Byzantine Iconoclasm

For other uses, see Iconoclasm.

Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εἰ ο ο α ία, Eikono-

Byzantine Iconoclasm, Chludov Psalter, 9th century.[1]

[icon] + -klastēs [breaker]), is the deliberate destruction

within a culture of the culture’s own religious icons and
other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or po-
litical motives. People who engage in or support icono-
clasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be
applied guratively to any person who breaks or disdains
A simple cross: example of iconoclast art in the Hagia Irene established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, peo-
Church in Istanbul. ple who revere or venerate religious images are derisively
called "iconolaters" (εἰ ο ο ά ρα ). They are normally
machía) refers to two periods in the history of the known as "iconodules" (εἰ ο όδο ο ), or “iconophiles”
Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or (εἰ ο ό ο ). These terms were, however, not a part
icons was opposed by religious and imperial authorities of the Byzantine debate over images. They have been
within the Eastern Church and the temporal imperial brought into common usage by modern historians (from
hierarchy. The “First Iconoclasm”, as it is sometimes the seventeenth century) and their application to Byzan-
called, lasted between about 726 and 787. The “Sec- tium increased considerably in the late twentieth century.
ond Iconoclasm” was between 814 and 842. Accord- The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery,
ing to the traditional view, Byzantine Iconoclasm consti- “iconomachy” means “struggle over images” or “image
tuted a ban on religious images by Emperor Leo III and struggle”.
continued under his successors. It was accompanied by Iconoclasm has generally been motivated theologically by
widespread destruction of images and persecution of sup-an Old Covenant interpretation of the Ten Command-
porters of the veneration of images. The Western church ments, which forbade the making and worshipping of
remained rmly in support of the use of images through- "graven images" (Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8, see
out the period, and the whole episode widened the grow- also Biblical law in Christianity). The two periods of
ing divergence between the Eastern and Western tradi- iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and
tions in what was still a uni ed church, as well as facilitat-
9th centuries made use of this theological theme in dis-
ing the reduction or removal of Byzantine political con-cussions over the propriety of images of holy gures, in-
trol over parts of Italy. cluding Christ, the Virgin (or Theotokos) and saints. It
Iconoclasm, Greek for “breaker of icons” (Medieval was a debate triggered by changes in Orthodox worship,
Greek eikonoklástēs, equivalent to Greek eikono- icono- which were themselves generated by the major social and

1
2 1 BACKGROUND

political upheavals of the seventh century for the Byzan- clear belief in the intercession of saints. This belief was
tine Empire. also in uenced by a concept of hierarchy of sanctity, with
Traditional explanations for Byzantine iconoclasm have the Trinity at its pinnacle, followed by the Virgin Mary,
sometimes focused on the importance of Islamic prohi- referred to in Greek as the Theotokos (“God-bearer”) or
bitions against images in uencing Byzantine thought. Ac- Meter Theou (“Mother of God”), the saints, living holy
cording to Arnold J. Toynbee,[2] for example, it was the men, women, and spiritual elders, followed by the rest of
prestige of Islamic military successes in the 7th and 8th humanity. Thus, in order to obtain blessings or divine
centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians to adopt favour, early Christians would often pray or ask an in-
termediary, such as the saints or the Theotokos, or living
the Islamic position of rejecting and destroying idolatrous
images. The role of women and monks in supporting fellow Christians believed to be holy, to intercede on their
behalf with Christ. A strong sacramentality and belief in
the veneration of images has also been asserted. Social
and class-based arguments have been put forward, such as the importance of physical presence also joined the be-
lief in intercession of saints with the use of relics and holy
that iconoclasm created political and economic divisions [4]
in Byzantine society; that it was generally supported by images (or icons) in early Christian practices.
the Eastern, poorer, non-Greek peoples of the Empire[3] Believers would, therefore, make pilgrimages to places
who had to constantly deal with Arab raids. On the other sancti ed by the physical presence of Christ or prominent
hand, the wealthier Greeks of Constantinople and also the saints and martyrs, such as the site of the Holy Sepul-
peoples of the Balkan and Italian provinces strongly op- chre in Jerusalem. Relics, or holy objects (rather than
posed Iconoclasm.[3] In recent decades in Greece, Icon- places) which were a part of the remains, or had come
oclasm has become a favorite topic of progressive and into contact with, Christ, the Virgin or a saint, were also
Marxist historians and social scientists, who consider it widely utilized in Christian practices at this time. Relics,
a form of medieval class struggle and have drawn inspi- a rmly embedded part of veneration by this period, pro-
ration from it. Re-evaluation of the written and material vided physical presence of the divine but were not in-
evidence relating to the period of Byzantine Iconoclasm nitely reproducible (an original relic was required), and
by scholars including John Haldon and Leslie Brubaker, still usually required believers to undertake pilgrimage or
has challenged many of the basic assumptions and factual have contact with somebody who had.
assertions of the traditional account. The use and abuse of images had greatly increased dur-
ing this period, and had generated a growing opposition
among many in the church, although the progress and ex-
1 Background tent of these views is now unclear. Images in the form
of mosaics and paintings were widely used in churches,
homes and other places such as over city gates, and had
since the reign of Justinian I been increasingly taking on
a spiritual signi cance of their own, and regarded at least
in the popular mind as capable of possessing capacities
in their own right, so that “the image acts or behaves as
the subject itself is expected to act or behave. It makes
known its wishes ... It enacts evangelical teachings, ...
When attacked it bleeds, ... [and] In some cases it de-
fends itself against in dels with physical force ...”.[5] Key
artefacts to blur this boundary emerged in c. 570 in the
form of miraculously created acheiropoieta or “images
not made by human hands”. These sacred images were
a form of contact relic, which additionally were taken to
prove divine approval of the use of icons. The two most
famous were the Mandylion of Edessa (where it still re-
mained) and the Image of Camuliana from Cappadocia,
by then in Constantinople. The latter was already re-
garded as a palladium that had won battles and saved
Constantinople from the Persian-Avar siege of 626, when
the Patriarch paraded it around the walls of the city.
Both were images of Christ, and at least in some versions
of their stories supposedly made when Christ pressed a
cloth to his face (compare with the later, western Veil
19th-century Italian painting, The Iconoclasts, by Domenico of Veronica and Turin shroud). In other versions of the
Morelli Mandylion’s story it joined a number of other images that
were believed to have been painted from the life in the
Christian worship by the sixth century had developed a
 3

