Issue With the Use of Icons in Byzantine Art

Periods in Byzantine history during which religious images were banned (726-787, 814-842)

The Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εικονομαχία, romanized: Eikonomachía , lit.'epitome struggle', 'war on icons') were two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was opposed by religious and purple authorities inside the Orthodox Church and the temporal regal bureaucracy. The Showtime Iconoclasm, equally it is sometimes called, occurred between most 726 and 787, while the Second Iconoclasm occurred between 814 and 842.^[1] According to the traditional view, Byzantine Iconoclasm was started by a ban on religious images promulgated by the Byzantine Emperor Leo 3 the Isaurian, and continued under his successors.^[2] It was accompanied past widespread destruction of religious images and persecution of supporters of the veneration of images. The Papacy remained firmly in support of the utilize of religious images throughout the period, and the whole episode widened the growing deviation between the Byzantine and Carolingian traditions in what was even so a unified European Church, equally well as facilitating the reduction or removal of Byzantine political control over parts of the Italian Peninsula.

Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction inside a culture of the civilisation's own religious images and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People who engage in or back up iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, Greek for "breakers of icons" ( εἰκονοκλάσται ), a term that has come up to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are derisively called "iconolaters" ( εἰκονολάτρες ). They are normally known equally "iconodules" ( εἰκονόδουλοι ), or "iconophiles" ( εἰκονόφιλοι ). These terms were, nevertheless, not a part of the Byzantine argue over images. They accept been brought into common usage by mod historians (from the seventeenth century) and their application to Byzantium increased considerably in the late twentieth century. The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery, "iconomachy," means "struggle over images" or "image struggle". Some sources too say that the Iconoclasts were against intercession to the saints and denied the usage of relics, however it is disputed.^[1]

Iconoclasm has generally been motivated theologically by an Onetime Covenant interpretation of the Ten Commandments, which forbade the making and worshipping of "graven images" (Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy five:8, come across too Biblical constabulary in Christianity). The two periods of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries made use of this theological theme in discussions over the propriety of images of holy figures, including Christ, the Virgin (or Theotokos) and saints. It was a contend triggered by changes in Orthodox worship, which were themselves generated by the major social and political upheavals of the seventh century for the Byzantine Empire.

Traditional explanations for Byzantine iconoclasm have sometimes focused on the importance of Islamic prohibitions confronting images influencing Byzantine thought. According to Arnold J. Toynbee,^[3] for case, information technology was the prestige of Islamic military successes in the 7th and 8th centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians to adopt the Islamic position of rejecting and destroying devotional and liturgical images. The role of women and monks in supporting the veneration of images has also been asserted. Social and class-based arguments have been put forrard, such as that iconoclasm created political and economic divisions in Byzantine gild; that it was generally supported by the Eastern, poorer, non-Greek peoples of the Empire^[4] who had to constantly deal with Arab raids. On the other hand, the wealthier Greeks of Constantinople and also the peoples of the Balkan and Italian provinces strongly opposed Iconoclasm.^[iv] Re-evaluation of the written and material bear witness relating to the menstruum of Byzantine Iconoclasm by scholars including John Haldon and Leslie Brubaker has challenged many of the basic assumptions and factual assertions of the traditional account. Byzantine iconoclasm influenced the later Protestant reformation.^[5] ^[6]

Background [edit]

Christian worship by the sixth century had developed a clear belief in the intercession of saints. This belief was also influenced by a concept of bureaucracy of sanctity, with the Trinity at its pinnacle, followed past the Virgin Mary, referred to in Greek as the Theotokos ("nascence-giver of God") or Meter Theou ("Mother of God"), the saints, living holy men, women, and spiritual elders, followed by the residue of humanity. Thus, in order to obtain blessings or divine favour, early Christians, like Christians today, would oft pray or enquire an intermediary, such as the saints or the Theotokos, or living fellow Christians believed to be holy, to intercede on their behalf with Christ. A strong sacramentality and conventionalities in the importance of physical presence likewise joined the belief in intercession of saints with the use of relics and holy images (or icons) in early Christian practices.^[eight]

Believers would, therefore, brand pilgrimages to places sanctified by the concrete presence of Christ or prominent saints and martyrs, such as the site of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Relics, or holy objects (rather than places), which were a office of the claimed remains of, or had supposedly come up into contact with, Christ, the Virgin or a saint, were also widely utilized in Christian practices at this time. Relics, a firmly embedded office of veneration by this period, provided physical presence of the divine simply were non infinitely reproducible (an original relic was required), and still usually required believers to undertake pilgrimage or accept contact with somebody who had.

The employ of images had greatly increased during this flow, and had generated a growing opposition among many in the church, although the progress and extent of these views is now unclear. Images in the form of mosaics and paintings were widely used in churches, homes and other places such as over city gates, and had since the reign of Justinian I been increasingly taking on a spiritual significance of their ain, and regarded at least in the popular mind as capable of possessing capacities in their own correct, so that "the image acts or behaves as the subject itself is expected to act or carry. It makes known its wishes ... It enacts evangelical teachings, ... When attacked information technology bleeds, ... [and] In some cases it defends itself confronting infidels with concrete strength ...".^[9] Fundamental artefacts to mistiness this boundary emerged in c. 570 in the form of miraculously created acheiropoieta or "images non made by human hands". These sacred images were a form of contact relic, which additionally were taken to prove divine approving of the employ of icons. The two nigh famous were the Mandylion of Edessa (where it nonetheless remained) and the Prototype of Camuliana from Cappadocia, past so in Constantinople. The latter was already regarded as a palladium that had won battles and saved Constantinople from the Western farsi-Avar siege of 626, when the Patriarch paraded it around the walls of the city. Both were images of Christ, and at to the lowest degree in some versions of their stories supposedly made when Christ pressed a material to his face (compare with the afterward, western Veil of Veronica and Turin shroud). In other versions of the Mandylion'southward story it joined a number of other images that were believed to have been painted from the life in the New Testament menstruum by Saint Luke or other human painters, again demonstrating the support of Christ and the Virgin for icons, and the continuity of their employ in Christianity since its start. G. E. von Grunebaum has said "The iconoclasm of the eighth and ninth centuries must exist viewed as the climax of a movement that had its roots in the spirituality of the Christian concept of the divinity."^[10]

The events of the seventh century, which was a period of major crunch for the Byzantine Empire, formed a catalyst for the expansion of the use of images of the holy and caused a dramatic shift in responses to them. Whether the acheiropoieta were a symptom or cause, the late 6th to eighth centuries witnessed the increasing thinning of the boundary between images not made past human hands, and images made by human hands. Images of Christ, the Theotokos and saints increasingly came to exist regarded, as relics, contact relics and acheiropoieta already were, every bit points of access to the divine. Past praying earlier an paradigm of a holy figure, the believer's prayers were magnified by proximity to the holy. This change in practice seems to have been a major and organic development in Christian worship, which responded to the needs of believers to accept access to divine support during the insecurities of the seventh century. It was not a change orchestrated or controlled by the Church. Although the Quinisext council did not explicitly state that images should exist prayed to, it was a legitimate source of Church authority that stated images of Christ were adequate as a consequence of his human incarnation. Considering Jesus manifested himself as human information technology was acceptable to make images of him just like it was adequate to brand images of the saints and other humans.^[11] The events which accept traditionally been labelled 'Byzantine Iconoclasm' may be seen as the efforts of the organised Church building and the imperial authorities to respond to these changes and to endeavour to reassert some institutional control over popular practice.

The rise of Islam in the 7th century had also caused some consideration of the use of holy images. Early Islamic belief stressed the venial of iconic representation. Earlier scholarship tried to link Byzantine Iconoclasm directly to Islam past arguing that Byzantine emperors saw the success of the early Caliphate and decided that Byzantine use of images (as opposed to Islamic aniconism) had angered God. This does not seem entirely plausible withal. The use of images had probably been increasing in the years leading upwards to the outbreak of iconoclasm.^[12] One notable change came in 695, when Justinian Two put a full-faced image of Christ on the obverse of his gold coins. The event on iconoclast opinion is unknown, simply the change certainly caused Caliph Abd al-Malik to intermission permanently with his previous adoption of Byzantine money types to outset a purely Islamic coinage with lettering only.^[13] This appears more like ii opposed camps asserting their positions (pro and anti images) than one empire seeking to imitate the other. More striking is the fact that Islamic iconoclasm rejected whatever depictions of living people or animals, not just religious images. By contrast, Byzantine iconomachy concerned itself only with the question of the holy presence (or lack thereof) of images. Thus, although the rise of Islam may accept created an environment in which images were at the forefront of intellectual question and fence, Islamic iconoclasm does not seem to have had a straight causal function in the development of the Byzantine image debate; in fact Muslim territories became havens for iconophile refugees.^[14] Yet, it has been argued that Leo III, because of his Syrian background, could take been influenced by Islamic beliefs and practises, which could accept inspired his first removal of images.^[fifteen]

The goal of the iconoclasts was^[16] to restore the church building to the strict opposition to images in worship that they believed characterized at the to the lowest degree some parts of the early church. Theologically, one aspect of the argue, as with near in Christian theology at the time, revolved around the ii natures of Jesus. Iconoclasts believed^[fourteen] that icons could not correspond both the divine and the human being natures of the Messiah at the aforementioned time, simply only separately. Because an icon which depicted Jesus as purely concrete would be Nestorianism, and one which showed Him as both human and divine would not exist able to practise then without disruptive the two natures into one mixed nature, which was Monophysitism, all icons were thus heretical.^[17] Leo III did preach a series of sermons in which he drew attending to the excessive behaviour of the iconodules, which Leo Three stated was in straight opposition to Mosaic Law as shown in the Second Commandment.^[xviii] Withal, no detailed writings setting out iconoclast arguments take survived; we have simply brief quotations and references in the writings of the iconodules and the nature of Biblical law in Christianity has always been in dispute.

