The Journal of Ecclesiastical History

http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH

Additional services for The Journal of Ecclesiastical

History:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy

Stephen Gero

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 28 / Issue 03 / July 1977, pp 241 ­ 248
DOI: 10.1017/S0022046900041439, Published online: 25 March 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022046900041439

How to cite this article:

Stephen Gero (1977). Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy. The Journal of
Ecclesiastical History, 28, pp 241­248 doi:10.1017/S0022046900041439

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH, IP address: 150.135.135.70 on 19 Dec 2012

Journal ofEcclesiastical History, Vol. iS, No. j , July 1977

Byzantine Iconodasm and

Monachomachy
by STEPHEN GERO
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University, U.S.A.

A ccording to the Byzantine sources, the reign of the iconoclastic

emperor Constantine v (741-775) was characterised by an attack
-on the very institution of monasticism, and the brunt of the
persecution directed against the 'orthodox' was borne by the monastic
order.1 This anti-rnonastic phase of iconoclasm has not passed unnoticed
in modern attempts to clarify the origins and motive forces of the
iconoclastic movement as a whole. The gamut of explanations ranges
from an extreme position which maintains that die iconoclastic move-
ment itself was merely a pretext for attacking parasitic monasteries and to
confiscate their land holdings,2 through more balanced views which claim
that the enthusiastic and determined propagation and defence of image-
worship by monks was an obstacle which had to be removed by breaking
the power of monasticism if the official iconoclastic policies were to be
effective,3 to a recent more sophisticated approach which claims to
recognise in both monasticism and icon-worship illegitimate, unlicen-
sed forms of spirituality, signs of separatist tendencies which die State
battling against Islam for survival could not afford to tolerate. 4 At any

1
Much of the pertinent material will be presented and discussed in greater detail in a
forthcoming monograph devoted to iconoclasm during the reign of Constantine v.
2
S. N. lorga, Etudes byzantines, ii, Bucharest, 1940, 233. See also K. N. Uspenskij, Oterki
vizantijskojistorii, Moscow 1917, 213. Cf. the critique of these theories by G. Ostrogorsky,
'Uber die vermeintliche Reformtatigkeit der Isaurier', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 30 (1930),
399-
3
A 'classical' statement of this view is found in K. Schwarzlose, Der Bilderstreit, Gotha
i8go, 251. See also J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes,
New York 1974, 51.
4
P. Brown, 'A Dark-Age crisis: aspects of the Iconoclastic controversy', The English
Historical Review, 346 (1973), 1-34- Brown's general approach is accepted, though slight
details are criticised, in P. Henry's article 'What was the Iconoclastic Controversy about?',
Church History, 45 (1976), 18—29. Cf. my own earlier comments on Brown's work in 'Notes
on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century', Byzantion, 44 (1974), 38-40.
241
 STEPHEN GERO

rate the importance of the role, primary or subsidiary, played by monks

in the turbulent iconoclastic era has been, in a general fashion,
recognised by modern scholarship. A close study of the evidence, the test
of which generalisations, such as those which have just been alluded to,
must pass, is, therefore, highly desirable.
First of all, despite occasional categorical statements to this effect1 there
is no certain evidence that Leo m singled out monks for persecution in
the iconoclastic campaign of the 720s and the 730s,2 The same holds for
the early part of Constantine's reign, and only one instance of what can
be called 'monastic' opposition 3 to Constantine's iconoclastic policies can
be pointed to in the period preceding the iconoclastic council of 754.
Though the voting members of the council were only the bishops, the
participation of monks, as in 787, is a priori not impossible, and one text
even points in this direction.4 According to one late source,5 leading
members of the monastic establishment as well as of the secular clergy,
were called upon to sign the decrees, and, primafacie, it is not improbable
that most of the monks did give their assent. There is, at any rate, no
evidence for monolithic monastic opposition to iconoclasm at this point.
The relationship of monks to the iconoclastic imperial authorities is all
too often seen only from the perspective provided by the picturesque and
detailed narrative of the Vita of Stephen the Younger—a valuable source,
but one which, as is well known, is frequently unreliable in matters of
chronology and detail. The Vita explicidy states that Constantine declared
war on the wearers of the 'idolatrous' monastic habit even prior to the
council of 754-6 The protagonist, Stephen, is presented as the foremost
champion of image-worship and the leader of the iconophile monks
already at this time; his eventual martyrdom is the result of his persistent
refusal to sign the decrees of die iconoclastic council, unswayed by
intellectual pressure, personal flattery, as well as more routine police
methods. According to the Vita, Stephen died for the cause of both
image-worship and monastic asceticism. In later, ninth and tenth century
Vitae of victims of Constantine the stereotyped image of iconophile

1
E.g. D. Savramis, 'Die Kirchenpolitik Kaiser Leons III', Sudostforschungen, 20 (1961),
15-18.
2
For evidence from one late chronicle, see my Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of
Leo III, with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, 346, Louvain, 1973), 97, n. 13.
5
Namely the ylpwv, an iconophile hermit who is the supposed spokesman in the Nov8eaia
edited by Melioranskij. Cf. H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen
Reich, Munich 1959, 487.
4
The horos of the second iconoclastic council, in 815, refers to the presence of both
'spiritual fathers' and 'God-loving bishops': ed. P.J. Alexander, 'The Iconoclastic Council
of Saint Sophia (815) and Its Definition [Horos)'', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (1959), 59,
extract no. 2.
5
Zonaras, ed. Bonn, iii, 274, lines 10—15.
6
Patrologia Graeca, 100, 1116D-1118A.
242
 BYZANTINE ICONOCLASM AND MONACHOMACHY

monk pitted against iconoclastic emperor is depicted in even starker

colours.1
But if one now turns back to the more reliable narrative sources for the
eighth century the evidence is much more ambiguous. First of all, no
anti-monastic persecutions are recorded by the chroniclers until the
decade of the 760s; then Theophanes notes the martyrdoms of Andrew
'the Calybite',2 Stephen,3 and Peter 'the Stylite'.4 What, to my mind, is
very significant, is mat no explicit link is made with the iconophile con-
victions, if any, of Andrew and Peter; the capital charge on which Stephen
was condemned, according to Nicephorus, was that the monk turned
aside many from the imperial service to embrace the ascetic life.5 To be
sure, an iconoclastic oath was imposed on the populace of Constantinople
after the execution of Stephen, but no causal connexion is made in the
sources nor should it be inferred with the (unmentioned) iconophile
activities of Stephen!
In Theophanes's detailed account of the persecution of monks by
Constantine's trusted lieutenant, Michael Lachanodracon, strategos of the
Thracesian theme,6 iconoclasm per se is not even explicitly mentioned. In
Nicephorus's description of the earlier persecution of monks which
culminated with the execution of Stephen, iconoclasm is noted only
parendietically; among the various humiliating and sadistic punish-
ments recorded the chronicler mentions that the heads of the pious were
pounded with (uheir own?) icons.7
Related evidence is found for laicisation of monasteries, particularly in
the capital; monastic establishments, deserted by their occupants, were
turned to secular use or (at least in part) destroyed. In none of die
instances which the sources record are we presented widi a clear
connexion with iconoclasm; in only one case, that of the secularisation of
the church of Saint Euphemia, can a connexion with an ulterior cause be
plausibly made, but that cause is the attack on relic-worship, not on
icons.8

1
Vita Pauti (Bibliothecahagiographicagraeca, no. 1471); Vita Andreae (op. cit., n o . 111).
2
Theophanis Chranographia, ed. C. de Boor, i, Leipzig 1883, 432, lines 16-21.
' O p . cit., 436, 26—437, ' 9 ! Nicephorus, Breviarium, ed. C. d e B o o r , Nicephori... opuscula
historica, Leipzig 1880, 72, lines 10-26.
4
Theophanes. ed. de Boor, 442, lines 18—22.
5
wf TTOXXOVZ, (ftaoiv, c^airara StSaoKwv B6£TJZ rijg irapovarrjg KdTatftpoveiv OIKUIV re Kal ovyyeveuxg
inepopav Kal ras fiao&eiovt avAaf AnooTpefaoBai Kal Trpdg TTjy \1a\rf\p1\ [itov p.€Tappv8p.i^ta6ai (ed. d e
Boor, 72, lines 15-18).
6
Ed. de Boor, 445, line 28—446, line 15.
7
KC<f>a\ag 8' aAAtui' TO If Upo Is mva£iv, hi off TWV ay'uuv TO CVTIOTW^OTO iKiyapaxro, SUSpavov Tralovreg
(ed. de Boor, 71, lines 18-20).
8
The convoluted idea recently put forth that monasteries were attacked qua 'sacred
space' which encroached on the 'Eusebian' claim of the empire to represent the kingd<3m
of God on earth (P. Henry, 'What was the Iconoclastic Controversy . . . ' , 28-29) is entirely
gratuitous. Buildings and grounds deserted by the flight or imprisonment of their
monastic denizens were simply put to productive use.
243
 STEPHEN GERO

