Bernward of Hildesheim has been one of those outstanding medieval patrons who have continuously fascinated scholars culminating in the exhibitions "Bernward von Hildesheim und das Zeitalter der Ottonen" in 1993 in Hildesheim and "Medieval Treasures from Hildesheim" at the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 2013/14. Both exhibitions had a lasting impact on research. The publication to be discussed here also ultimately originates from a colloquium held at Columbia University on the occasion of the New York exhibition. The resulting essay was first published in the journal Speculum in 2018 and is now available in an expanded form in German. In this respect, the book is an example of how exhibitions stimulate research and academic discussion.

In essence, the author places the research on Bernward of Hildesheim in new contexts by transferring the concept of colonialism with regard to the territorial expansion of the empire eastwards under the Ottonians to Bernward's art. Ittai Weinryb characterizes Bernward's works, such as the silver candlesticks from St. Michael's (now in the Dommuseum Hildesheim), as artistic avant-garde, that is, an artistic and political demonstration of the colonialism of the rulers of the time. Indeed, Ottonian rule in the 10th and early 11th centuries was characterized by military conflicts with the Slavs, who were located in what is now Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In addition, the Ottonians turned their attention to the Duchy of Poland in the east, which complicated the situation by forming changing alliances. Depending on priorities, attempts were therefore made to make peace with the Slavs in order to have resources for military campaigns against the Poles, whereby the expansion of political spheres of influence and Christianization went hand in hand. These facts are generally known, but here for the first time they are directly linked to the Hildesheim artworks, their creation and artistic intentions as well as the target audience, by understanding them as a demonstration of power against the Slavs.

Accordingly, Weinryb understands Hildesheim in proximity to the Slavic territories, as a "relatively isolated area in the north [...] a settlement on the frontier of the Ottonian empire with a total population of no more than four or five hundred inhabitants" ("relativ isolierte Gegend im Nordosten Deutschlands [...] eine Siedlung an der Grenze des Ottonischen Reiches mit einer Gesamtbevölkerung von nicht mehr als vier oder fünfhundert Bewohner*innen", 32-33) and "isolated from the urban centers of medieval Europe" ("isoliert von den urbanen Zentren des mittelalterlichen Europa", 33). Weinryb uses a map to support his arguments (2-3), showing the places that play a role in his argument, such as Havelberg and Brandenburg, which were very close to the Slavic settlement areas. Yet central places such as Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Quedlinburg, Gandersheim and others, are missing. This was no hinterland, but the heartland of the Ottonian rulers, where, according to their itineraries, they stayed particularly often. Hildesheim was as a hotspot and, as a bishopric, a core place in the landscape of the rulers of the time.

The author makes the threat posed by the Slavs to Hildesheim and larger area at the turn of the first millennium a key argument. However, Hildesheim was not - as suggested in the map - on the front line to the Slavs. Rather, numerous important places lay in between, such as the archbishopric of Magdeburg. Furthermore, in Quedlinburg in 1003, Emperor Henry II made peace with the Liutizen, the most important Slavic tribe in this area, because he needed them for his marches to Poland. Accordingly, they also took part in Henry's military campaigns in 1005 and 1017. Although there were occasional attacks in other regions, such as in Hamburg in 1018, a threat from the Slavs after 1003 was hardly a dominating priority for Bernward, as the alliance with the Liutizen lasted until 1036, long after Bernward's death.

The main question in Weinryb's study, however, concerns the interpretation of Bernward's donations, especially those made to the Benedictine monastery of St. Michael, which he founded just outside the city. Bernward's bronze column, the main example, has always been compared with the Roman triumphal columns on the basis of the narrative band which shows scenes from the life of Christ. In Weinryb's view, however, the spiral shape was primarily advantageous for the casting process. For him, the Jupiter columns in the former Roman colonies south of the Danube and Rhine rivers, connected by the Limes wall, were used as a model, as well as columns in the Slavic territories such as the statue of Svantovit in the Archaeological Museum in Krakow. However, they have no formal connection with the Hildesheim column, and there is no evidence that the Jupiter columns were given any attention at all in Bernward's time. And above all, the use of successive pictorial scenes can only be found in Rome.

For Weinryb, the column was a public monument against the Slavs, and the church of St. Michael a dominating landmark for the nearby market, which was frequented by Slavic traders. However, as a Benedictine monastery, St. Michael's was a place of liturgy and prayer for the monks, the church was hardly accessible to the general public. Moreover, we have to ask whether any viewer at the time would have recognized a statement against the Slavs at all when looking at a bronze column with a Christological cycle culminating in the crucifixion.

Furthermore, the author does not include the contemporary sources, some of which were formulated by Bernward himself. In his donation charter for St. Michael's Monastery, the bishop explicitly refers to King Solomon, whom he describes as the greatest penitent. In this context, Bernward characterizes his donations as an "architectura meritorum", "through which achievement I, [...], could earn heaven for myself". [1] Bernward, like most medieval founders, concentrated on his memoria, while the Slavs are not mentioned in the context of these sources.

While on the one hand entire groups of sources are not mentioned, the approach to those that do appear in the publication is inconsistent. For example, Weinryb cites Bernward's vita, which goes back to Thangmar, Bernward's friend and tutor. Weinryb rightly urges caution, as this text was edited at the end of the 12th century to support his forthcoming canonization. Elsewhere, however, the author uses the text without qualification as a testimony of the early 11th century: "The stories of the Vita aim to portray Bernward as an art lover and a Maecenian of a proto-Renaissance and to suggest that the ideas for the Hildesheim monuments arose while visiting the capital of Christendom." ("Die Geschichten der Vita haben zum Ziel, Bernward als Kunstliebhaber und Mäzen einer Proto-Renaissance darzustellen und zu suggerieren, die Ideen für die Hildesheimer Monumente hätten sich beim Besuch der Hauptstadt des Christentums ergeben", 27). However, the revision of the 1190s was done in order to present Bernward's life and work to the Pope in Rome as worthy of a saint.

This analysis could be continued with further details. More important, however, are the questions that the analysis of the book opens up for our discipline. On the one hand, the importance of the complete compilation and analysis of contemporary written sources becomes clear with regard to the intellectual environment and spirituality of the founder. On the other hand, we see the limitations of comparisons when they underweight decisive formative elements in favor of an overarching theory. In this respect, reading Weinryb's book encourages us to take a fresh look at Hildesheim's best-known bishop and hopefully contributes to further studies that will sharpen our understanding of Bernward.

Note:

[1] Hans Jakob Schuffels: Bernward Bischof von Hildesheim. Eine biographische Skizze, in: Bernward von Hildesheim und das Zeitalter der Ottonen, ed. by Michael Brandt / Arne Eggebrecht, Hildesheim / Mainz 1993, Bd. 1, 29-43, 40.

Gerhard Lutz