DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of the Iconoclast Controversy Upon the Byzantine Elect Nation Concept

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of the Iconoclast Controversy Upon the Byzantine Elect Nation Concept chapter 5 The Effect of the Iconoclast Controversy upon the Byzantine Elect Nation Concept The Iconoclast controversy was a multi-faced historical phenomenon, whose diverse aspects have been the subjects of a broad scholarly interest In this chapter I do not intend to present a detailed account of the Iconoclast period, to delve into the depths of the theological controversy, or to determine what was the true motive of Byzantine Iconoclasm. My aim is to use several sources and researches in order to examine the main implications of the Iconoclast controversy upon the Byzantines’ self-image as the Elect Nation, the successors of the biblical Israelites in that role. The Iconoclast Controversy and the Biblical Model The early phase of Iconoclasm, during the reign of Leo iii, was not character- ized by a highly elaborate theology, but by an adherence to a limited corpus of authoritative texts, mainly Mosaic Law, with particular emphasis upon the sec- ond commandment, Exodus 20:4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”. This tendency is discerned in Patriarch Germanos’ letters concerning the Iconoclastic views of two ecclesiastical officials. The first two letters discussed the Iconoclastic views of Constantine, bishop of Nakoleia, and date c. 726, while Germanos was still in office.1 The third letter was addressed to Thomas of Klau- dioupolis, and was written after Germanos had abdicated in 730.2 The theolog- 1 J.D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols. (Florence, 1759– 1793) (repr. J.B. Martin, Paris, 1901–1927; repr. Graz, 1960–1961), 13:100, a11–105, a3 (letter to John of Synnada, concerning the views of Constantine, Bishop of Nakoleia) and 13:105, b7–e11 (letter to Constantine of Nakoleia); see also Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. i, fasc. ii et iii., ed. V. Grumel, second edition—ed. J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1989. First editions of fascicules ii and iii—1936 and 1947 respectively), nos. 328, 329, pp. 5– 6; for the dating of the first two letters c. 726 see L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c.680–850: A History (Cambridge, 2011), p. 104. 2 Mansi, 13:108,a7–128, a12; see also Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. i, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004363830_006 78 chapter 5 ical Iconoclastic arguments which Germanos discussed and refuted show little more than an adherence to several ot citations.3 Those passages of Germanos’ letters which include a more elaborate discussion of the theology of images and its relation to Christological issues, are most likely interpolations made by the 787 Iconophile council scribes.4The same applies to the discussion of images in Pope Gregory ii’s letter to Germanos, dating circa 720, an interpolation which leaves the authentic parts of the letter with no real relevance to the history of Iconoclasm.5 Early Iconoclasm was therefore identified, both by its supporters as well as its opponents, with an adherence to ot literal reading and to Mosaic Law, as manifested clearly, among other sources, in the Ecloga’s proem.6 The Icono- philes’ response was based to a much lesser extent on ot discourse, although they did not fail to try and refute the Iconoclasts on their own ‘grounds’: their argumentation was based on such ot passages as the description of the Cherubim adorning the Tent of Witness, the narration of the building of king Solomon’s Temple or the temple in Ezekiel’s vision, and otherwise with an exegetical reading of the Scriptures contrasted to the Iconoclasts’ more literal one.7 At the same time, and as they sought both to differentiate themselves from the Iconoclasts and to broaden their theological basis, the Iconophiles tended to minimize their use of ot references and to rely on the nt, asserting fasc. ii et iii., ed. Grumel, second edition—ed. Darrouzès, no. 330, p. 6; Third letter written after Germanos had abdicated in 730: Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, p. 105. 3 Gero, Leo iii, p. 105; Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, pp. 122, 137. 4 Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, p. 96. 5 Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, pp. 90–94. 6 See discussion concerning the Ecloga and its relation to the enc, pp. 53–58. 7 For Iconophile arguments concerning ot passages, from the proceedings of the 787 church council, see A. Giakalis, Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Revised edition), (Leiden and Boston, 2005), pp. 31–32: Cherubim in the Tent of Witness (Exodus 25:18–22), Mansi, 13:4,de; King Solomon’s temple (3Kings 6:23), Mansi, 12:1063, de; Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 41:1, 17–21), Mansi, 13:5,b. Iconoclast literal reading of ot passages, from the Νουθεσία γέροντος περὶ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων, a description of an Iconophile-Iconoclast polemical dialogue, prior to 754: S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine v (Louvain, 1977), p. 32, n. 43, citing the Greek text from B.M. Melioranskiy, Georgiy Kipryanin I Ioann Ierusalimlyanin. Dva maloizvestnykh borca za Pravoslavie v. viii veke (St Petersburg, 1901), v–xxxix, p. xx. See also Gero, Constantine v, p. 36. Dating of the dialogue: Gero, Constantine v, p. 27. Iconophile exegetical reading: Giakalis, Images of the Divine, p. 118, n. 17 (Mansi 12:56,ab) and ibid., p. 123, n. 38 (Mansi 13:285,a)..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Iconoclasm
