DOCSLIB.ORG

Byzantine Iconoclasm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Byzantine Iconoclasm %rom &i'ipedia, the free encyclopedia The Byzantine Iconoclasm )*reek: Εἰκονομαχία, Eikonomachía) refers to t,o periods in the history of the Byzantine -mpire ,hen -mperors, bac'ed by imperially-appointed leaders and councils of the *reek /rthodox Church, imposed a ban on religious images or icons. The 0%irst Iconoclasm0, as it is sometimes called, lasted bet,een about 123 and 141, ,hen a change on the throne reversed the ban. The 05econd Iconoclasm0 ,as bet,een 4#6 and 467. Iconoclasm, *reek for 0image-brea'ing0, is the deliberate destruction ,ithin a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People ,ho engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person ,ho brea's or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, A simple cross: example of people ,ho revere or venerate religious images are iconoclast art in the Hagia derisively called 0iconolaters0 )εἰκονολάτραι+. (hey Irene Church in Istanbul. are normally 'nown as 0iconodules0 )εἰκονόδουλοι+, or 0iconophiles0 )εἰκονόφιλοι+. Iconoclasm may be carried out by people of a different religion, but is often the result of sectarian disputes bet,een factions of the same religion. In Christianity, iconoclasm has generally been motivated by an 0/ld.Covenant0 interpretation of the Ten Commandments, ,hich forbid the ma'ing and ,orshipping of 0graven images0, see also Biblical la, in Christianity. The t,o serious outbrea's of iconoclasm in the Byzantine -mpire during the 4th and !th centuries ,ere unusual in that the use of images ,as the main issue in the dispute, rather Byzantine Iconoclasm, Chludov than a by-product of ,ider concerns. salter, !th century."#$ As ,ith other doctrinal issues in the Byzantine period, the controversy ,as by no means restricted to the clergy, or to arguments from theology. (he continuing cultural confrontation ,ith, and military threat from, Islam probably had a bearing on the attitudes of both sides. Iconoclasm seems to have been supported by many from the -ast of the -mpire, and refugees from the provinces ta'en over by the 9uslims. It has been suggested that their strength in the army at the start of the period, and the growing influence of Bal'an forces in the army (generally considered to lac' strong iconoclast feelings+ over the period may have been important factors in both beginning and ending imperial support for iconoclasm. According to Arnold Toynbee, it is the prestige of Islamic military successes in the 1.4th centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians into evaluating and adopting the Islamic precept of the destruction of idolatric images."7$ Contents # Bac'ground 7 The first iconoclastic period: 123.141 2 The second iconoclastic period: 4#6.467 6 Issues in Byzantine Iconoclasm : 5ources ; <eferences and notes 1 Further reading 4 5ee also Background The use of images had probably been increasing in the years leading up to the outbrea' of iconoclasm. /ne notable change came in ;!:, ,hen =ustinian II put a full.faced image of Christ on the obverse of his gold coins. (he effect on iconoclast opinion is un'nown, but the change certainly caused Caliph Abd al.9ali' to brea' permanently ,ith his previous adoption of Byzantine coin types to start a purely Islamic coinage ,ith lettering only."2$ A letter by the patriarch *ermanus ,ritten before 17; to t,o Iconoclast bishops says that 0now ,hole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this matter0 but ,e have very little evidence as to the growth of the debate."6$ Theologically, the debate, as ,ith most in /rthodox theology at the time, revolved around the t,o natures of =esus. Iconoclasts believed that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of the 9essiah at the same time, but separately. Because an icon ,hich depicted =esus as purely physical ,ould be >estorianism, and one ,hich showed Him as both human and divine ,ould not be able to do so ,ithout confusing the t,o natures into one mixed nature, ,hich ,as 9onophysitism, all icons ,ere thus heretical. <eference ,as also made to the prohibitions on the ,orship of graven images in the 9osaic La,. Ho,ever, no detailed ,ritings setting out iconoclast arguments have survived@ ,e have only brief Auotations and references in the ,ritings of the iconodules. The first iconoclastic period: 730-787 5ometime bet,een 17;.123 the Byzantine -mperor ?eo III the Isaurian ordered the removal of an image of Christ prominently placed over the Chal'e *ate, the ceremonial entrance to the *reat Palace of Constantinople, and its replacement ,ith a cross. Fearing that they intended sacrilege, some of those ,ho ,ere assigned to the tas' ,ere murdered by a band of iconodules.":$ &ritings suggest that at least part of the reason for the removal may have been