Monday, January 23, 2023

Notes from Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantine and the Iconoclast Era c. 680-850 (Cambridge, 2011)

The following notes come from:

 

Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantine and the Iconoclast Era c. 680-850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)

 

A number of sources maintain that the iconoclasts were opposed to the cult of relics. Theophanes, for example, claims of Leo III that: ‘Not only was the impious man in error concerning the relative worship of the holy icons, but also concerning the intercession of the all-pure Theotokos and all the saints, and he abominated their relics like his mentors, the Arabs’. [The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, trans. C. Mango and R. Scott [Oxford, 1997], 561] (p. 39)

 

. . . the discussion about the devotion to be accorded sacred images was a crucial element of early iconoclast discussion . . .there is no reason to doubt that the fourth-century Epiphanios of Salamis was an opponent of religious imagery, precisely because of the perceived danger of contamination by example from pagan traditions, with which the church was still grappling. (p. 47)

 

Before c. 700, references to sacred portraits are not very common, and when they appear they are usually incidental to the main narrative. Evidence is ‘scattered and spotty’ before the mid-sixth century; we shall therefore only briefly rehearse the evidence for that period.

 

Texts written before the mid-sixth century mention images, and sometimes even sacred portraits, that are no longer preserved, and, if Gregory of Nyssa’s mid-fourth-century claim that a narrative image drove him to tears may be extended to portraits, suggest that people could respond to them with emotion (Gregory wrote that he could not walk by an image of the sacrifice of Isaac ‘without shedding tears, so clearly did art present the story to one’s eyes;’ PG 46:472) No miracles, however, are ascribed to sacred portraits in any texts of this period: the passage from Gregory of Nazianzos that has sometimes been said to describe an icon precipitating the repentance of a whore depends not on Gregory but in an iconophile reworking of the words. The only uncontested passage that mentions ‘adoring’ images—Augustine’s early fifth-century remark ‘sepulcrorum et pictuarum adoratores’ (PL 32:1342)—is unspecific about both the form of worship and the type of image; interestingly, however, it links images with tombs and may thus intimate a connection between the sacred portrait and the cult of relics, at least in the west. Holy portraits were certainly honoured, and may even have been venerated in isolated instances but this does not seem to have been a characteristic of the period. Around the year 300, for example, Eusebios observed that the statue of Christ and the woman with the issue of blood at Paneas was erected ‘to honour them’; (History of the Church VII, 18; ed. Loeb II [London, 1932], 174-7) and Philostorgios, writing in the first half of the fifth century adds no more: the statue is respected, but not the object of any special veneration. There is little evidence for the growth of a cult, the idea of a ‘transparent’ religious image remains foreign. The famous statement that underpins this concept—‘the honour shown to the image is transmitted to its prototype’—dates from this period: it is written by Basil of Caesarea in the mid-fourth-century. (PG 32:149) But Basil was writing about imperial images, not portraits of holy men and women; it is the later iconophiles—John of Damascus in the id-eighth century, (Against those who attack divine images, I, 21, 51) quickly followed by the authors of the Acts of the 787 council (Mansi xiii, 325)—who, on rediscovering the concept, make it central to the orthodox understanding of the holy portrait. Only in the third quarter of the sixth century, and then in isolation, is anything approaching the idea that a sacred portrait might be a conduit to the person represented in a preserved Greek source: that is in an epigram of an image of the archangel Michael attributed to Agathias (c. 531-c. 580) which has its own particular problems . . .(pp. 53-54)

 

An epigram preserved in the Greek Anthology, where it is attributed to Agathias (c. 531-c. 580), reads:

 

Greatly daring was the wax that formed the image of the invisible Prince of the Angles, incorporeal in the essence of his form. But yet it is not without grace; for a man looking at the image directs his mind to a higher contemplation. No longer has he a confused veneration, but imprinting the image in himself he fears as if he were present. The eyes stir up the depths of the spirit, and art (techne) can convey by colours the prayers of the soul. (Greek Anthology I, 34)

 

All other epigrams about images attributed to Agathias in the Anthology are either purely descriptive or concern ex voto imagery, but the passage on Michael clearly recognises the portrait’s potential for conveying prayer to heaven and seems to hint that it simulated Michael’s real presence. (Greek Anthology I, 35-89) Yet angels were believed by the Byzantines to be ‘formless, bodiless and immaterial’, and thus presented particular problems of representation, well elucidated by Peers in a recent study (G. Peers, Subtle Bodies, representing angels in Byzantium): a picture could never represent Michael ‘as if he were present’ because angels were incorporeal. What Agathias seems to mean here is not that the image simulates real presence in the way that later images of saints could, but that the encaustic painting of the archangel Michael allowed the viewer to move from ’confused veneration’ of an immaterial being to an emotional response made possible by the bestowal of human form on the angel (‘imprinting the image in himself’). Through art and colours—that is, through the presentation of Michael in the guise of a man—the archangel is made sufficiently familiar to the viewed that prayers to ‘him’ become possible. Angels present an exceptional situation, and while Agathias’s response to the portrait of Michael is extremely interesting (if personal and idiosyncratic) we cannot generalise about the absorption of real presence into an image on the basis of this text. (p. 776)

 

Concerning Leo IIII:

 

The conclusions that may be drawn from the reliable evidence examined so far can be summarised as follows:

 

(i) in the year 726 the emperor Leo III is reported to have interpreted the violent earthquake and volcano on the Aegean islands of Therea and Therasia as a demonstration of divine wrath consequent upon the spread of idolatrous practices in the Roman world. As a result, he began to consider the issue of the public display of images of Christ, the Theotokos and the saints, and the proskynesis by which they had by now come to be honored; and may have begun to speak publicly on the issue. There seems little reason to doubt the authentic basis of these reports, however much they may have been distorted, emended or supplemented to fit in with later iconophile propaganda and perceptions. From the Horos of the Council of 754 it is clear that the major sin of which the Romans were held to be guilty, and for which they had been published, was that of idolatry. It is equally apparent that the interpretation of the eruption as a sign of God’s wrath can only have been based upon Leo’s understanding of the Old Testament account in which the Chosen People are published by God for their lapse into idolatry—Leo’s clear evocation in the introduction to the Ekloge of 741 of the Old Testament as a source and model for his divinely invested imperial authority is justification enough for this assumption.

 

(ii) at about the same time the patriarch Germanos received reports that the bishop of Nakoleia had been commenting critically on images and proskynesis; he received an account of the bishop’s arguments, and also an account of the affair asking for guidance from the metropolitan bishop responsible, John of Synnada; the bishop of Nakoleia then came to Constantinople in person to present his side of the story. A discussion ensued in which the bishop accepted both the patriarch’s reprimand and theological argument. Germanos wrote to Constantine’s metropolitan, John of Synnada, explaining the situation and setting out his own arguments. Germanos stressed that the matter should be handled unobtrusively and that no local synod need be convoked. A copy of this letter was sent also to the bishop of Nakoleia. Upon returning to his own see, however, he refused to hand over this copy of the letter to John (or concede the arguments made by Germanos), so that Germanos wrote a second letter, this time sternly reprimanding Constantine and demanding that he accept church discipline. He was deposed from his position until he was prepared to obey his superiors. The only reference to the role of emperors lay in Germanos’ remark that they had themselves erected an image of the cross with prophets and saints.

 

(iii) in 730 Leo probably required leading clergy, in particular the patriarch Germanos and the pope, Gregory II, to subscribe in writing to his new policy (perhaps to remove images from positions in which they might receive the wrong sort of devotion). While the reports in Theophanes and Nikephoros regarding Germanos, and in the Liber Pontificalis about the iussiones sent to Gregory II, are problematic, there can be little doubt that they reflect a tradition that Leo III did take some action in respect of the way in which images were to be treated, and that this action affected in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

 

(iv) by 731 pope Gregory III was (probably, not certainly) preparing to convoke a synod at Rome, in which some discussion about (imperial) policy towards images at Constantinople may have taken place.

 

(v) some time after his abdication, resulting from a conflict with Leo III (probably over the issue of icons, but only according to later tradition: no contemporary source asserts this), and fomo a private residence, Germanos wrote a letter to his erstwhile friend Thomas, bishop of Klaudioupolis, accusing him of betraying Germanos and of removing icons in his see. The letter makes it clear that, by the time it was written, this movement had attained considerable proportions throughout the empire, and that Germanos had been unable to offer any effective or successful resistance to it. (pp. 121-23)

 

The Council of 754:

 

The synod held in 754 regarded itself as of ecumenical standing, and may have been accepted by such by the eastern patriarchates. The evidence is ambiguous. It is not clear whether representatives from the three patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were present or not, although those from Rome do appear to have been absent, thus permitting the Council of 787 to claim that the 754 meeting was unlawful and without authority. In contrast, however, several western bishops attended—those of Sicily, Dalmatia, and Hellas are mentioned specifically in the much later chronicle of Michael the Syrian, but his source tradition, complex though it is, derived from a number of sources which were themselves closer to the events in question. (Mich. Syr., ii, 520) But neither is there any evidence that its status was challenged from Rome until much later. The position adopted by the imperial church was summed up in its Horos, or definition, which can be reconstructed from the writings of those who later condemned, both in the Acts of the seventh council of 787, and in other writings, for example, those of the patriarch Nikephoros I. (See Krannich et al. [Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754] 2000) (pp. 189-90)

 

Since its significance for the iconoclast position is crucial, we reproduce here certain key extracts from the text, which were read out in sections at the Council of 787, but without the refutation that originally followed each section. (The translation is based on Mango 1986 [The sources of social power, vol. 1: a history of power from the beginnings to A.D. 1760], 165-8, with notes):

 

[Mansi, xiii, 240C] After examining these matters with much care and deliberation . . . we have found that the illicit craft of the painter was injurious to the crucial doctrine of our salvation, i.e., the incarnation of Christ, and that it subverted the six ecumenical councils that had been convened by God, . . .

 

[241E] . . . while upholding Nestorius who divided into two sons the one Son and Logos of God who became man for our sake;

 

[244D] yea, and Arius too, and Dioscorus and Eutyches and Severus who taught the confusion and mixture of Christ’s two natures.

 

[245D] Wherefore we have considered it proper to demonstrate in detail by the present Definition the error of those who make and reverence [images]. . . .

 

[248E] How senseless is the notion of the painter from sordid love of gain pursues the unattainable, namely to fashion with his impure hands things that are delivered by the heart and confessed by the mouth!

 

[252A-B] (For) This man makes an image and calls it Christ: now the name ‘Christ’ means both God and man. Hence he has either included according to his vain fancy the uncircumscribable Godhead in the circumscription of created flesh, or he has confused that unconfusable union . . . and in so doing has applied two blasphemies to the Godhead, namely through the circumscription and the confusion. Both deserve the same condemnation in that they have erred together with Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches and the heresy of the Acephali.

 

[256A-B] When they are condemned by the right-minded for having attempted to delineate the incomprehensible and uncircumscribable divine nature of Christ, they resort forsooth to another base excuse, namely that ‘We paint the images of the flesh alone, which we have seen and touched and with which we have lived;’ which is an impiety and in an invention of the evil genius of Nestorius . . .

 

[257E] Granted, therefore, that at the Passion the Godhead remained inseparable from [Christ’s body and soul] how is it that these senseless men . . . divide the flesh that had been fused with the Godhead and [itself] deified, and attempt to pain a picture as if it were that of a mere man? In so doing, they fall into another abyss of lawlessness, namely by severing the flesh from the divinity, and by attributing to the flesh a separate hypostasis and a different person which they claim to represent, for thereby they add a fourth person to the Trinity. . . .

 

[264C] The only true image of Christ is the bread and wine of the eucharist, as he Himself incidded.

 

[268B-C] On the other hand, the images of false and evil name have no foundation in the tradition of Christ, the apostles and the Fathers, nor is there a holy prayer that might sanctify an image, and so transform it from the common to a state of holiness; nay, it remains common and devoid of honour, just as the painter has made it.

 

[277C-E] How indeed do they dare depict through the gross art of the pagans the all-praised Mother of God who was overshadowed by the plenitude of divinity, through whom an unapproachable light did shine for us, who is higher than the heavens and holier than the cherubims? Or [the saints] who will reign with Christ, and side beside Him to judge the word, and share in His glory (of whom Scripture says that the world was not worthy of them)-are they not ashamed to depict them through pagan art? For it is not lawful to Christians who believe in the resurrection to adopt the customs of demon-worshipping gentiles, and to insult by means of inglorious and dead matter the saints who will be adorned with so much glory. Indeed, we do not accept from aliens the proof of our faith: yea, when the demons addressed Jesus as God, he rebuked them, because He deemed it unworthy that demons should bear testimony concerning him.

 

[328-C] Let no man dare to pursue henceforth this impious and unholy practice. Anyone who presumes from now on to manufacture an icon, or to worship it, or to set it up in a church, or in a private house, or to hide it, if he be a bishop or a presbyter or a deacon, he shall be deposed; if he be a monk or a layman, he shall be anathematised and deemed guilty under imperial law as a foe of God’s commands and an enemy of the doctrines of the Fathers.

 

[329D-E] This we also decree, that no man who has charge of a church of God or a pious establishment shall, on pretext of diminishing this error of icon [-worship], lay his hands on holy vessels consecrated to God for the purpose of altering them if they happen to have pictures on them.

 

[332B-E] or on altar-cloths or other veils or any other objects consecrated to the holy ministry lest these be put to waste. If, however, a man receives from God such ability, and wishes to alter the aforesaid vessels or alter-cloths, he shall not presume to do so without the consent and knowledge of the most-holy and blessed ecumenical patriarch and permission of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors, lest under this pretext the devil dishonour God’s churches nor shall any dignitary or any of his subordinates, i.e. a member of the laity under the same pretext lay his hands on the holy churches and sack them, as he has been done in the past by certain individual acting in a disorderly manner. (pp. 194-96)

 

Further Reading:

 

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons