Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975

203 Pages·1977·12.98 MB·English

by  Anthony Bryer

ICONOCLASM
Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies
University of Birmingham
March 1975
Edited by
ANTHONY BRYER and JUDITH HERRIN
Centre for Byzantine Studies
University of Birmingham
Centre for Byzantine Studies,
University of Birmingham
Printed by John Goodman & Sons (Printers) Ltd.
Birmingham 4
England
Published by Centre for Byzantine Studies
© Copyright The Editors
ISBN 0 7044 0226 2
1st Publication 1977
FOREWORD
These papers are substantially those presented at the University of Birmingham’s Ninth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, which was devoted to ‘Iconoclasm’. It was held on 22-24 March
1975 under the direction of Dr Neville Birdsall, Dr Anthony Bryer and Professor Cyril Mango.
These symposia are sponsored by the University of Birmingham Committee (now Centre) for
Byzantine Studies and Department of Extramural Studies.
This is the first spring symposium to be published. The coherence of the subject, the interest
aroused by the papers, as well as clear demand for a report on current work on Iconoclasm,
encouraged the new University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies to make these papers
its inaugural publication.
All but one of the sixteen contributions to the Symposium are presented here. Apart from inviting
historical and theological introductions from Professor Cyril Mango and Dr Leslie Barnard
respectively, there has been no attempt to make the volume comprehensive (though we have added
a chronology and anthology of texts in translation). This is obviously a partial survey of Iconoclasm.
Neither the papers nor the scholars represented claim to cover the entire field between them, and it
is only natural that their conclusions vary.
In order to offer the volume at a price which we trust will enable it to reach the readership it
deserves, the Centre has acted as its own publisher. We are grateful to Mr Tom Davis for designing
the volume and to John Goodman and Sons Ltd., Printers, for the care they have taken over an
unusual order. For additional editorial help we are most grateful to Dr Leslie Barnard and Dr
Robin Cormack. It is a pleasure to acknowledge Dr Philip Whitting’s unfailing encouragement and
practical help. Our principal thanks, however, must go to the 250 symposiasts from thirteen
countries who discussed Iconoclasm and, especially, to the contributors to this volume for preparing
their papers for publication.
ANTHONY BRYER JUDITH HERRIN

CONTENTS
Page
Foreword V
Illustrations viii
Abbreviations X
I CYRIL MANGO Historical Introduction 1
II LESLIE BARNARD The Theology of Images 7
III JUDITH HERRIN The Context of Iconoclast Reform 15
IV HÉLÈNE AHRWEILER The Geography of the Iconoclast World 21
V PETER LLEWELLYN The Roman Church on the Outbreak of
Iconoclasm 29
VI ROBIN CORMACK The Arts during the Age of Iconoclasm 35
VII OLEG GRABAR Islam and Iconoclasm 45
VIII SEBASTIAN BROCK Iconoclasm and the Monophysites 53
IX MARLIA MUNDELL Monophysite Church Decoration 59
X LESLIE BARNARD The Paulicians and Iconoclasm 75
ANTHONY BRYER Excursus on Mananalis, Samosata of
Armenia and Paulician Geography 83
XI ANN MOFFATT Schooling in the Iconoclast Centuries 85
XII ANTHONY CUTLER The Byzantine Psalter: Before and after
Iconoclasm 93
XIII ANN WHARTON EPSTEIN The ‘Iconoclast’ Churches of Cappadocia 103
XIV IHOR SEVÖENKO Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period 113
XV CYRIL MANGO The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the
Patriarch Photios 133
XVI PATRICIA KARLIN-HAYTER Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios 141
XVII ROBIN CORMACK Painting after Iconoclasm 147
XVIII DAVID FREEDBERG The Structure of Byzantine and European
Iconoclasm 165
Chronology 178
Anthology of Texts 180
Index 187
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued
XIII EPSTEIN Fig. 22. Vault of south nave, chapel of St. Basil, near Sinassos. 104
Fig. 23. West comer of south wall, chapel of St. Basil, near Sinassos. 104
Fig. 24. North wall, chapel of St. Stephen, near Cemil. 108
Fig. 25. Vault of south nave, chapel of Joachim and Anna, Kizil Çukur, near 109
Çavu§in. 109
Fig. 26. West comer of the vault, north nave, chapel of Joachim and Anna,
Kizil Çukur, near Çavu§in. 110
Fig. 27. Vault, chapel I, Balkan Deresi. Ill
XVII CORMACK Fig. 28. Apse mosaic in the church of the Koimesis, Nicaea. Photo:
Courtauld Institute. 148
Fig. 29. Fol. 51v, Chludov Psalter, State Historical Museum, Moscow,
illustrating the text: “Behold the man who made not God his
strength, but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strength­
ened himself in his wickedness.” Photo: D. Wright, Courtauld
Institute. 150
Fig. 30. Fol. 67r, Chludov Psalter, State Historical Museum, Moscow, illus­
trating the text: “They gave me also for my meat, and in my thirst,
they gave me vinegar to drink.” Photo: D. Wright, Courtauld
Institute. 152
Fig. 31. Apse Mosaic, St. Sophia, Istanbul. Photo: Courtauld Institute. 154
Fig- 32. Mosaic in the north-east bay of the Room over the south-west
Vestibule of St. Sophia, Istanbul. From left to right: Symeon
Zelotes, Germanos and Nikephoros. Photo: R. Cormack. 155
Fig. 33. Deesis mosaic above the door leading from the Room over the
south-west Vestibule into the west Gallery of St. Sophia, Istanbul.
Photo: Courtauld Institute. 156
Fig. 34. Reliquary Box from the Sancta Sanctorum, now in the Museo
Cristiano, Vatican. Lid: Crucifixion. Interior: Christ, Virgin,
Angels, Sts. Peter and Paul. Photo: Alinari. 158
Fig. 35. Reliquary Box from the Sancta Sanctorum. Underside of Lid:
St. John Chrysostom. Photo: Alinari. 159
Fig. 36. Vat. Reg. gr. I, the Bible of Leo the Patrikios. Picture g: The Ark
of the Covenant. 161
Hg- 37. Dome of St. Sophia, Salonica. Detail of the Ascension Mosaic.
Photo: R. Cormack, Courtauld Institute. 162
ABBREVIATIONS
Byzantinists traditionally disclaim consistency in transliteration. Although its principles may not be
immediately apparent, a single transliteration system has been imposed consistently on all contributions. The
“Style Guide for the Dumbarton Oaks Papers,” DOP, 26 (1972), 363-5, has been adopted.
In addition to the “Dumbarton Oaks List of Abbreviations,” DOP, 27 (1973), 329-339, the following are used
in this volume:
TEXTS
Cedrenus
Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope, Bonn ed. (ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols., CSHB [Bonn, 1838-9]).
Genesius
[Joseph] Genesius [Regruz], Bonn ed. (ed. C. Lachmann, CSHB [Bonn, 1834]).
Georgius Monachus
Georgius Monachus (Harmatolus), Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1904) = Bonn ed. (Georgii
Monachi Vitae Imperatorum Recentiorum, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB [Bonn, 1838], 761—924; see under Pseudo-
Symeon).
Nicephorus
Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880); Historia
syntomos (Brevarium), 1-77.
Scriptor incertus de Leone
Scriptor incertus de Leone Armenio, Bonn ed. (ed. I Bekker, CSHB [Bonn, 1842] in Leonis Grammatici
Chronographia, 335-362) = PG, 108 (1863), cois. 1009-1037.
Pseudo-Symeon
Symeon Magistri Annales, Bonn. ed. (ed. I. Bekker, CSHB [Bonn, 1838] in Theophanes Continuatus,
loannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, 601-760).
Synaxarium CP
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinipolitanae. Propylaeum ad ActaSS Novembris, ed. H. Delehaye (Brussels,
1902; reprinted Louvain, 1954).
Theophanes
Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883-5; reprinted Hildesheim, 1963).
Theophanes Continuatus
Theophanes Continuatus, [Chronographia], Bonn ed. (ed. I. Bekker, CSHB [Bonn, 1838], 3-481; see under
Pseudo-Symeon).
OTHER WORKS
Alexander, Nicephorus
P. J. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship
in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1958).
Alexander, “Sect”
P. J. Alexander, “An ascetic sect of Iconoclasts in seventh-century Armenia,” in Late Classical and
Medieval Studies in Honor of A. M. Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1954), 155-160.
