Sovranità Imperiale. Dal Simbolismo all'Espressione Architettonica nella Cultura di Corte Bizantina, Carolingia e Islamica (VIII-X secolo d.C.)

(C. 1) The Byzantine thought described the Emperor as the intermediary between the immanent and the transcendent dimension of God, whose work could be perceived and described by men thanks to aesthetics and Patristics. Since God is balance, his temporal representative on Earth legitimized his role by preserving the balance and prosperity of the Empire. Literary constructs from the Bible and the Qu’ran provided remarkable metaphors for the characterization of such a suzerain. The attribution to the Emperor of the features of archetypal rule took the forms either of the roman exemplum – a sort of aware imitation – or of the Christian typologia. The focus was on David, chosen by God, the Victorious and the Cantor; and Solomon, the Wise Judge and the Builder. The court culture of Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern Dynastic Empires shaped the ideology of legitimizing according to the most convenient elements from the tradition of these two characters. (C. 2) The Sacred Texts of the Mediterranean monotheistic religions were studied and interpreted by traditionists and theologians throughout Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages: these efforts brought the codification of King Solomon’s throne and throne hall as an ultimate, universal symbol of majesty. The basic interpretation of the throne liturgy as a ceremonial judgment was wrapped by a concretion of meanings and shapes, which determined the construction of an effective imagery during the Middle Ages. From 8th to 10th century the features of Solomon’s palace and kingdom where involved in the creation of a series of architectural sceneries of the majesty core, which was the heart of medieval kingship symbolic representation. Both Byzantine and Arabian sources witness the presence of composite throne devices at the courts of Constantinople and Samarra, under the reign of Theophilus and Mutawakkil. The most relevant examples appeared during the 10th century. The liturgical apparatus of the caliphal reception hall of Baghdad in 917 AD was retraced thirty years later in the Throne of Solomon at the Magnaura, in the Great Palace of Constantinople. (C. 3) The metaphorical imagery related to King Solomon’s rule also explained the relevance of the imperial building activity as a powerful means of self-legitimization. The Bible provides a detailed account of the construction of the Temple and Palace at Jerusalem, which have been considered amongst the most important architectural archetypal entities since the Late Antique Period. The Qu’ran and following commentaries enriched the set of the outstanding architectural works undertaken by Solomon, resorting to the salient concepts of pre-Islamic narratives of Syrian and Yemenite palaces. The Islamic tradition even characterizes the process by which the king achieved such brilliant results. Architecture became a powerful symbol of a king’s rule, hinting at the divine nature and legitimacy of the monarch’s power. This principle was explicitly conceived inside the traditional exegesis related to Solomon; nevertheless, it developed as a powerful ideological metaphor throughout the court culture of the Middle Ages. (C. 4) Many Islamic narratives recall the pride of various Caliphs who undertook an architectural campaign. Court ideology conceived the building activity as an explicit symbol of imperial glory. The description of this particular aspect of the suzerain’s policy became a milestone of historiographical works; at times, it even claimed its independence as a literary genre. The biography of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Theophilus, Basil I, as well as the Western Annales and Middle-Eastern histories and geographical works emphasized the role of building activity as a primary means of imperial governance. A fundamental shared aspect was the richness of employed materials, and the magniloquence of architectural and urban ensembles. (C. 5) While archetypal speculation determined the construction of the basic framework of imperial ideology, the connection with the classical Antiquity was one of the most important contents of Court Culture from 8th to 10th century A.D. The text deals with various types of expression of this particular issue. The shifting of the imperial Capital from Rome to Constantinople brought along some cases of imitation of Roman models at an early period. After Late Antiquity, the heritage of Classicism tended to be seen in different ways. The interpretation of Roman Imperial tradition was a fundamental element of Byzantine Court Culture; in other ways, it even became the base for the construction of Carolingian Imperial ideology. The palace of Aachen was celebrated as Charlemagne’s Rome and Jerusalem; the involvement of ancient materials emphasized cultural aspects related to the renovatio Imperii. Re-use of spolia was a very common habit, alternately led in terms of damnatio memoriae, or trying to highlight the glorious continuity between the Antiquity and present times. (C. 6) Connections inside the late ancient “Cosmic Family” of kings were not just theoretical, but could rely on effective practical instruments. Diplomacy was the favored way of cultural exchange among dynastic courts during the Dark Ages. The ambassador’s visit was the most direct means, by which behavioral and liturgical models could undergo a process of international migration. The most radical forms of interaction consisted in direct imitation and mutual assistance in the accomplishment of building campaigns. The embassy itself could work as a powerful means of communication, through the transmission of the imagery determined by gift exchange and by the narration of the ‘exotic’ habits of rival courts. (C.7) The ceremonial apparatus determined the structure of the Hall of Reception and, consequently, of the whole Imperial Palace. The most relevant factor in this field is represented by the social composition of the crowd of dignitaries, who were involved in State liturgy. Primary considerations must be done about the characterization of the group of persons directly associated to imperial dignity. The idea of Empire could hardly be reconciled with the principles of a strictly monarchic political model. The Byzantine Imperial etiquette was conceived to allow the coexistence of emperor and co-emperor(s) during receptions. The ritual co-existence of the suzerain and his son as a co-emperor was the leitmotif of Carolingian succession in 814 A.D., while the separated duality of Caliph and Heir determined the hierarchical organization of the Abbasid court during the 10th century A.D. At the court of Cordova, the presence near the throne of the brothers of the Caliph during receptions became a symbol of the autonomy of Andalusia power from the caliphates of Baghdad and Cairo. These configurations were reflected in the structure of the throne cores. (C. 8) The typology of the Palace, during the Dark Ages, derived from the codification of the Late Antique domus, as theoretically reported in a number of glossaria, which survived in various Medieval sources. The characterization of the whole architectural typology needs to be reconsidered. The traditional juxtaposition between the Persian central throne-hall and the Roman basilica is obsolete. The compared analysis of historical sources regarding imperial liturgy shows interesting results. Any place of solemn reception was conceived according to the modulation of three different kind of space. A centripetal area was reserved for the group of majesty and the throne; this was followed by a longitudinal space, where the formation of dignitaries could take place. Another cross-cultural point of contact is the extraordinary transformation of the Palace as a typological entity during the ceremonies celebrated with great pomp. The whole complex changed its form, according to the need of showing the magnificence of the court at its best, thanks to the symbols of architecture.