Sources [edit]

A thorough understanding of the Iconoclast period in Byzantium is complicated by the fact that most of the surviving sources were written by the ultimate victors in the controversy, the iconodules. It is thus difficult to obtain a complete, objective, balanced, and reliably authentic business relationship of events and various aspects of the controversy.^[19] The menstruation was marked by intensely polarized debate amidst at least the clergy, and both sides came to regard the position of the other as heresy, and appropriately fabricated efforts to destroy the writings of the other side when they had the chance. Leo III is said to take ordered the destruction of iconodule texts at the start of the controversy, and the records of the concluding 2d Council of Nicaea record that books with missing pages were reported and produced to the council.^[20] Many texts, including works of hagiography and historical writing every bit well equally sermons and theological writings, were undoubtedly "improved", fabricated or backdated by partisans, and the difficult and highly technical scholarly process of attempting to assess the real authors and dates of many surviving texts remains ongoing. Virtually iconoclastic texts are simply missing, including a proper record of the council of 754, and the item of iconoclastic arguments take mostly to exist reconstructed with difficulty from their fierce rebuttals by iconodules.

Major historical sources for the period include the chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor^[21] and the Patriarch Nikephoros,^[22] both of whom were ardent iconodules. Many historians take as well drawn on hagiography, most notably the Life of St. Stephen the Younger,^[23] which includes a detailed, but highly biased, account of persecutions during the reign of Constantine V. No account of the period in question written by an iconoclast has been preserved, although certain saints' lives do seem to preserve elements of the iconoclast worldview.^[24]

Major theological sources include the writings of John of Damascus,^[25] Theodore the Studite,^[26] and the Patriarch Nikephoros, all of them iconodules. The theological arguments of the iconoclasts survive just in the grade of selective quotations embedded in iconodule documents, most notably the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea and the Antirrhetics of Nikephoros.^[27]

The first iconoclast period: 730–787 [edit]

An immediate forerunner of the controversy seems to take been a big submarine volcanic eruption in the summer of 726 in the Aegean Sea between the island of Thera (modernistic Santorini) and Therasia, probably causing tsunamis and great loss of life. Many, probably including Leo III,^[28] interpreted this equally a judgment on the Empire by God, and decided that employ of images had been the crime.^[29] ^[30]

The archetype account of the outset of Byzantine Iconoclasm relates that sometime between 726 and 730 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian ordered the removal of an image of Christ, prominently placed over the Chalke Gate, the ceremonial entrance to the Not bad Palace of Constantinople, and its replacement with a cross. Fearing that they intended sacrilege, some of those who were assigned to the task were murdered by a band of iconodules. Accounts of this effect (written significantly later) advise that at least part of the reason for the removal may have been military reversals against the Muslims and the eruption of the volcanic island of Thera,^[31] which Leo peradventure viewed as show of the Wrath of God brought on by prototype veneration in the Church building.^[32]

Leo is said to have described mere epitome veneration every bit "a craft of idolatry." He apparently forbade the veneration of religious images in a 730 edict, which did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross. "He saw no need to consult the Church, and he appears to take been surprised past the depth of the popular opposition he encountered".^[33] Germanos I of Constantinople, the iconophile Patriarch of Constantinople, either resigned or was deposed post-obit the ban. Surviving messages Germanos wrote at the time say fiddling of theology. According to Patricia Karlin-Hayter, what worried Germanos was that the ban of icons would prove that the Church had been in error for a long fourth dimension and therefore play into the hands of Jews and Muslims.^[34]

This interpretation is now in doubt, and the debate and struggle may have initially begun in the provinces rather than in the imperial court. Messages survive written by the Patriarch Germanos in the 720s and 730s apropos Constantine, the bishop of Nakoleia, and Thomas of Klaudioupolis. In both sets of letters (the earlier ones apropos Constantine, the afterward ones Thomas), Germanos reiterates a pro-prototype position while lamenting the behavior of his subordinates in the church building, who apparently had both expressed reservations nigh prototype worship. Germanos complains "now whole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this thing".^[35] In both cases, efforts to persuade these men of the propriety of image veneration had failed and some steps had been taken to remove images from their churches. Significantly, in these letters, Germanos does non threaten his subordinates if they neglect to alter their behavior. He does not seem to refer to a factional split in the church, but rather to an ongoing consequence of concern, and Germanos refers to Emperor Leo III, often presented as the original Iconoclast, as a friend of images. Germanos' concerns are mainly that the actions of Constantine and Thomas should not confuse the laity.

