Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:18:23.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Stephen Gero
Stephen Gero
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 1977 , pp. 241 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

page 241 note 1 Much of the pertinent material will be presented and discussed in greater detail in a forthcoming monograph devoted to iconoclasm during the reign of Constantine v.

page 241 note 2 lorga, S. N., Études byzantines, ii, Bucharest, 1940, 233Google Scholar. See also Uspenskij, K. N., Očerki vizantijskojistorii, Moscow 1917, 213Google Scholar. Cf. the critique of these theories by Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Über die vermeintliche Reformtätigkeit der Isaurier', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 30 (1930), 399Google Scholar.

page 241 note 3 A ‘classical’ statement of this view is found in Schwarzlose, K., Der Bilderstreit, Gotha 1890, 251Google Scholar. See also Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York 1974, 51Google Scholar.

page 241 note 4 Brown, P., ‘A Dark-Age crisis: aspects of the Iconoclastic controversy’, The English Historical Review, 346 (1973), 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Brown's general approach is accepted, though slight details are criticised, in Henry's, P. article ‘What was the Iconoclastic Controversy about?’, Church History, 45 (1976), 18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. my own earlier comments on Brown's work in ‘Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century’, Byzantion, 44 (1974), 38–40Google Scholar.

page 242 note 1 E.g. Savramis, D., ‘Die Kirchenpolitik Kaiser Leons III’, Südostforschungen, 20 (1961), 15–18Google Scholar.

page 242 note 2 For evidence from one late chronicle, see my Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III, with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 346, Louvain, 1973), 97Google Scholar, n. 13.

page 242 note 3 Namely the γρων, an iconophile hermit who is the supposed spokesman in the Noυθεσα edited by Melioranskij. Cf. Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, 487Google Scholar.

page 242 note 4 The horos of the second iconoclastic council, in 815, refers to the presence of both ‘spiritual fathers’ and ‘God-loving bishops’: ed. Alexander, P. J., ‘The Iconoclastic Council of Saint Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos)’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (1959), 59Google Scholar, extract no. 2.

page 242 note 5 Zonaras, ed. Bonn, iii, 274, lines 10—15.

page 242 note 6 Patrologia Graeca, 100, 1116D-1118A.

page 243 note 1 Vita Pauti (Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, no. 1471); Vita Andreae (op. cit., no. 111).

page 243 note 2 Theophanis Chranographia, ed. C. de Boor, i, Leipzig 1883, 432, lines 16–21.

page 243 note 3 Op. cit., 436, 26—437, 19; Nicephorus, Breviarium, ed. C. deBoor, Nicephori… opuscula historica, Leipzig 1880, 72, lines 10–26.

page 243 note 4 Theophanes. ed. de Boor, 442, lines 18—22.

page 243 note 5 ὠς πoλλoς, φασν, ξαπατᾷ διδσκων δóξης τς παoσης καταφρoνεῑν oἵκων τε κα συγγεμεας ὐπερoρᾱν κα τς βασιλεoυς αὐλς πoατρφεσθαι κα πρòς τν μoνρη βoν μεταρρυθμςζεσθαι (ed. de Boor, 72, lines 15–18).

page 243 note 6 Ed. de Boor, 445, line 28—446, line 15.

page 243 note 7 κεφας δ' ἅλλων τoῑς ερoῑς πναξιν, ν oις τν γων τ κτυπὼματα κεχρα, διθραυoν παoντες (ed. de Boor, 71, lines 18–20).

page 243 note 8 The convoluted idea recently put forth that monasteries were attacked qua ‘sacred space’ which encroached on the ‘Eusebian’ claim of the empire to represent the kingdom of God on earth (P. Henry, ‘What was the Iconoclastic Controversy …’, 28–29) is entirely gratuitous. Buildings and grounds deserted by the flight or imprisonment of their monastic denizens were simply put to productive use.

page 244 note 1 φιλóς … τν μητρoπoλτας κ τν ββδων ν τoῑς πρωτoτo (Theophanes, ed. deBoor, 449, 14–17).

page 244 note 2 I discuss the career of John in detail in a forthcoming article, ‘John the Grammarian, the Last Iconoclastic Patriarch of Constantinople: The Man and the Legend’, (to appear in Bυξαντιν, Uppsala).

page 244 note 3 Theophanes, ed. deBoor, 481, 33–482, 1.

page 244 note 4 Patrologia Graeca, 95, 369A-371A.

page 244 note 5 Theophanes Continuatus, ed. de Boor, 102.

page 245 note 1 It should be noted that the first large-scale ecclesiastical opposition to Christian image worship seems to have arisen among otherwise quite orthodox Armenian monks; see Alexander, P. J., ‘An Ascetic Sect of Iconoclasts in Seventh Century Armenia’, in Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert M. Friend, Jr., ed. Weitzmann, K., Princeton 1955, 151–160Google Scholar.

page 245 note 2 See Speck, P., ‘Ein Heiligenbilderzyklus im Studios-Kloster um das Jah r 800’, Actes du XIIe congrès international d'études byzantines, Ochride, 10—16 septembre 1961, Belgrade 1964, iii, 340Google Scholar.

page 245 note 3 On this point an illuminating contrast can be seen with the chaste or at least conventionally virtuous life prescribed in sixteenth century Russian canonical legislation: Stoglav, ed. D. E. Kožanikov, St. Petersburg 1863, 150; Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres, ed. Duchesne, E., Paris 1920, 133Google Scholar. Cf. Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Les décisions du “Stoglav” concernant la peinture d'images et les principes de l'iconographie byzantine’, in his Byzanz und die Welt der Slawen, Darmstadt 1974, 139Google Scholar.

page 245 note 4 The most recent discussion of this interesting episode in Chinese history is given by Demiéville, P., ‘L'iconoclasme anti-bouddhique en Chine’, in Mélanges d'histoire des religions offerts a Henri-Charles Putsch, Paris 1974, 18–25Google Scholar. As this author remarks, the comparison with Byzantine iconoclasm has a certain typological value (18). For the purposes of the present discussion I would point to the emergence of an iconoclastic faction within the Buddhist clergy itself, a faction which eventually gave rise to the Zen school (op. cit., 23–24); this group corresponds to iconoclastic monks in Byzantium. A typological comparison can also be made between the empress Irene and the fanatical iconophile usurping empress Wu (690–705) who expressed her megalomania by erecting Buddha statues of monstrous proportions (op. cit., 19—20).

page 246 note 1 The Byzantinist can only blanche with envy at the precise statistics which have been preserved in this affair; see Ch'en, K., ‘The Economic Background of the Hui-Ch‘ang Suppression of Buddhism’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 19 (1956), 67–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To be sure, of course, the elements of political intrigue and the emperor's Taoist religious fanaticism were not lacking; see Reischauer, E., Ennin's Travels in T'ang China, New York 1955, 217–271Google Scholar.

page 246 note 2 Text of the edict cited by Ch'en, op. cit., 68. In Byzantium the closest parallel of course i s the decision of the emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118), which encountered much opposition, to melt down church treasure for paying the wages of his mercenary troops. On this affair see now A. A. Glavinas, ‘H πí’ Aλεχ Koμνηνoυ (1081–1118) περí íερων σkεlμηíων, kαí αγíων εíκνων εγíν εíκνων ἔρls (1081–1091), Thessalonica 1972.

page 246 note 3 Cf. Kaegi, W. E., ‘The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm’, Byzantinoslavica, 28 (1966), 48–70Google Scholar, esp. 59.

page 247 note 1 Both Leo and Constantine conducted public propaganda meetings, paradoxically calledsilentia: Theophanes, 40S, 32: 427, 20. Leo is accused of inciting persecution against die well-born, and educated μαλlστα Δ τoυs ευγενεíα καí γγω Διαφνειs: op. cit., 405, 10–11. Nicephorus claims that Constantine drew much support from the army units he recruited from the capital from shepherds and swineherds: Parisinus graecus 1250, fol. 195r.

page 247 note 2 πωs Δε καíα καí Δoυλoνs τoιs olκειols Δεσπταιs πανστησs τη των κεκτηüενω ει ενσεβειs τυγΞανoν κατηγoρια και πρoΔoσια πoloυμενos ηγlστos: Par. gr. 1250, fol. 195r.

page 247 note 3 The thesis of G. B. Ladner, forcefully argued in his ‘Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy’, Mediaeval Studies, 2 (1940), 127–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 247 note 4 A solid beginning in this direction has been made by D. Papachryssanthou, ‘La vie monastique dans les campagnes byzantines du VIIIe au XIe siècle: Ermitages, groupes, communautés’, Byzantion, 43 (1973), 158–180.

page 248 note 1 On the need for a more balanced reevaluation of the significance of iconoclasm see the excellent comments of Beck, H.-G., ‘Von der Fragwürdigkeit der Ikone’, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-hislorische Klasse, Sitiungberichte, Jahrgang 1975, Heft 7, Munich 1975Google Scholar, esp. 13.