Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
z6u
edited by
Hans-Jiirgen Feulner, lena Velkovska,and Robert F. Taft, S.J.
i
:ir
i4',
i:; P O N T I F I C I OI S T I T U T O O R I E N T L E
l' ir ; PIAZZAS.MAruAMAGGIORE, 7
I_00185 ROMA
2000
1
I
i
:
.t 1a"
,^rd -'
e -af
*.'
Q/'
OFCULTURES
CROSSROAD
Studiesin Liturgy and Patristicsin
Honor of CabrieleWinkler
edited by
Hans-Jrgen Feulner, Elena Velkovska, and Robert F. Taft, S.J.
P O N T I F I C I OI S T I T U T OO R I E N T A L E
PIMZAS.MARIAMAGGIORE, ?
I-OO1B5
ROMA
2000
-l
ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANALECTA
EDITOR
RobertF. Taft, S.J.
ASSOCIATEEDITOR
EdwardG. Famrgia,S.J.
WITH
The Professorsof the PontificalOrientalInstitute
SECRETARY
Bernardo Armti, S.J.
MANAGING EDITOR
Jaroslaw Dziewicki
,'! |
L. r,'
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations 7
Letter of Archbishop Khajag BARSAMTN 9
"The holy images ofthe iconoclasts" - prima facie the very notion
seems to be self-contradictory. How could the iconoclasts have holy
images? Were they not, as the etymology of the designation (i.e.
"image-breakers") already shows, rather the destroyers of images?
This is for instance expressly asserted in an early, brief accounr,
which is appended to a heresiological work of John Damascus; the
passage,even if not written by John himself, surely dates from the
reign of Leo IIL Describing the activities of Leo's partisans the author
says."They are called iconoclasts because ... they have given over the
holy and august images to being broken and burned. In a like man-
ner, they either scraped off or obliterated with lime and black paint
the images on walls".r In a somewhat later account (doubtfully at-
tributed to the patriarch Germanus, but at any rate written before the
iconoclastic council of 754),, though the explicit designation "icono-
clasl" does not appear, the destructive activity of the heretics is de-
-
Abbreviatio:rs:
GcIo, BI, vol. I = S- Gero, B)zartire lcotloclasm (lltring the Reigtl of I2o IIl,.Nith Par-
licltlar Attentiotl to l1eOental Sottrces(Louvain, 1973).
Gcrr, Bl, vol. 2 = S. Gcro, Byzantine lcotlocktsltt tltting the Reigtl (t Constetltine V,
with Particular Attentiolr 10the Oielltal So&r'ces(Louvain, 1977).
GoIo,"IconoclasticMovemcDt"= S. GeIo, "The ByzntineIconoclasticMovcmcnt: A
Sr:r'vey"irr LiZnc dans la tlologie et l'urt (Lcs tudcs thologiques de Charnbsy,
vol.9, Chanbsy/Gcmcva, 1990),pp.95 11.
Grabar,L'iconoclasne = A. Grabar, L'ictttoclasnte bya.attt1.Ip tlossier archologique,
2nd ed. (Paris, 1984).
Kilzinger, 11crllto = E. Kitzinger, Il culto delle inttnagini. L'arte b:.antn clal cstiane-
simo clelleoigini all'lcoroclaslla (Florence, 1992).
Thiimmel, Bilderlehre = H.G. Thiimmcl, Die Fngeschchte der ostkirchlichen Bilder
lehrc.Texleuru| Untersuchungenzur Zeit vor dem Bilclerstreit(Berlin, 1992).
Th\immd, Bilderstreil = H.G. Thiimmel, Bldcrlehte utld Bilderstreit. Arbeiten zur Aus
einandersetaungiiber die Ikone und hre Begriin(1ut1gttomehtnlich im 8. utttl 9.
.lahund erl (W lirz.blr g, 1991).
IPG 94,773A8. On this passagesee Cero, BI, vol. l, p. 99 and B. Kotter, Die
Schiften tles Johannesvon Damaskos. IV. Liber tle haeresibus-Opet polemice (P'erl'ir,l
NewYork, 1981),p. 5.
