acquired it. However, if the same evidence is disaggregated and considered in an analytical manner, it also offers important clues for determining the strategies resorted to by the popes to strengthen their own prestige as well as the prestige of the town they ruled, in the eyes of both the Roman citizens and the foreign political powers with whom they were engaged. This is what I shall try to do in the following pages, hoping that this new perspective may be of some interestAccess to Richard.

My inquiry will start with the pontificate of Hadrian I (772-795), when the Longobard menace ended and the close alliance of the Papacy with the Carolingian dynasty allowed the popes to make effective their recently acquired temporal power and to re-think the role of the city of Rome in the new political context. According to the Liber Pontificalis, the material conditionsOpen of the city were lamentable when Pope Hadrian took office. The roofs of many of the churches, including St. Peter’s, San Paolo fuori le mura (f.l.m) and Santa Maria ad praesepem (Santa Maria Maggiore) were partly ruined or near collapse. The pavement of St. Peter’s was decaying and full of holes (LP I, 330: 503); animals grazed the grass growing in the atrium of San Paolo f.l.m. (LP I, 322: 499). Many other churches across the city were decrepit and in urgent need of repair. Many monasteries had been abandoned and were in ruins. The ancient extra-urban cemeteries in which the relics of the martyrs were preserved were desolate and in part ransacked. The walls of the city with their towers had collapsed in many places. Whole quarters, like St. Peter’s and the Lateran, as well as the Via Lata and the Campo Marzio, no longer drew water from the old aqueducts that had broken down.1 Previous popes had endeavored to deal with this decay, but their resources had been meagre, allowing them to make only occasional interventions.Archaeopress In contrast, the ‘Life of Hadrian’ in the LP credits the pope with a coherent policy of restoring and embellishing the fabric of the city, both civic and ecclesiastic. The order in which these papal initiatives are recorded generally corresponds to the actual chronological sequence of events (Geertmann 1975: 8 ff.; Bauer 2004: 36, 46, 223 ff.). This means that the narrative of the LP allows us to follow a sequence of campaigns that the pope dedicated to improving the material conditions of the city, and to distinguish the duration and the specific purpose of each of them.2 The first campaign was aimed at repairing the collapsed or damaged roofs of at least seven churches located both inside the city and in the suburbs outside the walls. These seem to have been selected more for the urgency of the repairs needed than for their institutional or devotional importance.3 Subsequent interventions continued with the mending of roofs, but in a more measured way, in anticipation of a worsening situation rather than in response to an actual collapse.4 The principal difficulty,

1 The description of the decayed conditions of the town is taken from the register of restoration campaigns undertaken by Pope Hadrian I. For a list of these works see Delogu 1988 and Delogu 2010: 284 f. 2 The concept of ‘campaigns’ seems to me more useful here than the chronological order measured by indictions reconstructed by Geertman, because it is more elastic and makes it possible to group together events which override a strict division by years. Nonetheless, the campaigns here reconstructed can be easily reconciled with Geertman’s and Bauer’s chronology. 3 Among these are San Felice in Pincis and San Lorenzo in Taurellis which are not mentioned anywhere else in the entire LP. 4 I interpret in this sense the passages of the LP which speak of a roof ‘iam casurum’ (LP 335, 505; 339, 507) or of ‘trabes ad modicum ruituras’ (LP I, 337: 506), rather than of a roof as ‘iam distectum’ or ‘in ruinis positum’, as the LP says in other cases.

105 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Encounters, Excavations and Argosies

an engineering problem, was the replacement of beams over the central nave, because this required not only timbers of great size, but also the dismantling and reconstruction of the roof-trusses. It is for this reason that the LP records the number of beams replaced in each case, as an index to the importance of the job.

These campaigns of restoration and renewal involved at different times the principal basilicas – St. Peter’s (14 beams), San Paolo f.l.m. (35 beams), Santa Maria ad praesepem (20 beams), the Lateran basilica (15 beams) – but repairs of roofs threatening collapse were also carried out at Santa Susanna, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Santi Cosma e Damiano, the titulus Pammachii (Santi Giovanni e Paolo), the Santi Quattro Coronati, as well as in other churches. In many cases, the roofs of the aisles were reconstructed along with those of the central nave; although less demanding than the covering of the nave, this was essential to ensure the safety and the full functioning of the building. Alongside the repair of the roofs, the basilicas of St. Peter, San Paolo f.l.m., San Lorenzo fuori le mura and the Lateran basilica were the subjects of major campaigns of restoration and embellishment.

A subsequent cycle of interventions concerned the papal residence in the Lateran, with the construction of a ‘tower’ and a number of other residential structures embellished with polished marbles and painted walls. At St. Peter’s the steps leading to the main entrance were rebuilt, together with the flanking porticoes; the pavement of the basilica was renewed and the rotten beams of the aisles were replaced (LP I, 330: 503). These building works were accompanied by gifts of wonderful silver ornaments for the interior. However, the pope’s attention was not limited to the main basilicas. Successive campaigns were dedicated to the restoration of churches that were in need of attention because of their age and lack of maintenance. The LP, whilst stating that these buildings were close to collapse, does not indicate in detail what work was undertaken. In general, however, it seems that this involved both structural repairs, sometimes very extensive,5 as well as works of embellishment, including the painted decoration of the interior.Access The importance of the aesthetic appearance of buildings is emphasized by the LP, which repeatedly asserts that the pope restored them to all their magnificence.6 Apart from the great basilicas, in successive campaigns not less than 27 city churches and extra-urban cemeterial churches were ‘renewed’ according to these principles.

Two things characterize the pope’s activity in the town:Open the first is the extent of his interventions, which covered the whole of the city within the walls as well as the suburbs with their devotional centres. Special care was paid to the main basilicas – not only the apostolic ones, but also Santa Maria ad praesepem, San Lorenzo f.l.m., the Constantinian basilica of the Saviour in the Lateran – as well as to the churches of San Marco, where Hadrian had spent his first years as priest, and of Sant’Adriano, the pope’s eponymous saint. However, the papal provision was not directed at particular regions of the city to the exclusion of others. On the one hand, it would seem that interventions were made where they were needed, either because of the material state of the buildings, or because of their religious importance – and this holds also for the campaigns at the extra-urban cemeteries and their churches. On the other hand, it is very probable that interventions would have been planned with reference to official lists of the religious establishments of the city, drawn up in the order of their institutional ranking: basilicas, churches, tituli, deaconries, monasteries. This is suggested by theArchaeopress LP itself, when it states that the papal provisions were addressed to all the tituli, churches, diaconiae and monasteries ‘quantacumque infra murum huius Romanae urbis existunt’ (LP I, 325: 501). This general statement is confirmed by the special campaigns of gifts lavished on the tituli and the diaconiae, the number of which, scrupulously registered, corresponds exactly to the number of those establishments then existing in Rome.7 Such lists, the existence of which is confirmed by other evidence, allowed the pontifical administration to keep a precise record of work already done and to plan that still to be done.

The town was thought of as an organic complex of structures and functions not only with regard to its religious and ecclesiastical aspects. Campaigns of restoration on ecclesiastical structures alternated with interventions of repair and renewal of the civic infrastructure. This was the second main feature of Hadrian’s work on the city. Immediately after the first urgent campaign of re-roofing churches that were open to the elements, the pope turned his attention to the security of the city and the repair of the walls with their

5 This might be the meaning of expressions like ‘amplissima noviter reparavit’ (LP I, 341: 507); ‘mole magnitudinis decoravit’ (LP I, 342: 508); ‘mire magnitudinis innovavit’ (LP I, 345: 509). 6 For instance: LP I, 341: 507: ‘nimio decore renovavit’; LP I, 354: 12: ‘in ampliorem restauravit nimio decore statum’; LP I, 329: 503: ‘turrem mire pulchritudinis decoratam’. 7 22 tituli and 16 diaconiae. Later on Hadrian established two more urban diaconiae and three diaconiae ‘foris porta beati Petri’, bringing their total number to 21 (LP I, 337: 505 f.; 345: 509).

106 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Paolo Delogu: The popes and their town in the time of Charlemagne

towers that had fallen into disrepair at many points. The redactor of the LP registered the importance of this undertaking, which involved an expense of 100 golden pounds. Considerations of welfare and decorum inspired the subsequent restoration of four aqueducts – the Sabatinus, Claudius, Iovius and Virgo – that had long ceased to function, so that, thanks to the pope’s action, water flowed again into various quarters of the city, feeding fountains and baths (Coates Stephens 1999; Coates Stephens 2001/2002). Safety and decorum also lay behind the consolidation of access to St. Peter’s via the porticoed thoroughfare along the Tiber bank, as well as the restoration of other porticoes leading to the suburban basilicas of San Paolo f.l.m. and San Lorenzo f.l.m. Further, the restoration of the suburban cemeterial churches was intended to provide easy and safe access to the burial-places of the martyrs. Security motivated the rebuilding of the diaconiae of Santa Maria in Cosmedin and Santi Sergio e Bacco, that were freed from the perilous ancient structures in which they had been formerly installed. In sum, Hadrian’s programme seems to have involved an integral recovering of the civic and religious functions of the city, which as a whole was to be restored to a state of efficiency, safety and prestige.

This brings into question whether the recent interpretive models that describe the situation of Rome in terms of an antithesis of ‘abitato-disabitato’, or with the image of a ‘città a isole’, really account for this comprehensive idea of the city. The entire urban territory within the walls as well as the immediate suburbs were included in this papal vision. Aside from St. Peter’s and the Lateran, there were neither privileged nor neglected quarters: the churches in Orphea, on the flanks of the Esquiline, those both inside and outside the gates leading to the Via Nomentana, Via Appia or Via Flaminia, those on the Celian hill and even on the Aventine, were given equal attention to those located along the Via Lata, in the Forum and on the Via Sacra. The reinstated aqueducts supplied water not only to the quarters of St. Peter and the Lateran, but also to the regions of the Via Lata, the Forum Boarium and the Ianiculum hill. Population density and distribution across the urban landscape seem to have been considered of secondaryAccess significance and do not appear to have influenced papal designs for the city; this was perceived not as a set of separate nuclei but as an extended network of eminent sites and service structures extending over the entire urban territory, with few exceptions.

Possibly one could object that this reconstruction correspondsOpen to an ideal image of the pontificate, deliberately created by the LP, rather than to a strategy of urban management actually pursued by the pope. However, the surviving archaeological remains, for instance, at Santa Maria in Cosmedin or the city walls, show that the reports of the LP are reliable. If it is not possible to ascertain the extent and complexity of each intervention, their very number presupposes a general idea of the city. Moreover, the structures were repaired so that they would really function. The structural and architectural restoration of ecclesiastical establishments was accompanied by attention to their internal ornament, so as to enrich the buildings and to enhance the prestige of the holy rites that were performed in them.

This leads us to the complex theme of the gifts in gold, silver and costly fabrics that the pope lavished on his churches, a theme that was the subject of my previous study. If the total amount of the recorded data assembled on that occasionArchaeopress is disaggregated, more light can be shed on interesting aspects of Hadrian’s urban policy. Gifts for ecclesiastical furnishing mainly consisted of lighting apparatus, sacred images and altar frontals in silver or gold, bowls and chalices to be hung from beams and arches, silk and linen fabrics employed as coverings for altars or as curtains to adorn and veil arcades and entrances, as well as various liturgical features, like ciboria and iconostases. The distribution of these gifts followed principles of hierarchical order and involved careful administration of the disposable resources. At the beginning of his pontificate, Hadrian lavished on St. Peter’s a massive donation consisting of a huge chandelier with 1,365 candles, other decorations in silver, a silk frontal for the altar, embroidered with gold, a large silk curtain for the main entrance and 65 vela, lesser curtains, probably destined to hang from the arches of the aisles. On the same occasion, silver furnishings and curtains were given to the basilica of San Paolo f.l.m., although in lesser quantity.8 Santa Maria ad praesepem, the Lateran basilica, and San Lorenzo f.l.m. also received inaugural gifts, although these consisted only of costly fabrics, not silver fittings. The difference in the gifts reflected the different institutional ranking of the churches, but may also have been determined by a shortage of available resources. All the churches whose roofs had been restored during the first campaign of interventions also received valuable textile coverings for their altars, as did other churches: according to a rather generic note in

8 The gifts for St. Peter’s and San Paolo amounted respectively to 155 and 30 pounds of silver, which is not a particularly large quantity. This reckoning does not include the ‘farum’ with its 1,365 candles because the LP does not specify the material; this could have been bronze.