military reversals against the 9uslims and the eruption of the volcanic island of Thera,";$ ,hich Leo possibly vie,ed as evidence of the &rath of *od brought on by over-the-top image veneration in the Church."1$ Leo is said to have described mere image veneration as 0a craft of idolatry.0 He apparently forbade the veneration of religious images in a 123 edict, ,hich did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross. 0He sa, no need to consult the Church, and he appears to have been surprised by the depth of the popular opposition he encountered0."4$ *ermanus I of Constantinople, the iconodule Patriarch of Constantinople, either resigned or ,as deposed following the ban. 5urviving letters *ermanus ,rote at the time say little of theology. According to Patricia Barlin-Hayter, ,hat ,orried *ermanus ,as that the ban of icons ,ould prove that the Church had been in error for a long time and therefore play into the hands of =ews and 9uslims."!$ In the &est, Pope *regory III held t,o synods at <ome and condemned Leo's actions, and in response Leo confiscated papal estates in Calabria and 5icily, detaching them as ,ell as Illyricum from apal governance and placing them under the governance of the Patriarch of Constantinople"#3$. Curing this initial period, concern on both sides seems to have had little to do ,ith theology and more ,ith practical evidence and effects. Icon veneration ,as forbidden simply because Leo sa, it as a violation of the biblical commandment forbidding the manufacture and veneration of images. There ,as initially no church council, and no prominent patriarchs or bishops called for the removal or destruction of icons. In the process of destroying or obscuring images, ?eo 0confiscated valuable church plate, altar cloths, and reliquaries decorated with religious figures0,"4$ but took no severe action against the former patriarch or iconophile bishops. Leo died in 163, but his ban on icons ,as confirmed and established as dogma under his son Constantine D )16#.11:), ,ho summoned the Council of Hieria in 1:6 in ,hich some 223 to 263 bishops participated to endorse the iconoclast position. >o patriarchs or representatives of the five patriarchs ,ere present: Constantinople ,as vacant ,hile Antioch, =erusalem and Alexandria ,ere controlled by 5aracens. The iconoclast Council of Hieria ,as not the end of the matter, however. In this period complex theological arguments appeared, both for and against the use of icons. The monasteries ,ere strongholds of icon veneration, and an underground net,or' of iconodules ,as organized among mon's. =ohn of Camascus, a 5yrian mon' living outside of Byzantine territory, became the maEor opponent of iconoclasm through his theological ,ritings. In a response recalling the later rotestant <eformation, Constantine moved against the monasteries, had relics thrown into the sea, and stopped the invocation of saints. 9on's ,ere apparently forced to parade in the Hippodrome, each hand-in-hand ,ith a ,oman, in violation of their vows. In 1;: 5aint 5tephen the Founger ,as 'illed, apparently a martyr to the Icon of the 5eventh Iconodule cause. A number of large monasteries in -cumenical Council )#1th Constantinople ,ere secularised, and many mon's century, >ovodevichy Convent, fled to areas beyond effective imperial control on the 9osco,+. fringes of the -mpire."2$ Constantine's son, ?eo ID )11:.43+ ,as less rigorous, and for a time tried to mediate bet,een the factions. (owards the end of his life, however, Leo took severe measures against images and ,ould have banned his ,ife Irene, ,ho ,as reputed to venerate icons in secret. He died before achieving this, and Irene took power as regent for her son, Constantine DI )143.!1+. &ith Irene's ascension as regent, the first Iconoclastic Period came to an end. Irene initiated a new ecumenical council, ultimately called the 5econd Council of >icaea, ,hich first met in Constantinople in 14; but ,as disrupted by military units faithful to the iconoclast legacy. The council convened again at >icaea in 141 and reversed the decrees of the previous iconoclast council held at Constantinople and Hieria, and appropriated its title as 5eventh -cumenical Council. (hus there ,ere t,o councils called the 05eventh -cumenical Council,0 the first supporting iconoclasm, the second supporting icon veneration and negating the first. Gnli'e the iconoclast council, the iconodule council included papal representatives, and its decrees ,ere approved by the papacy. The -astern /rthodox Church considers it to be the last genuine ecumenical council. Icon veneration lasted through the reign of -mpress Irene's successor, >icephorus I (reigned 437.4##), and the t,o brief reigns after his. Byzantine iconoclasm also had consequences in &estern -urope.
Recommended publications
  • DONALD NICOL Donald Macgillivray Nicol 1923–2003