Alexander, DOP, 7 (1953)
P. J. Alexander, “The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and its Definition (Horos)," DOP, 7
(1953), 35-66.
Anastos, “Leo Ill’s Edict”
M. V. Anastos, “Leo Ill’s Edict against the images in the year 726-7 and Italo-Byzantine Relations between
726 and 730,” in Polychordia. Festschrift F. Dölger, III (= ByzFor, [1968]), 5-41.
Anastos, “Ethical Theory”
M. V. Anastos, “The Ethical Theory of Images formulated by the Iconoclasts in 754 and 815,” DOP, 8
(1954), 151-160.
Anastos, “754”
M. V. Anastos, “The Argument for Iconoclasm as presented to the Iconoclastic Council of 754,” in Late
Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of A. M. Friend, Jnr. (Princeton, 1954), 177-188.
Barnard, Background
L. W. Barnard, The Graeco-Roman and Oriental Background of the Iconoclastic Controversy (= Byzantina
Neerlandica, 5) (Leiden, 1974).
Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur
H.-G. Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959).
ABBREVIATIONS Continued
Brown, EHR, 346 (1973)
P. Brown, “A Dark-Age Crisis: aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” EHR, 346 (1973), 1-34.
Dölger, Regesten
F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches (Corpus der Greichischen Urkunden des
Mittelalters und der Neueren Zeit), I (Munich-Berlin, 1924).
George, Saint-Eirene
W. S. George, The Church of Saint Eirene at Constantinople (Oxford, 1912).
Gero, Byzantion, 44 (1974)
S. Gero, “Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the eighth century,” Byzantion, 44 (1974), 23-42.
Gero, BZ, 68 (1975) .
S. Gero, “The eucharistie doctrine of the Byzantine Iconoclasts and its sources,” BZ, 68 (1975), 4-22.
Gero, Leo III
S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III. With particular attention to the Oriental Sources
(= Corpus Scriptorum Christ. Orient., 346, Subsidia, 41) (Louvain, 1973).
Gouillard, “Deux figures”
J. Gouillard, “Deux figures mal connues du second iconoclasme du IXe siècle,” Byzantion, 31 (1961), 371-
401.
Gouillard, “Synodikon”
J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon d’Orthodoxie: édition et commentaire,” TM, 2 (1967), 1-316.
Grabar, Iconoclasme
A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin. Dossier archéologique (Paris, 1957).
Grumel, Regestes
V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, I: Les Actes des Patriarches, II: 715-
1043 (Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses, 1936).
Hennephof, Textus
H. Hennephof, Textus byzantini ad Iconomachiam pertinentes in usum academicum (Leipzig, 1969).
Kitzinger, DOP, 8 (1954)
E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the age before Iconoclasm,” DOP, 8 (1954), 83-150.
Ladner, “Concept”
G. Ladner, “The Concept of Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,”
DOP, 7 (1953), 1-34.
Ladner, “Origin”
G. Ladner, “Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy, MedSt, 2 (1940), 127-149.
Lemerle, “Paulicians”
P. Lemerle, “L’histoire des Pauliciens d’Asie Mineure d’après les sources grecques,” TM, 5 (1973), 1-144.
Mango, Art
C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453. Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1972).
Mango, Brazen House
C. Mango, The Brazen House. A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople
(= Arkaeol. Kunst hist. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. IV, 4 [1959]) (Copenhagen, 1959).
Mango, Photius
C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass., 1958).
Mansi
J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence and Venice, 1759-98; reprinted
J. B. Martin and L. Petit, Paris, 1901-).
Martin, History
E. J. Martin, A History of the Iconoclast Controversy (London, 1930).
Millet, BCH, 34 (1910)
G. Millet, “Les iconoclastes et la croix, à propos d’une inscription de Cappadoce,” BCH, 34 (1910), 96-109.
Ostrogorsky, “Débuts”
G. Ostrogorsky, “Les débuts de la Quérelle des Images,” Mélanges C. Diehl, I (Paris, 1930), 235-253.
Ostrogorsky, Studien
G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des Byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau, 1929; reprinted
Amsterdam, 1964).
Schlumberger, Sigillographie
G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1884; reprinted Turin, 1963).