I SeeBl, vol. 1, pp. 97-8. John Wortley, ("Iconoclasm and Lcipsanoclasm: Leo III,
ConstaDtiDe V and the Relics," By:arrinrsche Farschungen8 (1982) 258 [f) woulcl even
dateil to ca.7E0.
332 STEPHEN GERO
scribed in ample detail: "Those who now preach this doctrine were
not satisfied with removing the images of the saints on panels, but
they also wanted to destroy the corresponding painted decoration of
the most venerable temples. Moreover, they laid hands on the hon-
ored and holy figurative table coverings of the holy sanctuaries ... be-
cause the pictures of the saints were found depicted on them".3 As a
complement to such eighth-century descriptions, one can register, for
example, a ninth-century account by the patriarch Nicephorus, from
a work of his, written perhaps around 820, describing the depreda-
tions of the iconoclastic partisans of Leo V. After asserting that the
iconoclasts denied altogether the venerable tradition of the ancients
(a charge, often repeated, which comes very close to the modem use
of the term "iconoclast" to describe someone who attacks or ridicules
traditional institutions and ways of thinking) Nicephorus continues:
"they leveled to the ground the holy temples, ruined the altars,
burned the holy table coverings in the middle of the marketplace and
broke ... the holy vessels".aFor good measure, we are told by the pa-
triarch, the miscreants even trampled on the cross of Christ and
made short shrift of all the venerable symbols of the Christian faith,
vouched for by the pious emperors and priests of the past.
The foregoing are typical examples of the very one-sided way in
which the Byzantine iconoclasts were represented in the literary tra-
dition of their iconophile opponents; such descriptions are paralleled
in the tendentious depictions, in some instances outright caricatures,
of the iconoclasts in manuscript illustrations of the ninth century and
later, wherein various iconoclasts, in particular John the Grammar-
ian, insult or defaceimages.5
Outright destruction, defacement or forceful removal of ecclesias-
tical decoration did take place of course, at time surely accompanied
by much violence; it should be noted in this connection, however,
J PG 98, 8OBC.
a Duodecim capitula, ed. A. Ppadopoulos Kerameus, AvdsKra Ispooo),upLlKq
!ro1oo)"oyicq,vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, l89l), p. 458, lines 12 ff = ed. A. Maj,, Spicilegium
Romanum,vol.l0 (Rome, 1844),p. 154,line 2 ab imo - p. 155,line 7.
5 See Crabar, L'iconoclasme, pp. 225 ff and now K. Corrigan, Visual Polemics in
the Ninth-century Psallels (Cambridge, 1992), pp.27 ff, ll4 ff, For no good reason
Fernanda de' Maffei would identify the iconoclastic gthering in the illustration of
Psalm 25 ir the Khludov psalter (Moscow, Hist. Mus. gr. 129D, fol. 23v) s the coutcil
of 754, not as tht of 815, and accordingly the presiding figure in imperial garb as
Constantine V, not as Sybatios-Constantine, the son of Leo V (lcona, pittore e arte al
Concilio Niceno II (Rome, 1974),p. 95).
W1IATWERETHE HOLY IMAGESOF TIIE ICONOCLASTS? 333
For details see Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. 87, 96, 107.
7 cero, BI, vol. l, pp. 113 ff and most recently P. Speck, "Td rfl ft.apiopato
nLrivo. IJberlegungen zur ulendekoration der Chalke im achten Jahrhuldert," in B.
Borkopp et al. (eds.), Studizn a t bt?pntinischen Khnstgeschichte. Festschift f r Horst
Halletuleben zum 65- Gebultstag (Ansterdam, 1995), pp. 211 ff.
8 On this subject see the observtios of I.M. Resnick, "Idols and images: early
definitions and controversies," Soboflost 7 (1985) 35 ff.
334 STEPHEN GRO
'Sec Gero, BI, vol. 1, pp. 85 ff and D. Stein, "Biblische Excgese und kirchliche
Lel-re im Fr und Wider des byzanlinischen Bilderstreits," in Chr. Dohncn/Th.
Sternberg (eds.), ...ltein Bildnis machen. K,totsttntl TheoLogte
n Gesprch(Wtirzburg,
1987),pp. 69 tf.
1t De tenrplo, ed. D. Hurst, Bedae Venerabilisopeftr, pars II, 2A (CCh, ser. latina,
vol. 119,Tumhout, 1969),p.212, lines l8 ff.
rrOn this mtter see further my remarks in "Iconoclastic Movement", pp.
98-9
nd "Early Contacts between Byzntium amd the Arab Empire: A Review and Some
Reconsiderations" in Tl Fouth Intemational Conlrenceon the History of Bilad al-
Shan,vol.l (Amman, 1987),pp. 128ff.
r2 PG 98. t84AB.
WIIAT WERE THE HOLY IMGS OF THE ICONOCNSTS? 335
true image of Christ;t3 this, apart from the polemical accent, was of
course in itself no theological novelty.raThe immediate source seems
to have been Eusebius of Caesarea,who in his famous letter to the
empress Constantia expounded the eucharistic image doctrine as parr
of his sustained argument against the making of material images of
Christ.r5
According to the iconoclasts it is in the consecrated eucharistic
elements that one can see the image of Christ. The eucharistic bread
is the eirv of the body of Christ, it depicts His flesh, it is the 16zroof
His body. Through sacerdotal consecration the eucharistic elements
are transferred from the domain of the hand-made, r 1rpofiotnrov,to
that made without hands, t dlerporoirpov; this formulation, probably
original to Constantine V, is surely directed against the widespread
veneration of miraculously produced images of Christ. In the refine-
ment and elaboration of this doctrine in t]rrehoros of 754 the connec-
tion with the idolatry theme is made explicit - the eucharist is the
"unlying image" of Christ's body, transferred through the sacerdotal
prayer from the sphere ofthe profane, rd rorvv, to that of the holy, r
dyrov.This is by divine intent an image 'ot fashioned in the form of
a man", so that idolatry may not even by stealth be introduced. This
exposition of the eucharistic image doctrine is coupled with polemic
against the pseudonymous images of the iconophiles; these have ner-
ther the sanction of biblical and patristic tradition nor - and this
seemsto be the crucial point - have they been consecrated bv means
of a holy prayer to effect the passagefrom the sphere of the profane
to that of the holy; instead, the ftoros concludes, the so-called icons
13For details see Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. 45 ff, l0l ff.
14See S. Gero, "The Eucharistic Doctrine
of the Byzntine Iconoclasts and lts
Sources," BZ 68 (1975) 4 ff; M. Gesteira carz. La Eucar-istia, dimagen de Cristo?
Ante el 12.o Centenario del Concilio 2.o de Nicea," Revista espafrolade teotogte 4j
(1987).281 ff, esp. 292 ff; J.N. Prs, "La cne est-elle la Vrai icne du Chrisr? (Aux
origines du dogme eucharistique)," Eladas thologiques et rcligieuses 63 (1988) 529 ff.
For a study of the issues involved plced in a broader "history of ideas', context see S.
Michalski, "Bild, Spiegelbild, Figura, Representtio. Ikonittsbegriffe im Spannungs-
feld zwischen Bilderfrage und Abendmahlskontroverse," AHC 20 (1988) 458 ff, esp.
463 11.
ls See S. Gero, "The Tme Image of
Christ Eusebius'Irtter to Constanti Recon-
sidered," JTS, n.s. 32(1981), p. 467t Chr. Schnborn, Die Chstus-Ikone (Schaffhau-
sen, 1984), pp. 67 ff; Ch. Murray, "Le pmblme de l'iconophobie et les premiers
sicles chrtiens," in F. Bcespflug / N. Lossky (eds.), Nr'cle 11, 7gZ-1987. Do ze sicles
d.'imagesreligieuses (Paris, 1987), pp. 44 ff. Cf. S. Gero, "Aggiornamento bibliografico,,
ir Kitzinger , Il cuho, p. lO9.
336 STEPHEN GERO
remain common and worthless, just as the painter made them. Here
we are confronted with the iconoclasts' mature criteria for discerning
a true holy image - it is validated by the authority of tradition, it is
of a non-anthropomorphic character, and it is properly consecrated,
in order to effect the descent and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the eucharistic image, though not explicitly men-
tioned in the extant fragments of the second iconoclastic council in
8i5, did in all likehood retain currency throughout the whole period
and the formula "eirv (or runo) of His body" as applied to the
eucharist seems to have gained the status of an iconoclastic shibbo-
leth;r6 thus Theodore of Studios cites the iconoclastic statement that
Christ can be represented - but only in accordance with the words
"Do this in remembrance of me"; such an image is true and such a
depiction is sacred.rT
The eucharistic icon, despite all the safeguards, is of course still
an outwardly material image; as a complement to it a purely spiritual
doctrine, the so-called "ethical theory of images"tE is also at times
proffered. Rather than depicting the bodily traits of Christ or the
saints "in lifeless and speechlessicons" one should attempt to imitate
their conduct and thus form living images of their virtues. Normally,
the means of emulation is the perusal of ecclesiastically approved
writings; at times there seems to be a more direct, almost mystical
dimension to the formtion of the image of Christ in the soul,
through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.'e The language used
here (pprp<,rot,ytaopo)is very similar to that employed in connec-
tion with the eucharistic image, and is frequently conjoined with an
appeal to direct biblical polemic gainst material idolatry.
An austere spirituality does characterize at least one strand of
iconoclastic thought, and this at times manifests itself in a distste
for ecclesiastical decoration altogether. Thus some iconoclasts ad-
duced a passage from John Chrysostom which questions the very
utility of the adornment of walls and vestments;20the appropriateness
t On this point see E. Morini, "Ancora sulla Vita di s. Giorgio di Amastride. Note
su un recente contributo," Studi e icerche sull'oiente cisti(mo 2 (1979) 143 ff, esp.
t47.
r7 Pc 99, 940A.
13See M.V. Anastos, "The Ethicl Theory of lmages Formulated by the Iconoclasts
in 754 and 814," DOP 8 (1954)151 ffand Gero,Bl, vol.2, pp. 106ff.
r eP c 9 9 , 3 3 6 8 .
20Te*t .'o. 27 in Thmmet, Bilderlehre(p.293).
WHAT WER TH HOLY IMCES OF TH ICONOCLASTS? 337
of the passagein this context is refuted at great length by Nicephorus.
According to the iconoclasts' version of the fifth-century patristic tes-
timonium, from the letter of Nilus to Olympiodorus, only the plain
cross should be depicted in the sanctuary and the rest of the church
should be whitewashed.2r The iconoclasts also adduced a staremenr
of Epiphanius, according to which no church decoration other than
the plain cross is permitted.r2 But it is however quite clear that for the
most part the iconoclastic policy tolerated or even encouraged abun-
dant zoomorphic and floral decoration as adiaphora; in particular the
possibility that 1j*(he object of idolatry for the faithful could be a
...--
theriomorphia representation by itself was no longer envisaged.ri The
iconoclasts were apparently unwilling to engagein a debate about the
symbolic depiction of the Savior as agnus Del versus a realistrc, an-
thropomorphic one, as posed in the f:famous eighty-second canon
of the council in Trullo;2athe text was dismissed by them either as
being an enactment of all too recent vintagezsor, alternatively, as one
of heretical provenience.26
This brings us to the subject of the cross as a sacred symbol for
the iconoclasts. A cross replaced the Chalce Christ image, which was
removed by imperial command, already at the outset, in the early
eighth century.2?There is abundant and reliable archaeolosical evi-
eve[t ("La destruction de I'icne du Chrisr de la Chalc par Lon III: propagande ou
ralil? Byz 60 ( ! 990)445 m quitc unconvincing.
28See in general R. Cormack, "The Arts
during the Age of Iconoclasm.. in A.
Bryer / J. Hejn, lconoclasra (Birmingham, 197?),pp. 35 ff.
29 See W.S. George, The Church
of Saiftt Eirene at Constantinople (London, l9t2),
pp. 48 ff and U. Peschlow, Die fterzenkirchein Istambul. lIfttersuchunlen zur Architek-
ftil (Tiibingen, 197'1).p. 22.
30For detils see M. K alliga, Die Hagio
Sophia ton Thessalonike(Wrzburg, 1935),
pp. 59 ff; R. Cormack, "The Apse Mosaics of S. Sophia at Thessaloniki,', eX,tiovr{q
Xprmrcvrxi Apxoro),oltxg'Eroirg, ser.4, vol. 10 (1980-81)112 ff, esp. 117; O.
Demus, 'Zur Datierung der Apsismosaiken der Hagia Sophi in Thessalonike,,,in O.
Feld / U. Peschlow,Studien zur sptitantiken und byzantinischenl<ur1stFr;edrtchWilhelm
Deichnanh Eewidfter, pt. 2 (Bonn, 1986), pp. 181 ff.
3r See Kitzinger, 1l cuho, pp. 137 11^d p.A. Under.wood,"The
Evidence ot Resto,
rations in the Sanctuary Mosaics of the Dormition at Nicaea," DOp 13 (1959) 235 ff.
The cross replaced a standing Virgin with the Child, which may even date, as several
recent studies confirm, from the early eighth century; see Ch. Barber, "The Koimesis
Church, Nicaea. The limits of representation on the eve of Iconoclasm," JB 41
( 1991)45-6.
32lncidentally, there is evidence for
curious advocacy, in a ninth-century East
Syrin miueu, of like strict "rationing" of cruciform church decoration, which was
arguably influenced by this type of Byzantine iconoclastic thinking; for details see S.
Gero, "The Legend of the Monk Bahr, the Cult of the Cross and Iconoclasm,', in la
Syie de By.ance I'Islam, VIP - VIIIe siles (Damascus, 1992), pp. 47 ff, esp. pp. 56-7.
33BHG t075e; ed. W. Lackner, "Ein byzantinisches
Marienmirlel,,, Buqwrv{ill,
2 (1985) 851, lines 27 ff;see also Gero, "Iconoclastic Movement", p. 100, note 15.
WI{AT WERE THE HOLY IMAGS OF fiIE ICONOCLSTS? 339
m Kreuz. Ein Beitrag zur Polemik Humberts von Silva Candida," in Eikon uncl Lo-
gos. Beitrgezur Erforschung by4antinischerK hurtrad.itionen, vol. 2 (Halle, 1981), p.
329. The combination of cross ard imperial effigy is of course standard in the nu,
mismalic iconography of this and the immediately preceding periods (see M. Restle,
Kunst und byaantitlische Mnzpriigung ron Justinian I. bi-szum Biaerstreit (Athes,
1964),pp. 101 ft).
aBIn particular Grabar, L'iconoclasme,p. 181. Cf. Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. I 11 ft
4e PG 100, lll3A = ed. M.,Fr. Auzpy, I4 vte d'Etienne le Jeune par
Etienne b
Dincre(Aldershot,1997),p. l21,lines 16 ff.
s0 Constantine Manasses,Compendium chronicum, PG 127, 383A; Michael Glycas,
Annales,PG 158,528CD.Seealso Gero,BI, vol.2, p. 117.
sr Thus it hardly occsions surprise thaT the holos of the iconoclastic council
of
754 does not mention images of the emperors.
52PG 1o0,4'17c.
-'
See George, Srirt Eireae, pp. 50 t.
WI{AT WERE THE HOLY IIVTAGESOF TIIE ICONOChSTS? 343