The Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Ninth Century, according to a Syriac

Source
Author(s): Stephen Gero
Source: Speculum , Jan., 1976, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), pp. 1-5
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of
America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2850997

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press and Medieval Academy of America are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Speculum

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL STUDIES

Vol. LI JANUARY 1976 No. 1

THE RESURGENCE OF BYZANTINE

ICONOCLASM IN THE NINTH CENTURY,
ACCORDING TO A SYRIAC SOURCE*

BY STEPHEN GERO

THE CHRONICLE of Michael the Syrian, a late twelfth-century Syriac historical

work,' is often adduced as providing potentially important evidence for the
monophysite sympathies of the iconoclastic emperor Constantine V (741-
775).2 The work does give valuable information about the first outbreaks of
iconoclasm under the caliph Yazld 11 (720-724) and the emperor Leo III
(717-741).3 But Michael also preserves a rather interesting narrative about
the second phase of Byzantine iconoclasm in the ninth century, during the
reign of Leo V (813-820), which has not yet been noted, to my knowledge,
in any modern "dossier" on the subject. A fresh translation of this text4 will
therefore be given here, followed by some comments.

* I would like to express here my gratitude to Professor Robert W. Thomson of Harvard

University for reading the manuscript, and in particular for several suggestions concerning the
correct translation of the Syriac text in question.
1 Ed. and tr. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d'Antioche (1166-
1199), 4 vols. (Paris, 1905). Chabot's translation is based on a single manuscript, which is
photographically reproduced in vol. 4. Cf. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn,
1922), pp. 298-300. The work is also extant 'in a 13th-century Armenialn epitome (ed.
Jerusalem, 1871; tr. V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand [Venice, 1868]), and in a literal
Arabic translation (unpublished; see G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, II.
[Vatican, 1947], 2:267).
2 See, e.g., G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau, 1929),
p. 27. I plan to discuss this question in detail in a forthcoming monograph on iconoclasm
during Constantine V.
3 The relevant passages are analyzed in my book Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo
III, wvith Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien
346, Subsidia 41 (Louvain, 1973), pp. 81-83 and 205-209.
4 Ed. Chabot, 4:520, inner column, lower part, and 4:521, inner column, top; tr. Chabot
3:70-72. It is noteworthy that neither the Armenian epitome of Michael's chronicle, nor the
Chronicon syriacum of Bar Hebraeus (13th cent.), which depends on Michael's material, includes
the particular episode analyzed in this paper; this is additional evidence in favor of the
hypothesis that both the Armenian epitome and Bar Hebraeus depend on a lost Syriac epitome
of Michael's tripartite work (see Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm, pp. 205-209).

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm

I was informed, the patriarch Dionysius says, by a wise man from the capital city
of the Romans, who had an understanding of the times of the four emperors,5 and
was acquainted in an accurate manner with the stories concerning them .6
When Leo came to the throne, and was told about the patriarch who was in
Constantinople, that he introduced7 the heresy of the wbrship of images,8 [the
emperor] set himself against him. That wretched man had said that it is rightO' that
the images of the saints be worshipped like the cross, because the cross is not
superior to images. And he acted so impiously that he did not distinguish between
the worship of the name of God and that of a man and [said] that if someone
suspended a cross around his neck, it was necessary that an image be suspended
together with it.
And while the emperor was struggling against the patriarch, another deception
befell the Romans. There was a great pillar in the imperial city, from past ages;
because of the immensity of its height no one was able to ascend to its top. And
there was an image of brass10 upon its top, and on its head there was a crown,
and it was called Augustus Caesar.1" The Romans told the story, through their
augurs,12 that if the crown comes to be tilted13 on the head of the statue,14 a plague
is destined for the city.
It happened at that time that the crown came to be tilted. And when, with
difficulty, a man was found who, by the cleverness of his skill,15 was prepared to go
up, the patriarch said to him: "Take these small images16 which I give you, and no
one knows, and when you have righted17 the crown, and you descend, show them
and say that they were found near the image." For he wanted to prove, by means
of this, that the worship of images was ancient among the Romans.18

