ICONOCLASM: ICONOCLASM IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION

Byzantine iconoclasm in all its facets remains an unresolved subject. Key sources are still to be published in modern editions, and interpretation of those that have been published have not yet achieved a consensus. Nonetheless the lengthy bibliography on this topic not only marks its significance but also the breadth of interests potentially, if not necessarily, encompassed by the somewhat misleadingly titled "era of iconoclasm" (literally, the destruction of images) in the eighth and ninth centuries and the iconomachy (contest over the images) that preoccupied the minds of theologians at that time.

The precise dates given by historians to the iconoclastic crisis are not fixed. Modern scholarship has dismissed the historical reality of the traditional opening moment, the destruction in 726 ce of Christ's icon on the Chalke Gate of the Great Palace in Constantinople. Instead, 730 ce, when Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741 ce) forced the resignation of Patriarch Germanos I (r. 715–730 ce), has now become the preferred opening moment of this debate. Given this, it remains possible to trace the origins of the crisis back to legislation enacted at the Quinisext Council held in Constantinople in 691/692 ce. This first phase of iconoclasm was brought to an end by the Seventh Ecumenical Council that met at Nicaea in 787 ce. Iconoclasm returned in 815 ce, when Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820 ce) encouraged the revival and refinement of the iconoclastic case made in the eighth century. This second phase is usually considered to have ended in 843 ce with the first celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Iconoclasm continued to be discussed, most notably in the writings of Patriarch Photios I (r. 858–867 and 877–886 ce) in the period leading up to and during the Eighth Ecumenical Council that met in Constantinople in 869–870 ce.

Prelude

Long cast as an atavistic reaction to the increasing popularity of images, the precise origins of Byzantine iconoclasm remain open to debate. The influence of Islam and Judaism as well as imperial adventurism, social and cultural crises, and military failure have all been cited as potential causes for the onset of iconoclasm. These have tended to downplay the internal theological questions that drove and continued to drive the terms of the debate within the Orthodox Church itself, as theologians grappled with the problem of finding an appropriate language to justify the incorporation of images and their veneration into legitimate Christian practice. This problem was raised by the eighty-second canon of the Quinisext Council, which declared that it was inappropriate for Christians to use symbolic representations of Christ (such as the Lamb of God) when the fact of Christ's incarnation made his corporeal representation a necessity.

First Phase

Knowledge of the earliest iconoclastic case against the images is scant. From the reports embedded in iconophile responses, it appears that the iconoclasts asserted the continuing value of Old Testament prohibitions on images, such as those found in the second commandment. In response, iconophile theologians argued that these prohibitions against idols and their worship were no longer valid for Christians, whose God, thanks to the incarnation, had become a historical being, whose acceptance of the spatial and temporal limits of a human body had made him visible and hence available for representation in icons. The primary advocates of this position were Patriarch Germanos I of Constantinople, whose views are known from three letters included in the documents of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and John of Damascus (c. 675–749 ce), whose three orations on the images remain an influential discussion of the role of images in Orthodox Christianity. The arguments proposed by Germanos and John are crucial in that they linked the fate of the icon to Christological thought, thus making the debate over the image continuous with the Christological debates of the preceding centuries.

Second Phase

The second phase of the iconoclastic era belongs to the early 750s ce. In preparation for an iconoclastic council to be held in 754 ce, Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) issued a series of Enquiries on the image question. These challenged the Christological case made by the first generation of iconophiles. Constantine deployed a Trinitarian conception of the image to show that the Christological defense of images was insufficient. In particular, he argued that the iconophiles had failed to account for how an icon could represent a divine being such as Christ without either dividing his dual natures or limiting his person. Constantine's position was largely endorsed by 338 bishops and other participants at the iconoclastic Hieria Council held at Chalcedon in 754 ce. The remaining years of Constantine's reign were marked by an intensified persecution of iconophile opponents to this conciliar decision. One further consequence of the council was that it reinforced papal opposition to what had come to be seen as an imperial policy of iconoclasm. This opposition to iconoclasm was expressed in the Lateran Council of 769 ce and in the numerous letters written by Pope Adrian I (r. 772–795) in regard to the Seventh Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea in 787 ce and the Council of Frankfurt in 794 ce. It is arguable that this opposition also contributed to the papal alliance with the emergent Carolingians that began in the 750s ce and that was to culminate with Charlemagne's coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 800 ce.

The second phase was brought to an end by the ecumenical council that brought together 350 delegates at Nicaea in 787 ce. This council was held under the auspices of Empress Irene (r. 797–802 ce) and her son Constantine VI (r. 780–797 ce) and came about with the strong support of Pope Adrian I. The council was shaped by Patriarch Tarasios I of Constantinople (r. 784–806 ce) and was a direct response to the iconoclastic council of 754 ce. The greater part of the discussion was devoted to the establishment of the continuing tradition of the icon in the life of the church. The enormous array of testimony gathered toward this end remains a primary witness to the early history of the icon. Having established that icons belonged within the traditions of the church, the council reiterated that the icon was essential for the commemoration of the reality of the incarnation and that this function made the icon worthy of veneration.