    DONALD NICOL Donald Macgillivray Nicol 1923–2003

    DONALD NICOL Donald MacGillivray Nicol 1923–2003 DONALD MACGILLIVRAY NICOL was born in Portsmouth on 4 February 1923, the son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister. He was always proud of his MacGillivray antecedents (on his mother’s side) and of his family’s connection with Culloden, the site of the Jacobite defeat in 1745, on whose correct pronunciation he would always insist. Despite attending school first in Sheffield and then in London, he retained a slight Scottish accent throughout his life. By the time he left St Paul’s School, already an able classical scholar, it was 1941; the rest of his education would have to wait until after the war. Donald’s letters, which he carefully preserved and ordered with the instinct of an archivist, provide details of the war years.1 In 1942, at the age of nineteen, he was teaching elementary maths, Latin and French to the junior forms at St-Anne’s-on-Sea, Lancashire. He commented to his father that he would be dismissed were it known that he was a conscientious objector. By November of that year he had entered a Friends’ Ambulance 1 The bulk of his letters are to his father (1942–6) and to his future wife (1949–50). Also preserved are the letters of his supervisor, Sir Steven Runciman, over a forty-year period. Other papers are his diaries, for a short period of time in 1944, his notebooks with drawings and plans of churches he studied in Epiros, and his account of his travels on Mount Athos. This material is now in the King’s College London Archives, by courtesy of the Nicol family.
  • BYZANTINE CAMEOS and the AESTHETICS of the ICON By

    BYZANTINE CAMEOS and the AESTHETICS of the ICON By

    BYZANTINE CAMEOS AND THE AESTHETICS OF THE ICON by James A. Magruder, III A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March 2014 © 2014 James A. Magruder, III All rights reserved Abstract Byzantine icons have attracted artists and art historians to what they saw as the flat style of large painted panels. They tend to understand this flatness as a repudiation of the Classical priority to represent Nature and an affirmation of otherworldly spirituality. However, many extant sacred portraits from the Byzantine period were executed in relief in precious materials, such as gemstones, ivory or gold. Byzantine writers describe contemporary icons as lifelike, sometimes even coming to life with divine power. The question is what Byzantine Christians hoped to represent by crafting small icons in precious materials, specifically cameos. The dissertation catalogs and analyzes Byzantine cameos from the end of Iconoclasm (843) until the fall of Constantinople (1453). They have not received comprehensive treatment before, but since they represent saints in iconic poses, they provide a good corpus of icons comparable to icons in other media. Their durability and the difficulty of reworking them also makes them a particularly faithful record of Byzantine priorities regarding the icon as a genre. In addition, the dissertation surveys theological texts that comment on or illustrate stone to understand what role the materiality of Byzantine cameos played in choosing stone relief for icons. Finally, it examines Byzantine epigrams written about or for icons to define the terms that shaped icon production.
  • Intertextuality and Symbolism in the Legend of Hagia Sophia Vencer A

    Intertextuality and Symbolism in the Legend of Hagia Sophia Vencer A

    Defeating Solomon: Intertextuality and Symbolism in the Legend of Hagia Sophia Vencer a Salomón: intertextualidad y simbolismo en la leyenda de Santa Sofía VICTORIA GERHOLD Summary 1. Introduction 2. The Emperor, the Angels and the Church 3. Hagia Sophia, the Final Temple 4. Conclusion Abstract: One of the main literary topics of the Byzantine legend of Hagia Sophia is the comparison between the church built by Emperor Justinian and the temple of Solomon. Previous studies have shown that this topic is elaborated through an intertextual connection between the legendary description of the construction of Hagia Sophia and the biblical description of the construction of the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kings 24: 1, 25; 3 Kings 5: 15-9: 25; 1 Paralipomena 21: 1-8: 16). In the present article, we will argue that the legend also presents intertextual connections with other biblical texts (such as Ezekiel) and even para- biblical texts (such as the Testament of Solomon). Keywords: Hagia Sophia; Solomon; legend; Testament of Solomon; Ezekiel Resumen: Uno de los principales temas literarios de la leyenda de Santa Sofía es la comparación entre esa iglesia (re)construida por el Emperador Justiniano y el templo de Salomón. Estudios previos han demostrado que la elaboración literaria de este tema estuvo basada en una relación intertextual entre la descripción legendaria de la construcción de Santa Sofía y la descripción bíblica la construcción del templo de Jerusalén (2 Reyes 24:1:25; 3 Reyes 5:15-9:25; 1 Paralipomena 21:1-8:16). En el presente trabajo propondremos que la leyenda presenta además conexiones intertextuales con otros textos bíblicos (como Ezequiel) e incluso para-bíblicos (como el Testamento de Salomón).
  • The Role of the Icon in Byzantine Piety by LENNART RYDEN

    The Role of the Icon in Byzantine Piety by LENNART RYDEN

    The Role of the Icon in Byzantine Piety By LENNART RYDEN In February 754, the bishops of the Byzantine Empire met in the imperial palace at Hiereia, a peninsula on the Asiatic side of the Sea of Marmora, not far from Chalcedon. The council had been convened by the Emperor Constantine V (741-75), who wanted the bishops to examine the scriptures and express their opinion on the "deceitful painting of likenesses, which draws away the human mind from the service which is sublime and befits the Divinity to the grovelling and material service of creatures"1. As the phrasing shows, the assembled bishops were not expected to discuss whether the making of icons2 was justified or not. The emperor had already examined this question and found that there was no such justification. The purpose of the council was rather to remove unorthodox elements from the emperor's argument, to give it a theological finish and to put it into a historical context. The proceedings lasted six months. In August a horos (definition) was approved, which may be summarized as follows3. In order to separate man from God, Lucifer made man worship the crea- ture rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. i,25). God, who wanted to save man, sent him the Law and the prophets. When man failed to return to his former state, God at last sent His own Son and Logos. Christ saved man from idolatry and taught him to worship in spirit and truth (cf. John iv ,24). The Christian apostles and teachers passed on the true faith to later generations.
  • Iconoclasm: a Christian Dilemma

    Iconoclasm: a Christian Dilemma

    ICONOCLASM: A CHRISTIAN DILEMMA - A BYZANTINE CONTROVERSY By STEPHEN CHARLES STEACY •• Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1969 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS December, 1978 ICONOCLASM: A CHRISTIAN DILEMMA - A BYZANTINE CONTROVERSY Thesis Approved: '. ~- Dean of the Graduate College 1019541 ii P~F~E This thesis is concerned with Iconoclasm, the religious upheaval which troubled the Byzantine conscience for over a century. There have been numerous theories adduced by his­ torians to account for this phenomenon. It is the purpose of this study to view the varying interpretations, analyze their shortcomings, and to put forth a different view of the controversy, one that more adequately expresses the deeply rooted religious nature of the movement, a movement not only of the eighth and ninth centuries but an idea which was nurtured in fertile soil of the Old Testament and Apostolic Christianity. The author wishes to express heartfelt appreciation to his thesis adviser, Dr. George Jewsbury, whose unflagging solicitude, support, and inspiration were instrumental in the preparation of this work. A note of thanks is given to Mrs. Karen Hoyer, whose typing expertise, in the final analysis, made the difference between success and failure. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 1 II. THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL COURSES OF THE CONTROVERSY. • • . • . • • . • . 13 Genesis of the Cult of Icons .•.• 13 The Scriptures as the Foundation of Iconoclasm. 26 Precursors of ·the Iconoclast Movement . 30 Origen . 31 Eusebius .
  • Farewell to Cyril A. Mango

    Farewell to Cyril A. Mango

    ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΗ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ / CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY S C I E N T I F I C S O C I E T Y F O R T H E S T U D Y O F B Y Z A N T I N E A N D P O S T - B Y Z A N T I N E A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D A R T , F O U N D E D I N 1 8 8 4 Farewell to Cyril A. Mango (1928-2021) It is with great sadness that the Christian Archaeological Society announces to its members and friends the loss, on the 8th of February 2021, of the eminent Byzantinist Cyril Alexander Mango, honorary member of the Society since 2013. Cyril Mango was born on the 14th of April 1928, in Constantinople the son of a Greek father and a Russian mother and grew up in the multicultural environment of this city. He completed his university studies in Scotland (Classical Studies, University of St. Andrews, 1949), and his postgraduate studies in France, where he defended his doctoral dissertation on Byzantine history in Paris (Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1953). He began his long and multifaceted career in the United States of America, first at the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Center, Harvard University, Washington DC (1955-1963 and 1968-1973), and then at the University of California, Berkeley (1960-1961). He continued his career in England, initially in London as the Koraes Professor of Modern Greek and Byzantine History, Language and Literature at King’s College, University of London (1963-1966) and later in Oxford as the Bywater and Sotheby’s Professor of Byzantine and Modern Greek at Oxford University (1973-1995).
  • 37 in Memoriam Ciril Mango.Indd