5 I.e., Nicephorus I, Stauracius, Michael I, and Leo V.

6 The brief account of the reign and abdication of Michael I, which does not mention the
image question, is not translated here.
7 hadeth, which can also mean "innovated" or "renewed."
8 segdta dsalme; the expression can also simply stand for "idolatry," like the Hebrew 'abodah
zarah, literally "strange service."
9 Deleting the negation la from the MS reading la zadiq.
10 Vocalizing nUhsc as nhadsYd, "brass"; if vocalized as nehsd, "augury," the expression wou
mean "fortune-telling image." Cf. note 12. On "divinatory" statues in Constantinople see C.
Diehl, "De quelques croyances byzantines sur la fin du monde," Byzantinische Zeitschrzft 30
(1929/30), 192-6, and C. Mango, "Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder," Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 17 (1963), 59 ff.
11 Chabot identifies the image as the equestrian statue of Justinian on the Augustaion (2:71,
note 8); I think it is more likely that the famous bronze statue of Constantine the Great, which
specifically is said to have had a radiate crown, is meant. Cf. R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine:
Developpement urbaine et repertoire topographique, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1964), pp. 77-80. For a transla-
tion of the text from the Chronicon Paschale see C. Mango, Thte Art of the Byzantine Empire
312-1453 (Englewood Cliffs, 1972), p. 7. Of course there are other possibilities; see Janin,
Censtantinople, pp. 73 ff.
12 nahst
13mestlac, from sl' "to incline"; Chabot's translation renvers&, i.e., "knocked down," seems to me
to be too strong.
14 Correcting the w'andriyanta of the MS to d'andriyant.a On the loanwords 'a(n)driya(n)ta and
'estuna for "statue" and "pillar," Greek (avbpt&q) and Persian (stun) respectively, see A. Schall,
Studien itber griechische Fremdw6rter im Syrischen (Darmstadt, 1960), p. 35.
15 I.e., because he was a steeplejack.
16 The word used is salmuna, the diminutive of salmd, "image"; Chabot, with no apparent
justification, renders it as medaille.
1 7 tdres.

18 This sentence is perhaps an editorial interpolation by Michael.

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm 3

When he descended and showed the images, the emperor inquired if he indeed
found them near the Augustus. And when he replied that really19 and truly he
found them there, the emperor again asked if they were situated in the open or
were hidden in some covering. And when he said that they were in the open air,
the emperor gave the command and water was sprinkled on them. And im-
mediately the depictions20 were obliterated, but the tablets21 were in no way
dissolved. Then when the falsehood was revealed, and the man had confessed that
the patriarch had instructed him [to do this], Leo ordered the patriarch to be
exiled and Theodotus22 was installed in his place. And henceforth Leo acted
strongly and opposed the worshippers of images, and he killed and massacred
many of the chiefs of the Romans.

By way of comment, first of all it should be noted that Michael is copying

the story from the lost chronicle of the Jacobite patriarch Dionysius of
Tell-mahre,23 a work written in the first half of the ninth century, thus
contemporary with the second phase of Byzantine iconoclasm. The very
pro-iconoclastic tone of the story does not necessarily reflect Michael's own
sentiments; he relates also iconophile legends about monophysite saints.24 It
may, however, with much greater likelihood reflect iconoclastic sympathies
in ninth-century Syrian Christian circles.25
As Chabot has already pointed out,26 the unnamed patriarch must be
Nicephorus, the great champion of image-worship who was indeed exiled by
Leo V.27 The statement put into the mouth of the patriarch, namely that the
cross and images are entitled to equal worship concords with the decisions of

19 marnayith. Chabot does not translate this word.

20 Not the word salma, but surta is used here.
21 dafi; dafd is properly a board or tablet, but it can also refer to the leaves of a book. Chabot
translates the expression as "il ne resta rien sur lesfaces," apparently misreading dafe as d'afe "of
the face."
22 Theodotus I Melissenus, 815-821.
23 Cf. R. Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, Jakobitischer Patriarch von 81
handlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25, 2 (Leipzig, 1]960). See also Baumstark,
Geschichte, p. 275.
24 See Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm, p. 203, note 16. As a matter of related interest, there is an
eighth-century Syriac apology for images in a recently published text, The Disputation of Sergius
the Stylite against a Jew, ed. and tr. A. P. Hayman, C.S.C.O. 338-339 (Louvain, 1973), 339:48 ff.
(text); 339:47 ff. (trans.). It is not clear whether this work (which is not otherwise mentioned in
medieval Syriac literature) is of Melkite or monophysite origin. In any case, the iconophile
argument is very simple, mainly based on the instructional value of depicting scriptural narra-
tives, and is closely tied to the legitimacy of the worship of relics.
25 The attitude toward image worship of non-Chalcedonian oriental Christians was by no
means uniform, and deserves further investigation; cf., e.g., Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm, pp. 100,
180, and some observations in my article, "Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth
Century," Byzantion 44 (1974), 23-42.
26 3:71 , n. 5.
27 But this text and its connection to Nicephorus is not noted either in P. J. Alexander, The
Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire
(Oxford, 1958), pp. 125-135, or A. J. Visser, Nikephoros und der Bilderstreit (The Hague, 1952),
p. 67 ff. It is likewise absent from the recent monograph of P. O'Connell, The Ecclesiology of St
Nicephorus I (758-828), Patriarch of Constantinople: Pentarchy and Primacy (Rome, 1972), as well as
A. Grabar's older collection of art-historical sources (L'iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archologiqu
(Paris, 1957). The story is, however, summarized in J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm

the Second Council of Nicaea (787)28 and with Nicephorus' own declara-
tions.29 The further allegation that the patriarch drew no distinction be-
tween the worship proper to men and that due to. the Divinity is an over-
simplification, in malam partem, of the very subtle iconophile arguments about
the various modes of proskynesis.
The story of the pillar and the forged icons of course has no parallel in
the iconophile literature; it is unlikely that it has a historical kernel as such.
Nicephorus was cashiered simply because he refused to comply with the
emperor's policies.30 However, we may well have here an authentic piece of
the rather crude iconoclastic propaganda, carried by Byzantine agents to
Syria and finding ready reception there, which drastically simplified and
dramatized the issues, for popular consumption, involved in the image
controversy and the deposition of the patriarch.3' Some of the details are of
course rather improbable: is it reasonable that the icons should be painted
with water-colors rather than in one of the standard water-resistant
techniques? However, in itself the story is not any more absurd than some of
the iconophile legends which modern scholars have often accepted as his-
tory.32 One could speculate further that the story is a travesty of the finding
of the acheiropoietos image of Camuliana33 in a well, or of some other of the