Stein, Bas Empire
E. Stein, Histoire du Bas Empire, 2 vols (Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, 1959, 1949).
I HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
CYRIL MANGO
THE ‘Age of Iconoclasm’ is a label applied to somewhat more than a century of Byzantine
history, namely from the first promulgation of an Iconoclastic policy as the official doctrine
of the State in (probably) 726 until its final condemnation in 843. Nearly all historians
concur in regarding this period as one of momentous transformation in the structure and ideology
of the Empire, although they often disagree among themselves concerning the precise nature of
this transformation. There can be little doubt, however, that the Age of Iconoclasm was in almost
every respect a dark age - an age marked by continuous, dogged fighting against external enemies;
an age that produced hardly any polite literature or art; in short, an age that does not readily
invite the historian’s imagination to linger within its bleak boundaries. And yet, hardly any other
period of Byzantine history has been the subject of so much scholarly attention.
The purpose of this introductory chapter is neither to relate everything that happened in the
Byzantine Empire between 726 and 843 nor to evaluate the various interpretations of Iconoclasm
that have been put forward by historians in the past hundred years or so; much less is it to trace
the beginnings of iconoclastic or anti-representational tendencies in the early Church and in
Judaism. All we propose to do - and, for the most part, we shall be following a well-trodden
path - is to provide a historical sketch of Byzantine ‘State Iconoclasm’ as a framework for the more
specialized contributions contained in this volume.
Our first witness will be Germanos, an aging eunuch of aristocratic lineage who occupied the
patriarchal throne of Constantinople from 715 until 730. His previous career had not been
marked by an unanswering devotion to the cause of Orthodox doctrine: when the Emperor
Philippikos Bardanes (711-13) decided to revive the Monothelete heresy and to rescind the
Sixth Ecumenical Council, Germanos, then bishop of Kyzikos, duly concurred. The spirit of
accommodation he showed at this juncture may have been a factor in his transfer to the see of
Constantinople, but once elevated to the highest ecclesiastical dignity, he seems to have acquired
a firmness of conviction that he had lacked before. Some time prior to 726 he reprimanded two
provincial bishops, Constantine of Nakoleia in Phyrgia (modern Seyitgazi) and Thomas of
Claudiopolis (modern Bolu) for taking a hostile stand against religious images. This issue appeared
to Germanos to be one of considerable gravity. The veneration of ‘hand-made’ objects had been
used, he says, as an argument against the Christian religion by pagans, Jew and Arabs - all of
them a pretty idolatrous lot. It was vital not to give a handle to the enemy. Considering the fact
that icons had for a long time been part of Christian life, their rejection would amount to an
admission that the Church had been in error - a precedent that would have the most disastrous
consequences. Germanos was worried that “now whole towns and multitudes of people are in
considerable agitation concerning this matter.” Among the arguments he used to castigate the
deviant bishops was the example of “our pious and Christ-loving emperors” (Leo III and his son
Constantine V, the latter crowned in 720) who had actually put up a religious painting in front of
the Imperial Palace.1
The statesmanlike arguments of Germanos proved of no avail. In the summer of 726 a
submarine eruption of tremendous violence occurred in the Aegean Sea between the islands of
Thera and Therasia. Leo III, who may have had previous contact with Constantine of Nakoleia
and Thomas of Claudiopolis (though this is not attested), interpreted this catastrophe as a
manifest sign of divine displeasure and came to the conclusion that the sin of which the Christians
were guilty was that of idolatry. Accordingly, he made it known that icons, i.e. portraits of
Christ and of the saints, should be removed and denied veneration. Perhaps in the same year he
sent a band of soldiers to take down the famous image of Christ that was displayed above the
main entrance of the Imperial Palace known as the Chalke (Bronze) Gate. Some good Christians
resisted this sacrilegious act and in the ensuing scuffle there were a few casualties - the first
victims of Iconoclasm.
1. PG, 98 col. 164 ff. The role of the Anatolian bishops has rightly been stressed by Ostrogorsky, “débuts,” 235 ff. but cf. p. 22 below.
For abbreviations, see p. x - xi.
1
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
It is not entirely clear if an Iconoclastic edict was issued in 726 and if it was, what form it took.2 3
In any case, Germanos remained in office for another four years.' Only when, in January 730,
the emperor convened a formal meeting (silention) to proclaim the new teaching, did the patriarch
refuse to co-operate. He laid down his episcopal insignia and retired to his private estate where,
undistrubed by the authorities, he lived on for another ten years or so.
It is virtually impossible to determine whether Leo III was principally responsible for the
introduction of Iconoclasm or whether he merely put into effect a reform which had widespread
popular support.4 Leo himself was a native of Germanikeia (Mara§) and must have grown up,
therefore, in a Syriac-speaking milieu not far from the Arab frontier. It is reasonable to assume
that his oriental background had some bearing upon his religious beliefs, but he was not a cultivated
man and his understanding of theology was probably quite rudimentary. Leo was a successful
military commander who had led a bold expedition into the Caucasus and was eventually promoted
to strategos of the Anatolic theme. At the time of the Arab invasion of Asia Minor in 716 he
played a somewhat ambiguous role which suggests a prior understanding between him and the
caliph.5 He might have turned traitor. Instead, he seized the imperial throne and threw all his
energies into fighting the enemy.
In the light of his career, Leo may be regarded as representing the views and interests of the
Byzantine army in Asia Minor, i.e. of men whose life was dominated by the conflict with the Arabs.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that the Arabs were uniformly successful since they first
overran Palestine in the 630’s. Their great onslaught against Byzantium was broken after the
failure of the five-year siege of Constantinople (674-78) and the irruption of the Mardaïtes into
the Lebanon. The caliph had to sue for peace on unfavourable terms and to pay an annual
tribute to the emperor. All of Christendom drew a sigh of relief, and there was in the Byzantine
Empire a feeling of widespread euphoria which marked not only the latter years of the reign of
Constantine IV, but also the first reign of Justinian II (685-95) who was thereby emboldened to
try his hand at daring adventures. But then chaos erupted: Justinian's increasingly irrational
behaviour led to his overthrow which was followed by twenty years of unstable government. In
706-07 the Arab advance into Asia Minor was resumed. The following year the general Maslama
defeated a Byzantine army at Amorion and appears to have pushed as far as the Black Sea and
the Propontis. In 711-12 Amaseia and Sebastia fell. And in 716 the Arabs mounted their second
great onslaught against Constantinople.6
It is, I believe, important to bear these developments in mind, for the problem to be resolved
is not why Iconoclasm arose at all (an undercurrent of hostility towards religious images having
been present for several centuries), but why it came to the surface at the time it did. Correct
observance of religious doctrine was, to the Byzantine mind, closely related to military and
political success. The plan of Divine Dispensation made allowance for occasional defeat of the
Christians at the hands of unbelievers. Such defeat was a retribution for sins committed or heretical
views held. But since the unbelievers existed only as instruments of correction and divine
punishment, their success could not be long-lasting. Indeed, after 678, it appeared at though the
Muslims, after performing the task laid upon them by the Almighty, had gone into decline. The
Christians had been chastened, the heretical Monophysites of Syria, Egypt and Armenia duly
punished. The true faith was confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-81), while the
Quinisext Council, held at Constantinople in 692, took special care to correct by means of
disciplinary canons whatever abuses existed within the body of the faithful. It may be recalled
that the latter Council encouraged the manufacture of icons of Christ while criticising the use of
symbolical representations. Truth had been made manifest and could now be apprehended in its
fulness.
But then came the second Arab offensive. What further sins of the Christians could have been
causing this renewed visitation? Constantinople, it is true was saved, but much of Asia Minor lay
at the invader’s mercy. In 723-24 Ikonion fell. In 727 the Arabs were besieging Nicaea, barely
sixty miles from the capital, and during this siege a curious incident is said to have taken place.
One of the defenders, an officer called Constantine, smashed an icon of the Virgin, and the city
2. For a defence of the 726 date see Anastos. ‘.‘Leo Ill’s Edict,” 5 ff.
3. The confusion in our sources concerning the date of the first Iconoclastic edict (726 or 730) may be due to a later attempt to erase the
memory of those four years that did not entirely redound to the credit of Germanos.
4. In his De haeresibus et synodis, PG, 98. col. 77. Germanos implies that the movement was initiated by a good deal of agitation on the
part of Constantine of Nakóleia and other members of the clergy whom he is unwilling to name.
5. This is clear from the very detailed story in Theophanes, 386 ff.
6. See E.W. Brooks, “The Arabs in Asia Minor . . JHS; 18 (1898), 192-93.
2