The attack against monasticism, though it took place during their hero
Constantine's reign, and was spearheaded by the emperor himself, clearly
was not felt to be an asset by later iconoclasts, nor, seemingly, did it
achieve anydiing but limited and local successes during his own lifetime.
Leo iv already, we are told, appointed professed (iconoclastic?) monks to
episcopal positions1 and the numerous and vocal contingent of monks at
the council of 787 is eloquent witness to die failure of Constantine's
policies in mis respect.
In die ninth century, though, as is well known, one of the centres of
uncompromising resistance to iconoclasm was the great monastery of
Studios, and its abbot Theodore was an energetic, intelligent and
courageous leader of the iconophile party. The renewal of iconoclasm by
Leo v found allies as well as opponents among the monks. To go no
further, two of the three iconoclastic patriarchs in the ninth century,
namely Anthony of Sylaeum and John 'the Grammarian', were abbots
prior to elevation to higher dignities in the hierarchy of the secular
clergy.2 At the end of the reign of Nicephorus 1, a 'pseudo-hermit'
Nicholas and his adherents, we are told, preached against image-worship.3
A monastic soothsayer was instrumental in influencing Leo v to imitate
the iconoclastic policies of his 'Isaurian' predecessors.4 The reign of die
last iconoclastic emperor, Theophilus, is well remembered for the
sufferings of the two 'tattooed' brothers, Theophanes and Theodore,
monks from Palestine, and of die painter-monk Lazarus whose hands
were branded widi hot irons.5 But die final liquation of official icono-
clasm, just as its inception, carried out under imperial auspices, was duly
approved by representatives of the secular clergy, and it clearly did not
lead to the triumph of the monastic extremists of Studios.
One must conclude that die fashionable slogan 'iconomachy in action
is monachomachy' simply does not reflect the course of events as they are
recorded in, or can be tentatively and cautiously reconstructed from, the
sources. Perhaps some more general remarks are called for at diis point.
Attendon is sometimes drawn to monastic mysticism and icon-worship as
being two facets of meditative piety which at die least complement and
support each other. But by the same token one could also point to the
world-denying temper of die anchorite, a contempt for, or indifference
to, material props to worship which verges on a kind of dualism. That the
iconoclastic proponents of purely 'spiritual' worship could find support

tj>i\6f . . . roiv ^lova^oii' . . . fjLTjTporroXtTaT €K TUIV af$f$a&wv iv Tots' TTpwriarois dpovoiz

(Theophanes, ed. deBoor, 449, 14—17).
2
1 discuss the career ofJohn in detail in a forthcoming article, 'John the Grammarian,
the Last Iconoclastic Patriarch of Constantinople: The Man and the Legend', (to appear
in Bv£avTivd, Uppsala).
'Theophanes, ed. deBoor, 481, 33-482, 1.
4
Patrologia Graeca, 95, 369A-371A.
5
Theophanes Continuatus, ed. de Boor, 102.
244
 BYZANTINE ICONOCLASM AND MONACHOMACHY

among a rigorist segment of the monastic community makes eminently

good sense.1 John of Damascus was not necessarily articulating any sort
of monastic consensus with his hymns to hyle, so to speak! Moreover, one
should perhaps emphasise that die often-repeated statement that the
monasteries had a vested interest in die worship of icons, of which they
were the principal suppliers, simply cannot be documented for the period
in question. To be sure, we have the examples of a few monastic painters
in the early ninth century, and during die iconophile intermezzo of 787-
815 the monastic milieu was, perhaps, more favourable to a large-scale
iconophile restoration than the domain of public buildings.2 But for the
eighth century in particular there is no evidence mat the painting of icons
was die monopoly of a monastic guild, so to speak, or even diat moral
qualifications were required besides the necessary technical skills.3
What, men, was the reason for the attack on the monastic establish-
ment? The view diat Constantine wanted to gain access to the manpower
and economic resources immobilised by their connexion to monasticism,
though prima facie attractive, especially in view of later imperial attempts
to control the extent of monastic holdings and to limit the exemptions of
monastic property from imperial taxation, cannot be sustained. The
numbers of monks and the size of monastic property in eighm-
century Byzantium are simply unknown quantities. An instructive parallel
can be drawn with the roughly contemporary imperial persecution of
Buddhist monasticism and the destruction of Buddhist votive images in
China.4 In contrast to the Byzantine situation there is no doubt at all