    37 in Memoriam Ciril Mango.Indd

    Ni{ i Vizantija XVIII IN MEMORIAM611 CYRIL MANGO (1928 – 2021) The celebrated Byzantinist Cyril Mango died on February 8, 2021. One of the greatest Byzantinists of the modern age, Mango was from a background of specific origin for his later expertise in Byzantine history. Descended on the paternal side from a Genoese family with ties to Chios with a father (Alexander Mango) who became a British citizen, and with Russian ancestry on his moth- er’s side (Ada Damanov), it was perhaps inevitable that he would grow up in the great imperial city of Constantinople/Istanbul. Born in Istanbul in 1928, he was brought up multi-lingual, speaking Greek to his father, Russian to his mother and French as a family. Equally he was comfortable in Turkish, Italian and 612 IN MEMORIAM Spanish, an array of languages that any Byzantinist can only dream of. A na- tive of Istanbul, Mango developed a great knowledge of the city’s churches and other monuments. Cyril Mango was educated at the University of St. Andrews, M.A. in 1949, and earned his doctorate in History from the University of Paris in 1953. He taught at King’s College London where he held the Chair of Koraes Professor of Modern Greek and Byzantine History, Language and Literature from 1963 to 1968, and was Bywater and Sotheby Professor of Byzantine and Modern Greek Language and Literature at the University of Oxford from 1973 to 1995. He was affiliated with Dumbarton Oaks, the Harvard Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington, D.C. At Dumbarton Oaks, Cyril Mango was a Junior Fellow (1951–1953), Fellow (1953–1954), and Research Associate (1954–1955) of Byzantine Studies, Instructor in Byzantine Archaeology (1955–1958), Lecturer in Byzantine Archaeology (1958–1962), Associate Professor of Byzantine Archaeology (1962–1963), Executive Editor of Dumbarton Oaks Publications (1958–1963), member of the Board of Scholars for Byzantine Studies (1967– 1972), and member of the research staff (1972–1973).
  • Ecumenical Councils Preparing for Next Week (Disciple 6–Eucharist 1)

    Ecumenical Councils Preparing for Next Week (Disciple 6–Eucharist 1)

    January St. Dominic’s RCIA Program Disciple The Church: 15 History & Teaching 4 Goal • Having switched the Disciple 4 & 5 weeks, we looks at an overview of the Sacraments last week (Disciple 5), and explored the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. These Sacraments are two of the three that initiate us into the Church community, and into Christ’s body and mission. This week we’ll continue to unpack the meaning of Church by looking broadly at its history one the last 2000 years. We’ll also explore it’s role as Teacher. How does the Church function in and through history? How does God walk with the Church through it all? Agenda • Welcome/Housekeeping (10) • Questions & Answers • Introduction to the Rosary (15) Discussion (15): • If the Church is The Body of Christ, what does this mean for Christ’s presence in the world through history and in the world today? • What do I admire about the Catholic Church’s activity in history? Does any part of the Church’s activity in history disturb or upset me? • How do I (might I) listen to what the Church has to say today? What is my approach/attitude to the Church as “Teacher”? • Presentation: The Church: History (35) • Break (10) • Presentation: The Church: Teaching & Belief (30) • Discussion (time permitting): • What is special to this moment in history? • What is the Good News of Christ & the Church that speaks to this moment in history? • How can the body of Christ proclaim & witness the Gospel and walk with others today? Housekeeping Notes • Rite of Acceptance: February 10th at the 11:30am and 5:30 Masses.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith Bithos, George P. How to cite: Bithos, George P. (2001) Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4239/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 METHODIOS I PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Churchman, Politician and Confessor for the Faith Submitted by George P. Bithos BS DDS University of Durham Department of Theology A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Orthodox Theology and Byzantine History 2001 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any form, including' Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately.
  • A Pagan Relic in Byzantine Imperial Acclamations?