107 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Encounters, Excavations and Argosies

the LP, all the churches, the tituli and the diaconiae of the city (LP I, 325: 501). However, these gifts to churches stopped almost completely in the following years, when the pope undertook a great restoration of the city walls, the creation of four domuscultae, the repopulation of some abandoned monasteries, and improvements at the Lateran Patriarchium and the compound of St. Peter’s, including the Sabatinus aqueduct. Only the two apostolic basilicas, St. Peter’s and San Paolo f.l.m., continued to receive donations of silver, although in the more modest quantities, respectively, of 100 and 24 pounds.

It was only later that gifts to various churches of the city resumed; now no longer altar coverings but rather vela (curtains) that were presented to a number of the basilicas and to every titulus and every diaconia in the city. Each institution received an equal number of silk and linen curtains, although the total amount for each varied in accordance with its religious and institutional importance. So the basilica maior at San Lorenzo f.l.m. received 65 silk and 65 linen vela, San Pancrazio 38+38, Santa Maria ad martyres, as well as every titulus, 20+20, Sant’Apollinare 10+10, while the diaconiae got only 16 silk vela each. The availability of linen in this phase would appear to have been something exceptional. In fact, linen does not appear elsewhere in gifts made either by Hadrian or by Leo III.

In this phase, no church received precious metals; possibly these were reserved for other purposes, like purchasing the costly fabrics that were donated, or supplying the mint that produced the new silver coinage inaugurated by Hadrian. A cautious use of resources also characterizes the next phase of activity, which saw new repairs to roofs, renovationes of decrepit churches and the establishment of new domuscultae and new monasteries. Apart from a couple of cases,9 in this period the LP does not record any donation to churches of either metal objects or precious fabrics.

Donations are recorded again for the last phase of the pope’s activity,Access at a time when building repairs become sporadic, occurring only in cases of emergency rather than as part of a wider strategy of continued renewal.10 This would seem to indicate alternating objectives in the deployment of the available resources. However, in this late phase only a few churches received gifts, which now consisted only of precious metal furnishings, no longer fabrics. Gold, which until now had appeared only once, in a donation for San Marco (LP I, 340: 507),11 now figures alongside silver. But it wasOpen given rarely, again following strict hierarchical principles. St. Peter’s received the larger part of it, for the embellishment of the main altar and the confessio. According to the LP, 1,328 pounds of gold were used for this intervention, although the figure is uncertain (LP I, 355: 513).12 San Paolo f.l.m. and Santa Maria ad praesepem also received holy images and liturgical vessels in gold, although in lesser quantity (LP I, 349, 350, 353).13 A few other churches, including San Marco and Sant’Adriano, had golden calices and patens, but of lesser weight.14 Apart from the problematic gift to St. Peter’s, the gold employed in this phase amounts to 369 pounds; silver gifts, including those to St. Peter’s, amount to 1,083 pounds, a quantity that exceeds the weight (698 pounds) of all the previous gifts taken together. Once again the question arises as to whether the disposable resources had grown to an uncommon level, for some exceptional reason, or if the increased quantity and value of the gifts was determined by a different principle in the use of resources that were basically constant. Archaeopress Two points concerning Hadrian’s activity in and for Rome deserve further discussion: these are the pope’s idea of the city and the origin of the riches employed to put it into effect. As regards the first, scholars have focused their attention on the restoration and embellishment of the ecclesiastical monuments. As a consequence they have assumed that Hadrian’s policy was aimed principally at recovering the paleochristian face of the ecclesiastical city (Bauer 2001-2002: 199; Krautheimer 1980: 113). Perhaps the question is more complex. As I have already underlined, what seems original in Hadrian’s action is the fact that he aimed at

9 Santa Petronilla: 50 pounds of silver; Sant’Adriano: 67 pounds of silver. 10 Reconstruction of the diaconia of the Santi Sergio e Bacco, which had been demolished by the collapse of adjoining ancient structures (LP I, 354: 512); works on the roof of the Santi Quattro Coronati (LP I, 353: 512); recovery of some parts of the monastery of Sant’Anastasio destroyed by a fire (LP I, 354: 512). According to Geertman (1975: 67), the reroofing of eight churches recorded in the initial chapters of Leo’s III biography should also be ascribed to the last years of Hadrian I. 11 In this case gold was destined for the repair of calices ministeriales already existing in the church. 12 If one adds up the weight of the gifts recorded in LP, paragraph 355, the total is 668 pounds. Even adding the weights recorded in the previous paragraphs 348, 352, 353, the total is only 1,248 pounds. It is possible that the global figure given by the LP includes objects which were not itemized in detail; nonetheless in the following calculations I will use the figure resulting from the sum of the analytic data, which is 80 pounds less than the total given by the LP. 13 The amount is, respectively, 150 and 105 pounds of gold. 14 San Lorenzo f.l.m., which also received a golden image (LP I, 351: 511; 354: 512) and Santi Cosma e Damiano (LP I, 357: 514). The basilica of the Saviour at the Lateran received 3 golden bowls (LP I, 352: 511).

108 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Paolo Delogu: The popes and their town in the time of Charlemagne

restoring (in the words of LP at reshaping the monuments as if they were new15) the physiognomy of the city in its entirety, as a whole entity of structures and functions, rather than at renewing selected urban elements chosen for their ideological significance. The ideology included all the aspects of the living city, and it joined renewal to usefulness. As the redactor of the LP summarized, care of the churches went hand in hand with a concern for the needs of the urban population.16 The city in its entirety had to be restored again to conditions of efficiency, decorum and prestige. Within it the churches were the moral and social monuments, while St. Peter’s was the beacon of sanctity and splendour.

Earlier popes, above all Gregory III, had envisaged similar plans, as they gained more or less legitimate powers of governance over Rome, with the Byzantine administration entering a state of crisis. However, with Hadrian, thanks to the changed political constellation and to the long duration of his pontificate, this strategic papal programme assumed a dimension and a concreteness that went far beyond anything that had been planned or achieved before.

At this point, it is interesting to consider the influence that the connection with Charlemagne may have had on Hadrian’s plans and actions; all the more so because the issue frequently occurs in the historical narrative. The question arises from the fact that the Frankish sources – basically Einhard – speak of Charlemagne’s particular interest in Rome, although they add that it was chiefly directed at St. Peter’s basilica, which was the object of the king’s special devotion (Einhard, c. 27: 198).17 However, it seems fairly unlikely that Charlemagne’s interest would have gone so far as to give instructions or orders concerning the general management of the town. After the events of 774/75, he met Pope Hadrian only twice, in 781 and 787 (Annales regni Francorum, ad annos – henceforth ARF), and his stays in Rome only lasted for the duration of the Easter solemnities. It is likely that on those occasions – particularly the second – he observed and admired the large scope of Hadrian’s enterprises, that were then well-advanced, and that heAccess conceived the deep esteem which was later on expressed in the epitaph which he ordered to be made for Hadrian, after the latter’s death. In that text, the king ascribes to Hadrian the merit of having erected the arces of inclita Roma, through teaching, wealth and walls, and proclaims himself to be Hadrian’s follower, honouring him as his own father.18 But the planning of the works, the timetabling, the preoccupation with decorum and with the safety and welfare of the city, are part of the urban perspective of an actualOpen ruler living on site, rather than that of a distant sovereign with an image of Rome that was in part mythical. Hadrian’s renewal of Rome proceeded in parallel with the great cultural innovations promoted by the Carolingian court in Francia; however, this does not mean that it was a product of that innovation. Rather, the renewal of Rome referred to a traditional papal responsibility for the town that went back to Gregory I and had been in part revived by previous popes earlier in the 8th century (Thacker 1998).19

Einhard’s testimony deserves more discussion with regard to the Carolingian economic support of Hadrian’s activity. Indeed, Einhard reports that Charlemagne gave to St. Peter’s basilica ‘magna vis pecuniae tam in auro quam in argento’ and that he sent ‘multa et innumera dona’ to the popes (Einhard, c. 27: 127). A detailed analysis can provide a proper evaluation of these statements. Some aspects of Hadrian’s activity have a close connection with the economicArchaeopress burden involved. These are: the succession of periods in which the pope gave precious gifts in metals or in fabrics to the churches and the periods when these gifts were absent or sporadic; the fact that when donations of furnishings were more intense there was a notable reduction of building activity and a total absence of gifts of fabrics; the fact that in the periods in which gifts of fabrics were frequent and large, gifts in metal were limited and gold was absent.

Taken as a whole, these data can be explained by assuming that the financial resources of the pope were not overabundant; on the contrary, that they required strict administration. It is not easy to reckon the cost of every campaign of restoration or embellishment. If one follows the chronology established by Geertman, one notices that in the first campaign, which lasted for a year or a little more, the pope distributed goods amounting to 352 pounds of silver, 6 cortinae, 17 altar coverings and 316 curtains divided into 7 groups for

15 ‘A noviter restauravit’ (LP I, 323; 339; 340); ‘noviter renovavit’ (LP I, 343); ‘noviter restauravit’ (LP I, 344; 345) are the terms usually employed to qualify Hadrian’s building enterprises. 16 LP I, 357: 514: ‘Omnia utiliter noviterque tam in elemosinis pauperum quamque in ornamentis sanctarum ecclesiarum perficiens …’. Pauperes is a general term referring to the social dimension of papal providence. 17 ‘Neque ille toto regni sui tempore quicquam duxit antiquius, quam ut urbs Roma sua opera suoque labore vetere polleret auctoritate et ecclesia Sancti Petri per illum non solum tuta ac defensa, sed etiam suis opibus prae omnibus ecclesiis esset ornata atque ditata’. 18 ‘Doctrinis, opibus, muris erexerat arces/ urbs caput orbis honor inclyta Roma tuas’. The epitaph in Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis I: 523. The quoted lines are 13-14. 19 However, there are no traces of any special commemoration of Gregory I in Hadrian’s projects.

the same number of churches. In addition, the roofs of at least seven churches and cemeteries were restored. The next campaign saw the distribution of 466 silk vela and 370 linen vela, respectively divided into 45 and 29 groups, each given to a different establishment, but building enterprises were suspended, and only 74 pounds of silver were given out.

After this campaign of gifts, ten years or so passed before donations of precious metals and fabrics were resumed, whilst in the same period building works were intense and continuous. When the gifts started again, their amount considerably increased, reaching the notable level of 1617 pounds of gold and 1083 pounds of silver,20 but building enterprises were now few and donations of fabrics had completely ceased. Undoubtedly these weights are substantial, but if they are divided by the number of the years during which the donations were made, almost six according to Geertman’s chronology, the amount of resources invested becomes less surprising. The arithmetic mean can be fixed at little more than 269 pounds of gold, and little more than 180 pounds of silver per year, which is a lot, but comparable with the figures of the first campaigns as well as with the expense of 100 pounds of gold for the restoration of the city walls. It is even possible that the annual values were lower, if one considers that the gifts to St. Peter’s show two peaks, perhaps caused by exceptional circumstances, and these much reduce the weight of the gifts made in other years.21

These observations lead one to think that Hadrian’s activity was mainly supported by a permanent flow of financial resources made up of the ordinary income of the Roman Church, an income that had grown substantial and was lasting thanks to the extended political domination of the Church, which included direct and indirect forms of fiscal drawing. The yearly amount of this income cannot be evaluated, given that the only extant traces of it are the papal expenses, registered by the LP in incomplete and discontinuous fashion. In addition to fiscal revenue, the political authority of the papacy facilitated the execution of the more demanding enterprises, like the repair of the walls and aqueducts. For civicAccess works like these, the pope could draw on the public services of the citizens of Rome and of other towns in the pontifical patrimony, following a practice sanctioned by ancient Roman law (LP I, 355: 513). He also could authorize the dismantling of ancient buildings and the recycling of building materials, and it is likely that he also organized the activity of some figlinae, the yards where bricks stamped with the pope’s name were produced (Bauer 2004: 192; Santangeli Valenzani 2017). Open

On the other hand, the peaks of donations and activities that occur in some periods, as well as the unusual quantity of gold in the last phase of donations, or even the supply of linen in the campaign of vela, may be explained as the outcome of extraordinary influxes of riches coming from outside the papal dominions. Here a special role can be attributed to Charlemagne, although a definite chronological coincidence between – for instance – his visits to Rome and the peaks of papal donations cannot be established. Certainly no role can be attributed to the famous treasure of the Avars, part of which Charlemagne sent to Rome, according to the Frankish sources, because the conquest of the ‘Avar Ring’ took place a year after Hadrian’s death (ARF, y. 796: 64). Charlemagne may also have supported papal initiative by ordering his representatives in Italy to supply building materials that could not be found in Rome, like the great beams and the lead necessary for the restoration of roofsArchaeopress (Codex Carolinus, 65: 592 f.; 78: 609 f.). However, the origin and scale of these incidental surpluses of riches remain, at least in part, a matter of speculation, and other possible benefactors, besides Charlemagne, can be taken into consideration, even the Byzantine emperors.

In sum, it is possible to maintain that the economic basis for this papal activity is to be located mainly inside the papal dominions, an outcome of the political and fiscal system created by Carolingian intervention in Italy. It is in this sense – that is in the creation of a new political and legal order protected by the Frankish king – that the critical role played by Charlemagne in the renewal of the city of Rome can be seen. Probably this was the real meaning of the epigraph that Pope Hadrian had inscribed on an object he donated to St. Peter’s, in which he wished life and victory to the king, whom St. Peter himself had entrusted with the defence of Rome.22

20 The calculation refers to the gifts recorded in paragraphs 348 to 357 of the LP (83-96 in Geertman’s table), excluding the figure discussed in note 14. 21 The peaks, probably falling in the years 785/86 and 790/91, are respectively 356 pounds of gold and 691 pounds of silver in the first; 668 pounds of gold in the second, when there were no gifts of silver. 22 For the epigraph see Bauer 2004: 104, note 637. As is well-known, the epigraph presents textual problems precisely in the line concerning Charlemagne’s role in Rome, described as ‘pontificatum’, which makes no sense. I consider critical the fact that the epigraph was engraved on a gift offered by the pope to St. Peter; this implies that it represented the papal understanding of Charlemagne’s role. For this reason I do not think that the key-word should be changed to ‘imperium’, as has been sometimes suggested, nor even to ‘vexillum’, this last a learned solution, clearly influenced by the later mosaic of the triclinium built by Leo III in the Lateran. Probably

The idea of the town and of the pope’s role in it changed significantly with Hadrian’s successor, Leo III (795- 816). It is likely that Leo’s biography in the LP, like Hadrian’s, follows a chronological order (Geertman 1975: 37-70). Therefore it is noticeable that the entries in the LP preceding the dramatic events of 799, which saw the aggression against the pope and his flight from Rome, show marked analogies with Hadrian’s directives. The new pope began, like his predecessor, by gifting precious fittings and fabrics to St. Peter’s and to the adjoining church of Sant’Andrea; other gifts, equally important, were given to San Paolo f.l.m. and Santa Maria ad praesepem. The presence of golden objects among the gifts may be considered another sign of continuity. Repairs were carried out to the roofs of five churches and two suburban cemeteries that had not been restored by Hadrian; the roof of St. Peter’s, which clearly continued to cause problems, was the object of renewed attention, as were the atrium, the fountains and the tower in front of the basilica (LP II, 360: 1). It is possible that the impression of continuity depends at least in part on the fact that the record of the first years of Leo III may have included works already initiated in the last years of Hadrian, under whom Leo had served as vestiarius, i.e. as the keeper of the treasury (Geertman 1975: 35, 67).

However, in the first years of the new pontificate there were also original enterprises; one was the rebuilding from the foundations of the titular church of Santa Susanna, where Leo had been priest before his promotion to the papal dignity. The church had been partly restored by Hadrian before, but Leo had it demolished and rebuilt on a larger scale, after the model of the ancient Roman Christian basilicas, with marble columns and pavement, an apse adorned with mosaics, a decorated ceiling and a new baptistery. Hadrian had made particular benefactions to the church of San Marco, where he began his ecclesiastical career, but he had not gone so far as to demolish it and to have it rebuilt. The reconstruction of Santa Maria in Cosmedin by Hadrian seems to have been occasioned by urgent problems of safety, rather than by any special affection for this church on the part of the pope. By contrast, this latter was precisely the motivation for Leo’s enterprise. He wished to extoll the church of which he had been titular priest, and transformAccess it into a monument to his own devotion and pious solicitude. As soon as it was finished, the new church was gifted with golden and silver lamps, crosses, gabatae, and precious coverings interwoven with golden threads.

Leo’s second new undertaking was the construction at the papal palace in the Lateran of a triclinium, a great hall designed for formal reception and non-liturgicalOpen ceremonial. This building too was magnificently decorated: the floor and the walls were covered with sheets of polished marble, white columns alternated with purple columns, the main apse was set with mosaic, while two minor apses along the side walls carried painted imagery. Hadrian too had commissioned restoration and improvements in the Lateran complex, but he had not substantially changed its architectural and functional structure, while Leo’s triclinium, like his new church of Santa Susanna, clearly was designed to extoll the pope’s very person. He had himself portrayed in the apses of both buildings; in one as benefactor, in the other as the trustee of the authority of St. Peter over the Christendom. The two buildings carried a political message that probably was addressed, in the first place, to Roman society, where Leo had powerful enemies. This was reinforced by the representation, in both apses, of Charlemagne as the partner, and possibly the supporter, of the pope. It is likely that these messagesArchaeopress stirred the revolt led by eminent functionaries of the papal bureaucracy in collusion with parties of the Roman aristocracy hostile to Leo. This led first to the pope’s flight north to Francia, afterwards to his reinstatement in Rome under Frankish protection, and lastly to the imperial coronation of Charlemagne (Delogu 2000: 695-704). After these events, Leo’s urban policy changed. Although a further campaign of restoration of churches in poor repair was undertaken (LP II, 413-414: 28), the suburban cemeteries were neglected and public works for the improvement of the urban infra-structures were totally abandoned. The available resources were directed in part to embellishing and magnifying churches – first the principal basilicas, which were the object of universal veneration, but also in general all the churches of Rome – and in part to enhance the seats of papal political representation: above all the Lateran Palace.

This new management of the city was aimed not only at the people of Rome, but at the whole of Christendom stabilized under the new Carolingian imperial order. Sovereigns, eminent ecclesiastics from the northern side of the Alps and pilgrims had to be awed by the magnificence of the papal city, that materialized the preeminent dignity of the pope.

This new policy took shape first of all in the provisions made for St. Peter’s basilica with its associated churches of Sant’Andrea and Santa Petronilla, as well as the monasteries of Santo Stefano and San Martino, the term was related to the title of ‘patricius’, the only one that Hadrian gave to Charlemagne, besides his royal title.

which together made up a single holy quarter; then for the basilicas of San Paolo f.l.m. and Santa Maria ad praesepem. The primacy of devotion and honour accorded to these three basilicas is reflected in the quantity and magnificence of the gifts they received. On a previous occasion, I reckoned that in the course of his pontificate Leo lavished on the churches of Rome gifts of precious metals amounting to more than 22,000 pounds of silver and nearly 1450 pounds of gold, that is, respectively, about 7330 and 483 kilos of these metals. This datum can now be slightly corrected, although it remains impossible to reach absolute certainty about the total figures.23 However, it is significant here that St. Peter’s, without the adjoining churches, received more than 11,314 pounds of silver and nearly 986 pounds of gold, that is almost half the total amount of riches distributed in this period. The basilica of San Paolo f.l.m. received more than 3680 pounds of silver and nearly 460 pounds of gold; Santa Maria ad praesepem 1568 pounds of silver, but only 22 pounds of gold. Notwithstanding this substantial disproportion, the donations to the two basilicas far exceeded those Leo made to the two churches that were the object of his particular interest and care: Santa Susanna, which received 340 pounds and 2 ounces of silver and 1 pound of gold, and the diaconia of the Santi Nereo e Achilleo, that the pope rebuilt in a later phase of his pontificate, which received 242 pounds and 10 ounces of silver and 2 pounds and 6 ounces of gold.

However, the other religious establishments were also embraced by the pope’s project, because Leo, like Hadrian, saw the city as a network of ecclesiastical centres, scattered across the whole urban territory, each of which played an important and active role. This was not just an ideal view; it was founded on a detailed understanding of the actual ecclesiastical framework of the town, based on detailed catalogues and accurate censuses, the most explicit example being the well-known list of gifts distributed in 807 to all the religious establishments of Rome (Geertmann 1975: 82-101).

In this, the beneficiaries are listed according to their institutional rank:Access first of all the Lateran basilica, the cathedral church of the pope; then Santa Maria ad praesepem, the two basilicas of the Apostles with Sant’Andrea adjoining St Peter’s, followed by a series of other basilicas and major churches, and, in due order, by all the tituli, the diaconiae, the monasteries, the oratories, often associated with monasteries, and finally the xenodochia; in all, 117 establishments distributed over the whole urban territory, excluding the suburban cemeterial churches. Open

The hierarchical ranking of the churches determined the quantity and quality of the gifts they received. Each was given a lighting fixture, but the weight and shape of these varied substantially from one institution to another. The chandeliers given to the basilica of the Saviour at the Lateran and to the basilicas of the Apostles weighed 23 or 22 pounds of silver; the one for Santa Maria ad praesepem 13 pounds. The mean weight of the lamps given to the tituli was 7 pounds; that for the diaconiae, 6 pounds; for the main monasteries, 5 pounds; for other monasteries, for the oratories and the xenodochia, only a little more than 2 pounds. There are a few exceptions to this strict hierarchy of rank and value: not by chance these relate to Santa Susanna, and, for reasons difficult to ascertain, also to the tituli of San Clemente and San Marco; above all, however, to the churches dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God. These last are all grouped immediately after the Lateran basilica, without regardArchaeopress for their institutional rank. Each received a gift considerably higher than those given to other establishments of the same class; so for instance, each diaconia consecrated to the Virgin Mary got a lamp weighing approximately 8 pounds, that is 3 pounds heavier than those given to other diaconiae.

This fact shows the particular importance that the cult of the Virgin Mary had for this pope. It is likely that this reflected the devotional feelings of the Roman population; however, it would also have been an expression of the pope’s personal devotion, given that an equal interest in the veneration of Mary is not evident in the time of Hadrian.

The shape of the lamps also varied according to the hierarchy of the establishments. The basilicas, the tituli, the diaconiae and the most important monasteries received chandeliers called coronae, while the other monasteries, the oratories and the xenodochia got canistra. The difference between these two types of lamp is not clear; however, it should be noted that the two apostolic basilicas also received canistra, although these

23 Besides possible errors in the calculation, disturbing factors are the ‘deauratos’ objects for which the percentage of gold employed is uncertain. Inexactitude may be generated by the conversion of ounces into pounds; the term ‘semis’ seems to mean half ounce rather than half pound (cf. LP 422, II, 33: ‘Quae pens.lib. CII et uncias VIIII semis’). The figure ĪĪCIIII of PL II, 416: 29 has been read 2104. With these reservations, the revised reckoning leads to a total of nearly 23,130 pounds of silver and nearly 1442 pounds of gold. The reckoned figures are lower than the actual weight of the metals employed, because the LP fails to report the weight of a certain number of objects.

were ten times heavier than the canistra given to oratories. The shape was a component of the value, but it allowed different levels of size, complexity and prestige.

The considered and rational organizations of the papal provision can be seen also in other interventions by Leo for the furnishing of churches. Gifts of precious metals were reserved for few of these, apart for the great basilicas; not by chance, three were Marian churches.24 Leo’s donations for other churches mainly consisted in coverings for the altars, although these too were costly works, woven in silk of different colours – white, pink, red – and adorned with borders and apparels of purple, byssus or golden brocade. In some cases these were adorned with tabulae, figural panels with images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and Saints.

If one compares the list of the beneficiaries of these gifts to the list of 807, it is clear that almost every church in Rome, irrespective of its status, received at least one token of papal care. This would seem to confirm that the gifts followed official lists which facilitated their ordered and complete distribution.25 Nonetheless, the gifts of precious fabrics to the apostolic basilicas and to Santa Maria ad praesepem also far exceeded those to other basilicas and churches. St. Peter’s received no less than eight altar coverings of exceptional workmanship, Santa Maria ad praesepem, nine, San Paolo f.l.m, five. In addition, these basilicas received vela and cortinae, i.e. curtains to be hung in the interior, to close and adorn the various openings in all parts of the church. Very few other churches were given hangings of this kind and, if they were, they were of much lesser quantity.26

Leo also pursued his policy of strengthening Rome’s ideal and material physiognomy with new building- works at the Lateran complex, which had a direct bearing on the pope’s sovereign authority. After his reestablishment in power, he added a second triclinium to the first one, with which he had already announced his ambitions. The new triclinium was even more monumental. This wasAccess a hall with a main apse at the far end and five apses on each side wall. The floor was paved in marble with a porphyry fountain in the centre. Unlike the first triclinium, the imagery, in mosaic in the main apse and in paintings on the side apses, carried no explicit political meaning. Nonetheless it was still a manifesto of the universal authority of the pope, as it represented the Apostles, whose successor the pope was, preaching to the gentes (LP II, 384: 11). Indeed the very architectural form proclaimed the ideological valueOpen of the building, recalling antique and Byzantine imperial triclinia, the memory of which was alive in Rome. Like those, the apses of the Lateran triclinium were set with divans on which the papal guests could accommodate themselves at ceremonial banquets, apparently following profane practice. Work was also undertaken at the Lateran on the restoration of the great porticoed thoroughfare with upper gallery that traversed the palatial complex (PL II, 414: 28).