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Religious Politics of Emperors in the Ninth Century
    90 International Journal of Orthodox Theology 9:2 (2018) urn:nbn:de:0276-2018-2054 Marius Telea The Revival of Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Religious Politics of Emperors in the Ninth Century Abstract There appeared the idea that ninth century iconoclasm constituted a copy of the earlier one, actually a reiteration of the traditional theses of this heresy. More evident than in the eighth century, the second period of the controversy on icons revealed the political background of the iconoclast movement, the efforts of the imperial power to subject the Church to their interests, but also the obstinate Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marius resistance of the Church against these, Telea is Assoc. Professor of History and Spirituality especially against its intransigent of Byzantium at the Facul- wing. ty of Orthodox Theology The disastrous defeat on the of “December 1st 1918” Bulgarian front (Versinikia, June 813) University of Alba Iulia, of the Orthodox Emperor Michael I Romania. The Revival of Byzantine Iconoclasm and 91 the Religious Politics of Emperors in the Ninth Century Rhangabe prepared the way for the revival of iconoclasm, established with the reign of Leo V the Armenian. The most representative defenders and theologians of icons were, in this period, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople and Saint Theodore the Studite. Just like all the defenders of icons, they proved that the icon is the expression of the reality of the Incarnation of Christ, and its veneration is founded on the Christological teachings of the Church. Keywords iconoclasm, defenders, emperors, Church, worship 1 Introduction Once icon veneration was restored, after the Ecumenical Council in Nicea (787), peace did not settle in the Byzantine Church.
    [Show full text]
  • From Grave-Violation to Exaltation of the Relic
    Mirator 19:1 (2018) 4 Disturbing Bones: from Grave-Violation to Exaltation of the Relic ANTHONY JOHN LAPPIN n March 447, as the Western Roman Empire evaporated around him, Valentinian III (r. 425–55) Iattempted to reassert some form of order. Civil disturbance had opened the way to tomb rob- bing. He therefore invoked the long tradition of laws that sought to protect tombs and punish their violators, and thus expressed a traditional understanding of the role of tombs: as houses or dwelling-places of the manes, the shades of the dead (a remarkably pagan word for a Christian emperor). The emperor provides the following reasoning: the souls might well have ascended to be with their source and origin, but they still love the places where their bodies have been buried, and rejoice when honour is paid to them. Consequently, tomb-violators disturb the souls’ peace and do repugnant violence to their remains, thereby committing a crime which cannot be expiated, an act of barbarous cruelty, whereby the bodies of those who are deprived of daylight (through death) are exposed to the sky above.1 That a tomb should remain inviolate had been taken as a given throughout the classical, and a good part of the Christian, past up to that point. Indeed, most Christian practice towards the tombs of the dead was indistinguishable from that of their more traditionally religious neighbours. For those who could afford it, elaborate tombs: Valentinian mentions the labour and expense of bring- ing stone and precious metals to decorate the dwelling-places of the departed as a further argument that souls are aware of what happens to their bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Brubaker, Leslie. Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm; Boldrick, Stacy
    meanings of art in varied religious, political, inverting art-making and cultural contexts. Reviews by Anne McClanan, Portland State Brubaker’s short study aimed at non- University, USA specialists offers a lucid and engaging introduction to Byzantine iconoclasm, or “iconomachy,” as she terms it. I am eager to inventing byzantine use this book in my teaching because of the iconoclasm ways Brubaker overtly models the process of historical inquiry, educating students in Brubaker, Leslie. 2012 the ways historians critically analyze primary London: Bloomsbury Academic sources. In contrast with other scholars, such as Warren Treadgold, whose interpretations striking images of these same texts differ dramatically from those of Brubaker, who follows up on ideas iconoclasms past and initially proposed by Paul Speck, she tempers present the dramatic narrative of past studies of Byzantine iconoclasm, arguing that this Boldrick, Stacy, Brubaker, Leslie, and iconoclasm gained force through the gradual Clay, Richard (eds). 2013 expansion of the notion of “real presence,” Aldershot: Ashgate extended to the portraits of saints by the late seventh century, and that the theological thinking crafted in the eighth and ninth art under attack centuries both “justified and codified” this histories of british modification in practice rather than instigated the shift (Inventing, p. 110). In this way she iconoclasm returns iconoclasm to a deeper sense of Barber, Tabitha and Boldrick, Stacy context, so that the vilification of iconoclast figures such as Constantine V (who bore a (eds.) 2013 nickname likening him to dung) is dramatically London: Tate Publishing upturned. Much like in the longer work she published on the same topic in 2011 with the politics of John Haldon, she takes several side trips into the realm of material culture but these iconoclasm sections could be more integrated into the religion, violence and the main argument.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeless Grammar of Iconoclasm?1
