Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:49:53.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Byzantine art in the ninth century: theory, practice, and culture*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Leslie Brubaker
Leslie Brubaker*
Affiliation:
Wheaton College, Massachussetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Despite the massive amount of scholarly literature on Iconoclasm and its aftermath, there are really only two major publications that deal specifically and synthetically with ninth-century art. One of these is André Grabar’s magisterial L’iconoclasme byzantin, a chronological analysis of monuments and texts; the other is Robin Cormack’s short but insightful essay in Iconoclasm, the collection of papers originally presented at Birmingham in 1975, which asks ‘whether the discussion of religious images stimulated by Iconoclasm changed the nature of Byzantine Art’. My aim is rather different. Rather than presenting an encyclopedic overview, this article attempts to crawl into the fabric of Byzantine culture: to see and understand Byzantine art of the ninth century as the Byzantines saw and understood it. It follows that the material presented has not been segregated into the familiar (and often useful) categories of style, iconography, and context, for, to the Byzantines, the three were neither exclusive nor separable. For similar reasons, I have deemphasized any linear progression that might imposed with art historical hindsight on the distant past, and have thereby underplayed the flashes of innovation, novelty and erudition that such detachment allows. These sparks are probably more visible (and certainly more appealing) to twentieth-century art historians than they were to the ninth-century Byzantines, for whom, as we shall see, the power of tradition militated against individual creativity, and artists on the whole remained anonymous artisans. In my attempt to look at Byzantine art from the inside rather than from the outside I have, in other words, concentrated on the fluid interface between objects, and the shifting dialogue between objects and context. This is because what interests me here is how Byzantine ideas about art (their theories), Byzantine perception (how the Byzantines saw), and the artifacts themselves (the practice) come together in the ninth century: how art, that preeminent social construct, worked in the years after Iconoclasm.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 13 , 1989 , pp. 23 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Grabar, A, L’iconoclasme byzantin. Dossier archéologique (Paris 1943)Google Scholar; Cormack, R., ‘Painting after Iconoclasm’, in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 147–63 Google Scholar (citation 147); see also idem, ‘The Arts during the age of Iconoclasm’, 35–44 in the same collection, and Cormack’s doctoral dissertation, Ninth-century monumental painting and mosaic in Thessaloniki (Courtauld Institute of Art 1968).

2. My debt to the institute on Theory and Interpretation in the Visual Arts sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities (Summer 1987) will be clear to the organizers of and participants in this project; in particular, I should like to express my gratitude to Stephen Melville.

3. In this vein, see the cautionary remarks of Kinney, D., ‘Spolia from the Baths of Carcalla in Sta. Maria in Trastevere’, Art Bulletin 68 (1986) 390–396.Google Scholar

4. ‘Perception and Conception: Art, Theory and Culture in Ninth-century Byzantium’, Word and Image 5/1 (1989) forthcoming; this material was originally delivered at the XXIst Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies held at the University of Birmingham in March 1987, and in many ways provides an introduction to the present study.

5. So too Walter, C., ‘An Iconographical Note’, REB 38 (1980) 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Ignatii Diaconi Vita Tarasii Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, ed. Heikel, I. A. (Acta societatis scientiarum Fennicae 17, Helsinki 1891) 413 Google Scholar; trans. I. Ševčenko, ‘A Program of Church Decoration Soon After 787 According to the Vita Tarasii of Ignatios the Deacon?’ (unpublished commentary and partial translation, from a paper delivered at the symposium Byzantine Art and Literature Around the Year 800 held at Dumbarton Oaks in April 1984; cf. DOP40 [1986] 185). See also Wolska-Conus, W., ‘Un program iconographique du patriarch Tarasios?’, REB 38 (1980) 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. On this development, and some reasons for it, see my Perception and Conception (note 4 above).

8. Mansi XIII, 9, 11, 32. See also Rouan, M.-F., ‘Une lecture “iconoclaste” de la Vie d’Etienne le jeune’, Travaux et Mémoires 8 (1981) 433–434 Google Scholar. Because editions of the texts cited in the body of this article are generally available, I shall not include Greek in the notes; further, whenever possible, I shall try to refer to accessible English translations (though I have, on occasion, modified them slightly in the text in accordance with my reading of the original Greek).

9. Cameron, A. and Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition X, Leiden 1984), 53.Google Scholar

10. Gouillard, J., ‘Aux origines de l’iconoclasme: Le témoinage de Grégoire II?’, Travaux et Mémoires 3 (1968) 243–307 Google Scholar; descriptions of responses to images on 285 lines 114–116, 289 lines 154–158, 289–91 lines 164–165. Cf. Stein, D., Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites und seine Entwicklung bis in die 40er Jahr des 8. Jahrhunderts (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 25,Munich 1980) 89–137.Google Scholar

11. Recent feminist scholarship has come closest to this approach, but little feminist scholarship devotes itself to Byzantine art. For one speculative attempt, see Herrin, J., ‘Women and the Faith in Icons in Early Christianity’, in Samuel, R. and Stedman Jones, G., eds., Culture, Ideology and Politics (London 1982) 56–83 Google Scholar. Victor Burgin made a similar point about the Conceptual art of the 1970s, which he described ‘as a major factor in the social construction of the world, and thus of the values operative in it’, in The End of Art Theory, Criticism and Postmodernity (Houndsmills and London 1986) 39.

12. This was, of course, only one of many factors involved in the iconoclastic debate, although extant texts accord it a prominance.

13. For exceptions, see Cormack (note 1 above); for a recent synthesis of the literature on the Hagia Sophia apse mosaic, the date of which is currently in dispute, see Oikonomidès, N., ‘Some Remarks on the Apse Mosaic of St. Sophia’, DOP 39 (1985) 111–115 Google Scholar. I do not, however, agree with Oikonomidès’ conclusion that the apse mosaic still standing at Hagia Sophia cannot be the one described by Photios in 867 for a number of reasons, one of which is that his arguments presuppose that the perceptions and expectations of Photios and ninth-century viewers conform with our own.

14. A semi-literate emperor is, of course, another matter entirely: on which see my ‘Politics, Patronage, and Art in Ninth-Century Byzantium: The Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus in Paris’, DOP 39 (1985) 1–13.

15. I thank Herbert Kessler for this suggestion, and for a discussion of the thoughts expressed in this paragraph as a whole.