New Testament period by Saint Luke or other human church. Theologically, one aspect of the debate, as with
painters, again demonstrating the support of Christ and most in Orthodox theology at the time, revolved around
the Virgin for icons, and the continuity of their use in the two natures of Jesus. Iconoclasts believed that icons
Christianity since its start. could not represent both the divine and the human na-
The events of the seventh century, which was a period of tures of the Messiah at the same time, but separately.
major crisis for the Byzantine Empire, formed a catalyst Because an icon which depicted Jesus as purely physical
for the expansion of the use of images of the holy and would be Nestorianism, and one which showed Him as
caused a dramatic shift in responses to them. Whether both human and divine would not be able to do so without
confusing the two natures into one mixed nature, which
the acheiropoieta were a symptom or cause, the late sixth
to eighth centuries witnessed the increasing thinning of was Monophysitism, all icons were thus heretical. Ref-
erence was also made to the prohibitions on the worship
the boundary between images not made by human hands,
and images made by human hands. Images of Christ, the of graven images in the Mosaic Law but the nature of
Biblical law in Christianity has always been in dispute.
Theotokos and saints increasingly came to be regarded,
as relics, contact relics and acheiropoieta already were, as However, no detailed writings setting out iconoclast ar-
guments have survived; we have only brief quotations and
points of access to the divine. By praying to an image
of a holy gure, the believer’s prayers were magni ed by references in the writings of the iconodules.
proximity to the holy. This change in practice seems to
have been a major and organic development in Ortho-
dox worship, which responded to the needs of believers 2 Sources
to have access to divine support during the insecurities
of the seventh century. It was not a change orchestrated
or controlled by the Church. The events which have tra-
ditionally been labelled 'Byzantine Iconoclasm' may be
seen as the e orts of the organised Church and the impe-
rial authorities to respond to these changes and to try to
reassert some institutional control over popular practice.
The rise of Islam in the seventh century had also caused
some consideration of the use of holy images. Early Is-
lamic belief stressed the impropriety of iconic represen-
tation. Earlier scholarship tried to link Byzantine Icon-
oclasm directly to Islam by arguing that Byzantine em-
perors saw the success of the early Caliphate and de- Argument about icons before the emperor, in the Skylitzis Chron-
cided that Byzantine use of images (as opposed to Islamic icle
aniconism) had angered God. This does not seem en-
tirely plausible however. The use of images had probably A thorough understanding of the Iconoclast period in
been increasing in the years leading up to the outbreak Byzantium is complicated by the fact that most of the sur-
of iconoclasm.[6] One notable change came in 695, when viving sources were written by the ultimate victors in the
controversy, the iconodules. It is thus di cult to obtain a
Justinian II put a full-faced image of Christ on the obverse
of his gold coins. The e ect on iconoclast opinion is un- complete, objective, balanced, and reliably accurate ac-
known, but the change certainly caused Caliph Abd al- count of events and various aspects of the controversy.[8]
Malik to break permanently with his previous adoption The period was marked by intensely polarized debate
of Byzantine coin types to start a purely Islamic coinage amongst at least the clergy, and both sides came to regard
with lettering only.[7] This appears more like two opposedthe position of the other as heresy, and accordingly made
camps asserting their positions (pro and anti images) thane orts to destroy the writings of the other side when they
one empire seeking to imitate the other. More striking is had the chance. Leo III is said to have ordered the de-
the fact that Islamic iconoclasm rejected any depictions struction of iconodule texts at the start of the controversy,
of living people or animals, not only religious images. and the records of the nal Second Council of Nicaea
By contrast, Byzantine iconomachy concerned itself only record that books with missing pages were reported and
produced to the council.[9] Many texts, including works
with the question of the holy presence (or lack thereof) of
images. Thus, although the rise of Islam may have cre- of hagiography and historical writing as well as sermons
ated an environment in which images were at the fore- and theological writings, were undoubtedly “improved”,
front of intellectual question and debate, Islamic icono- fabricated or backdated by partisans, and the di cult and
clasm does not seem to have had a direct causal role in highly technical scholarly process of attempting to assess
the development of the Byzantine image debate. the real authors and dates of many surviving texts remains
ongoing. Most iconoclastic texts are simply missing, in-
The goal of the iconoclasts was to restore the church to cluding a proper record of the council of 754, and the
the strict opposition to images in worship that they be- detail of iconoclastic arguments have mostly to be recon-
lieved characterized at the least some parts of the early structed with di culty from their vehement rebuttals by
4 3 THE FIRST ICONOCLAST PERIOD: 730–787

iconodules. Thera,[18] which Leo possibly viewed as evidence of the

Major historical sources for the period include the Wrath of God brought on by image veneration in the
[19]
chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor [10]
and the Church.
Patriarch Nikephoros,[11] both of whom were ardent icon- Leo is said to have described mere image veneration as
odules. Many historians have also drawn on hagiography, “a craft of idolatry.” He apparently forbade the vener-
most notably the Life of St. Stephen the Younger,[12] which ation of religious images in a 730 edict, which did not
includes a detailed, but highly biased, account of perse- apply to other forms of art, including the image of the
cutions during the reign of Constantine V. No account of emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross. “He saw
the period in question written by an iconoclast has been no need to consult the Church, and he appears to have
preserved, although certain saints’ lives do seem to pre- been surprised by the depth of the popular opposition
serve elements of the iconoclast worldview.[13] he encountered”.[20] Germanos I of Constantinople, the
Major theological sources include the writings of John of iconodule Patriarch of Constantinople, either resigned or
Damascus,[14] Theodore the Studite,[15] and the Patriarch was deposed following the ban. Surviving letters Ger-
Nikephoros, all of them iconodules. The theological ar- manos wrote at the time say little of theology. According
guments of the iconoclasts survive only in the form of to Patricia Karlin-Hayter, what worried Germanos was
selective quotations embedded in iconodule documents, that the ban of icons would prove that the Church had
most notably the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea been in error for a long time[21] and therefore play into the
and the Antirrhetics of Nikephoros. [16] hands of Jews and Muslims.

3 The first iconoclast period: 730–

787

The torture and martyrdom of the iconophile Bishop Euthymius Patriarch Germanos I of Constantinople with icons supported by
of Sardeis by the iconoclast Byzantine Emperor Michael II in 824, angels
in a 13th-century manuscript

This interpretation is now in doubt, and the debate and

An immediate precursor of the controversy seems to have
been a large submarine volcanic eruption in the sum-
mer of 726 in the Aegean Sea between the island of
Thera (modern Santorini) and Therasia, probably caus-
ing tsunamis and great loss of life. Many, probably in-
cluding Leo III, interpreted this as a judgement on the
Empire by God, and decided that use of images had been
the o ence.[17]
The classic account of the beginning of Byzantine Icon-
oclasm relates that sometime between 726 and 730 the
Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian ordered the re-
moval of an image of Christ, prominently placed over
the Chalke Gate, the ceremonial entrance to the Great
Palace of Constantinople, and its replacement with a
cross. Fearing that they intended sacrilege, some of
those who were assigned to the task were murdered by
a band of iconodules. Accounts of this event (written
signi cantly later) suggest that at least part of the reason
for the removal may have been military reversals against
the Muslims and the eruption of the volcanic island of
struggle may have initially begun in the provinces rather
than in the imperial court. Letters survive written by
the Patriarch Germanos in the 720s and 730s concern-
ing Constantine, the bishop of Nakoleia, and Thomas of
Klaudioupolis. In both sets of letters (the earlier ones
concerning Constantine, the later ones Thomas), Ger-
manos reiterates a pro-image position while lamenting
the behaviour of his subordinates in the church, who
apparently had both expressed reservations about image
worship. Germanos complains “now whole towns and
multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over
this matter”.[22] In both cases, e orts to persuade these
men of the propriety of image veneration had failed and
some steps had been taken to remove images from their
churches. Signi cantly, in these letters Germanos does
not threaten his subordinates if they fail to change their
behaviour, he does not seem to refer to a factional split
in the church, but rather to an ongoing issue of concern,
and Germanos refers to the Emperor Leo III, often pre-
sented as the original Iconoclast, as a friend of images.
3.1 Ecumenical councils 5

Germanos’ concerns are mainly that the actions of Con- imacy is disregarded by both Eastern and Western tradi-
stantine and Thomas should not confuse the laity. tions as no patriarchs or representatives of the ve patri-
At this stage in the debate there is no clear evidence for archs were present: Constantinople was vacant while An-
an imperial involvement in the debate, except that Ger- tioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were controlled by Mus-
manos says he believes that Leo III supports images, leav- lims, and Rome did not send a representative.
ing a question as to why Leo III has been presented as the
arch-iconoclast of Byzantine history. Almost all of the
evidence for the reign of Leo III is derived from textual
sources, the majority of which post-date his reign con-
siderably, most notably the Life by Stephen the Younger
and the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. These
important sources are ercely iconodule and are hostile to
the Emperor Constantine V (741-775). As Constantine’s
father, Leo also became a target. Leo’s actual views on
icon veneration remain obscure, but in any case may not
have in uenced the initial phase of the debate.
During this initial period, concern on both sides seems to
have had little to do with theology and more with prac-
tical evidence and e ects. There was initially no church
council, and no prominent patriarchs or bishops called for
the removal or destruction of icons. In the process of de-
stroying or obscuring images, Leo is said to have "confis-
cated valuable church plate, altar cloths, and reliquaries
decorated with religious figures",[20] but he took no severe
action against the former patriarch or iconophile bishops.
In the West, Pope Gregory III held two synods at Rome
and condemned Leo’s actions, and in response Leo con-
scated papal estates in Calabria and Sicily, detaching
them as well as Illyricum from Papal governance and
placing them under the governance of the Patriarch of An icon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century,
Constantinople.[23] Novodevichy Convent, Moscow).

The iconoclast Council of Hieria was not the end of the

3.1 Ecumenical councils
Leo died in 741, and his son and heir, Constantine V
(741–775), was personally committed to an anti-image
position. Despite his successes as an emperor, both mil-
itarily and culturally, this has caused Constantine to be
remembered unfavourably by a body of source material
which is preoccupied by his opposition to image venera-
tion. In 754 Constantine summoned the Council of Hieria
in which some 330 to 340 bishops participated and which
was the rst church council to concern itself primarily
with religious imagery. Constantine seems to have been
closely involved with the council and it endorsed an icon-
oclast position, with 338 assembled bishops declaring,
“the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed
the fundamental doctrine of our salvation--namely, the
Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy syn-
ods. . . . If anyone shall endeavour to represent
the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material
colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and
introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent
their virtues as living images in himself, etc. . . . let
him be anathema.” This Council claimed to be the le-
gitimate “Seventh Ecumenical Council”,[24] but its legit-
matter, however. In this period complex theological ar-
guments appeared, both for and against the use of icons.
Constantine himself wrote opposing the veneration of
images and John of Damascus, a Syrian monk living out-
side of Byzantine territory, became a major opponent
of iconoclasm through his theological writings.[25] It has
been suggested that monasteries became secret bastions
of icon-support but there is little evidence to support such
a factionalist argument. Certainly, some monks contin-
ued to support image veneration, but many others fol-
lowed church and imperial policy.
A possible reason for this interpretation is the desire in
some historiography on Byzantine Iconoclasm to see it as
a preface to the later Protestant Reformation in western
Europe, in which monastic establishments su ered dam-
age and persecution. The surviving sources also accuse
Constantine of moving against monasteries, having relics
thrown into the sea, and stopping the invocation of saints.
Monks were apparently forced to parade in the Hippo-
drome, each hand-in-hand with a woman, in violation of
their vows. In 765 St Stephen the Younger was killed,
apparently a martyr to the Iconodule cause. A number
of large monasteries in Constantinople were secularised,
and many monks ed to areas beyond e ective imperial
6 4 THE SECOND ICONOCLAST PERIOD: 814–842

control on the fringes of the Empire.[25] None of these ac-

cusations, however, stands up to scrutiny. They appear to
have been the product of later (post-843) writings, seek-
ing to vilify Constantine V and the Isaurian dynasty.
Constantine’s son, Leo IV (775–80) was less rigorous,
and for a time tried to mediate between the factions.
When he died, his wife Irene took power as regent for
her son, Constantine VI (780–97). Though icon venera-
tion does not seem to have been a major priority for the
regency government, Irene called an ecumenical council
a year after Leo’s death, which restored image veneration.
This may have been an e ort to secure closer and more
cordial relations between Constantinople and Rome.
Irene initiated a new ecumenical council, ultimately
called the Second Council of Nicaea, which rst met
in Constantinople in 786 but was disrupted by military
units faithful to the iconoclast legacy. The council con-
vened again at Nicaea in 787 and reversed the decrees
of the previous iconoclast council held at Constantino-
ple and Hieria, and appropriated its title as Seventh Ec-
umenical Council. Thus there were two councils called
the “Seventh Ecumenical Council,” the rst supporting
iconoclasm, the second supporting icon veneration. Late 14th-early 15th century icon illustrating the “Triumph of Or-
Unlike the iconoclast council, the iconodule council in- thodoxy” under the Byzantine empress Theodora over iconoclasm
cluded papal representatives, and its decrees were ap- in 843. (National Icon Collection 18, British Museum).
proved by the papacy. The Eastern Orthodox Church
considers it to be the last genuine ecumenical coun- ate images all died a natural death, remained
cil. Icon veneration lasted through the reign of Empress in power until they died, and were then laid to
Irene's successor, Nikephoros I (reigned 802–811), and rest with all honors in the imperial mausoleum
the two brief reigns after his. in the Church of the Holy Apostles.[28]

Leo next appointed a “commission” of monks “to look

4 The second iconoclast period: into the old books” and reach a decision on the vener-
814–842 ation of images. They soon discovered the acts of the
Iconoclastic Synod of 754.[29] A rst debate followed be-
tween Leo’s supporters and the clerics who continued to
Emperor Leo V the Armenian instituted a second period
advocate the veneration of icons, the latter group being
of Iconoclasm in 815, again possibly motivated by mili-
led by the Patriarch Nikephoros, which led to no reso-
tary failures seen as indicators of divine displeasure, and
lution. However, Leo had apparently become convinced
a desire to replicate the military success of Constantine
by this point of the correctness of the iconoclast position,
V. The Byzantines had su ered a series of humiliating
and had the icon of the Chalke gate, which Leo III is c-
defeats at the hands of the Bulgarian Khan Krum, in the
titiously claimed to have removed once before, replaced
course of which emperor Nikephoros I had been killed in
with a cross.[30] In 815 the revival of iconoclasm was ren-
battle and emperor Michael I Rangabe had been forced
dered o cial by a Synod held in the Hagia Sophia.
to abdicate.[26] In June 813, a month before the corona-
tion of Leo V, a group of soldiers broke into the imperialLeo was succeeded by Michael II, who in an 824 letter
mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles, opened to the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious lamented the
the sarcophagus of Constantine V, and implored him to appearance of image veneration in the church and such
return and save the empire.[27] practices as making icons baptismal godfathers to infants.
He con rmed the decrees of the Iconoclast Council of
Soon after his accession, Leo V began to discuss the pos-
754.
sibility of reviving iconoclasm with a variety of people,
including priests, monks, and members of the senate. He Michael was succeeded by his son, Theophilus.
is reported to have remarked to a group of advisors that Theophilus died leaving his wife Theodora regent for
his minor heir, Michael III. Like Irene 50 years before
all the emperors, who took up images and her, Theodora presided over the restoration of icon
venerated them, met their death either in re- veneration in 843, on the condition that Theophilus not
volt or in war; but those who did not vener- be condemned. Since that time the rst Sunday of Great
5.1 Iconoclast arguments
Lent has been celebrated in the Orthodox Church as the
feast of the "Triumph of Orthodoxy".
5 Arguments in the struggle over
icons
5.1 Iconoclast arguments
Nikephoros I of Constantinople upholding an icon and trampling
John VII of Constantinople. Chludov Psalter.
This page of the Iconodule Chludov Psalter, illustrates the line
“They gave me gall to eat; and when I was thirsty they gave me
vinegar to drink” with a picture of a soldier offering Christ vinegar
on a sponge attached to a pole. Below is a picture of the last
Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople, John VII rubbing out a
painting of Christ with a similar sponge attached to a pole. John
is caricatured, here as on other pages, with untidy straight hair
sticking out in all directions, which was meant to portray him as
wild and barbaric.
What accounts of iconoclast arguments remain are largely
found in quotations or summaries in iconodule writings.
It is thus di cult to reconstruct a balanced view of the
popularity or prevalence of iconoclast writings. The ma-
jor theological arguments, however, remain in evidence
because of the need in iconophile writings to record the
positions being refuted. Debate seems to have centred
on the validity of the depiction of Jesus, and the validity
of images of other gures followed on from this for both
sides. The main points of the iconoclast argument were:
1. Iconoclasm condemned the making of any lifeless
image (e.g. painting or statue) that was intended to
represent Jesus or one of the saints. The Epitome
7
of the De nition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum
held in 754 declared:
“Supported by the Holy Scriptures
and the Fathers, we declare unani-
mously, in the name of the Holy Trinity,
that there shall be rejected and removed
and cursed one of the Christian Church
every likeness which is made out of any
material and colour whatever by the evil
art of painters.... If anyone ventures to
represent the divine image ( αρα ήρ,
charaktēr) of the Word after the Incar-
nation with material colours, let him be
anathema! .... If anyone shall endeav-
our to represent the forms of the Saints
in lifeless pictures with material colours
which are of no value (for this notion is
vain and introduced by the devil), and
does not rather represent their virtues
as living images in himself, let him be
anathema!"
2. For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must
be an exact likeness of the prototype -of the same
substance- which they considered impossible, seeing
wood and paint as empty of spirit and life. Thus
for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) “icon”
of Jesus was the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of
Christ, according to Catholic doctrine.
3. Any true image of Jesus must be able to represent
both his divine nature (which is impossible because
it cannot be seen nor encompassed) and his human
8 5
nature (which is possible). But by making an icon
of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine na-
tures, since only the human can be depicted (sepa-
rating the natures was considered nestorianism), or
else confusing the human and divine natures, con-
sidering them one (union of the human and divine
natures was considered monophysitism).
4. Icon use for religious purposes was viewed as an in- if lled with divine energy and grace.” He includes in this
appropriate innovation in the Church, and a return latter category the ink in which the gospels were written
to pagan practice.
“Satan misled men, so that they
worshipped the creature instead of the
Creator. The Law of Moses and the
Prophets cooperated to remove this
ruin...But the previously mentioned
demiurge of evil...gradually brought
back idolatry under the appearance of
Christianity.”[31]
It was also seen as a departure from ancient church
tradition, of which there was a written record op-
posing religious images. The Spanish Synod of
Elvira (c. 305) had declared that “Pictures are not
to be placed in churches, so that they do not become
objects of worship and adoration”,[32] and some
decades later Eusebius of Caesaria may have writren
a letter to Constantia (Emperor Constantine’s sister)
saying “To depict purely the human form of Christ
before its transformation, on the other hand, is to
break the commandment of God and to fall into pa-
gan error";[33] Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis wrote
his letter 51 to John, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 394)
in which he recounted how he tore down an image
in a church and admonished the other bishop that
such images are “opposed . . . to our religion”,[34]
although the authenticity of this letter has also long
been disputed, and remains uncertain.[35] However,
as Christianity increasingly spread among gentiles
with traditions of religious images, and especially
after the conversion of Constantine (c. 312), the le-
galization of Christianity, and, later that century, the
establishment of Christianity as the state religion of
the Roman Empire, many new people came into the
new large public churches, which began to be deco-
rated with images that certainly drew in part on im-
perial and pagan imagery: “The representations of
Christ as the Almighty Lord on his judgment throne
owed something to pictures of Zeus. Portraits of
the Mother of God were not wholly independent of
a pagan past of venerated mother-goddesses. In the
popular mind the saints had come to ll a role that
had been played by heroes and deities.”[36]
5.2 Iconodule arguments
The chief theological opponents of iconoclasm were the
monks Mansur (John of Damascus), who, living in Mus-
ARGUMENTS IN THE STRUGGLE OVER ICONS
lim territory as advisor to the Caliph of Damascus, was
far enough away from the Byzantine emperor to evade ret-
ribution, and Theodore the Studite, abbot of the Stoudios
monastery in Constantinople.
John declared that he did not worship matter, “but rather
the creator of matter.” He also declared, “But I also ven-
erate the matter through which salvation came to me, as
as well as the paint of images, the wood of the Cross,
and the body and blood of Jesus. This distinction be-
tween worship and veneration is key in the arguments of
the iconodules.
The iconodule response to iconoclasm included:
1. Assertion that the biblical commandment forbid-
ding images of God had been superseded by the
incarnation of Jesus, who, being the second per-
son of the Trinity, is God incarnate in visible mat-
ter. Therefore, they were not depicting the invisible
God, but God as He appeared in the esh. They were
able to adduce the issue of the incarnation in their
favour, whereas the iconoclasts had used the issue
of the incarnation against them. They also pointed
to other Old testament evidence: God instructed
Moses to make two golden statues of cherubim on
the lid of the Ark of the Covenant according to
Exodus 25:18–22, and God also told Moses to em-
broider the curtain which separated the Holy of
Holies in the Tabernacle tent with cherubim Exodus
26:31. Moses was also instructed by God to em-
broider the walls and roofs of the Tabernacle tent
with gures of cherubim angels according to Exodus
26:1.
2. Further, in their view idols depicted persons with-
out substance or reality while icons depicted real
persons. Essentially the argument was “all religious
images not of our faith are idols; all images of our
faith are icons to be venerated.” This was consid-
ered comparable to the Old Testament practice of
only o ering burnt sacri ces to God, and not to any
other gods.
3. Regarding the written tradition opposing the making
and veneration of images, they asserted that icons
were part of unrecorded oral tradition (parádosis,
sanctioned in Orthodoxy as authoritative in doctrine
by reference to Basil the Great, etc.), and pointed to
patristic writings approving of icons, such as those
of Asterius of Amasia, who was quoted twice in
the record of the Second Council of Nicaea. What
would have been useful evidence from modern art
history as to the use of images in Early Christian art
was unavailable to iconodules at the time.
4. Much was made of acheiropoieta, icons believed to
be of divine origin, and miracles associated with
 9

icons. Both Christ and the Theotokos were believed almost unique survival, but careful inspection of some
in strong traditions to have sat on di erent occasions other buildings reveals similar changes. In Nicaea, pho-
for their portraits to be painted. tographs of the Church of the Dormition, taken before
it was destroyed in 1922, show that a pre-iconoclasm
5. Iconodules further argued that decisions such as standing Theotokos was replaced by a large cross, which
whether icons ought to be venerated were properly was itself replaced by the new Theotokos seen in the
made by the church assembled in council, not im- photographs.[37] The Image of Camuliana in Constantino-
posed on the church by an emperor. Thus the argu- ple appears to have been destroyed, as mentions of it
ment also involved the issue of the proper relation- cease.[38]
ship between church and state. Related to this was
the observation that it was foolish to deny to God
the same honor that was freely given to the human
emperor. 7 Reaction in the West
Emperors had always intervened in ecclesiastical matters The period of Iconoclasm decisively ended the so-
since the time of Constantine I. As Cyril Mango writes, called Byzantine Papacy under which, since the reign of
Justinian I a century before, the popes in Rome had been
“The legacy of Nicaea, the rst universal initially nominated by, and later merely con rmed by,
council of the Church, was to bind the emperor the emperor in Constantinople, and many of them had
to something that was not his concern, namely been Greek-speaking. By the end of the controversy the
the de nition and imposition of orthodoxy, if pope had approved the creation of a new emperor in the
need be by force” West, and the old deference of the Western church to
Constantinople had gone. Opposition to icons seems to
That practice continued from beginning to end of the have had little support in the West and Rome took a con-
Iconoclast controversy and beyond, with some emperors sistently iconodule position.
enforcing iconoclasm, and two empresses regent enforc- When the struggles ared up, Pope Gregory II had been
ing the re-establishment of icon veneration. pope since 715, not long after accompanying his Syrian
predecessor Pope Constantine to Constantinople, where
they successfully resolved with Justinian II the issues aris-
6 Art ing from the provocative anti-Western decisions of the
Quinisext Council of 692, which no Western prelates had
attended. Of the delegation of 13 Gregory was one of
only two non-Easterners; it was to be the last visit of a
pope to the city until 1969. There had already been con-
icts with Leo III over his very heavy taxation of areas
under Roman jurisdiction.[39]

8 See also
• Quotations related to Byzantine Iconoclasm at Wik-
iquote

• Aniconism in Christianity
14th century miniature of the destruction of a church under the
orders of the iconoclast emperor Constantine V Copronymus • Feast of Orthodoxy

The iconoclastic period has drastically reduced the num- • Libri Carolini
ber of survivals of Byzantine art from before the pe-
riod, especially large religious mosaics, which are now
almost exclusively found in Italy and Saint Catherine’s 9 Notes
Monastery in Egypt. Important works in Thessaloniki
were lost in the Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917 and the
[1] Byzantine iconoclasm
Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). A large mosaic of a
church council in the Imperial Palace was replaced by [2] A Study of History: Abridgement of volumes VII-X by
lively secular scenes, and there was no issue with im- Arnold Joseph Toynbee p.259
agery per se. The plain Iconoclastic cross that replaced
a gurative image in the apse of St Irene’s is itself an [3] Mango (2002)
10 10 REFERENCES

[4] Brubaker, Leslie; Haldon, John (6 January 2011). “1”. [31] Epitome, Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754
Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, C. 680-850: A History.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 32. [32] Canon 36, http://www.csun.edu/~{}hcfll004/elvira.html
ISBN 978-0-521-43093-7. Retrieved 10 January 2015.

[5] Kitzinger, 101 quoted, 85-87; 95-115 [33] The letter’s text is incomplete, and its authenticity and au-
thorship uncertain. David M. Gwynn, From Iconoclasm
[6] Kitzinger (1977), 105 to Arianism: The Construction of Christian Tradition in
the Iconoclast Controversy [Greek, Roman, and Byzan-
[7] Cormack, 98-106 tine Studies 47 (2007) 225–251], p. 227-245.
[8] Brubaker and Haldon (2001)
[34] Paragraph 9, text
[9] Noble, 69
[35] Gwynn, p. 237
[10] C. Mango and R. Scott, trs., The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor (Oxford, 1997).
[36] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (The Penguin History
[11] C. Mango, ed. and tr., The short history of Nikephoros of the Church, 1993), 283.
(Washington, 1990).
[37] Kitzinger (1977), 104-105
[12] M.-F. Auzépy, tr., La vie d'Étienne le jeune par Étienne le
Diacre (Aldershot, 1997).
[38] Beckwith, 88
[13] I. Ševčenko, “Hagiography in the iconoclast period,” in
A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham, [39] Beckwith, 169
1977), 113–31.

[14] A. Louth, tr., Three treatises on the divine images (Crest-

wood, 2003). 10 References
[15] C.P. Roth, tr., On the holy icons (Crestwood, 1981).

[16] M.-J. Mondzain, tr., Discours contre les iconoclastes • Beckwith, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art,
(Paris, 1989), Exodus 20:1-17. Penguin History of Art (now Yale), 2nd edn. 1979,
ISBN 0140560335
[17] Mango (1977), 1; Beckwith, 169

[18] Volcanism on Santorini / eruptive history at decadevol- • Brubaker, L. and Haldon, J. (2001), Byzantium in the
cano.net Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: the Sources Birmingham

[19] According to accounts by Patriarch Nikephoros and the • Cormack, Robin, Writing in Gold, Byzantine Society
chronicler Theophanes
and its Icons, 1985, George Philip, London, ISBN
[20] Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and 054001085-5
Society, Stanford University Press, 1997
• Kitzinger, Ernst (1977), Byzantine art in the mak-
[21] The Oxford History of Byzantium: Iconoclasm, Patricia
ing: main lines of stylistic development in Mediter-
Karlin-Hayter, Oxford University Press, 2002.
ranean art, 3rd-7th century, Faber & Faber, ISBN
[22] Mango (1977), 2-3 0571111548 (US: Cambridge UP, 1977)
[23] David Knowles – Dimitri Oblensky, “The Christian Cen-
• Mango, Cyril (1977), “Historical Introduction,” in
turies: Volume 2, The Middle Ages”, Darton, Longman
& Todd, 1969, p. 108-109.
Bryer & Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm, Centre for Byzan-
tine Studies, University of Birmingham, ISBN
[24] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754. 0704402262
asp

[25] Cormack,
• Mango, Cyril (2002), The Oxford History of Byzan-
tium
[26] Pratsch, 204–5.
• Noble, Thomas F. X., Images, Iconoclasm, and
[27] Pratsch, Theodoros, 210.
the Carolingians, 2011, University of Pennsylvania
[28] Scriptor incertus 349,1–18, cited by Pratsch, Theodoros, Press, ISBN 0812202961, 9780812202960, google
208. books
[29] Pratsch, Theodoros, 211-12.
• Pratsch, T., Theodoros Studites (759–826): zwischen
[30] Pratsch, Theodoros, 216-17. Dogma und Pragma (Frankfurt am Main, 1997)
 11

11 Further reading
• Leslie Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm,
Bristol Classical Press, London 2012.
• L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, ‘’Byzantium in the Icon-
oclast Era, c. 680-850’’ Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.

• A. Cameron, “The Language of Images: the Rise

of Icons and Christian Representation” in D. Wood
(ed) The Church and the Arts (Studies in Church
History, 28) Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 1–42.
• H.C. Evans & W.D. Wixom (1997). The glory of
Byzantium: art and culture of the Middle Byzantine
era, A.D. 843-1261. New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art. ISBN 9780810965072.
• A. Karahan, “Byzantine Iconoclasm: Ideology and
Quest for Power”. In: Eds. K. Kolrud and M.
Prusac, Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity,
Ashgate Publishing Ltd: Farnham Surrey, 2014, 75-
94. ISBN 978-1-4094-7033-5.

• R. Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine

from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and
Archaeological Study (Studies in Late Antiquity and
Early Islam 2) Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1995,
pp. 180–219.
• P. Brown, “A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the
Iconoclastic Controversy,” English Historical Re-
view 88/346 (1973): 1–33.

• F. Ivanovic, Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Are-

opagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis, Eugene: Pick-
wick, 2010.
• E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the Age of
Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954):
83–150.
• Yuliyan Velikov, Image of the Invisible. Image Ven-
eration and Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century. Veliko
Turnovo University Press, Veliko Turnovo 2011.
ISBN 978–954–524–779–8 (in Bulgarian).
• Thomas Bremer, “Verehrt wird Er in seinem
Bilde...” Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der Ikonenthe-
ologie. SOPHIA - Quellen fistlicher Theologie 37.
Paulinus: Trier 2015, ISBN 978-3-7902-1461-1 (in
German).
12 12 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

12 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

12.1 Text
• Byzantine Iconoclasm Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm?oldid=701035252 Contributors: Wereon, Varlaam,
Per Honor et Gloria, Klemen Kocjancic, Alperen, Bender235, Binabik80, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Woohookitty, Rjwilmsi,
Jaraalbe, Laszlo Pana ex, Croat Canuck, Iacobus, Chris the speller, 32X, Cplakidas, Clicketyclack, Onlim, Dr.K., LadyofShalott, Zedness,
Peter1c, Rw ammang, Pseudo-Richard, Williampfeifer, Hemlock Martinis, Cydebot, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Bollweevil, Christian75,
Astynax, Deipnosophista, Vanjagenije, Totila, Michael Goodyear, STBot, Kostisl, Javits2000, Johnbod, Framhein, MishaPan, Hugo999,
VolkovBot, Pelarmian, PNG crusade bot, Chrisga rey, BotKung, Robert1947, VanishedUserABC, SieBot, StAnselm, N2thai, Gerakibot,
Quest for Truth, Ealdgyth, Vanished user ew sn2348tui2f8n2 o2utjfeoi210r39jf, Dimboukas, Prof saxx, Martarius, Cyranorox, Rumping,
Muscovite99~enwiki, SamuelTheGhost, Qwaal, Catalographer, Editor2020, Ambrosius007, Imunuri, Jebeier, Surtsicna, Addbot, Zahd,
AndersBot, LinkFA-Bot, иве и , Jarble, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, LilHelpa, J04n, Mattis, Finn Froding, Icon Defender,
Jet Kit, Orenburg1, Trappist the monk, Shwerlin, Athene cheval, IRISZOOM, TjBot, Civis Romanus, EmausBot, ZéroBot, OnePt618,
L Kensington, Ceruleanbutter yliz, ClueBot NG, Snotbot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Maximosconf, AngBent, Davidiad, Mark Arsten, Pagaeos,
Gorgona12, BattyBot, Haymouse, Khazar2, Dexbot, Hmainsbot1, WilliamDigiCol, Rmdodson, Thomas R. Kremer, Stamptrader, Sus-
pended Time, JudeccaXIII, AreWeHereYet and Anonymous: 52

12.2 Images
• File:48-manasses-chronicle.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/48-manasses-chronicle.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: Scanned from book “Miniatures from the Manasses Chronicle”, Ivan Duichev, “Bulgarski hudojnik” Pub-
lishing house, So a, 1962 Original artist: Original: Constantine Manasses
• File:Argument_about_icons_(Skylitzis_Chronicle).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Argument_
about_icons_%28Skylitzis_Chronicle%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: anonimus
• File:Chludov_Nikephoros_I_of_Constantinople.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Chludov_
Nikephoros_I_of_Constantinople.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.krotov.info/spravki/persons/19person/
1818hludov.htm Original artist: anonimous
• File:Clasm_Chludov.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Clasm_Chludov.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: [1][2] Original artist: anonimous
• File:Clasm_Chludov_detail_9th_century.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Clasm_Chludov_detail_
9th_century.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Detail of <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clasm_Chludov.jpg'
class='image'><img alt='Clasm Chludov.jpg' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Clasm_Chludov.jpg/
200px-Clasm_Chludov.jpg' width='200' height='267' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Clasm_
Chludov.jpg/300px-Clasm_Chludov.jpg 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Clasm_Chludov.jpg/
400px-Clasm_Chludov.jpg 2x' data- le-width='588' data- le-height='786' /></a> Original artist: Chludov 9th century
• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contribu-
tors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Domenico_Morelli_002.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Domenico_Morelli_002.JPG Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.macchiaioli.it/fondo.html Original artist: Domenico Morelli
• File:Irenekirken.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Irenekirken.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
• File:Liddskaja.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Liddskaja.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
[1] Original artist: anonimus
• File:Martyrdom_of_Euthymius_of_Sardeis.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Martyrdom_of_
Euthymius_of_Sardeis.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. 338, folio 28v, Madrid National
Library Original artist: unknown 13th century author
• File:Nicaea_icon.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nicaea_icon.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: [1],[2] Original artist: Unknown<a href='//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718' title='wikidata:Q4233718'><img alt='wikidata:
Q4233718' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/20px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png'
width='20' height='11' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/30px-Wikidata-logo.
svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/40px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 2x'
data- le-width='1050' data- le-height='590' /></a>
• File:Seventh_ecumenical_council_(Icon).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Seventh_ecumenical_
council_%28Icon%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.svyatayarus.ru/data/icons/188_sobor/index.php Original
artist: и ша в (?)
• File:Triumph_orthodoxy.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Triumph_orthodoxy.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: National Icon Collection (18), British Museum Original artist: Anonymous

12.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0