    A Timeless Grammar of Iconoclasm?1 Review of: Kristine Kolrud and Marina Prusac (eds), Iconoclasm From Antiquity to Modernity, Farnham: Ashgate, 2014, 248 pages, 29 b&w illustrations, hardback, ISBN 978-1-4094-7033-5, £60.00 Lauren Dudley Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity is one of several recent contributions to scholarship on the subject of iconoclasm, deploying a particularly broad set of historical approaches that present ‘different perspectives on the understanding of the term in relation to various episodes of image destruction’.2 The volume provides case studies from Antiquity to the early modern era, but also considers in its penultimate chapter how twentieth-century examples might shape our understandings of earlier iconoclastic traditions. The volume explores diverse methodologies and historical periods in a similar manner to Iconoclasm: contested objects, contested terms (eds Stacy Boldrick and Richard Clay), Negating the Image, case studies in iconoclasm (eds Anne McClanan and Jeffrey Johnson), and more recently, Striking Images, Iconoclasms Past and Present (eds Stacy Boldrick, Leslie Brubaker and Richard Clay). Seemingly, the publication of Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity is the result of a conference held in 2009 at the University of Oslo. The editors, Kristine Kolrud – a research fellow in the History of Art at the Centre for Medieval Studies at Stockholm University, and Marina Prusac – an Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology, and Keeper of the Egypt and Antiquity Collections at the Museum of Cultural
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications
    Religious Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications Paul J. Alexander Speculum, Vol. 52, No. 2. (Apr., 1977), pp. 238-264. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-7134%28197704%2952%3A2%3C238%3ARPARIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Speculum is currently published by Medieval Academy of America. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/medacad.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Sat Nov 10 03:24:08 2007 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND RESISTANCE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE OF THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES: METHODS AND JUSTIFICATIONS* BY PAUL J.
    [Show full text]
  • Hatzopoulos-Document-2016
    A Diachronic Discussion of the Development of the Relationship Between Basileus and Patriarch in Byzantium The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hatzopoulos, Christos. 2016. A Diachronic Discussion of the Development of the Relationship Between Basileus and Patriarch in Byzantium. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797275 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA A Diachronic Discussion of the Development of the Relationship between Basileus and Patriarch in Byzantium Christos Hatzopoulos A Thesis in the Field of History for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University March 2016 i ii Abstract Historians have long wondered whether the relationship between the Basileus (temporal) and Patriarch (ecclesiastical) was a truly harmonious relationship as defined by Patriarch Photios in the ninth century in his Epanagoge during the Byzantine Empire’s long reign. This harmonious relationship, if there was one, was mired in conflict between the secular and ecclesiastical rulers in Byzantium. What were these conflicts, how were they worked out between them, and how do these conflicts affect our understanding of the existence of a symphony of powers? Was the Emperor also a priest? I hypothesize that the concept of a harmonious relationship between the Basileus and Patriarch was more honored in the breach than in the observance.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Chapter
    ChapterChapter 9 The Byzantine Empire and Russia (A.D. 330 – A.D. 1613) In small groups, find evidence to support the following thesis statements. 1. Justinian was an autocrat. 2. Women could attain positions of power and influence in the Byzantine Empire. 3. Religious differences divided Byzantine Christians from Roman Catholics. 4. The Byzantine empire preserved the achievements of earlier civilizations and influenced later civilizations. The Byzantine Empire and Russia After the fall of Rome, the Greco-Roman heritage survived in the Byzantine empire for 1000 years. Byzantine civilization shaped the developing cultures of Russia and Eastern Europe. Section 1 Growth of the Byzantine Power . The Byzantine empire centered around Constantinople, was the Roman Empire, not just the continuation of it in the East. The Byzantine empire served as a center of world trade and a buffer between Western Europe, and the Arab empire. Emperor Constantine rebuilt the city of Byzantium in A.D. 330, renaming it Constantinople. The city of Constantinople developed a uniquely Greek or Byzantine character as early as during the reign of Diocletian from 284 to 305. When Rome was seized by the Goths, the Byzantine empire continued as before, believing themselves to be the Roman Empire. Over the centuries Byzantium evolved into a very different civilization. Why was Constantinople so successful? . It was located in the center of a trade route from Africa to the Balkans and Europe to the East, making it Europe’s busiest marketplace. It was easily defensible, located on an isthmus, surrounded on three sides by water. Land and sea walls bolstered defenses.
    [Show full text]