16. This avenue has been profitably explored by literary and art historians dealing with the Latin West, e.g. Camille, M., ‘Seeing and Reading: Some visual implications of medieval literacy and illiteracy’, Art History 8 (1985) 26–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Its application to the Byzantine East remains problematical, in part because, even in the ‘dark’ period of Iconoclasm, a broader spectrum of the populace in Byzantium apparently read than in the West, more diverse literature was produced, and silent reading seems never to have died out: see Moffat, A., ‘Schooling in the Iconoclast Centuries’, in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 85–92 Google Scholar; Patlagean, E., ‘Ancienne hagiographie byzantine et histoire sociale’, and ‘Discours écrit, discours parlé, niveaux de culture à Byzance aux VHIème-XIème siècles’, Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilizations 1 (1968) 109 and 12 (1979) 264–278 Google Scholar, both reprinted in eadem, Structure sociale, famille, chrétienté à Byzance, IVe-XIe siècles (London 1981) V, VI.

17. Milan, Bib. Ambrosiana, cod.E 49/50 inf. Reproduced in Grabar, A., Les miniatures du Grégoire de Nazianze de l’Ambrosienne (Ambrosiana 49–50) (Paris 1943).Google Scholar

18. Examination of the manuscript, however, reveals that several narrative miniatures have been excised, a point that I hope to consider more fully in a later study of the manuscript. Herewith my thanks to the director and staff at the Ambrosiana for their unfailing courtesy.

19. See Weitzmann, K., Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton 1951) 88–92.Google Scholar

20. Cavallo, G., ‘Funzione e strutture della maiuscola greca tra i secoli VIII-XI’, La paléographie grecque et byzantine (Paris 1977) 101–103 Google Scholar; Grabar, A., Les manuscrits grecs enluminés de provenance italienne (IXe-XIe siècles) (Paris 1972) 20–21 Google Scholar. I thank Professor Cavallo for discussing this point with me in the summer of 1984.

21. Paris, BN gr.510. Reproduced in Omont, H., Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Vie au XlVe siècle (Paris 1929)Google Scholar. On the model, see my Politics, Patronage, and Art (note 14 above) 2.

22. Ibid., 1–13; Nersessian, S. Der, ‘The Illustrations of the Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, Paris gr.510. A Study of the Connections between Text and Images’, DOP 16 (1962) 197–228.Google Scholar

23. Moscow, Hist. Mus. gr.129. Reproductions in Shepkina, M.V., Miniaturi Khludovskoi Psalt’iri (Moscow 1977).Google Scholar

24. See Corrigan, K., Byzantine Marginal Psalters of the Ninth Century (Ph.D. diss. UCLA 1984)Google Scholar. I thank Professor Corrigan for numerous discussions of the Khludov Psalter over the years.

25. Mount Athos, Pantokrator 61. Reproductions in Dufrenne, S., L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age I (Bibliothèque des Cahiers archéologiques I, Paris 1966).Google Scholar

26. Paris, BN gr.923. Reproductions in Weitzmann, K., The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela (Studies in Manuscript Illumination 8, Princeton 1979).Google Scholar

27. In addition, the style of the manuscript is far more closely related to the Paris Homilies than is usually admitted, a point I elaborated at the Tenth Annual Byzantine Studies Meeting (Cincinnati 1984). Weitzmann attributes the Sacra Parallela to Palestine (Sacra Parallela, 20–23); Jaeger, W. (‘Greek Uncial Fragments in the Library of Congress in Washington’, Traditio 5 [1947] 101–102)Google Scholar and Wright, D. (‘The School of Princeton and the Seventh Day of Creation’, University Publishing 9 [1980] 8)Google Scholar to Constantinople; while Cavallo, G. tentatively suggests an Italian origin: ‘Le tipologie della cultura nel riflesso delle testimonianze scritte’, Bisanzio, Roma, e l’Italia nell’alto medioevo (Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 34, Spoleto 1988) 505–506.Google Scholar

28. Vat. gr.699. Reproductions in Stornajolo, C., Le miniature della Topografia Cristiana di Cosma Indicopleuste. Codice vaticano greco 699 (Codices e Vaticanis selecti X, Milan 1908)Google Scholar; text and commentary in Wolska, W., La Topographie Chrétienne de Cosmos Indicopleustes, Théologie et science au Vie siècle (Paris 1962)Google Scholar and Wolska-Conus, W., Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographie Chrétienne I-III (Sources Chrétiennes 141, 159, 197, Paris 1968, 1970, 1973)Google Scholar. On some of the deviations of the Vatican manuscript from its model, see Brubaker, L., ‘The Relationship of Text and Image in the Byzantine MSS of Cosmas Indicopleustes’, BZ 70 (1977) 42–57.Google Scholar

29. Leroy, J., ‘Note codicologique sur le Vat. gr.699’, Cahiers archéologiques 23 (1974) 73–78 Google Scholar. Professor Cavallo, who kindly discussed the Vatican Cosmas with me recently, was less certain of its Italian ties than was Leroy, and confirmed its codicological and palaeographical problems: cf. his Le tipologie (note 27 above) 508–509.

30. On iconoclastic art see note 1 above and esp. Grabar, L’iconoclasme 115–180.

31. For an exemplary analysis, see Rouan (note 8 above).

32. For this terminology as applied in contemporary art theory, see Burgin (note 11 above) 69. And for further comments on the relationship between Byzantine ideology and the individual, see Haldon, J.F., ‘Ideology and Social Change in the Seventh Century, Military Discontent as a Barometer’, Klio 68 (1986) 145–6, 151–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Mansi XIII, 244B4–6, cf. 252D, 257D, 261D; trans. Sahas, D.J., Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm (Toronto 1986) 77, 84,89 Google Scholar (‘For the icon is one thing and the prototype another’), 92.

34. The so-called ‘essential’ theory of images: see Alexander, P.J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958) 23–53 esp. 23–30, 33–36.Google Scholar

35. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,9, ed. Kotter, B. (Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos III, Contra imaginum Calumniatores Orationes Tres [Berlin and New York 1975]) 83–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an English edition, see John, St. of Damascus, On the Divine Images. Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, trans. Anderson, D. (Crestwood NY 1980)Google Scholar. I have not cited this edition in the notes because it is collated with neither Kotter nor PG 94, and there are some errors in the translation.

36. Germanos left office with the introduction of Iconoclasm by Leo III; his was thus one of the first iconophilic voices of the controversy. See Grumel, V., ‘L’iconologie de s.Germain de Constantinople’, EO 21 (1922) 165–175, on idols 169–171 Google Scholar; and, for a more recent treatment of Germanos’ role, Stein (note 10 above). John of Damascus, among others, reiterates the differences between idols and images: Against those who attack Divine Images 11,4–11, ed. Kotter 71–5,79–80,96–102. Cf. Schönborn, C., L’icône du Christ: Fondements théologiques (Fribourg2 1976) 145.Google Scholar

37. Further, divinity was adored, and received latreia, but images were only honoured, and received proskynesis. For a thorough discussion of the idol-icon argu ment, and its philosophical basis, see Ladner, G.B., ‘The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy’, DOP 7 (1953) 3–34, esp. 14–16.Google Scholar

38. See Alexander, P.J., ‘The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos)’, DOP 7 (1953) 40–41.Google Scholar

39. Antirrheticus I, 277; for commentary, Travis, J., In Defense of the Faith. The Theology of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople (Brookline 1984) 140–141.Google Scholar

40. Antirrheticus I, 28: PG 100: 277A-B; trans. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 199. Still further elaboration may be found in one of Theodore of Studion’s letters to Plato: PG 99:500; trans. Mango, C., The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453 (Englewood Cliffs 1972) 173–174.Google Scholar

41. Alexander, Iconoclastic Council (note 38 above) 40. Cf. Schönborn (note 36 above) 161–8.

42. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 206–11.

43. E.g. an anonymous refutation of John the Grammarian: Gouillard, J., ‘Fragments inédits d’un antirrhétique de Jean le Grammarien’, REB 24 (1966) 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. See Moravcsik, G., ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I’, DOP 15 (1961) 59–126.Google Scholar

45. Photios, Homily 17, 5, ed. Laourdas, B. (Photiou Homilai [Hellenika, suppl. 12] Thessaloniki 1959) 170–171 Google Scholar, trans. Mango, C., The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 3, Cambridge MA 1958) 294.Google Scholar

46. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images I, 21, 35 (= 11,31, 111,48), 111,41, ed. Kotter 108, 147, 143. For Nikephoros’ reliance on this concept, see Travis (note 39 above) 53.

47. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 11,21, ed. Kotter 120.

48. In truth, such detachment was clearly not always there. Icons bleed or weep; and individuals sometimes respond directly to the icon’s material presence (e.g. by eating paint scraped off them to cure themselves of a disease). But the structure that allowed this response was embedded in the theological reasoning exemplified by Basil and John.

49. Council of 787: Mansi XIII, 325D; trans. Sahas 145.

50. It is also, of course, a polemical statement accusing the iconoclasts of denying Christ’s human nature.

51. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 11,61 (citing Chrysostom), 11,66 (citing Anastasios), ed. Kotter 163–5. On this point, see also Ladner, The Concept of the Image (note 37 above) 20–22.

52. PG 100: 1156D-1160B.

53. For discussion (relying primarily on Theodore of Studion) see Henry, P., ‘What was the Iconoclastic Controversy all about?’, Church History 45 (1976) 21–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Schónborn (note 36 above) 171–172. On the distinction between monophysitism and Iconoclasm, as understood by the twentieth-century, see Brock, S., ‘Iconoclasm and the Monophysites’ in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 53–7.Google Scholar

54. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images, 1,4, ed. Kotter 76.

55. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images, 1,8, 16, 51, ed. Kotter 82, 89, 154. This point was a favorite of the iconophiles from Germanos through the Synodikon of Orthodoxy and beyond: cf. Grumel, Germain (note 36 above) 167; Henry, Iconoclastic Controversy (note 53 above) 21–5.

56. Mansi XIII, 344E; trans. Sahas 160.

57. 787 Council: ‘they spoke iniquities against the nature of his incarnation’. Mansi XIII, 205E; trans. Sahas 50. This is a path well trodden by the iconophiles. See also, e.g., the letter from Theodore of Studion to John the Grammarian: Grumel, V., ‘Jean Grammaticos et saint Théodore Studile’, EO 36 (1937) 185.Google Scholar

58. Brubaker, L., The Illustrated Copy of the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus in Paris (Ph.D. diss. The Johns Hopkins University 1983) 394–414 Google Scholar. A book treating this material in more detail, Art after Iconoclasm, is forthcoming.

59. Martin, J.R., ‘The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine Art’, in Weitz-mann, K., ed., Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of A.M. Friend (Princeton 1955) 189–96 Google Scholar; cf. Kartsonis, A., Anastasis, The Making of an Image (Princeton 1986) 40–68, 126–46.Google Scholar

60. Discussion and literature in Gouillard, J., ‘Art et littérature théologique à Byzance au lendemain de la querelle des images’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 12 (1969) 8–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Visions of angels are also included in this category, on which see Travis (note 39 above) 30–40, 154.

61. John of Damascus Against those who attack Divine Images 111,36 (cf. 111,24 on the ‘spiritual sight’ of prophets and 111,36 on prophetic visions as the fourth kind of relative worship), ed. Kotter 133, 131, 140.

62. Gouillard, J., ‘Le Synodikon de l’orthodoxie, édition et commentaire’, Travaux et Mémoires 2 (1967) 51 Google Scholar. The reality of these visions received earthy expression from John of Damascus: ‘shall I not honour them, not as gods, but as images of God’s friends?’ (Against those who attack Divine Images 111,26, ed. Kotter 133).

63. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin (note 1 above) 247–8.

64. Fols. 67v (Vision of Isaiah), 285r (Vision of Habakkuk), 438v (Vision of Ezekiel): Omont (note 21 above) pis. XXV, XLIII, LVIII.

65. ‘Théophanes-visions auxquelles participant les prophètes dans l’art byzantine d’après la restauration des images’, Synthronon. Art et archéologie de la fin de l’antiquité et du moyen âge (Bibliothèque des Cahiers archéologiques 2, Paris 1968) 135–143.

66. Gouillard, Art et littérature (note 60 above) 8–9.

67. Ihm, C., Die Programme der christlichen Apsis malerie vom vierten Jahrhundert bis Zur Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 4, Wiesbaden 1960) 42–51.Google Scholar

68. For a representative selection of examples of miniatures, see Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela (note 26 above) 146–7.

69. For contemporary monumental examples of what has been termed the liturgical Majestas or (generic) Old Testament theophany, see Mango, C., Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington D.C. 1962) 29–35 Google Scholar; idem, Art (note 40 above) 203–204.

70. Par. gr.923, fol. 39v: Weitzmann, , Sacra Parallela (note 26 above) fig. 349. Vat. gr.699, fols. 72v, 74r, 75r: Stornajolo, , Topografia Christiana (note 28 above) pis.37, 39, 40.Google Scholar

71. Cormack, Painting after Iconoclasm (note 1 above), provides examples of such iconographie and stylistic conservatism. See also, for example, the image of the Massacre of the Innocents, Flight of Elizabeth, and martyrdom of Zacharias in the Paris Gregory (fol. 137r; Omont [note 21 above) pi. XXXII; Brubaker, Illustrated Copy [note 58 above] 401–404, 411–13). Sometimes, as in the crucifixion picture in Paris, gr.510, where the originally loin-clothed Christ was, on second thought, given a kolobion, the iconography even seems to be consciously archaistic: Martin, The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine Art (note 59 above) 191; Kartsonis (note 59 above) 140–6.

72. E.g. images of the crucifixion and anastasis in the marginal psalters (Kartsonis [note 59 above] 126–140); the use of the three-tone and colora conjuncta modelling systems.

73. E.g. intimations of the feast cycle in both the Paris Gregory and the marginal psalters (Brubaker, Illustrated Copy [note 58 above] 413–14); the redesign of Gospel prefaces ( Nelson, R., The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book [New York 1980])Google Scholar; the illusionistic backdrops and tonal modelling of one miniaturist in Paris, gr.510.

74. Witness Der Nersessian’s understandable (if incorrect) response to a miracle sequence in the Paris Gregory: ‘in order to show Jesus who, as man, walked among men, and, as God, healed them, one miracle served them as well as another’ (note 22 above, 205).

75. The generalities of this paragraph, as the next but one, are all argued in more detail, with examples, in my forthcoming Art after Iconoclasm and in my Ph.D. dissertation (note 58 above). I apologize for imposing my hypotheses as ‘facts’ without providing adjacent proof; this particular string of arguments takes, however, more space than an article basically dealing with another topic can carry. See also section 3 below, on the uses of art.

76. Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela (note 26 above) 42; for other examples, see ibid. 38, 43, 76, 88, 92–93, 95, 101, 107, 116, 138, 148–149, 157, 159, 167, 169, 172, 174, 178, 183, 246.

77. References in preceding note and ibid. 257–264.

78. For discussion on both points, see below. Quotation from Nikephoros, Antir-rheticus 2, 348; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 37.

79. Except in the Milan Gregory, lack of ability does not always seem to be the main restriction: coherent landscape settings and complex poses appear sporadically in Paris, gr.510, as do illusionistically drawn animals in Paris, gr.923.

80. Fol. 52v; Omont (note 21 above) pi. XXIV; Brubaker, Politics (note 14 above) 8–9.

81. See Corrigan (note 24 above); this discussion will be expanded in her forthcoming book The Representation of Orthodoxy in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters.

82. Mansi XIII, 164–165; trans. Mango, Art (note 40 above) 140. It is ironic that the earliest denial of invention known to me comes from Julian the Apostate’s defense of pagan imagery: ‘Innovation I abominate above all things’: Opera (ed. Teubner 453b).

83. Mansi XIII, 208C; trans. Sahas 52.

84. Ed. de Boor 167; trans. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 131.

85. John, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,22, ed. Kotter 111. Theodore, letter to Theoctistos (epistles 1.24), PG 94:984A, trans. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 90. Photios, Homily 17, 1, ed. Laourdas 164–5; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 287.

86. See section 3 below.

87. Letter to Theodoulos the Studite, epistles 1, 19, PG 99:957; trans. Mango, Art (note 40 above) 175.

88. Magdalino, P., ‘Observations on the Nea Ecclesia of Basil I’, JOB 37 (1987) 51–64 Google Scholar. I thank Dr. Magdalino for sending me a typescript of this article in advance of its publication as well as for a series of productive discussions.

89. In general, see Martin, E.J., A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London 1930) 130–49, 191–8 Google Scholar; Schönborn (note 36 above) 144–5, 148.

90. Quotation from Goody, J., ed., Literacy in Traditional Societies (Cambridge 1968) 2 Google Scholar; for comments on the relevance of literacy to social construction, many of them applicable to Byzantium, see also 27–68.

91. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,22, ed. Kotter 111, paraphrasing Proverbs 22:28, a combination of themes Johns repeats (11,15, 111,41, ed. Kotter 108, 141).

92. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,68 (= 11,71), ed. Kotter 168.

93. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,23 (cf. 11,16), ed. Kotter 113.

94. ‘Everything, therefore, which has been handed over in the Church of God, both written and unwritten, is venerated and honoured, and sanctifies bodies and souls; and concerning these things there is no doubt among the faithful’. Logos 617; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 125.

95. Antirrheticus III, 380; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 155, cf. 154.

96. Travis (note 39 above) 107; cf. 124–57, 171–2.

97. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,2, ed. Kotter 67; cf. 1,16, ed. Kotter 90: ‘Either do away with the honour and veneration these things deserve, or accept the tradition of the Church and the veneration of images’. Presumably because of the equation of Iconoclasm and imperial will, John also contrasted imperial edicts with church tradition, and found the former wanting (11,16, ed. Kotter 111–14); so too Theophancs, as noted by Sahas (note 33 above) 25.

98. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,25, ed. Kotter 117.

99. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,41, ed. Kotter 143. Also: ‘Receive as a single stream the testimony of Scripture and the Fathers’ (11,20 ed. Kotter 119); ‘Accept, therefore, the teaching of the Scriptures and the Fathers’ (1,26, ed. Kotter 117).

100. I do not mean to imply that tradition was ignored before the eighth century; rather, I am highlighting its persistent significance in the iconoclastic debate. See Alexander, P., ‘Religious Persecutions and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications’, Speculum 52 (1977) 238–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the same vein, see idem, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 257–8, on the refutation of ‘spurious’ texts by quoting ‘genuine’ passages.

101. Mansi XIII, 268C; trans. Sahas 97, Mango, Art (note 40 above) 166–7. For Nikephoros’ refutation, see Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 245.

102. Mansi XIII, 257C; trans. Sahas 89.

103. Mansi XIII, 248C; trans. Sahas 81.

104. Mansi XIII, 268A; trans. Sahas 96. Cf. Mansi XIII, 212D (where Epiphanios imagines the iconoclasts refusing to ‘follow faithfully the tradition which existed from the beginning’), 217C (where the iconoclasts ‘do not even come close to accepting the tradition admitted by so many saints throughout history’), 228C (where the iconoclasts refuse tradition ‘with contempt’), 272E (where the iconoclasts are accused of ‘speaking from their own belly’ rather than from tradition), 273B (the iconoclasts ‘have revolted against the Fathers, they oppose the tradition of the church’); trans. Sahas 55, 59, 66, 100, 101.

105. 105. Mansi XIII, 325C; trans. Sahas 145.

106. Mansi XIII, 269A; trans. Sahas 98.

107. Mansi XIII, 252B; trans. Sahas 84. Also 217D, 220E; trans. Sahas 59, 61.

108. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,60 (= 11,56,111,53), ed. Kotter 161. Also (quoting Leo of Neapolis) ‘worship has always been given to Him by use of images’ (1,56 [= 11,52], ed. Kotter 158); ‘we are not inventing a new faith’ (1,66 [= 11,69], ed. Kotter 166). For a selection of similar texts from Nikephoros, see Alexander, , Nicephorus (note 34 above) 244, Travis (note 39 above) 154–155.Google Scholar

109. See Ven, P. Van den, ‘La patristique et l’hagiographie au concile de Nicée en 787’, B 25/27 (1955/57) 328–30 Google Scholar; Bardy, G., ‘Faux et fraudes littéraires dans l’antiquité chrétienne’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 32 (1936) 290–91.Google Scholar

110. Ibid., 5–23, 275–302.

111. ‘A forged inscription of the year 781’, ZRVI 8 (1963) 201–207.

112. For the Council, Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 299; for Symeon’s Annales, ed. Bonn (1838) 689; for Niketas, PG 105:565–568.

113. Cameron and Herrin (note 9 above) 43–4, 87, 180, 199.

114. Sahas (note 33 above) 39; Van den Ven (note 109 above) 332; Speyer, W., Die literarische Falschung im heidnischen undchristlichen Altertum (Munich 1971) 277 Google Scholar. Documents read during the third session were also confirmed as authentic by personal witness: Mansi XII, 1145C-1154B.

115. See Van den Ven (note 109 above) 335–6.

116. Nikephoros, 12 Chapters, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 459; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 144 note 27. Cf. Grumel, V., ‘Les Douze chapitres contre les iconomaques de saint Nicéphore de Constantinople’, REB 17 (1959) 127–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For similar sentiments from the 787 Council: Mansi XIII, 225B-226C, 237D; trans. Sahas 65, 74.

117. Mansi XIII, 292E, 312B-E; trans. Sahas 117–18, 133–4. For other accusations of forgery, see Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 254, 259.

118. Mansi XIII, 281B; cf. 289C (the iconoclasts ‘distort the words of the apostle’), 292A-B (they ‘out of ignorance twist the meaning of the apostle’), 300A-D, 325A; trans. Sahas 107, 114, 115, 123–4, 144. See also Travis (note 39 above) 147.

119. Mansi XIII, 257B; trans. Sahas 89.

120. Mansi XIII, 224A; trans. Sahas 63. Nikephoros made the same point: Alexander, , Nicephoros (note 34 above) 255–6, 260–61 Google Scholar; Travis (note 39 above) 147.

121. Mansi XIII, 288B, cf. 281D; trans. Sahas 112, 108.

122. See, e.g. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,25, 11,18, ed. Kotter 116–17; Mansi XIII, 293B, 296D-E (trans. Sahas 118, 120–121) for the 787 Council; and for Nikephoros, who was particularly fond of demonstrating that a passage was an incorrect interpolation by contrasting it with numerous other quotations from the same author, see Alexander, , Nicephorus (note 34 above) 257–9, 262 Google Scholar. In a similar vein, the 787 Council complained: ‘having fabricated the accursed slogan… would that they had preserved his teachings, as well as those of all our holy Fathers, unbroken’. Mansi XIII, 212A, cf. 297B-300A; trans. Sahas 54, 121–2.

123. Mansi XIII, 260C; trans. Sahas 91.

124. Mansi XIII, 293B; trans. Sahas 118. The ninth canon of the 787 Council, in fact, ordered the destruction of all but one or two ‘examples’ of iconoclastic works, and recommended the same treatment for all heretical works: see Van den Ven (note 109 above) 333 and, for later parallels, Freedberg, D., ‘The Structure of Byzantine and European Iconoclasm’, in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 165–77 Google Scholar. Nikephoros, meanwhile, condemned students studying heretical writings: Apologeticus Maior, PG 100:564–5; cf. Travis (note 39 above) 136.

125. Nikephoros, Apologeticus Maior, PG 100:813. See also Travis (note 39 above) 130, 140, 160–61, 169–70 and, for similar arguments in his Refutatio, Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 252, 255. The 787 Council recognized this problem earlier: Mansi XIII, 253A, 313A-324C; trans. Sahas 85, 134–43.

126. Mansi XIII, 301E; trans. Sahas 125.

127. Mansi XIII, 285D, cf. 300E-301D; trans. Sahas 111, 124–5. This accusation may, in part, specifically criticize the [iconoclastic] 754 Council, where, exceptionally, short extracts only were read: see Sahas (note 33 above) 133–4 note 54.

128. Mansi XIII, 221C; trans. Sahas 62.

129. See Van den Van (note 109) 325–8.

130. On this group and their work, see Alexander, , Nicephorus (note 34 above) 126–7, 137.Google Scholar

131. For a collation of the lists, see Martin (note 89 above) 146–9, 194–5, 197–8; for a particularly extensive sequence of 26 texts in Nikephoros, PG 100:812–832. See also Alexander, Iconoclastic Council (note 38 above).

132. Martin, J.R., ‘An Early Illustration of the Sayings of the Fathers’, Art Bulletin 32 (1950) 291–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

133. Cormack, in an unpublished paper delivered at the XXIst Spring Symposium at Birmingham (March 1987), argued that it would make no sense to reproduce a text written by a major iconophile without illustrations in the ninth century. It is worthy of remark that John of Damascus seems to have been more important as a symbol of iconophilic resistance than for his specific arguments against Iconoclasm in eighth-and ninth-century Constantinople: the 787 Council never cited his iconophile writings — defending only his name from the abuse heaped upon it by the 754 Council without, however, evincing any indication that his actual works were known (Mansi XIII, 356C-D, 357B-D; trans. Sahas 168–70) — and neither does Photios, nearly a hundred years later ( Treadgold, W., The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius[DOS 18, Washington 1980] 27)Google Scholar. There is a plethora of possible reasons for this omission, only one of which is unfamifiarity with John’s anti-iconoclastic trilogy. I have, nonetheless, used his writings here with some caution, citing them primarily when John expressed widespread ideas more clearly than his contemporaries (e.g. Theodore of Studion, Against the Iconoclasts, PG 99:327–436).

134. See section 4 below.

135. Nikephoros, Antirrheticus 2, 348; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 37.

136. Mansi XIII, 241D; trans. Sahas 76. The iconophiles here followed John Chrysostom; for discussion, and comparison of Chrysostom’s views with those of Nikephoros, see Travis (note 39 above) 46–8.

137. Mansi XIII, 241C; trans. Sahas 76.

138. See Kustas, G., ‘The Literacy Criticism of Photios, A Christian Definition of Style’, Hellenika 17 (1962) 132–69, esp. 152.Google Scholar

139. See, for example, his comments on Maximus the Confessor in ‘codices’ 192–5 of the Bibliotheka: Photius Bibliothèque III, ed. Henry, R. (Paris 1962) 74–89, esp. 80–81.Google Scholar

140. Quotation from ‘Codex’ 166, ed. Henry II (1960) 149. See Treadgold (note 133 above) 101–102.

141. He also made this point in formal ekphrasis, when he lauded an image of the Virgin for ‘having mingled the bloom of colours with religious truth… bearing, so to speak, a complete and perfect image of piety’ (Homily 17,4, ed. Laourdas 168; trans. Mango, Homilies [note 45 above] 292): the image is ‘correct’ because it conveys Christian truth.

142. Cameron and Herrin (note 9 above) 46, 52–3.

143. John of Damascus (quoting Severianus), Against those who attack Divine Images 1,58 (= 11,54, 111,52), ed. Kotter 160.

144. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images, ed. Kotter 58. Photios makes a similar assertion about literature: ‘For it is thy wont to look not at the deficiencies but at the intention, and to make that the standard of the gift’. Homily 17,7, ed. Laourdes 172; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 296.

145. See also the discussion of material in section 3.1 below, and of iconography in section 2 above.

146. Mansi XIII, 252C; trans. Sahas 84. Cf. Cormack, Painting after Iconoclasm (note 1 above) 155, 157, 162. Painters had also been roundly condemned by the iconoclasts: Mansi XIII, 248E; trans. Sahas 81, Mango, Art (note 40 above) 166. Travis’ assessment (note 39 above, 44–5) of Nikephoros’ comments on the role of the artist is, in my opinion, misleading: Nikephoros hardly describes a ‘strikingly refined artistic sensibility’, nor does he insist that an artist be skilled, and open to ‘esoteric inspiration’. Instead, Nikephoros emphasizes (as did others before and after him) that the material used for art reflects the glory of the subject, that images are the equivalent of texts, and that the painter’s inspiration comes from God.

147. John of Damascus (quoting Gregory of Nyssa), Against those who attack Divine Images 1,50 (= 11,46), ed. Kotter 154.

148. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Di vine Images 11,5, ed. Kotter 72.

149. Photios, Homily 10,3, ed. Laourdas 100; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 185. This is related to the widespread concept of ‘God, the creator and craftsman of all things’ (quotation from Nikephoros, Antirrheticus 1, 225; trans. Travis [note 39 above] 44).

150. Photios, Homily, 17,2, ed. Laourdas 167; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 290.

151. Shepkina (note 23 above) fol. lv; Omont (note 21 above) pis. XV, XVI, XIX: Grabar, Miniatures (note 17 above) pls. II, VI, IX, XII, passim.

152. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,23, ed. Kotter 129; see also, in general, 1,19 (ed. Kotter 94). On the same theme: ‘accept [icons] with due honour’ (11,10, ed. Kotter 99); ‘remembrance is accomplished through sermons and images’ (1,38 [= 11,34], ed. Kotter 149).

153. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,40–41 (= 11,36–7), ed. Kotter 150.

154. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 11,11, ed. Kotter 102.

155. Mansi XIII, 277A; trans. Sahas 104.

156. Mansi XIII, 249D-E; trans. Sahas 83.

157. Mansi XIII, 348C-D; trans. Sahas 163. As noted above, this aspect affected Byzantine perception strongly.

158. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,13, ed. Kotter 86. On the latter point, imagery to encourage imitation, see below; and on the emotional impact of imagery implied in the first clause, see above.

159. Mansi XIII, 241A; trans. Sahas 76.

160. Against those who attack Divine Images 1,22, ed. Kotter 111. See also, from the 787 Council: ‘they see the venerable icon of Christ or of the holy Theotokos… [they] are sanctified, and they set their mind to the remembrance of them’. Mansi XIII, 249E; trans. Sahas 83.

161. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,17, ed. Kotter 126.

162. Nikephoros, Antirrheticus 2, 353; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 32.

163. Logos 589; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 104.

164. Photios, Homily 17,6, ed. Laourdas 171; trans. Mango Homilies (note 45 above) 295.

165. Synodikon Vetus 150: Duffy, J. and Parker, J., eds., The Synodikon Vetus (CFHB XV, Washington 1979) 124.Google Scholar

166. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,24, 36 (= 11,32), 42 (= 11,43), ed. Kotter 115, 147, 152.

167. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 11,11, 17, ed. Kotter 102, 115.

168. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,56 (= 11,52), 58, 61–4 (= 11,57–9, 67), 111,135, ed. Kotter 157, 161–2, 165–6, 198–9.

169. Brown, P., ‘A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy’, EHR 346 (1973) 12–13, 33 Google Scholar; Rouan (note 8 above) 432.

170. Cameron, A., ‘Images of Authority: Élites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium’, Past and Present 84 (August 1979)3–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in eadem, Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London 1981) XVIII.

171. Brubaker, Perception (note 4 above).

172. Gero, S., Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with particular attention to the Oriental Sources (CSCO 384 Subsidia 52, Louvain 1977) 147–51 Google Scholar; cf. Wortley, J., ‘Iconoclasm and Leipsanoclasm: Leo III, Constantine V and the Relics’, BFS (1982) 253–79 Google Scholar. I wonder whether increased contact and competition with Islam, which always denied the intercessory power of images (and hence had no genuine need for religious art), affected Constantine’s arguments. For the Islamic material, see Grabar, O., ‘Islam and Iconoclasm’, in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 45–52.Google Scholar

173. Though this was certainly a major plaint of iconophile authors: see Alexander, Religious Persecution (note 100 above) 259–62; Schonborn (note 36 above) 149–50, 186–91.