1
It should be noted that the first large-scale ecclesiastical opposition to Christian image
worship seems to have arisen among otherwise quite orthodox Armenian monks; see
P. J. Alexander, 'An Ascetic Sect of Iconoclasts in Seventh Century Armenia', in Late
Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert M. Friend, Jr., ed. K. Weitzmann, Princeton
!955> 151-160.
2
See P. Speck, 'Ein Heiligenbilderzyklus im Studios-Kloster um das Jahr 8oo', Actes du
Xlf congre's international d'etudes byzantines, Ochride, 10—16 septembre 1961, Belgrade 1964,
iii, 340.
5
On this point an illuminating contrast can be seen with the chaste or at least conven-
tionally virtuous life prescribed in sixteenth century Russian canonical legislation:
Stoglav, ed. D. E. Kozanikov, St. Petersburg 1863, 150; Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres,
ed. E. Duchesne, Paris 1920, 133. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, 'Les decisions du "Stoglav" con-
cernant la peinture d'images et les principes de l'iconographie byzantine', in his Byzanz
unddie Welt derSlawen, Darmstadt 1974, 139.
4
The most recent discussion of this interesting episode in Chinese history is given by
P. Demieville, 'L'iconoclasme anti-bouddhique en Chine', in Melanges d'histoire des religions
ojferts a Henri-Charles Putsch, Paris 1974, 18-25. As this author remarks, the comparison
with Byzantine iconoclasm has a certain typological value (18). For the purposes of the
present discussion I would point to the emergence of an iconoclastic faction within the
Buddhist clergy itself, a faction which eventually gave rise to the Zen school (op. cit.,
23-24); this group corresponds to iconoclastic monks in Byzantium. A typological
comparison can also be made between the empress Irene and the fanatical iconophile
usurping empress Wu (690-705) who expressed her megalomania by erecting Buddha
statues of monstrous proportions (op. cit., 19—20).

245
 STEPHEN GERO

diat the decisive issues in China were economic and, to a lesser

extent, demographic.1 The State needed the manpower and the land
acquired over the centuries by the Buddhist monasteries—and in the
great proscription of 842-45 the appropriation was efficiendy carried
out. As far as the votive images in particular were concerned, those of
metal, both precious and non-precious, were melted down for minting
coins and similar purposes. However, statues of clay, wood, or stone were
left untouched.2 Constantine, to be sure, had monasteries and some
churches turned into barracks, factories, depots for military supplies, and
much of die real estate was doubtless apportioned among his adherents.
But one cannot prove that, as in China, the confiscation of monastic
property and the forcible secularisation of monks was the aim, rather dian
just a welcome by-product of the anti-monastic campaign. The actual
cause, I submit, is radier to be sought in the complex personality of
Constantine himself. This is not die place to rehearse all the various
rumours which circulated about Constantine's unconventional personal
life, in particular the charge, obliquely expressed for the most part, of
what we would call his bisexual propensities. The emperor's predilection
for the sports of the hippodrome and for lavish banquets, attendance at
which was compulsory even for clerical members of the imperial
entourage, can probably be accepted at face value. At any rate, I venture
to suggest mat Constantine may have regarded the council of 754 and die
apparent lack of resistance to carrying out its decrees as marking a
successful completion of the task which he inherited from his father, so to
speak. In succeeding decades his dunking turned, on the one hand,
towards a more radical evaluation of the system of the intercession of
saints, whereof image-worship was but a subordinate aspect, and, on the
other hand, to the eradication of the ascetic, monastic way oflife which
was diametrically opposed to his own, and which he seemingly came to
regard as fundamentally perverse. His attack on the monks found ready
helpers among the elite troops which were devoted to him—though it is
clearly just as fruitless to seek for die origin of die anti-monastic move-
ment, as for that of iconoclasm proper, among the army units of Asia
Minor.3 Of course, one would like to know more about die sectors of die