The urban interventions of Leo raise again the question of the pope’s relation with the Carolingian world and with Charlemagne himself, in terms of the programme and its financing. There is no doubt that Leo invested in his urban policy resources that were much greater than those deployed by Hadrian. However, it is difficult to distinguish detailed phases of activity and to estimate their cost, as could be done for his predecessor. It is only with a certain level of approximation that it can be estimated that in the first years of his pontificate, Leo’s donations of preciousArchaeopress furnishings had a weight comparable to those of Hadrian. Even taking into account the cost of the restoration of seven or eight churches and the construction of Santa Susanna and the Lateran triclinium, the total expenses would not have been out of scale with the cost of Hadrian’s first phase of works. After the events of 799/800, a campaign of donation distributed altar coverings to not less than 60 basilicas and other ecclesiastical establishments, and at the same time, the quantity of gold and silver invested in gifts to churches substantially increased. Then, starting at a date that can be fixed in the years 804/805, following Geertman’s chronology, the quantity of precious metals further increased, in some years reaching a weight of almost 2550, or even 3400 pounds of silver and 135 or 170 pounds of gold. At the same

24 These are: Santa Maria Antiqua (212 pounds of silver), Santa Maria in Domnica (2 pounds of gold), Santa Maria Calixti (599 pounds and 7 ounces of silver, plus 1 pound of gold). Other establishments that received metal furnishings only once are: Santa Sabina (28 pounds of silver and semis), Santa Susanna (379 pounds and 12 ounces of silver, plus 6 pounds and semis of gold; perhaps 26 further pounds of silver should be added), Santa Prisca (28 pounds of silver), San Pancrazio (367 pounds of silver), the diaconia of Sant’Archangelo (10 pounds of silver), the monastery of Sant’Anastasio (25 pounds of silver), the monastery of San Saba (12 pounds of silver), Santi Nereo e Achilleo (242 pounds and 10 ounces of silver, plus 1 pound of gold). 25 Gifts were given to 19 churches and basilicas as well as to no less than 20 tituli, 19 diaconiae and 9 monasteries, that is to almost the totality of the ecclesiastical establishments performing public cultic functions. 26 St. Peter’s: 20 sets of vela, some of them composed of an exceptional number of cloths (93, 48, 65, 96, 30, 77; cf. LP II, 382; 389; 390, 418) plus 5 cortinae; Santa Maria ad praesepem: 3 sets amounting to 94 cloths (LP II, 383; 391; 415) and 5 cortinae (LP II, 361; 383, 401, 415); San Paolo f.l.m.: 3 sets with a total of 103 cloths (LP II, 362). Other churches that received vela or cortinae are: San Lorenzo f.l.m. (LP II, 383), Santi Apostoli (LP II, 418), Santa Sabina (LP II, 385), Santi Nereo e Achilleo (LP II, 424), San Ciriaco (LP II, 422) and the Marian churches of Santa Maria Calixti (LP II, 409), Santa Maria in Domnica (LP II, 417) and Santa Maria Antiqua (LP II, 409).

time substantial works were undertaken in St. Peter’s, where the baptistery was rebuilt and a magnificent new oratory consecrated to the Holy Cross was also rebuilt and richly furnished (LP II, 398: 17). There were other imposing works at the Lateran complex, where roofs, the atrium, fountains and galleries were restored and the windows were filled with coloured glass (LP II, 408: 25; 414: 28). In addition, the decaying roofs of 11 other churches were repaired.

The extraordinarily high level of expenditure which marked this period lasted for about five years, until 810/811, and was followed by a period, from about 812 to 816, in which donations returned to levels comparable to those of the first period. The gifts in silver were still substantial, but there was a marked reduction in gifts of gold, and altar coverings were distributed only to a limited number of tituli and diaconiae, besides the main basilicas. These final years also saw the reconstruction of the diaconal church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo.

This attempt to distinguish significant phases in Leo’s activity, though rough, would seem to indicate that in his first and final years in office the funding available was more or less in line with that which his predecessor Hadrian had at his disposal. It is likely, therefore, that it can be explained by the same criteria we adopted for Hadrian, that is mainly with the revenues of the pontifical government, perhaps with the exception of the church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo, which will be discussed below.

On the other hand, in Leo’s central years the expenses on works and donations became exceptional. If one takes as a point of reference the weight of precious metals given to churches, it is apparent that the weight of the silver was almost triple that of the first period, and almost quadruple that of the final period. The ratio is different for the gold, which in the central period was less abundant than in the first, but considerably more abundant than in the last period.27 Access

It is probable that this exceptional availability of riches over a limited number of years came from an outside provider and supplemented the ordinary revenues of the Roman Church. This would be consistent with Einhard’s reference to the ‘multa et innumera dona’ given by Charlemagne to the popes, and perhaps also with the treasure of the Avars, part of which was sent to Rome,Open although the relative scarcity of gold, and the superabundance of silver may indicate other additional sources.