174. See the classic trio I. ŠevČenko, ‘The Anti-Iconoclastic Poem in the Pantocrator Psalter’, Grabar, A., ‘Quelques notes sur les psautiers illustrés byzantins du IXe siècle’, and Dufrenne, S., ‘Une illustration ‘historique’ inconnue du Psautier du Mont-Athos, Pantocrator 61’, all in Cahiers archéologiques 15 (1965) 39–60, 61–82, 83–95.Google Scholar

175. Corrigan’s discussion, now available in her Ph.D. dissertation (note 24 above), will be greatly expanded in her forthcoming book.

176. Brubaker, Politics (note 14 above); and my forthcoming Art after Iconoclasm.

177. Discussion of typologies comes closest to this function. See John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,12,11,20,111,22, 36, ed. Kotter 86, 119–20, 129, 140. Again, this topic is treated more fully in my forthcoming book.

178. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,30–31 (= 11,26–7), ed. Kotter 144–5.

179. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,21, ed. Kotter 128; cf. 1,11, ed. Kotter 84–5.

180. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,11, ed. Kotter 85; cf. 111,21, ed. Kotter 129.

181. In, among other places, the course of a discussion on the superiority of sight in his Apologeticus Maior 62, PG 100:748D-749B. Along the same lines, he observed that ‘through the icons, the knowledge of the archetype draws near to us’ (Logos 749; trans. Travis [note 39 above] 49), and ‘for the knowledge of the primary form (archetype) is obtained through the figure (image)’ (Antirrheticus 1,30; trans. Alexander, Nicephorus [note 34 above] 200).

182. Homily 17,5, ed. Laourdas 169–70; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 293. Photios, speaking to the Virgin, compares the gold and stones unfavorably with the faith, ‘purer than all gold’, brought by his congregation.

183. Onians, J., ‘Abstraction and Imagination in Late Antiquity’, Art History 3 (1980) 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

184. Ibid. 1–23.

185. Panofsky’s definition of iconology, for example, standard in the field, ignores the physical properties of art almost entirely: Studies in Iconology (Oxford 1939) esp. chapter I, part 1. For further comments on the importance of appearance, see below and Rouan (note 8 above) 425–36.

186. Cameron and Herrin (note 9 above) 37 note 96.

187. Ibid. 51–3.

188. Logos 772; Antirrheticus 2,353; cf. Travis (note 39 above) 37. See also John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,120, 138, ed. Kotter 193, 200, whose protestations to the contrary demonstrate that the equation of material value and spiritual worth was all too well known to the author.

189. Logos 725; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 44.

190. Parenthetically, since good and evil figures alike merit gold in both manuscripts, it is the sanctity of the whole book (the manuscript as an object) rather than individual persons that the gold is intended to reveal.

191. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,31 (= 11,27), ed. Kotter 145.

192. Anastos, M.V., ‘The Ethical Theory of Images formulated by the Iconoclasts in 754 and 815’, DOP 8 (1954) 151–60 Google Scholar remains the clearest exposition of this position.

193. On Nikephoros’ points, see Alexander, Iconoclastic Council(note 38 above) 49.

194. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,18, ed. Kotter 94.

195. Mansi XIII, 241A; trans. Sahas 75.

196. Mansi XIII, 277A; trans. Sahas 104.

197. Mansi XIII, 288C; trans. Sahas 113.

198. Homily 17,1, ed. Laourdas 164; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 286–7.

199. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,17, ed. Kotter 93, and also 11,10, ed. Kotter 99: ‘accept [icons] with due honour, as images, remembrances, likenesses and books for the illiterate’; on Nikephoros, see Travis (note 39 above) 48. For earlier expressions of this thesis, which ultimately stems from pagan ideas that images were appropriate for simple people, see Kessler, H.L., ‘Pictorial Narrative and Church Mission in Sixth-Century Gaul’, Studies in History of Art 16 (1985) 75–6 Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Pictures as Scripture in Fifth-Century Churches’, Studia Artium, Orientalis et Occidentalis 2/1 (1985) 18–20, 27–8.

200. Pictorial Narrative (note 199 above) 86.

201. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,47 (= 11,43), ed. Kotter 151.

202. The idea goes back at least to the fourth century: ‘Both painters of words and painters of pictures illustrate valour in battle; the former by the art of rhetoric, the latter by clever use of the brush, and both encourage everyone to be brave. A spoken account edifies the ear, while a silent picture induces imitation’. Basil, quoted by John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,46, ed. Kotter 151. John commented on another, similar passage from Basil elsewhere (1,32 [= 11,28,111,44], ed. Kotter 145), as did the 787 Council: Mansi XIII, 277B-C; trans. Sahas 104. For additional examples, see Kessler, , Pictorial Narrative (note 199 above) 84–7 Google Scholar and, for the sixth century, Barnard, L., ‘The Theology of Images’, in Bryer, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 11, 13 Google Scholar. Metaphorical equations appeared early also, as in Chrysostom’s ‘Melchizedek is used as an image in the scriptures in the same way as a silhouette is an outline for a portrait’, also quoted by John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,53 (= 11,49, 111,51), ed. Kotter 155.

203. Apologeticus Maior, PG 100:748; trans. Travis (note 39 above) 45. Similarly, John of Damascus wrote: ‘For just as words edify the ear, so also the image stimulates the eye’ in Against those who attack Divine Images 1,17 and see also 111,12, ed. Kotter 93, 123. Further, from the 787 Council: ‘by reading, and also by seeing the reproduction of a painting, we learn the same thing… in agreement we say with the words of the Psalms, As we have heard, so have we also seen [Ps 47:81]’. Mansi XIII, 220E-221A, cf. 232C (‘That which the narrative declares in writing is the same as that which the image does [in colours]’), 280A; trans. Sahas 61, 69, 105. Correspondingly, the Council countered invectives against painting by noting the illogic of condemning painters but not scribes: Mansi XIII, 249A; trans. Sahas 82.

204. See Travis (note 39 above) 55, 60 riotes 63 and 68. This is not at all uncommon, as both were denoted by the Greek word ‘graphe’. Naturally, Nikephoros condemned the iconoclastic practice of interchanging the terms writing, painting and circumscribing, on which see Travis 54. See also the 787 Council (Mansi XIII, 304A; trans. Sahas 125–6), and John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 111,23, ed. Kotter 130: ‘images are of two kinds: either they are words written in books… or else they are material images’.

205. Antirrheticus 3, PG 100:381, 384; trans, and commentary Travis (note 39 above) 48.

206. Against those who attack Divine Images 1,45 (= 11,41), ed. Kotter 151. Again, this is an old concept: according to Gregory of Nyssa, for example, the icon is ‘silent scripture that speaks from the wall’, PG 46:737C-740A. John of Damascus also quoted the seventh-century Leo of Neopolis ‘the images of the saints… are not our gods, but are like books which lie open in the churches in the sight of all’, in Against those who attack Divine Images 1,56 (= 11,52), ed. Kotter 159. The theme runs throughout the 787 Council: Mansi XIII, 269B (‘The representation of scenes in colour follows the narrative of the gospel, and the narrative of the gospel follows the narrative of the painting’), 280A, 312A (citing Theodotos of Ankara’s argument that writings are ‘animate icons’), 348C-D; trans. Sahas 98, 105, 132, 163. Cf. section 3 above, where the purpose and function of imagery and literature is compared.

207. Letter of 824 from Michael II and Theophilos to Louis the Pious, trans. Mango, Art (note 40 above) 158.

208. Antirrheticus 3, PG 100:380; trans. Mango, Art (note 40 above) 176.

209. Homily 17,5, ed. Laourdas 170; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 293–4; or, later in the same sermon: ‘if he treats either one with reverance or with contempt, he necessarily bestows the same on the other’ (Homily 17,6, ed. Laourdas 171; trans. Mango, Homilies [note 45 above] 295).

210. Gouillard, J., ‘Fragments inédits d’un antirrhétique de Jean le Grammarien’, REB 24 (1966) 176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Libri Carolini made the same point: Gero, S., ‘The Libri Carolini and the Image Controversy’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973) 15 Google Scholar. Cf. Alexander, Iconoclastic Council (note 38 above) 54 note 21.

211. As noted by iconophiles: e.g. John of Damascus, Against those who attack Divine Images 1,34 (= 11,30, 111,46), ed. Kotter 146. For other early examples, see Kessler, Pictorial Narrative (note 199 above) 84–5.

212. Refutatio; trans. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 211. Cf. idem, Iconoclastic Council (note 38 above) 49. It is interesting that Nicephoros here described the texts as ‘heard’ rather than ‘seen’. For a similar distinction in the Latin West, see Camille (note 16 above).

213. Antirrheticus 3, PG 100:381, 384; commentary in Travis (note 39 above) 48.

214. Homily 17,5, ed. Laourdas 170; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 294.

215. Homily 17,5, ed. Laourdas 170; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 294.

216. Against those who attack holy images 11,65, ed. Kotter 164. For earlier examples and discussions, see Kessler, Pictorial Narrative (note 199 above) 86–7 and idem, Pictures as Scripture (note 199 above) 17.

217. Epistles 2,64, PG 99:1285A.

218. Homily 17,5, ed. Laourdas 170; trans. Mango, Homilies (note 45 above) 293.

219. Nicephorus (note 34 above) 211–12.

220. The impact of the media, and especially advertising, suggests that this is again true today; see below.

221. Corrigan, K., in a paper on the marginal psalters delivered at the Eleventh Annual Byzantine Studies Conference (Toronto 1985)Google Scholar, first suggested that the medallion portraits in the Sacra Parallela and Milan Gregory performed this role.

222. The use of a scroll in the portraits is also probably significant, indicating that Gregory gave these sermons long ago: his words are sanctified by tradition.

223. In a sense, this idea was anticipated in the sixth-century Rossano Gospels, where Old Testament figures hold scrolls bearing their prophetic words that forecast the New Testament scene about them.

224. Corrigan has dealt with this issue in papers delivered at numerous conferences; an expansion of the thesis will appear in her forthcoming book.

225. See ray Politics (note 14 above) and Illustrated Copy (note 58 above) 120–285; I shall further elaborate this thesis elsewhere.

226. It may be significant that this process is pronounced in miniatures, but so little other figurative art survives from the ninth century that whether or not icons, murals, or any other media also functioned as visual exegesis remains a moot point. Certainly the apse mosaic at Hagia Sophia (see note 13 above), with its stress on the incarnation, can be read as exegetical.

227. Panofsky (note 185 above) 11.

228. All citations from Geertz, C., Local Knowledge: Future Essays and Interpretive Anthropology (New York 1983) 96–97.Google Scholar

229. Ibid., 99.

230. Ibid., 118.

231. On the historiography of the discipline of art history, see Podro, M., The Critical Historians of Art (New Haven and London 1982)Google Scholar and Holly, M.A., Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History (Ithaca and London 1984).Google Scholar

232. On the appliction of sign theory to art, see Bryson, N., Vision and Painting, The Logic of the Gaze (New Haven and London 1983)Google Scholar; for its application to iconoclastic Byzantium, see Rouan (note 8 above).

233. Alexander, Nicephorus (note 34 above) 112.

234. An excellent analysis of this process as expressed in the Life of Stephen the Younger appears in Rouan (note 8 above).

235. Relevant documents for all these actions have been collected and discussed by, among others, Gero, Constantine V (note 172 above) 121–137; idem, ‘Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 (1977) 241–8; and Alexander, Religious Persecution (note 100 above).

236. Perhaps because, even if we are not up on the latest permutations of semiotic theory, we have absorbed Saussure in much the same way as we have absorbed Freud, it has become simple for us to read images as codes, each part of which means something else. The Byzantines did not have the benefit of modern linguistic theory. Nonetheless, I suspect that they would have found most of Saussure’s thesis appealing (this, indeed, may explain the rise of Byzantine art history in the twentieth century). The only problem is that Saussure did not deal with the referent, the real world equivalent or example of the abstracted sign; the Byzantines did. Saussure defined the sign as consisting of two interrelated parts, the abstract concept (e.g. the idea of rat) and its sound-image (the word ‘rat’, which gains its meaning through the fact that it is different from other words such as art or tar). The Byzantines were not interested in what Saussure called the sound-image, but they were very interested in the relationship between the abstract concept and the real world. The viewer mediated between the two, in much the same way as the sound-image itself does in Saussurian semiotics.