Chapter 14 Relic or Icon? The Place and Function of Imperial Regalia* Akira Akiyama Even though the studies of Christian and Buddhist art have long had respec- tive traditions, only rarely are their research results compared. This essay at- tempts to take up a comparative religious art historical investigation.1 There is no guarantee that such a comparison will bring about remarkable results; however, through the process of comparing it is possible, by juxtaposing differ- ent perspectives on similar kinds of objects, at least to gain some stimuli, ideas, and expertise vis-à-vis the fields of both Western and Japanese or East Asian art historical research. We thus explore here the regalia of the Holy Roman Empire, Reichskleinodien or Reichsinsignien, and the imperial regalia of Japan, Sanshu-no-Jingi (Three divine objects). Regalia are some of the most popular objects in many cultures, and are often newly made at the coronation of a sovereign. In this respect the imperial regalia of the Holy Roman Empire and of Japan make interesting exceptions, because in both cases they have a long tradition and history. By comparing the dynamics of portable sacred objects— their translation into different local contexts—we discover that regalia func- tion as both relics and icons to differing degrees in various situations. Further still, the ambiguity of place in the series of moves, compounded by issues of visibility, complicates the function of sacred imagery. While relics are prin- cipally not duplicable, but dividable, icons are not dividable, but duplicable. Japanese imperial regalia, in contrast to those of the Holy Roman Empire, have not only a relic-like character, but also an icon-like character. * This study was generously supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)), Grant No. JP26284023. 1 Cf. Akiyama A. – Kitazawa-Tomizawa K. (eds.), Interrelationship of Images and Relics in Christian and Buddhist Culture (Tōkyō: 2009); Akiyama A. – Kitazawa-Tomizawa K. (eds.), Miraculous Images in Christian and Buddhist Culture (Tōkyō: 2010); Akiyama A. – Kitazawa- Tomizawa K. (eds.), Image and Vision in Christian and Buddhist Culture (Tōkyō: 2012). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004354500_0�6 Relic or Icon? The Place and Function of Imperial Regalia 431 Imperial Regalia of the Holy Roman Empire In 1506 Albrecht Dürer wrote from Venice a letter to his close friend Willibald Pirckheimer to tell his mother to go to the ‘Heiltum(sfest)’, a feast of relic osten- sion, in order to sell his prints.2 In reality the items exhibited at the feast were the imperial regalia of the Holy Roman Empire. However, from the formula- tion employed by Dürer we can assume the citizens of Nuremberg at the time regarded the regalia as almost the same as relics. The imperial regalia of the emperors and kings of the Holy Roman Empire [Fig. 14.1] consist of the impe- rial crown, imperial orb, imperial sceptre, imperial sword, ceremonial sword, imperial cross, holy lance, coronation vestments, and reliquaries with relics.3 It seems that initially the quantity of regalia was not so large. According to the Res gestae Saxoniae of Widukind of Corvey, for example, on his deathbed in 918 Conrad I said to his brother Eberhard: Take these regalia, the holy lance, golden buckles with a mantle and a sword of old kings, and the crown, go to Heinrich [Henry I] and conclude peace, thereby you will be able to have him as your ally forever.4 After the canonisation of Charlemagne in 1145, the relic character of the impe- rial regalia gradually increased. When two German kings were elected at the same time in 1314, Frederick the Fair of Habsburg had the imperial regalia ex- hibited in Basel in 1315 in order to emphasise his legitimacy. This time the holy lance, Charlemagne’s crown, two swords, a holy nail, a large particle of the holy cross, and a tooth of Saint John the Baptist were shown with the archbishop of Cologne giving an address, stating, ‘whoever holds the imperial relics should be the king, and no one should call the one without them king’.5 2 Rupprich H. (ed.), Dürer Schriftlicher Nachlass, vol. 1 (Berlin: 1956) 48, 52. 3 On the imperial regalia of the Holy Roman Empire see Fillitz F., Die Insiginen und Kleinodien des Heiligen Römischen Reiches (Vienna: 1954); Schramm P.E. – Mütherich F., Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser: Ein Beitrag zur Herrschergeschichte von Karl dem Grossen bis Friedrich II. 768–1250 (Munich: 1962); Schramm P.E. – Fillitz H., Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser, vol. 2, Ein Beitrag zur Herrschergeschichte von Rudolf I. bis Maximilian I. 1273–1519 (Munich: 1978); Kühne H., Ostensio Reliquiarum (Berlin – New York, NY: 2000); Keupp J. et al., “… Die keyserlichen Zeychen …”: Die Reichskleinodien—Herrschaftszeichen des Heiligen Römischen Reiches (Regensburg: 2009). 4 Schober K., “Die repräsentative Funktion der Reichsinsiginien und ihr Bedeutungswandel im Spätmittelalter”, in Keupp et al., “… Die keyserlichen Zeychen …” 74–75. 5 Kühne, Ostensio 86..