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 . • . • . 34 Epiphanius . • . 38 Clement of Alexandria .......•. 43 St. Augustine. ........ 46 Apologists of Images - The Neoplatonists .. 47 Plotinus . ... 47 Porphyry . 50 Proclus. 51 Iamblichus . 51 Maximus of Tyre and Dian of Prusa. 52 Emperor Julian . • . 53 Apologists of Images - The Early Chris·tians. 54 St. Basil ..•...........• 54 Leontius . 55 John Moschus - The Pratum Spirituale . 57 Gregory of Nyssa . • . 59 Pseudo Dionysus the Areopagi~e . 61 Intriguing Parallels in the Neoplatonist/ Christian Justification for the Veneration of Images .....•..•.. 62 III. A CENTRAL QUESTION: WHAT IS HOLY? ... 70 Iconoclastic Christological Dogma . 73 Leo III ....... 73 Constantine V ...•. 74 Christology During Iconoclasm's Second Phase . 78 Importance of Exogamous Influences on Iconoclasm. 79 The Paulicians 79 The Arabs .. 81 The Jews . • . 86 iv Chapter Page The Question of Monophysitism . • . 88 How Far East? . • . 93 The Iconodule Perspective . • . 96 John of Damascus . • . 96 Theodore the Studite . • . 99 The Patriarch Nicephorus . • . • . 104 Summary • . • . 107 IV. POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE ICONOCLAST CONTROVERSY. ...•.. 115 The Arab Menace . • . • . 115 Attempts to Consolidate the Empire. • . 119 The Problem of Monastic Influence . 121 Centrifugal Effects of the Holy Man and the Icon. • . • . • . 122 Demographic Crisis in Byzantium • . 131 Summary . • . 132 v. EMERGENCE OF THE ICONOCLAST CONTROVERSY .. 136 Leo III, the Syrian? ....•....... 139 The First Phase: A.D. 726/30 .•.•.•• 143 The Edict Against Images, A.D. 730 ..... 144 Reaction Within the Empire .......•. 145 Death of Leo III and the Accession of Constantine V . • . 146 Policies of Constantine V • . • . 147 Iconoclastic Council of A.D. 754. .•.• 148 The End of the Initial Phase ... 152 Summary of the Reigns of Leo III and Constantine V . • . • 152 Empress Irene and the Second Nicaean Council of A.D. 787 ........ 155 Tribulation Under the Iconodules .•. 165 VI. ICONOCLASM'S SECOND PHASE - A.D. 813-843 . 179 Renasence of Iconoclasm Under Leo V, the Armenian ......... 180 Iconoclast Council of A.D. 815. .. 180 Iconoclast Emperors of the Second Phase . 189 Final Triumph of the Iconodules, A.D. 843 . 201 The Two Phases of Iconoclasm - A Comparison ......... 203 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . 210 Iconoclasm Was Not an Anomaly • . 210 Iconoclasm as a Pivotal Event in Eastern Christendom . • . 211 Reasons for the Iconodule Triumph . • 212 The Nature of Eastern Christianity in the Wake of the Controversy . • • • • 212 v Chapter Page Overriding Importance of Theology . • • 213 Ramifications of the Iconophile Victory .. 215 Concluding Statement. .•. 217 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . 220 APPENDIX. • . • . 225 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY The writing of history is an obstacle course replete with pitfalls and barriers to confound the unwary and the unconscientious. These pitfalls and barriers range from blatant tendentiousness to alleged objectivity and "truth." Nowhere are these obstacles more real than in the study of Iconoclasm, that raging Christian controversy which ulti­ mately engulfed Byzantine civilization for more than a century. The problem confronting the historian seeking to inves­ tigate this controversy is three-tiered; on the one level, the chronological and philosophical remoteness of the period under consideration is staggering and, on the next, there is an agonizing paucity of hard information upon which to con­ struct a viable hypothesis. But the third level of our tri­ partite problem is, if anything, even more formidable and relates to the historical obstacle course alluded to earlier. This third part of the problem can be described as cultural/ philosophical myopia. Since the Renaissance, humanity has found itself in an increasingly secular world, divorced from the spirituality that characterized earlier times. Over the past three 1 2 centuries, man has been bombarded by a succession of philo­ sophical methods ranging from rationalism, to logical positivism to existentialism, as well as a plethora of lesser intellectual movements. Small wonder that when materialist historians think of God or metaphysics at all, they tend to castigate such abstractions as mere superstition. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why many contemporary scholars are so hard pressed to comprehend an age when one's relationship to God was of crucial importance, not something to be dismissed as irrational rodomontade. Confronted with a complex phenomenon such as Iconoclasm and dominated by a humanist mind-set, the modern historian tends to ascribe the rise of Iconoclasm to a variety of motivations: political, demographic, militaristic, caesaro­ papistic, etc. If religion is even mentioned it is in the context of extrinsic influences and not as something of over­ riding importance. It cannot be denied that the aforemen­ tioned reasons most often cited by historians do have their place. Man does not exist in a vacuum and, in a movement as intricate as Iconoclasm, many forces enter the picture, each playing parts in the drama. What can be said is that the primacy of religion has been neglected by modern historians. A brief historiographical essay will serve to put this fact in perspective. In an article entitled "The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople," Norman H. Baynes penned this perceptive observation: 3 Modern writers on Byzantium, convinced that religion is a sham, have all but banished it from their his­ tories, with allusions to superstition and/or fanaticism, and have thus falsified the picture. There can be no doubt that the Byzantines lived in a world in which religion could and did play a decisive role and this is a factor which any student ignores at his peril.l It would seem, then, that many historians have ignored Baynes' caveat. This is not true of Baynes himself, however. In a series of articles brought together under the title Byzantine Studies and other Essays, Baynes manifests profound insights concerning the nature of Iconoclasm. In an article entitled "The Icons before Iconoclasm," he traces the rise of the cult of icons, which began quite early in Christianity, and how this was resented by many who viewed such actions as renascent paganism. In a perceptive piece called "Idolatry and the Early Church," Baynes documents the influence of Neoplaton- ist thought upon early Christian thinking, especially Chris- tian views of images. The Neoplatonists strove assiduously to prove that the statues they venerated were not gods, and therefore idols, but images which prompted the worshipper to fix his mind upon the spiritual realm. Baynes demonstrates how, quite early, the Christians borrowed this idea intact and, with but few refinements, clung to it throughout the maelstrom of the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy. Baynes seems to be one of the few byzantinists of the older school to appreciate the importance of religion in the iconoclastic movement. The problem facing many historians seeking to come to grips with Iconoclasm is lack of perspective. Too often, 4 they see Iconoclasm as something akin to Athena emerging fully grown from the forehead of Zeus; in this case however, we have Iconoclasm in the place of Athena and Leo III in the place of Zeus. For too long, historians have viewed Icono­ clasm as being inextricably linked with the Isaurian dynasty whose members absorbed their Iconoclasm osmotically from their eastern habitat and loosed it upon the Christian world once they gained power in the eighth century. They refuse to see the movement as a continuum, stretching back to the dawn of Christianity, a movement that culminated in what is known as Byzantine Iconoclasm. This debunking of religion got a sizeable assist from Gibbon and his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but it is not necessary to go back that far. George Finlay, another