1
The Byzantinist can only blanche with envy at the precise statistics which have been
preserved in this affair; see K. Ch'en, 'The Economic Background of the Hui-Ch'ang
Suppression of Buddhism', Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 19 (1956), 67—101. To be sure,
of course, the elements of political intrigue and the emperor's Taoist religious fanaticism
were not lacking; see E. Reischauer, Ennin's Travels in T'ang China, New York 1955,
217-271.
2>
Text of the edict cited by Ch'en, op. cit., 68. In Byzantium the closest parallel of course
is the decision of the emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081—1118), which encountered much
opposition, to melt down church treasure for paying the wages of his mercenary troops.
On this affair see now A. A. Glavinas, 'H tnl 'Ake£Lov Koy.vr)voG (1081—1118) nepl Updjv
oKcvwv, Kziitf)\(.uiv, xaX oylwv (IKOVWV apis (1081—1091), Thessalonica 1972.
3
Cf. W. E. Kaegi, 'The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm', Byzantinoslavica, 28 (1966),
48-70, esp. 59.
246
 BYZANTINE ICONOCLASM AND MONACHOMACHY

Byzantine population from which Constantine drew his support. One can
at least speculate that the provincials transplanted by Constantine to the
capital after the plague of 746/47 and who, as a result, obtained economic
betterment and increased security formed such a constituency. The
iconoclastic emperors of the eighth century did apparently attempt, with
some success, to enlist 'popular' support for their policies.1 Though
Nicephorus does say that Constantine roused slaves against their masters,
to denounce, if need be, mese latter as image worshippers,2 to go further
and to view the anti-monastic measures as a kind of class war, wherein the
autocrats made a conscious alliance with the lower classes against an
aristocratic-monastic elite, is entirely unwarranted. Constantine was
seemingly goaded into adopting his radical stance by perceiving what he
deemed to be an insidious and baneful influence of the monastic element
even in his own entourage; the involvement of monks (or ex-monks),
such as Stephen and the patriarch Constantine, in plots to dethrone him
was probably a potent factor. But there is no evidence that he was
governed by any considerations which were more far-sighted than his
personal likes or dislikes, such as the need to arrest a population decline
or to replenish the imperial treasury for the benefit of the army. There is
no proof that the anti-monastic campaign was, any more than iconoclasm,
a conscious attempt to deprive die Church of its freedom and to impose
the power of the 'State' on all facets of human life.3 The speculation
linking monks and images by positing that the 'holy man' (an as-yet
inadequately defined category, to my mind) was an animate image, and
that images attracted the devotion lavished upon the holy man, though
attractive, lacks the necessary support from the sources. All that we can
say with assurance is that the attack on monasticisrh was Constanrine's
own private crusade; it died with him, and it must be carefully
distinguished from the iconoclastic movement proper. In closing I will
merely make a plea to refrain from premature theorising, and to devote
attention to die basic study and sifting of die sources, which is needed
before die various aspects of monasticism in the eighdi and ninth
centuries can be described in a coherent and cogent fashion.4 The
complex ecclesiastical and secular history of the iconoclastic period must
be understood in its own terms, and not forced into pre-conceived

1
Both Leo and Constantine conducted public propaganda meetings, paradoxically
called silentia: Theophanes, 40S, 32: 427, 20. Leo is accused of inciting persecution against
die well-born, and educated /xaXurra Se TOVS eiyeveiq. KOX Xoyui hia<f>avets: op. cit., 405, 10—11.
Nicephorus claims that Constantine drew much support from the army units he recruited
from the capital from shepherds and swineherds: Parisinus graecus 1250, fol. ig5 r .
2
oira>£ Se Kal hovXov^ TO is" otKei'ot? BetrrroraiS €Trav€<mj<r€t awcpyovs CTTI rtj rwv K€KTT][ICVWV et euae/Jets1
irvyxavov KarrjyopCa Kal TrpoSooia Troiou/xevor 6 e'fayurrof '• Par. gr. 1 2 5 0 , fol. 195 r .
'The thesis of G. B. Ladner, forcefully argued in his 'Origin and Significance of the
Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy', Mediaeval Studies, 2 (1940), 127-49.
4
A solid beginning in this direction has been made by D. Papachryssanthou, 'La vie
monastique dans les campagnes byzantines du VIII e au XI e siecle: Ermitages, groupes,
communautes', Byzantion, 43 (1973), 158-180.
247
 STEPHEN GERO

categories, whether these be proferred in the name of a progressivist

understanding of history or in that of a professedly more sensitive and
accurate 'inside' assessment of the essence of Orthodoxy.1
1
On the need for a more balanced reevaluation of the significance of iconoclasm see
the excellent comments of H.-G. Beck, 'Von der Fragwiirdigkeit der Ikone', Bayerische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-hislorische Klasse, Sitiungberichte,Jahrgang 1975, Heft
7, Munich 1975, esp. 13.

248