Deconstructions of the European Identity. the Permanence of Iconoclasm
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DIALOGUES OF CULTURE DECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN IDENTITY. THE PERMANENCE OF ICONOCLASM ILIE BĂDESCU THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIOLOGY OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY Seen as the clash between the culture of faith and the counter-culture of nihilism, inconoclasm is the attempt to deconstruct and rebuild the human identity on a faithless base. There is a difference between real iconoclasm, as a nihilist deconstructivism that engenders a faithless identity, and deconstructions that have emerged even within the Christian Church. Iconoclasm cannot be explained by economic, ethnic or political causes, for it has been always related to the spiritual organization of the world. Key words: iconoclasm, Christianity, identity, Europe, noology. FROM THE BYZANTINE ICONOCLASM TO THE BOLSHEVIK ICONOCLASM Beginning with the 8th century Byzantium was shattered by the iconoclast movement for a period of almost 300 years. Such a phenomenon appears to be much more than an historical event as long as it has been repeating many times throughout history. Historically it emerged as a front wave during the Byzantine Isaurian dynasty but such a phenomenon repeated almost cyclical reaching a new climax with Nazism and Bolshevik movements. Its root is the clash between the culture of faith and the “counter-culture” of nihilism, the spiritual sacral identity of the human being and the opposite nihilist forces aiming to deconstruct and rebuild human identity on a faithless basis. The clash between the culture of faith and the “counter-culture” of nihilism is the most representative example for the power of states of spirit, the affective fields, in history, within societies, nations, civilizations, formations like the empire, the Byzantine one in this case. We have to make a specification in order to avoid any possible confusion. Iconoclasm as a phenomenon and as notion only refers to nihilist deconstructivism and in no way to any deconstructions which emerged even within the Christian Church, which could not have pushed the reactions with respect to icons to the extent of making them the start of a culture of anti-Christ nihilism as happens with the real iconoclasm. Rom. Jour. Sociol., New series, nos 1–2, p. 3–19, Bucureşti, 2009 4 Ilie Bădescu 2 We will first of all notice that this phenomenon is propagated in the form of two front waves which clash against each other. Irrespective of the reason for the emergence of these huge affective fronts, it remains obvious that once they rise above the line of the horizon, they will influence everything, they will shatter the structure of the empire, they will cross cultures, nations and therefore individual and collective conscience, thus deconstructing and reconstructing, sinking or revealing from forgotten depths, forms and landscapes, in a word, covering history, time and space, for a relatively long period of time (in the Byzantine case for more than 300 years). Nothing from what is “historical” could explain the phenomenon, neither the interests, nor the ideologies, the state of institutions, because we do not have other examples in which materialist passions and interests, or ideologies led to such a deflagration. The phenomenon can be compared with the one in the 20th century when, from the two great invasions of paganism, Nazism and Bolshevism, the latter unleashed over the Church of Christ the same demolishing fury that reminds us of the iconoclastic one. However, Marxist Bolshevism cannot be explained by economic or political or ethnic causes either. In this case too, what happened was related to the noological (spiritual) organization of the world, to the spiritual systems thereof and in no case only to the economy or political systems. The characteristics of this conflict with the icons emerge precisely from Leon III’s attempts who, for several years tried to convince the two great bishops of the world, Pope Grigory II and Patriarch Germanos without accomplishing anything, but instead increasing the opposition of the fiercest defender of icons, St. John of Damascus. “In neo-Platonic sense, [he] sees the icon as a symbol and as a means, the icon of Christ is founded on the dogma of the Embodiment” (Bănescu, 2003, p. 125). When Leon III failed in his attempts and negotiations with the two religious leaders, he resorted to force. “He issued a decree for the destruction of all the icons of saints” (Ibidem). Seven years had passed since the moment when Yazid II had commanded (in 723 A.D.) that “in his empire all icons be removed from Christian churches” (Ibidem, p. 124). The iconoclast war has a fierceness which is only matched by the acts of Bolshevik commissioners. Going through the actions of Leon III, who kept alive the war against icons for 20 years and referring here to the acts of his son, Constantine V, we can retain the terribleness of iconoclasm. “Monks were persecuted, exiled, imprisoned and sometimes killed. It was then that Andrew Calybrit of Blachernae and Saint Stephen the Young, killed on the streets of Constantinople, perished. Monasteries were closed or laicized; the churches were distracted from their function. Writings supporting the icons were burnt. Icons were destroyed without mercy. ‘Those that were in mosaic were torn out, those that were painted were erased. Any form of beauty disappeared from the Church’. This is how the frescoes of the churches in Blachernae, which represented the scenes of 3 Deconstructions of the European Identity 5 the life of Jesus, were destroyed; this is how the frescoes and the mosaics that decorated the Patriarchic Palace and the numerous works of art of Christian art disappeared. The illuminated manuscripts were not spared either.” (Cf. Diehl, apud Bănescu, op. cit., p. 149) “Instead of religious scene, the churches were filled with ‘trees or birds or animals and especially with satanic horse races, hunting scenes, shows and hippodrome games’ ” (Cf. “Viaţa Sf. Ştefan cel Tânăr”). “In Blachernae, Constantine V ordered that instead of religious scenes and of scenes representing the Ecumenical Synod, the portrait of his favorite coachman be placed” (Bănescu, op. cit., p. 149). All these can only be compared with the neopagan Bolshevik iconoclasm, when the sacrilege and aggression against Christian imagology and Churches reached frightful proportions. The books of Christian philosophers throughout the East were burnt or archived and put under strict interdiction being forbidden for public. Libraries changed half of their book collections into large locked deposits. The forbidden collections appeared. Christian intellectuals were imprisoned, manuscripts were “cleaned” of any Christian and national theme, countless churches were destroyed or changed into communist museums, into stables. In 1947, the era of martyrs had begun in the countries of the former concentration camp and in Russia even as early as 1917, just like in the Byzantium of iconoclasm the era of martyrs “opened in 761 with the killing of the monk of Blachernae, Andrew Calybit. Then, on November 20th, 764 on the streets of Constantinople, Saint Stephen the Young was killed, after he had suffered all sorts of tortures. Brought from St. Auxentius and imprisoned he was dragged, from the order of the emperor, from the prison by a gang of men armed with clubs and killed by blows. In 765, Constantine V wanted to force all his subjects to swear against icons. A solemn gathering took place in Saint Sofia: Patriarch Constantine was the first to swear on the cross that he has condemned icons forever and such oath were asked throughout the empire.” (Ibidem, pp. 149-150) In a complete parallel with the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the Young we have, in the Romanian space, the martyrdom of Mircea Vulcănescu and Anton Golopenţia. The latter was taken out in the cold, water was poured on him and he was left to freeze until dead. Communist reeducation has a terrifying correspondent in the attempt at reeducation which was initiated by Constantine V against monks. “As the greatest resistance was that of the monks, Constantine V proceeded to his last violence against monasteries. Monks were subjected to the most trivial public insults; they were brought to the Hippodrome and forced to parade, each of them with a nun by the hand, in the booing of the crowd. In the same place, a few days earlier, eleven high statesmen had been executed, accused of plotting. Patriarch Constantine, having been denounced, was exiled in Princes’ Islands and then executed. The fury of the emperor also extended over the art monuments. 6 Ilie Bădescu 4 Numerous works of Christian arts were lost then. The Euphemia Church was turned into an arsenal and a stable.” (Ibidem, p. 150) In the provinces, the persecution was equally fierce. Everything seems to be a carbon copy in relation to the Bolshevik iconoclasm. We could say that the shadow of Byzantium was always this hypostatic iconoclasm which is stirred as a super- structure phenomenon and always has an anti-Christian and anti-church vector. The churchly organization of the world is the target of all iconoclasms and the hate of iconoclasts is always aimed at Jesus and Virgin Mary and the Saints and this fight aims at the axis of evangelic teaching, which is fulfilled through Jesus and in collaboration with the Saints. In fact, the punishment that fell on Constantine V and on his entire family was more than shattering in its mysterious meaning: “When Constantine V became ill with the terrible illness that killed him in a few days (September 14th, 775) and which did not spare his family, he seems to have been seized by remorse and, on his deathbed, Theophanes tells us, he was shouting and saying that he had been sent to the unextinguished fire while alive and asked the clericals to sing hymns to the Virgin whom he had so much offended.” (Ibidem) Iconoclasm and the dynasty of the Isaurians make up a sort of “Byzantine curse” which follows all those who, one way or another, repeat the heretic act of the Isaurians.