Third Phase

In 815 ce Emperor Leo V forced Patriarch Nikephoros I (r. 806–815) to resign. This emperor had sponsored a revival of the iconoclastic theology espoused during the reign of Constantine V. Under the auspices of a committee led by the monk John the Grammarian, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 837 ce, these ninth-century iconoclasts developed aspects of their iconoclastic predecessors' theology. This included an acceptance of the visual representation of holy persons, although these images were to be denied veneration and were also considered to be a lesser medium than verbal representations.

Resistance to this fresh outbreak was led by Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople and Theodore of Stoudios (759–826). Nikephoros wrote an extensive series of treatises against the unfolding iconoclastic theology, whereas Theodore's primary contribution lay in his three refutations of iconoclastic arguments. Both authors built upon the Christological defense of images. To this they added a rigorous use of Aristotelian logical terminology. This enabled them to clarify the language that framed the icon and to provide a precise description of iconic representation. Above all the icon was defined in relational terms as a likeness of the one depicted therein. An icon was thus understood to represent the formal, nonessential aspects of the visible properties of a historical subject. Furthermore, this relational model was also applied to the question of the veneration of icons. Iconophile theologians vigorously denied that the veneration of an image could lead to any confusion between the icon and its subject. Rather, they continued to build upon Basil of Caesarea's (c. 329–379 ce) fourth-century dictum that the honor addressed to an image was passed on to the person whose portrait was conveyed by that object. Following the death of Emperor Theophilus (r. 829–842 ce), Emperor Michael III (r. 842–867 ce) and Empress Theodora (r. 842–858 ce), guided by the eunuch Theoktistos, installed Methodius (c. 825–884 ce) as Patriarch of Constantinople (r. 843–847 ce) and removed the iconoclastic ban on the cult of images.

Aftermath

The years of debate that marked Byzantine iconoclasm confirmed the centrality of the icon for Orthodox Christians. Thereafter, the icon was deemed an exact and truthful eyewitness and confirmation of the reality of Christ's incarnation. The arguments presented by John of Damascus, Nikephoros of Constantinople, and Theodore of Stoudios continued to define the key issues concerning the place of art in Byzantine Christianity. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, first composed before 920 ce, summarized and memorialized the iconophile argument. When this text was read each year on the first Sunday of Lent to mark the Triumph of Orthodoxy, it both reiterated the iconophile defense of the icon and affirmed the centrality of the icon to the definition of orthodoxy. Furthermore the arguments of these iconophile fathers continued to be studied and invoked in Byzantine debates over the image that took place in the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. Later in the West their ideas were "rediscovered" by the Counter-Reformation theologians of the sixteenth century as they searched for models for a Catholic defense of images.

Indeed, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, and Pope John Paul II's Letter to Artists demonstrate the continuing value of Byzantine theology of the icon for Catholic theologians. Each of these texts shows that the ideas addressed during Byzantium's debates over the status of the icon remain fundamental to any discussion of Christian image making and image use.

Bibliography

Modern work on Byzantine iconoclasm has focused upon the production of good critical editions and sound translations of both key and neglected texts. New critical editions have helped clarify some key texts; for example, Saint Theodore of Studites, Theodori Studitae Epistulae, edited by Giorgios Fatouros (Berlin, 1992); Joseph A. Munitiz et al., eds. and trans., The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos and Related Texts (Camberley, U.K., 1997); Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicephori patriarchae Constantinopolitani Refutatio et eversio definitionis synodalis anni 815, edited by Jeffrey Featherstone (Turnhout, Belgium, 1997); Stephen the Deacon, La vie d'Étienne le Jeune: Par Étienne le Diacre, edited by Marie-France Auzépy (Aldershot, U.K., and Brookfield, Vt., 1997); Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios: By Ignatios the Deacon, edited by Stephanos Efthymiadis (Aldershot, U.K., and Brookfield, Vt., 1998).

New translations have also made crucial material more accessible; for example, Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Discours contre les Iconoclastes, translated by Marie-José Mondzain-Baudinet (Paris, 1989); Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History ad 284–813, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott (Oxford, U.K., 1997); Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints' Lives in Translation, edited by Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, D.C., 1998); and Andrew Louth, ed., Three Treatises on the Divine Images (Crestwood, N.Y., 2003). This work on the texts from this era has led to a more complex assessment of the use of the evidence that is available from this period. This enquiry is led by, among others, the work of Paul Speck, usefully introduced in his Understanding Byzantium: Studies in Byzantine Historical Sources (Aldershot, U.K., and Brookfield, Vt., 2003); and Marie-France Auzépy, including her Hagiographie et l'iconoclasme: Le cas de la Vie d'Étienne le Jeune (Aldershot, U.K., 1999).

Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, ca. 680–850: The Sources; An Annotated Survey (Aldershot, U.K., 2001), provides a useful survey of the material and verbal sources available for the study of Byzantine iconoclasm. For art-historical discussion see André Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin: Le dossier archéologique (Paris, 1984); and Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton, N.J., 2002). The papers collected in Anthony Bryer and Judith Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham, U.K., 1977), remain an important point of departure for the study of this topic. For an introduction to the theological issues see Kenneth Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (Leiden, Netherlands, 1996).