The Carolingian financing of papal initiatives would not have taken place immediately after Leo’s accession to office and the capture of the Avar treasury (something that would fit with the alleged displeasure with which Charlemagne received the news of his election to the papacy), but several years later, in a changed political context, probably in a climate of greater trust, as is suggested by the mysterious second trip of Leo to Francia, which occurred in 804, and by the negotiations for the imperial succession in the following years (Delogu 2000: 701). It is possible that such large benefaction would have been accompanied by instructions dictating its use. This could explain why in these years of greater affluence the larger part of the gifts was lavished on the two apostolic basilicas. Nonetheless, if such instructions were given, Leo was able to integrate them into his personal strategies and objectives; a considerable part of the riches were given to Santa Maria ad praesepem, and to theArchaeopress Lateran (LP II, 408: 25), i.e. to the two poles of Roman devotion and papal authority. Donations were also made to two other Marian churches.28 Moreover, it was precisely in the middle of this period, in 807, that the great distribution of lamps to the churches of Rome took place; an enterprise that involved more than 700 pounds of silver and was undertaken by the pope ‘for the remission of his faults’ (LP II, 401: 18): another way of linking gifts to the pope’s person. This would seem to be a clear sign that the pope’s purposes went well beyond the expectations of Carolingian devotion. It was only after the end of this extraordinary period of affluence that donations of fabrics to other churches were resumed, if in reduced measure. Papal initiative was now focused on the reconstruction of the church of the Santi Nereo e Achilleo. It is possible that this too was supported by a Carolingian subvention, because it seems to have taken place in the final years of Leo’s life, when, according to the Frankish sources, Louis the Pious, who succeeded to Charlemagne in 814, executed his father’s will, leaving bequests to the Church of Rome as well as to other metropolitan sees throughout the empire (Einhard, c. 33: 206; Vita Hludowici, c. 22: 292). However, the programme of this new church seems free from any Carolingian connection, either political or ideological,

27 The total figures change if we consider the datum of the XII indiction relating to the first or to the second period; in both cases, the relative proportion of the periods remains the same: silver: I period: 4297 pound or 5731 pounds; II period: 11,725 pounds or 13,159 pounds; III period: 3624 pounds. Gold: I period: 442 pounds or 933 pounds; II period: 370 pounds or 861 pounds; III period: 107 pounds. In this calculation the weight in ounces has been ignored. 28 Santa Maria Calixti and Santa Maria in Domnica.

first of all for its peripheral location, close to the Appian Gate, on which its diaconal service was focused. This is a further sign of the pope’s lasting attention to the whole ecclesiastical lay-out of the city, one which was not limited to the main poles of international devotion or to the central churches in Rome. However, what is more significant, and in a sense surprising, is the imagery of the mosaic in the apse, which has a strong theological content but, apparently, no overt political implication. Unlike the monumental buildings of the first period, neither living persons nor the titular saints were represented in the apse; instead there are complex allegories of the double nature of Christ, divine and human, and of the Holy Cross. This last was probably another focus of Leo’s personal religious feelings, alongside the Marian cult.29 This unusual choice of imagery expressed in a new way the pope’s presence in the monumental face of the city; possibly it was again addressed to the local population, and in any case to a world that did not fully fall in with Carolingian interests and expectations.

Were this inquiry extended to Leo’s successors, from Paschal I to Leo IV, interesting new information could be found, to throw light on the urban policy of those later popes, their use of available resources and their relations with the Carolingian empire, as, for instance, in Goodson 2010. However, it seems sensible to stop here a narrative, which is intended as a partial contribution to Richard Hodges’ brilliant project of reviving the Roman Middle Ages.*

Bibliography Coates Stephens, R. 2001/2002. Gli impianti ad Primary sources acqua e la rete idrica urbana. Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 60-61: 135-54. ARF = Annales regni Francorum: R. Rau (ed.) 1966. Delogu, P. 1988. The rebirth of Rome in the 8th and Quellen zur karolingischen Reichsgeschichte I: 9-155. 9th centuries. In R. Hodges and B. Hobley (eds), Berlin, Rütten and Loenig. The Rebirth ofAccess Towns in the West AD 700-1050: 32-42. Codex Carolinus: W. Gundlach (ed.) 1882. Monumenta London, Council for British Archaeology. Germaniae Historica, Epistolae III: 469-657. Berlin, Delogu, P. 2000. Leone III. In Enciclopedia dei Papi Weidmann. I: 695-704. Rome, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Einhard, Vita Karoli: R. Rau (ed.) 1966. Quellen zur Italiana. karolingischen Reichsgeschichte, I: 163-211. Berlin, Delogu,Open P. 2010. Le origini del medioevo. Studi sul Rütten and Loenig. settimo secolo. Roma, Jouvence. LP = Le Liber Pontificalis (2 vols.) – L. Duchesne (ed.) Geertman, H. 1975. More veterum. Il Liber Pontificalis 1955. Paris, de Boccard. e gli edifici ecclesiastici di Roma nella tarda antichità Vita Hludowici = Anonymi Vita Hludowici: R. Rau (ed.) e nell’alto medioevo. Groningen, Tieenk Willink. 1966. Quellen zur karolingischen Reichsgeschichte I: Geertman, H. 2001/2002. Gli spostamenti di testo 258-381. Berlin, Rütten and Loenig. nella vita di Adriano I. Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 60-61: 155-66. Secondary sources Goodson, C. J. 2010. The Rome of Pope Paschal I. Papal Power, Urban Renovation, Church Rebuilding and Bauer, F. A. 2001/2002. Il rinnovamento di Roma Relic Translation, 817-824. Cambridge, Cambridge sotto Adriano I allaArchaeopress luce di Liber Pontificalis. University Press. Immagine e realtà. Mededelingen van het Krautheimer, R. 1980. Rome. Profile of a City, 312-1308. Nederlands Instituut te Rome 60-61: 189-204. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bauer, F. A. 2004. Das Bild der Stadt Rom im Santangeli Valenzani, R. 2017. Calcare e altre tracce Frühmittelalter. Papststiftungen im Spiegel des Liber di cantiere, cave e smontaggi sistematici degli Pontificalis von Gregor dem Dritten bis zu Leo dem edifici antichi. In A. Molinari, R. Santangeli Dritten (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Valenzani and L. Spera (eds), L’archeologia della Rom, Palilia 14). Wiesbaden, Reichert. produzione a Roma (secoli V-XV). Atti del Convegno Coates Stephens, R. 1999. Le ricostruzioni Internazionale di Studi. Roma 27-29 marzo 2014: 335- altomedievali delle mura aureliane e degli 44. Bari, Edipuglia. acquedotti. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Thacker, A. 1998. Memorializing Gregory the Great: Moyen Âge 111: 209-25. the origin and transmission of a papal cult in the 7th and early 8th centuries. Early Medieval Europe 7: 59-84.

29 For the iconographic programme of the apse see Bauer 2004: 195-204. For the special devotion of Leo III to the Cross, we should recall the rebuilding of the oratory dedicated to the Holy Cross in St. Peter’s. A programme similar to that in Santi Nereo e Achilleo adorned an altar covering given to the Lateran basilica, on which the ‘storia vivificae atque adorandae dominicae Crucis’ was represented (LP II, 408: 25). * The author would like to thank the editors of this volume for their help in preparing the English text of this paper.