Empire (London, 1912), p. 66, note 3, with a rather curious mistranslation of Chabot's "medail-
les" as "coins."
28Actio VII: opLo/LEV avv aKpL/ELa laT7 Kat puXEia aaAXai 1-z 7vt7 roO i-t
t,wO7LOV crravpov avawri%crtat 1aLs racpraE Kat aytas ELKoVaq (Mansi, Sacrorum Conc
Collectio, 13 [Florence, 1767], 377C).
29 E.g., Antirrheticus 3, PG 100:425C ff.
30 See Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus, p. 136.
31 There is a rather striking parallel to the text discussed in this paper in an Arabic account of
the tenth-century Melkite chronicler Eutychius of Alexandria, according to which the emperor
Theophilus espoused iconoclasm because a monstrous fraud perpetrated in connection with an
image of the Virgin came to his notice: a mechanical device was hidden behind the icon, which
made it appear that fresh milk was dripping from her breast (Eutychii patriarchae Alexandrini
Annales II, ed. L. Cheikho et al., C.S.C.O., Scriptores Arabici 7 (Louvain, 1909), pp. 63-64;
Arabic pagination). According to Eutychius, the Melkite patriarch of Egypt, Sophronius (a
somewhat shadowy figure) thereupon wrote in defense of image worship to the emperor and
was able to deflect him from his iconoclastic course. In the derivative account of the later
Jacobite chronicler al-Makin Sophronius disappears and it is the monophysite patriarch Cosmas
who comes to the defense of images (ed. Th. Erpenius, Historia Saracenica [Leiden, 1625], p.
152). Al-Makin's account is then taken over by the Muslim historian al-Maqrizi (ed. F. Wusten-
feld, Macrizi's Geschichte der Copten [Gottingen, 1843], p. 24 [Arabic pagination]). Of course it can
hardly be believed that a communication from any far-off Alexandrian patriarch would have
had much effect on Theophilus; but nevertheless these Arabic texts deserve to be taken into
consideration in a necessary re-examination of the dating, external attestation for, and the
problem of the two recensions of the so-called ad Theophilum (cf. H.-G. Beck, Kirche und
theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich [Munich, 1959], p. 496). At any rate it is, quite
that iconoclastic propaganda, just as its iconophile counterpart, did not disdain to have recourse
to the circulation of "popular" stories, histoires scandaleuses, quite devoid of any theological or
philosophical sophistication.
32 E.g., the story of the caliph Yazid and the Jewish magician who incited him to iconoclasm.
Cf. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm, pp. 189-198.
3 E. von Dobschutz, Christusbildr: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 40
ff., pp. 122* ff

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm 5

"water miracles" of icons.34 There may also be implicit polemic against

iconophile stories of the providential "rediscovery" of long hidden or forgot-
ten icons.35 At any rate the point of the story is clear -5image worship is not
an ancient custom, as its defenders try to show, but rather fraudulent
innovation, neoterismos. We have here an apparently genuine reflection of
Byzantine iconoclastic legend, with the emperor Leo V - a bete noire, one
should recall, of iconophile tradition - cast in the role of a Solomon
redivivus. Moreover, it is no accident that this narrative is preserved, as is
much other material, both legendary and factual, favorable to the icono-
clasts, in a piece of oriental Christian literature which was written and trans-
mitted in a milieu free from the pressure of "normative" Byzantine
iconophile bias and censorship.36

BROWN UNIVERSITY

34 E.g., Moschus, Pratum Spirituale 81 (PG 87:2940 BC).

35 Such as the miraculous inventio in Thessalonica of a Christ image supposedly painted at the
time of the pagan emperor Maximian. See C. Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, pp. 155-6, and
V. Grumel, "La mosaique du 'Dieu Saveur' au monastere du 'Latome' a Salonique," Echos
d'Orient 29 (1930), 157-75. Though it is possible, the hagiographical text does not enable one to
declare categorically, as Mango does, that the discovery of the icon is to be dated "in the reign
of Leo the Armenian . . . so as to confute the iconoclastic heresy" (p. 156); Grumel, with much
caution, is not willing to put it earlier than the end of the tenth century (op. cit., p. 171).
36 For other examples from Armenian, Georgian, Syriac and Arabic sources see my article
cited in note 25.

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.41 on Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:12:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms