On the First Period of Iconoclasm in 8th Century Byzantium

Introduction

The eighth and ninth centuries were a tumultuous time in the Byzantine Empire because of the iconoclast controversy. Beginning with the Chalce Episode of 726 AD under emperor Leo III and continuing with ebbs and flows until the final restoration of icons in 843 AD under emperor Michael III’s regent Theodora, the controversy led to the expropriation of property; the destruction of cultural artifacts; and the deposition, exile, excommunication, and abuse of people. This post will explore the historical background and development of the controversy up until the first restoration of icons in 787 AD.

Historical Background

The roots of the controversy lay in the marked intensification of the cult of the icon in the late sixth and seventh centuries. The earliest church used symbolic rather than figural representations in their art in order to avoid idolatrous associations. By the fourth century, there was a growing sense that material objects, such as the relics of martyrs, were infused with holiness, in which those who venerated it could participate. When this sentiment combined with the contemporaneous cult of the imperial portrait, the veneration of religious portraits was the natural outcome, as documents from the early fifth century establish (Hussey 30). By the sixth century, palladian qualities were attributed to icons, which certainly met a felt need of peasants and soldiers coping with the instability that resulted from the loss of large parts of the Empire to Muslims, Lombards, and Slav (31 - 32). By the seventh century, apologists explained that icons of saints could bring the beholder into indirect contact with God because the saints who were the prototypes of the icon had successfully reflected the image of God, and thus icons of them still reflected this divine image (32).

Long before the 8th century, there was opposition to this evolving understanding of the icon. The early 4th century Spanish Synod of Elvira urged caution in the use of icons. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339/340 AD), Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 403 AD), and a sect within the Armenian Church all expressed doubts about the veneration of icons. Anxiety about the “popular use—and abuse—of icons” (43) grew as “superstitious practices associated with icons” increased (33). Sadly, Hussey does not cite examples of these abuses and superstitious practices. Regardless, the rhetoric against icons during this time period focused on the Second Commandment and the Christian emphasis on worship in spirit and truth rather than on later Christological arguments (33-34).

Development

What specifically motivated Leo III’s iconoclast policy is hard to pin down. In his earlier military career, he certainly had contact with Muslims, who were strictly opposed to icons, and cross-fertilization of ideas might have occurred (34). Then there is also the potential Jewish influence (35). Then there were the vocal iconoclast behaviors of three bishops in Asia Minor, who indirectly blamed the emperor for not stemming the out-out-control use of icons (36). Walker cites two more motives: 1) a desire to take power away from the predominantly iconophilic monasteries, which were exempt from state taxes, soldiers, and public servants, and 2) a desire to make the Church acceptable to his dualistic army recruits (148). Whatever the complex of motives, the catalyst seems to have been a volcanic eruption in 726 AD, which many interpreted as the expression of God’s displeasure at the use of icons, because it was in the same year that he took his first official iconoclast action by removing the mosaic image of Christ above the Chalce entrance to imperial palace complex (Hussey 37). Then in 730 AD, he issued an imperial decree for the destruction of the icons of saints. The implementation of this decree resulted in the destruction of altar furniture and cloths and the removal of valuable reliquaries. Whether at this stage iconophiles were abused is lost to history. Also, at this point in the controversy, the rhetoric still focused on the violation of the Second Commandment (38). In 731 AD Pope Gregory III responded by excommunicating the iconoclasts, and Leo answered by removing Sicily, Calabria, and Illyricum from the Pope’s jurisdiction, thus deepening the split between East and West (Walker 149).

John of Damascus, who died in 749 AD, wrote On Holy Images, the classic defense of icons on Christological grounds. He argued that whereas before the Incarnation, God was undepictable, after the Incarnation He was depictable and thus the depiction of Christ in icons is appropriate. Furthermore, because God became matter in order to work out salvation, it is proper to venerate matter, through which this salvation was wrought, and thus the veneration of icons is appropriate (Damascene 15 - 16).

The iconoclast movement became more theologically sophisticated and violent under the theologically minded Emperor Constantine V. He convened the council of Hieria-Blachernae in 754 AD in order to elicit synodal support for his iconoclast policy. Episcopal representation was strong, but there was no patriarchal representation. Assuming their synod would become the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the bishops moderated the emperor’s extreme views to be consistent with the previous six Ecumenical Councils. At the same time, they responded to John of Damascus’ Christological defense of icons by laying out Christological arguments against the veneration of icons:

1. Icons circumscribed an uncircumscribable Godhead, confused the two natures of Christ, and thus violated the Fourth Ecumenical Council,
2. Icons divided the human and divine natures of Christ and thus violated the Third Ecumenical Council,
3. The only valid image of Christ is the Eucharist, and
4. The only valid image of a saint was his ethical representation in the life of a believer (Hussey 40-41).

Now having the formal ecclesiastical condemnation of icons, iconophiles could be punished as heretics through either laicization or excommunication. The implementation of this ruling resulted in intensified looting of sacred buildings, imprisonment, expropriation of monastic properties, and the public ridicule of offenders (42).

With the death of Constantine V in 755 AD, the persecution of iconophiles tapered off (43). By 780 AD the emperor was ten-year-old Constantine VI, whose regent mother was the flagrant iconophile Irene, who used her influence to bring about the first restoration of icons (44). This was complicated by three factors:

1. By virtue of Pope Gregory’s excommunication of iconoclasts, the Eastern church was in schism from the West,
2. By virtue of the Council of Hieria-Blachernae, iconodulism was still officially a heresy in the East, and
3. The majority of the clergy by this point of time were either iconoclast bishops or those ordained by them.

The solution to the crisis was to convene a general council, for which formerly iconoclast Patriarch Paul IV penitently called before retiring. Then, his successor Tarasius accepted the patriarchate only on condition of calling a general council (45). The first attempt at a general council in Constantinople failed in 786 AD when imperial guards backed by iconoclast bishops stopped the proceedings. The next year another council convened in Nicaea, including delegates from Pope Hadrian. This council, recognized by posterity as the Seventh Ecumenical Council accomplished a number of things:

1. It reconciled the Eastern Church with the Pope,
2. It decreed that formerly iconoclast bishops who repented would not be degraded as long as there was no proof that they had abused iconophiles, and
3. It repudiated the pretensions of the Council of Hieria-Blachernae by condemning as heretical the tenets of iconoclasm. Most importantly, it laid out definitively the Orthodox iconophilic position:
1. That there is a qualitative distinction between λατρεία, which is the honor that belongs to the Creator alone, and προσκύνησις, which is the relative honor shown to holy objects including icons and
2. That the relative honor given to an icon passes to the icon’s prototype (47-48).

Conclusion

The iconoclast controversy did not just disappear away after Nicaea II. Many monastics, most notably Theodore Studites, were resentful of the leniency Tarasius showed toward repentant bishops, creating a rift in the iconophile party. This weakened its efforts to root out the iconoclastic heresy (55), leading to its resurgence in the ninth century albeit in less harsh form (58). It was not until 843 AD under Emperor Michael III’s regent mother Theodora that the iconophile party was finally able to assume and retain power indefinitely in an event called the Sunday of Orthodoxy (63). Thus concluded a colorful segment of Byzantine history that was formative for Orthodox belief and practice: The final Christological controversy was settled by the final and seventh Ecumenical Council, and the veneration of icons was firmly established in daily life (67).

Works Cited

Damascene, John. St. John Damascene on Holy Images. London: Baker, 1898. Web. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.i.iv.html#i.iv-Page_15

Hussey, J. M. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New York: Scribners, 1959.