At this stage in the contend, in that location is no clear bear witness for an regal involvement in the debate, except that Germanos says he believes that Leo III supports images, leaving a question as to why Leo III has been presented every bit the curvation-iconoclast of Byzantine history. Almost all of the evidence for the reign of Leo Iii is derived from textual sources, the majority of which post-date his reign considerably, virtually notably the Life by Stephen the Younger and the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. These of import sources are fiercely iconophile and are hostile to the Emperor Constantine V (741–775). Every bit Constantine's father, Leo besides became a target. Leo's actual views on icon veneration remain obscure, but in any case, may not have influenced the initial phase of the debate.

During this initial menstruum, concern on both sides seems to have had petty to do with theology and more with practical bear witness and effects. There was initially no church quango, and no prominent patriarchs or bishops called for the removal or destruction of icons. In the procedure of destroying or obscuring images, Leo is said to have "confiscated valuable church building plate, altar cloths, and reliquaries decorated with religious figures",^[33] but he took no severe action against the former patriarch or iconophile bishops.

In the West, Pope Gregory III held ii synods at Rome and condemned Leo's actions, and in response, Leo confiscated papal estates in Calabria and Sicily, detaching them as well as Illyricum from Papal governance and placing them under the governance of the Patriarch of Constantinople.^[36]

Ecumenical councils [edit]

14th-century miniature of the destruction of a church nether the orders of the iconoclast emperor Constantine 5 Copronymus

Leo died in 741, and his son and heir, Constantine V (741–775), was personally committed to an anti-image position. Despite his successes every bit an emperor, both militarily and culturally, this has caused Constantine to exist remembered unfavorably by a body of source textile that is preoccupied with his opposition to epitome veneration. For instance, Constantine is accused of being obsessive in his hostility to images and monks; because of this he burned monasteries and images and turned churches into stables, according to the surviving iconophile sources.^[37] In 754 Constantine summoned the Council of Hieria in which some 330 to 340 bishops participated and which was the first church council to concern itself primarily with religious imagery. Constantine seems to accept been closely involved with the council, and it endorsed an iconoclast position, with 338 assembled bishops declaring, "the unlawful fine art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation--namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. ... If anyone shall endeavor to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with fabric colors which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather correspond their virtues as living images in himself, etc. ... permit him be anathema." This Council claimed to be the legitimate "Seventh Ecumenical Council",^[38] but its legitimacy is disregarded by both Orthodox and Catholic traditions every bit no patriarchs or representatives of the five patriarchs were present: Constantinople was vacant while Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were controlled by Muslims, and Rome did not send a representative.

The iconoclast Council of Hieria was not the finish of the matter, notwithstanding. In this period complex theological arguments appeared, both for and against the use of icons. Constantine himself wrote opposing the veneration of images, while John of Damascus, a Syrian monk living outside of Byzantine territory, became a major opponent of iconoclasm through his theological writings.^[39]

Information technology has been suggested that monasteries became secret bastions of icon support, but this view is controversial. A possible reason for this estimation is the want in some historiography on Byzantine Iconoclasm to see information technology as a preface to the later Protestant Reformation in western Europe, in which monastic establishments suffered harm and persecution.^{[ citation needed ]} In opposition to this view, others take suggested that while some monks continued to support paradigm veneration, many others followed church and purple policy.^{[ commendation needed ]}

The surviving sources accuse Constantine V of moving confronting monasteries, having relics thrown into the sea, and stopping the invocation of saints. Monks were forced to parade in the Hippodrome, each mitt-in-hand with a woman, in violation of their vows. In 765 St Stephen the Younger was killed, and was after considered a martyr to the Iconophile crusade. A number of large monasteries in Constantinople were secularised, and many monks fled to areas across effective royal command on the fringes of the Empire.^[39]

Constantine'south son, Leo Four (775–80), was less rigorous, and for a time tried to mediate betwixt the factions. When he died, his wife Irene took ability every bit regent for her son, Constantine VI (780–97). Though icon veneration does not seem to have been a major priority for the regency government, Irene chosen an ecumenical council a year afterwards Leo's decease, which restored image veneration. This may have been an effort to secure closer and more cordial relations between Constantinople and Rome.

Irene initiated a new ecumenical council, ultimately called the Second Council of Nicaea, which starting time met in Constantinople in 786 merely was disrupted by armed services units faithful to the iconoclast legacy. The council convened once again at Nicaea in 787 and reversed the decrees of the previous iconoclast quango held at Constantinople and Hieria, and appropriated its title equally Seventh Ecumenical Quango. Thus in that location were two councils called the "Seventh Ecumenical Quango," the first supporting iconoclasm, the 2d supporting icon veneration.

Unlike the iconoclast council, the iconophile council included papal representatives, and its decrees were approved by the papacy. The Orthodox Church considers it to be the last genuine ecumenical council. Icon veneration lasted through the reign of Empress Irene's successor, Nikephoros I (reigned 802–811), and the two brief reigns later on his.

Decree of the Second council of Nicaea [edit]

On Oct xiii, 787 the Second Quango of Nicaea decreed that 'venerable and holy images are to be dedicated in the holy churches of God, namely the image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Lady the Holy Theotokos, and of the angels and all the saints. They are to be accorded the veneration of honor, not indeed the truthful worship paid to the divine nature alone, just in the same way, equally this is accorded to the life-giving cross, the holy gospels, and other sacred offerings' (trans. Toll, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea [Liverpool 2018], 564-five, abbreviated).

The second iconoclast period: 814–843 [edit]

Emperor Leo Five the Armenian instituted a second menstruation of Iconoclasm in 815, again possibly motivated past military machine failures seen as indicators of divine displeasure, and a want to replicate the military success of Constantine V. The Byzantines had suffered a serial of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Bulgarian Khan Krum, in the form of which emperor Nikephoros I had been killed in battle and emperor Michael I Rangabe had been forced to abdicate.^[twoscore] In June 813, a month before the coronation of Leo V, a grouping of soldiers broke into the imperial mausoleum in the Church building of the Holy Apostles, opened the sarcophagus of Constantine V, and implored him to render and salve the empire.^[41]

Shortly after his accession, Leo V began to discuss the possibility of reviving iconoclasm with a diversity of people, including priests, monks, and members of the senate. He is reported to have remarked to a group of advisors that:

all the emperors, who took upwardly images and venerated them, met their expiry either in revolt or in war; but those who did not venerate images all died a natural death, remained in power until they died, and were then laid to rest with all honors in the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles.^[42]

Leo next appointed a "committee" of monks "to look into the former books" and reach a conclusion on the veneration of images. They soon discovered the acts of the Iconoclastic Synod of 754.^[43] A first argue followed between Leo'south supporters and the clerics who connected to abet the veneration of icons, the latter group being led by the Patriarch Nikephoros, which led to no resolution. However, Leo had apparently get convinced by this betoken of the correctness of the iconoclast position, and had the icon of the Chalke gate, which Leo Three is fictitiously claimed to take removed once before, replaced with a cross.^[44] In 815 the revival of iconoclasm was rendered official by a Synod held in the Hagia Sophia.

Leo was succeeded past Michael II, who in an 824 alphabetic character to the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious lamented the advent of image veneration in the church building and such practices as making icons baptismal godfathers to infants. He confirmed the decrees of the Iconoclast Council of 754.

Michael was succeeded by his son, Theophilus. Theophilus died leaving his wife Theodora regent for his minor heir, Michael III. Similar Irene 50 years before her, Theodora presided over the restoration of icon veneration in 843, on the condition that Theophilus not be condemned. Since that fourth dimension the starting time Sunday of Great Lent has been celebrated in the Orthodox Church building and in Byzantine Rite Catholicism as the feast of the "Triumph of Orthodoxy".

Arguments in the struggle over icons [edit]

Iconoclast arguments [edit]

This page of the Iconodule Chludov Psalter, illustrates the line "They gave me gall to swallow; and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink" with a picture of a soldier offering Christ vinegar on a sponge attached to a pole. Beneath is a picture of the final Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople, John Vii rubbing out a painting of Christ with a similar sponge attached to a pole. John is caricatured, here every bit on other pages, with untidy direct hair sticking out in all directions, which was meant to portray him as wild and barbarian.

What accounts of iconoclast arguments remain are largely institute in quotations or summaries in iconodule writings. It is thus difficult to reconstruct a balanced view of the popularity or prevalence of iconoclast writings. The major theological arguments, however, remain in testify because of the demand in iconophile writings to record the positions being refuted. Debate seems to have centred on the validity of the depiction of Jesus, and the validity of images of other figures followed on from this for both sides. The main points of the iconoclast argument were:

Iconoclasm condemned the making of whatever lifeless image (due east.one thousand. painting or statue) that was intended to represent Jesus or one of the saints. The Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in 754 alleged:

"Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is fabricated out of any cloth and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.... If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ, kharaktír - grapheme) of the Word after the Incarnation with fabric colours, he is an antagonist of God. .... If anyone shall effort to stand for the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with fabric colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather correspond their virtues every bit living images in himself, he is an antagonist of God"^[45]
For iconoclasts, the just existent religious epitome must be an exact likeness of the prototype -of the same substance- which they considered incommunicable, seeing woods and paint every bit empty of spirit and life. Thus for iconoclasts the just true (and permitted) "icon" of Jesus was the Eucharist, the Torso and Blood of Christ, according to Orthodox and Catholic doctrine.
Any true image of Jesus must exist able to correspond both his divine nature (which is impossible considering it cannot exist seen nor encompassed) and his human nature (which is possible). But by making an icon of Jesus, one is separating his human being and divine natures, since but the human tin be depicted (separating the natures was considered nestorianism), or else confusing the human and divine natures, because them 1 (union of the human and divine natures was considered monophysitism).
Icon employ for religious purposes was viewed as an inappropriate innovation in the Church building, and a return to pagan exercise.

"Satan misled men, then that they worshipped the animate being instead of the Creator. The Law of Moses and the Prophets cooperated to remove this ruin...But the previously mentioned demiurge of evil...gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity."^[46]

It was also seen as a departure from ancient church tradition, of which there was a written tape opposing religious images. The Spanish Synod of Elvira (c. 305) had declared that "Pictures are non to be placed in churches, so that they exercise not get objects of worship and admiration",^[47] and some decades afterward Eusebius of Caesaria may have written a letter to Constantia (Emperor Constantine'south sister) saying "To draw purely the human being form of Christ before its transformation, on the other mitt, is to intermission the commandment of God and to fall into pagan fault";^[49] Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis wrote his letter 51 to John, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 394) in which he recounted how he tore down an image in a church and admonished the other bishop that such images are "opposed … to our religion",^[50] although the actuality of this letter has too long been disputed, and remains uncertain.^[51] However, as Christianity increasingly spread amidst gentiles with traditions of religious images, and specially after the conversion of Constantine (c. 312), the legalization of Christianity, and, later that century, the establishment of Christianity as the land religion of the Roman Empire, many new people came into the new large public churches, which began to be busy with images that certainly drew in part on imperial and infidel imagery: "The representations of Christ every bit the Omnipotent Lord on his judgment throne owed something to pictures of Zeus. Portraits of the Female parent of God were non wholly independent of a heathen past of venerated mother-goddesses. In the pop mind the saints had come to fill a role that had been played by heroes and deities."^[52]

Iconophile arguments [edit]

The master theological opponents of iconoclasm were the monks Mansur (John of Damascus), who, living in Muslim territory every bit counselor to the Caliph of Damascus, was far enough away from the Byzantine emperor to evade retribution, and Theodore the Studite, abbot of the Stoudios monastery in Constantinople.

John declared that he did not worship matter, "but rather the creator of matter." He too alleged, "Just I also venerate the matter through which salvation came to me, as if filled with divine energy and grace." He includes in this latter category the ink in which the gospels were written equally well as the paint of images, the wood of the Cantankerous, and the body and blood of Jesus. This distinction between worship and veneration is key in the arguments of the iconophiles.

The iconophile response to iconoclasm included:

Assertion that the biblical commandment forbidding images of God had been superseded by the incarnation of Jesus, who, existence the 2d person of the Trinity, is God incarnate in visible matter. Therefore, they were non depicting the invisible God, but God equally He appeared in the flesh. They were able to adduce the issue of the incarnation in their favour, whereas the iconoclasts had used the event of the incarnation confronting them. They also pointed to other Old Attestation prove: God instructed Moses to make two golden statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant according to Exodus 25:18–22, and God as well told Moses to embroider the pall which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle tent with cherubim Exodus 26:31. Moses was besides instructed by God to embroider the walls and roofs of the Tabernacle tent with figures of cherubim angels co-ordinate to Exodus 26:1.
Further, in their view idols depicted persons without substance or reality while icons depicted existent persons. Substantially the argument was that idols were idols because they represented fake gods, not because they were images. Images of Christ, or of other existent people who had lived in the by, could not be idols. This was considered comparable to the Old Testament practice of only offering burnt sacrifices to God, and non to whatever other gods.
Regarding the written tradition opposing the making and veneration of images, they asserted that icons were function of unrecorded oral tradition (parádosis, sanctioned in Catholicism and Orthodoxy every bit authoritative in doctrine by reference to Basil the Neat, etc.), and pointed to patristic writings approving of icons, such every bit those of Asterius of Amasia, who was quoted twice in the record of the Second Quango of Nicaea. What would take been useful prove from modern fine art history every bit to the utilize of images in Early Christian art was unavailable to iconodules at the fourth dimension.
Much was made of acheiropoieta, icons believed to be of divine origin, and miracles associated with icons. Both Christ and the Theotokos were believed in strong traditions to have sat on different occasions for their portraits to be painted.
Iconophiles further argued that decisions such equally whether icons ought to be venerated were properly made by the church assembled in quango, non imposed on the church building by an emperor. Thus the statement likewise involved the result of the proper relationship between church and state. Related to this was the observation that it was foolish to deny to God the same laurels that was freely given to the human emperor, since portraits of the emperor were common and the iconoclasts did not oppose them.

Emperors had always intervened in ecclesiastical matters since the time of Constantine I. As Cyril Mango writes, "The legacy of Nicaea, the outset universal council of the Church, was to bind the emperor to something that was not his concern, namely the definition and imposition of orthodoxy, if need be by force." That practice connected from starting time to cease of the Iconoclast controversy and beyond, with some emperors enforcing iconoclasm, and two empresses regent enforcing the re-establishment of icon veneration.

In art [edit]

The iconoclastic menstruum has drastically reduced the number of survivals of Byzantine art from before the menstruum, particularly large religious mosaics, which are now nigh exclusively establish in Italy and Saint Catherine'southward Monastery in Egypt. Important works in Thessaloniki were lost in the Groovy Thessaloniki Burn of 1917 and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). A large mosaic of a church council in the Imperial Palace was replaced by lively secular scenes, and there was no issue with imagery per se. The evidently Iconoclastic cantankerous that replaced a figurative prototype in the apse of St Irene'southward is itself an nigh unique survival, only conscientious inspection of some other buildings reveals like changes. In Nicaea, photographs of the Church building of the Dormition, taken before it was destroyed in 1922, prove that a pre-iconoclasm standing Theotokos was replaced by a large cross, which was itself replaced past the new Theotokos seen in the photographs.^[53] The Image of Camuliana in Constantinople appears to have been destroyed, as mentions of it cease.^[54]

Reaction in the West [edit]

The period of Iconoclasm decisively ended the then-called Byzantine Papacy under which, since the reign of Justinian I two centuries earlier, the popes in Rome had been initially nominated by, and afterward merely confirmed by, the emperor in Constantinople, and many of them had been Greek-speaking. By the end of the controversy the pope had approved the cosmos of a new emperor in the W, and the former deference of the Western church to Constantinople had gone. Opposition to icons seems to have had little support in the West and Rome took a consistently iconodule position.

When the struggles flared upwards, Pope Gregory II had been pope since 715, not long subsequently accompanying his Syrian predecessor Pope Constantine to Constantinople, where they successfully resolved with Justinian Two the issues arising from the decisions of the Quinisext Council of 692, which no Western prelates had attended. Of the delegation of 13 Gregory was one of just ii non-Eastern; information technology was to be the last visit of a pope to the city until 1969. At that place had already been conflicts with Leo III over his very heavy taxation of areas under Papal jurisdiction.^[30]

See likewise [edit]

Quotations related to Byzantine Iconoclasm at Wikiquote
Aniconism in Christianity
Feast of Orthodoxy
Libri Carolini

Notes [edit]

^ ^a ^b Humphreys, Mike (2021). "Introduction: Contexts, Controversies, and Developing Perspectives". In Humphreys, Mike (ed.). A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm. Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition. Vol. 99. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 1–106. doi:ten.1163/9789004462007_002. ISBN978-90-04-46200-7. ISSN 1871-6377. LCCN 2021033871.
^ Halsall, Paul (2021) [1996]. "Medieval Sourcebook: Iconoclastic Quango, 754 – EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIABULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754". Cyberspace History Sourcebooks Project. New York: Fordham Academy Eye for Medieval Studies at the Fordham Academy. Archived from the original on 21 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
^ Toynbee, Arnold Joseph (1987). A Study of History: Abridgement of volumes 7-X. p. 259. ISBN9780195050813.
^ ^a ^b Mango (2002).
^ Schildgen, Brenda Deen (2008). "Destruction: Iconoclasm and the Reformation in Northern Europe". Heritage or Heresy: 39–56. doi:10.1057/9780230613157_3. ISBN978-1-349-37162-four.
^ Herrin, Judith (2009-09-28). Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-14369-9.
^ Byzantine iconoclasm
^ Brubaker & Haldon (2011), p. 32.
^ Kitzinger (1977), pp. 101 quoted, 85–87, 95–115.
^ von Grunebaum, G. E. (Summer 1962). "Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Influence of the Islamic Surroundings". History of Religions. 2 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1086/462453. JSTOR 1062034. S2CID 224805830.
^ Wickham, Chris (2010). The Inheritance of Rome. England: Penguin. ISBN978-0140290141.
^ Kitzinger (1977), p. 105.
^ Cormack (1985), pp. 98–106.
^ ^a ^b Gero, Stephen (1974). "Notes On Byzantine Iconoclasm In The Eighth Century". Byzantion. 44 (one): 36. JSTOR 44170426.
^ Norwich, John Julius (1990). Byzantium The Early Centuries. London: Penguin. p. 354. ISBN0-14-011447-5.
^ "Byzantine Icons". World History Encyclopedia. 30 October 2019.
^ Mango, Cyril A. (1986). The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents. University of Toronto Printing. pp. 166. ISBN0802066275.
^ Norwich, John Julius (1990). Byzantium The Early on Centuries. London: Penguin. p. 355. ISBN0-fourteen-011447-five.
^ Brubaker & Haldon (2001).
^ Noble (2011), p. 69.
^ C. Mango and R. Scott, trs., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997).
^ C. Mango, ed. and tr., The short history of Nikephoros (Washington, 1990).
^ M.-F. Auzépy, tr., La vie d'Étienne le jeune par Étienne le Diacre (Aldershot, 1997).
^ I. Ševčenko, "Hagiography in the iconoclast period," in A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), 113–31.
^ A. Louth, tr., Three treatises on the divine images (Crestwood, 2003).
^ C.P. Roth, tr., On the holy icons (Crestwood, 1981).
^ K.-J. Mondzain, tr., Discours contre les iconoclastes (Paris, 1989), Exodus 20:1-17.
^ Brown, Chad Scott (2012). "Icons and the First of the Isaurian Iconoclasm under Leo III". Historia: The Blastoff Rho Papers. ii: i–nine. Retrieved 31 October 2019 – via epubs.utah.edu.
^ Mango (1977), p. 1.
^ ^a ^b Beckwith (1979), p. 169.
^ Volcanism on Santorini / eruptive history at decadevolcano.cyberspace
^ According to accounts by Patriarch Nikephoros and the chronicler Theophanes
^ ^a ^b Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997
^ The Oxford History of Byzantium: Iconoclasm, Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Oxford University Press, 2002.
^ Mango (1977), pp. 2–3.
^ David Knowles – Dimitri Obolensky, "The Christian Centuries: Volume ii, The Middle Ages", Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969, p. 108-109.
^ Haldon, John (2005). Byzantium A History. Gloucestershire: Tempus. p. 43. ISBN0-7524-3472-one.
^ "Internet History Sourcebooks Project".
^ ^a ^b Cormack (1985).
^ Pratsch (1997), pp. 204–v.
^ Pratsch (1997), p. 210.
^ Scriptor Incertus 349,1–eighteen, cited by Pratsch (1997, p. 208).
^ Pratsch (1997), pp. 211–12.
^ Pratsch (1997), pp. 216–17.
^ Hefele, Charles Joseph (February 2007). A History of the Councils of the Church building: From the Original Documents, to the close of the Second Council of Nicaea A.D. 787. ISBN9781556352478.
^ Epitome, Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754
^ "Canons of the church quango — Elvira (Granada) ca. 309 A.D." John P. Adams. January 28, 2010.
^ Gwynn (2007), pp. 227–245.
^ The letter's text is incomplete, and its authenticity and authorship uncertain.^[48]
^ "Letter 51: Paragraph 9". New Advent.
^ Gwynn (2007), p. 237.
^ Henry Chadwick, The Early on Church building (The Penguin History of the Church building, 1993), 283.
^ Kitzinger (1977), pp. 104–105.
^ Beckwith (1979), p. 88.

References [edit]

Beckwith, John (1979). Early Christian and Byzantine Art (second ed.). Penguin History of Fine art (now Yale). ISBN0140560335.
Brubaker, 50.; Haldon, J. (2001). Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: the sources: an annotated survey. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies. Vol. 7. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN978-0-754-60418-ane.
Brubaker, Fifty.; Haldon, J. (2011). Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: A History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-43093-7.
Cormack, Robin (1985). Writing in Gilded, Byzantine Society and its Icons. London: George Philip. ISBN054001085-five.
Gwynn, David (2007). "From Iconoclasm to Arianism: The Structure of Christian Tradition in the Iconoclast Controversy". Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies. 47: 226–251.
Kitzinger, Ernst (1977). Byzantine art in the making: main lines of stylistic development in Mediterranean art, 3rd-seventh century. Faber & Faber. ISBN0571111548. (United states: Cambridge University Press)
Mango, Cyril (1977). "Historical Introduction". In Bryer & Herrin (eds.). Iconoclasm. Heart for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham. ISBN0704402262.
Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium.
Noble, Thomas F. X. (2011). Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812202961, ISBN 9780812202960.
Pratsch, T. (1997). Theodoros Studites (759–826): zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Frankfurt am Main.

Conrad Kess1948