1

Justinians Politics of Religious Polemic: Conquest in San Apollinare Nuovo The mosaic composition in Theodorics palace church, San Apollinare Nuovo, is not a new subject of debate among art historians. The Byzantines labeled Theodoric and the Goths as Arian, and because scholars have perpetuated this label, art historians have investigated the original Arian mosaics present in the basilica before its rededication under Byzantine rule.1 I will argue that the erasures and replacement of various original scenes were politically motivated and not religiously; the Goths alleged Arian beliefs might possibly have been used as polemic. I will provide studies of mosaic and mortar composition from the basilica, and observations of Theodorics reign, as well as compare contemporaneous mosaics to support my argument. As a refresher, the alleged Arian Theodoric the Great was an Ostrogoth king who invaded northern Italy in the late fifth century and settled in Ravenna in CE 493; his palace church was San Apollinare Nuovo.2 Theodoric died in CE 526 without strong leadership to continue his rule; the Byzantine (and orthodox) emperor Justinian conquered Ravenna, overthrowing the Ostrogoths, in CE 540.3 Part of Justinians conquest program included the rededication of Theodorics churches.4

On the surface, San Apollinare Nuovo looks no different than other contemporary Roman style ecclesiastical structures.5 This basilica is typical in its architectural layout: a central nave, two aisles and an apse. One must to examine more closely the minute detail within the basilica to
1

Despite my efforts, I cannot find a single citation leading me to a primary source stating how Theodoric came to be Arian or when the term was first applied to Theodoric. 2 Edmund Leach, Melchisedech and the Emperor: Icons of Subversion and Orthodoxy, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1972 (1972), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3031729. Leach says Theodoric was of mildly Arian persuasion. 3 Dr Gerald Guest, October 15, 2008. 4 Arthur Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae: The Catholic Reconciliation of Ravenna and the Church of SantApollinare Nuovo," Journal of Early Christian Studies 13, no. 1 (2005), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v013/13.1urbano.html.; Otto G. von Simson, Sacred Fortress (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 5. 5 Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 26.

get a glimpse of its artistic makeover. Figure 1 displays the three registers present on each wall.6 Various mosaic studies have determined that the upper two registers are the original mosaic work from when the basilica was built in the early sixth century; however, most of the lower register has been drastically altered.7 Sadly, we cannot analyze whatever apse mosaic that existed because various earthquakes damaged and ultimately destroyed it. Fig 1

Experts have long noted the stylistic differences between the upper two registers and most of the lower register on each wall; the upper zones have realistic and classic backgrounds while the lower zone on each wall appear to be Byzantine in style.8 Upon further exploration, it becomes clear that the original mosaic work on the bottom zone was altered; analysis of the mortar and mosaic work displays discontinuity between the processions and upper two registers. Interestingly, the image of the virgin on the north wall and that of the Pantokrator on the south wall were not
6

Unless stated otherwise, the illustrations present in this essay are courtesy of Dr Gerald Guest during his various class lectures. 7 Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 10. 8 Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 8; Giuseppe Bovini, Ravenna Mosaics (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1978), 28.

touched; these mosaics match the upper two zones.9 I will elaborate on this observation below. Note the minute details in the Palatium mosaic in figure 2. Several columns have visible blemishes, dismembered limbs from the original mosaic (figure 3 is a close up of third column inward on the left side).10 One can also observe the vague circular shape above the curtain rods; these shapes were arguably either heads or halos from the original mosaic. Also, the martyr figures processing forward on the nave wall toward the apse and Latin lettering above their heads date later than the gold mosaic behind them, as well as the images to which they process, the Virgin and child and the Pantokrator. Many scholars have argued that images of Theodoric and his family originally lined the lower register of the nave walls because the practice of portraying the imperial family was common.11 This practice is noticeable in San Vitale and San Apollinare Classe. The imperial mosaic could have mirrored the one in San Vitale; instead of Justinian and his retinue presenting gifts, it might have portrayed Theodoric and his men processing with gifts.12 One interesting argument has been made about the mosaic of Justinian at the entrance of the basilica. The Latin lettering above his image is dated later than the image itself; the argument is that the image might possibly have been that of Theodoric (figure 4, especially when one compares the image to Justinians image in San Vitale, figure 5).13 In what may seem like sloppy mosaic work, the dismembered limbs and remnants of heads or halos, might actually be a reminder to the congregation - the Byzantines defeated the Ostrogoths and the Justinian wanted his subjects to remember the conquest.14
9 10

Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 10. Figure 3 is courtesy of Bovini, Ravenna Mosaics, plate 25.

11

Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 23; Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 82; Bovini, Ravenna Mosaics, 34; Mark J. Johnson, Toward a History of Theoderic's Building Program, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291590. 12 Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 82. 13 Johnson, Toward a History of Theoderic's Building Program, 27; Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 40. Figure 4 is courtesy of Google images under Justinian San Apollinare Nuovo. 14 Annabel Jane Wharton, Refiguring the Post Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem, and Ravenna (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 147.

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Based on research, it is my interpretation that the images that were erased and replaced were secular in nature. As previously mentioned, the religious images were not altered.15 Though the church was rededicated to St Martin, the patron saint of defeating heretics, it would seem that Justinian and his bishops believed there was nothing inherently wrong in the basilicas religious
15

Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 10.

images; nor was there anything unique about the images.16 This begs the question: if the Ostrogoths were labeled as Arian, why would Justinian leave the religious imagery untouched? Further, why do the Byzantines see nothing Arian about the iconography? My argument of the Arian label as polemic will further demonstrate my overall argument: that the mosaic replacements in San Apollinare Nuovo had nothing to do with religious beliefs. The replacements were politically motivated.17 Lets compare for a moment Theodorics conquest and rule with that of the Vandals in Northern Africa. According to Justinian, during his victory proclamation, he recalls the Vandals destruction of Catholic churches and forced conversion to Arianism.18 Theodoric never persecuted the Orthodox Christians in Italy; in fact, his own mother and several high officials in his court were Catholic.19 A poignant line from Sacred Fortress highlights Theodorics religious ambiguity both personally and politically, If the Gothic king was a heretic, he did not threaten the established church with the intolerable claims of the Byzantine theocracy. The Catholic Bishop of Pavia praised the Gothic king as a protector of the Catholic Church.20 The few negative instances that some have interpreted as the beginnings of persecution, the arrest and execution of two Catholic bishops and Pope John I, had more to do with committing treason than disagreement on religion.21 The main point of departure between Arianism and Orthodoxy was the nature of Jesus; Arians believed Jesus was not coeternal with God.22 One would expect in Arian artwork evidence of hinting at the separate natures of God and Christ. Despite the argument of Theodorics policy of
16 17

Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 72; Urbano, "Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae, 28. Leach, Melchisedech and the Emperor, 12. Leach claims San Vitale and San Apollinare in Classe reassert full Byzantine authority. 18 Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 8. 19 Ibid., 72. 20 Ibid., 19.
21

Harold Stone, The Polemics of Toleration: The Scholars and Publishers of Cassiodorus' Variae, Journal of the History of Ideas 42, no. 2 (1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709632, 5. 22 Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 111. Von Simson notes that Arianism sought to strip Christ of his divinity.

religious toleration, it would make sense that his palace church could betray his own personal religious beliefs.23 The seated Christ on the south wall of San Apollinare Nuovo displays no distinction of God and Christ. Christ appears divine and we see no hint of a separate image or representation of God, or as Leach would term a hierarchy of separate persons.24 If one compares the mosaics in San Apollinare Nuovo to the Orthodox Eucharistic scenes in San Vitale, one will notice a liturgical parallel; Theodorics palace church places the Wedding at Cana and Last Supper scenes closest to where the altar would have stood.25 One may wonder why the Arian and Orthodox Eucharistic mosaic scene placement seems to bear little difference. Another interesting factor is the archiepiscopal chapel built by the Orthodox Bishop Peter II during Theodorics reign in Ravenna; some argue that it portrays anti-Arian images.26 It is not reasonable to argue that Theodoric would allow an anti-Arian structure to be built in such close proximity if he was Arian. Scholars like von Simson argue for Theodorics religious toleration, and although that may be an accurate description of his religious policies, I do not find the Arian argument as a definitive explanation.27 My last piece of evidence is the comparison of the dome mosaic in the Orthodox baptistery and the mosaic in the Arian baptistery built during Theodorics reign, the latter built 100 years after the former. Figures 6 and 7 are stylistically identical, perhaps more so than they initially appear. There are a few minor differences between the two mosaics; Jesus as bearded in the Orthodox baptistery versus the youthful Christ in the Arian baptistery, and John is holding a patera in the Orthodox mosaic, whereas in the Arian mosaic his hand rests on Jesus head. While these differences do not indicate differences in the nature of Christ, Arian versus Orthodox, Annabel
23 24

Ibid., 72; Leach, Melchisedech and the Emperor, 11. Leach, Melchisedech and the Emperor, 10. 25 Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 76. 26 Bovini, Ravenna Mosaics, 21; http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/788.pdf (accessed Oct 20, 2008). The International Council on Monuments and Sites claims it bears anti-Arian imagery. 27 Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 3, 72.

Jane Wharton makes the argument that it is likely the Orthodox baptistery originally illustrated a youthful, beardless Christ with Johns hand on his head.28 The difference in gold color in figure 6 allows the viewer to observe where the mosaic was changed. Again, if one could illustrate separate natures of Christ from God in terms of Arian belief, this illustration is not seen in the Arian baptistery. Fig 6 Fig 7

I am not arguing that the Ostrogoths were definitively non-Arian; my argument is that their version of Christianity is ambiguous given the lack of concise evidence. If Theodorics subjects

28

Wharton, Refiguring the Post Classical City, 19; Annabel Jane Wharton, Ritual and Reconstructed Meaning: The Neonian Baptistery in Ravenna, The Art Bulletin 69, no. 3 (1987), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051060.

were content with his rule, he was after all viewed as a restorer of Roman culture, than Justinian would need to provide a reason for the orthodox Christians to side with him. Because Arianism seemed to be the rival of Orthodoxy during this time period, a perfect way to gain support from the townspeople and aristocracy of Ravenna would be to label Theodoric and the Goths as participating in this rival faith.29 I have argued that the changes in San Apollinare Nuovo were political and not religious. The religious imagery was untouched, despite the alleged Arian nature of those who constructed it. I have also argued for the ambiguity of Theodoric and the Goths as Arian, given the lack of evidence. The significance of this observation is that if scholars no longer assume the Arian nature of Theodorics Christianity, the dynamic of this field of research will almost certainly be altered.30

29

Leach, Melchisedech and the Emperor, 14; Von Simson, Sacred Fortress, 7. This use of polemic to demonize the other was contemporaneously exemplified in the latest presidential election. 30 Von Simson presented a possible theory on the explanation of the second register in San Apollinare Nuovo, but then claims the particular explanation is problematic if Theodoric was Arian. In my opinion, this is one example of how the assumption of Theodoric being Arian inhibits this field of study.