    A Pagan Relic in Byzantine Imperial Acclamations?

    CHAPTER TWO PHTHONOS: A PAGAN RELIC IN BYZANTINE IMPERIAL ACCLAMATIONS? Martin Hinterberger The spoken word is of eminent importance for most rituals. Ritual speech normally is highly formulaic and symbolic, whereas in the context of cere- monies words unfold an even greater power than in everyday communi- cation. For the full understanding of rituals and of the mindset underlying them, therefore, the analysis of the words used is essential. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the semantic shift that words of special signi- ficance for certain imperial rituals underwent, and to analyse the meaning of the rituals concerned, which was also changed as a consequence. More specifically, I am going to examine closely the concept of phthonos, which occurs in several imperial acclamations in similar ceremonial contexts.1 This concept is crucial for the understanding of the ritual connected to it. As a starting point of my enquiry I have chosen the imperial acclamation at the iconoclastic Council of Hieria (an Asiatic suburb of Constantinople, close to Chalcedon), because, as far as I know, this is the latest occurrence of the word phthonos in the context of an imperial acclamation. Later in my chapter, though, I will refer to earlier acclamations, and finally I will discuss the meaning of phthonos in the fourth and fifth centuries in gene- ral. The investigation of the meaning of phthonos in the context of impe- rial acclamations will also demonstrate how Byzantine attitudes about dangerous supernatural powers threatening the emperor and the empire itself are reflected in imperial ceremonies. 1 On acclamations in general, see Ch.
  • Alice-Mary Talbot on the Kitzinger Years At

    Alice-Mary Talbot on the Kitzinger Years At

    THE KITZINGER YEARS AT DUMBARTON OAKS In his masterful obituary notice of Ernst Kitzinger written for publication in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), Henry Maguire wrote as follows: "More than any other person, he [Ernst Kitzinger] was responsible for creating at Dumbarton Oaks the world's foremost institution for the study of Byzantium." I want to take the opportunity of this colloquium in his memory to investigate somewhat further exactly what Kitzinger was able to accomplish during his many years at Dumbarton Oaks, especially during the eleven years that he served so ably as Director of Byzantine Studies. By the time Kitzinger first arrived at Dumbarton Oaks late in 1941, at the age of 28, he was well accustomed to the uncertain life of an émigré from Nazi Germany. Born in Munich in 1912, he was educated at the University of Munich, rapidly completing his doctoral studies in 1934 in one year's time, under pressure from the Nazi threat that Jewish students would no longer be awarded the doctorate. He departed from Germany almost immediately, making his way to London where he found employment of a modest sort in the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities at the British Museum. One result of his labors there was a small book entitled Early Medieval Art in the British Museum; first published in 1940 it attained great acclaim and was republished in subsequent editions and eventually a German translation. When Britain declared war on Germany, Kitzinger was declared an enemy alien, despite his refugee status, interned and evacuated to Australia. He spent nine months in a desert camp, putting his time to good use by studying Russian, until his release in 1941, when he received a 1 most welcome invitation to come to Dumbarton Oaks.
  • The Classical Crisis of Iconoclasm

    The Classical Crisis of Iconoclasm

    THE CLASSICAL CRISIS OF ICONOCLASM Edward G. Farrugia S.J. History is more interesting than fiction. This holds eminently true of the history of dogma, provided that this itself is not divorced from the human dimension taken as a whole. Ifmodern theology in the West has found the need of creating a political theology then this is due to the loss of the kind of communitarian theology which makes the core ofEastern theology, the theology of vision, which in turn harks back to the iconic consciousness of which we have already spoken. If Western theologians like John Baptist Metz have felt the need to remedy the situation, it is because the individual himself, and individual disciplines in a theology which has become increasingly more specialized and divided into new auxiliary disciplines in the wake of the Enlightenment, were suffocating for lack of vision of the whole. 1 But a good theology need undertake no such desperado measures. The history of dogma can also be presented, with fully critical means, as the history of the Church's discernment of spirits, and thus attain a synthesis between faith and history, without either collapsing the one reality into the other, or pitting the one against the other from the start. Of course, at a more specialized level, theology should attend to all the historical and technical intricacies of disputed issues, while keep living from the kind of simple unitive vision enabling the researcher not to lose track of the one reality.2 But theology as a whole must be aware of the consequences of its ideas.