Iconoclasm

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Iconoclasm (Eikonoklasmos, "Image-breaking") is the name of theheresy that in the eighth and ninth centuries disturbed the peace of theEastern Church, caused the last of the many breaches withRome that prepared the way for theschism of Photius, and was echoed on a smaller scale in theFrankish kingdom in the West. The story in the East is divided into two separate persecutions of theCatholics, at the end of each of which stands the figure of an image-worshipping Empress (Irene and Theodora).

The first Iconoclast persecution

The origin of the movement against the worship (for the use of this word seeVENERATION OF IMAGES) of images has been much discussed. It has been represented as an effect ofMoslem influence. ToMoslems, any kind of picture,statue, or representation of the human form is an abominable idol. It istrue that, in a sense, the Khalifa atDamascus began the whole disturbance, and that the Iconoclast emperors were warmly applauded and encouraged in their campaign by their rivals atDamascus. On the other hand it is not likely that the chief cause of the emperor'szeal against pictures was the example of his bitter enemy, the head of the rival religion. A more probable origin will be found in the opposition to pictures that had existed for some time amongChristians. There seems to have been a dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their use was, or might become,idolatrous among certainChristians for many centuries before the Iconoclastpersecution began (seeVENERATION OF IMAGES). ThePaulicians, as part of theirheresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms,sacraments, rites, especially material pictures andrelics, should be abolished. Tohonour the Cross was especially reprehensible, since Christ had not really been crucified. Since the seventh century theseheretics had been allowed to have occasional great influence at Constantinople intermittently with suffering very cruelpersecution (seePAULICIANS). But someCatholics, too shared their dislike of pictures andrelics. In the beginning of the eighth century severalbishops, Constantine ofNacolia in Phrygia, Theodosius of Ephesus, Thomas of Claudiopolis, and others are mentioned as having these views. ANestorianbishop, Xenaeas of Hierapolis, was a conspicuous forerunner of the Iconoclasts (Hardouin IV, 306). It was when this party got the ear of the Emperor Leo III (the Isaurian, 716-41) that thepersecution began.

The first act in the story is a similarpersecution in the domain of the Khalifa atDamascus. Yezid I (680-683) and his successors, especially Yezid II (720-24), thinking, like goodMoslems, that all pictures are idols, tried to prevent their use among even theirChristian subjects. But thisMoslempersecution, in itself only one of many such intermittent annoyances to theChristians ofSyria, is unimportant except as the forerunner of the troubles in the empire. Leo the Isaurian was a valiant soldier with an autocratic temper. Any movement that excited his sympathy was sure to be enforced sternly and cruelly. He had already cruellypersecuted theJews andPaulicians. He was also suspected of leanings towardsIslam. The Khalifa Omar II (717-20) tried to convert him, without success except as far as persuading him that pictures are idols. TheChristian enemies of images, notably Constantine ofNacolia, then easily gained his ear. The emperor came to the conclusion that images were the chief hindrance to the conversion ofJews andMoslems, the cause ofsuperstition, weakness, and division in his empire, and opposed to the First Commandment. The campaign against images as part of a general reformation of theChurch and State. Leo III'sidea was to purify theChurch, centralize it as much as possible under thePatriarch of Constantinople, and thereby strengthen and centralize the State of the empire. There was also a strongrationalistic tendency among there Iconoclast emperors, a reaction against the forms of Byzantinepiety that became more pronounced each century. Thisrationalism helps to explain theirhatred ofmonks. Once persuaded, Leo began to enforce hisidea ruthlessly. Constantine ofNacolia came to the capital in the early part of his reign; at the same time John ofSynnada wrote to the patriarch Germanus I (715-30), warning him that Constantine had made a disturbance among the otherbishops of the province by preaching against the use of holy pictures. Germanus, the first of the heroes of the image-worshippers (his letters inHardouin, IV 239-62), then wrote a defence of the practice of theChurch addressed to another Iconoclast, Thomas of Claudiopolis (l. c. 245-62). But Constantine and Thomas had the emperor on their side. In 726 Leo III published an edict declaring images to be idols, forbidden byExodus 20:4-5, and commanding all such images in churches to be destroyed. At once the soldiers began to carry out his orders, whereby disturbances were provoked throughout the empire. There was a famous picture ofChrist, calledChristos antiphonetes, over the gate of the palace at Constantinople. The destruction of this picture provoked a serious riot among the people. Germanus, the patriarch, protested against the edict and appealed to thepope (729). But the emperor deposed him as a traitor (730) and had Anastasius (730-54), formerly syncellus of the patriarchal Court, and a willing instrument of the Government, appointed in his place. The most steadfast opponents of the Iconoclasts throughout this story were themonks. It istrue that there were some who took the side of the emperor but as a bodyEastern monasticism was steadfastly loyal to the old custom of theChurch. Leo therefore joined with his Iconoclasm a fiercepersecution ofmonasteries and eventually tried to suppress monasticism altogether.

Thepope at that time wasGregory II (713-31). Even before he had received the appeal of Germanus a letter came from the emperor commanding him to accept the edict, destroy images atRome, and summon ageneral council to forbid their use.Gregory answered, in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand it. He describes the lawful use of, and reverence paid to, pictures byChristians. He blames the emperor's interference inecclesiastical matters and hispersecution of image-worshippers. A council is not wanted; all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of theChurch. As for Leo's threat that he will come toRome, break thestatue of St. Peter (apparently the famous bronzestatue in St. Peter's), and take thepopeprisoner,Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now abhorrent to allChristians was Constans'spersecution ofMartin I. He also says that all people in the West detest the emperor's action and will never consent to destroy their images at his command (Greg. II, "Ep. I ad Leonem"). The emperor answered, continuing his argument by saying that no general council had yet said a word in favour of images that he himself is emperor andpriest (basileus kai lereus) in one and therefore has theright to make decrees about such matters.Gregory writes back regretting that Leo does not yet see theerror of his ways. As for the former general Councils, they did not pretend to discuss every point of thefaith; it was unnecessary in those days to defend what no one attacked. The titleEmperor and Priest had been conceded as a compliment to some sovereigns because of theirzeal in defending the veryfaith that Leo now attacked. Thepope declares himself determined to withstand the emperor's tyranny at any cost, though he has no defence but topray that Christ will send ademon to torture the emperor's body that hissoul be saved, according to 1 Corinthians 5:5.

Meanwhile thepersecution raged in the East. Monasteries were destroyed,monksput to death, tortured, or banished. The Iconoclasts began to apply their principle torelics also, to break open shrines and burn the bodies ofsaints buried in churches. Some of them rejected all intercession ofsaints. These and other points (destruction ofrelics and rejection ofprayers tosaints), though not necessarily involved in the original programme are from this time generally (not quite always) added to Iconoclasm. Meanwhile,St. John Damascene (d. 754). safe from the emperor'sanger under the rule of the Khalifa was writing at themonastery of St Saba his famous apologies "against those who destroy the holy icons". In the West, atRome,Ravenna, andNaples, the people rose against the emperor's law. This anti-imperial movement is one of the factors of the breach betweenItaly and the old empire, the independence of thepapacy, and the beginning of thePapal States.Gregory II already refused to send taxes to Constantinople and himself appointed the imperialdux in theDucatos Romanus. From this time thepope becomes practically sovereign of theDucatus. The emperor'sanger against image-worshippers was strengthened by a revolt that broke out about this time in Hellas, ostensibly in favour of the icons. A certain Cosmas was set up as emperor by the rebels. The insurrection was soon crushed (727), and Cosmas was beheaded. After this a new and severer edict against images was published (730), and the fury of thepersecution was redoubled.

Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once byGregory III, who carried on the defence ofholy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The newpope sent apriest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople. But George when he arrived, was afraid to present them, and came back without having accomplished his mission. He was sent a second time on the same errand, but was arrested andimprisoned inSicily by the imperial governor. The emperor now proceeded with his policy of enlarging and strengthening his ownpatriarchate at Constantinople. He conceived theidea of making it as great as all the empire over which he still actually ruled. Isauria, Leo's birthplace, was taken from Antioch by an imperial edict and added to the Byzantinepatriarchate, increasing it by the Metropolis,Seleucia, and about twenty othersees. Leo further pretended to withdraw Illyricum from the Romanpatriarchate and to add it to that of Constantinople, and confiscated all theproperty of theRoman See on which he could lay his hands, inSicily and SouthernItaly. This naturally increased the enmity betweenEastern andWestern Christendom. In 731Gregory III held a synod of ninety-threebishops at St. Peter's in which allpersons who broke, defiled, or took images ofChrist, of His Mother, the Apostles or othersaints were declaredexcommunicate. Anotherlegate, Constantine, was sent with a copy of thedecree and of its application to the emperor, but was again arrested andimprisoned inSicily. Leo then sent a fleet toItaly to punish thepope; but it was wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while theMoslems continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.

Leo III died in June, 741, in the midst of these troubles, without having changed policy. His work was carried on by his son Constantine V (Copronymus, 741-775), who became an even greater persecutor of image-worshippers than had been hisfather. As soon as Leo III was dead, Artabasdus (who had married Leo's daughter) seized the opportunity and took advantage of the unpopularity of the Iconoclast Government to raise a rebellion. Declaring himself the protector of the holy icons he took possession of the capital, had himselfcrowned emperor by the pliant patriarch Anastasius and immediately restored the images. Anastasius, who had been intruded in the place of Germanus as the Iconoclast candidate, now veered round in the usual Byzantine way, helped the restoration of the images andexcommunicated Constantine V as aheretic and denier of Christ. But Constantine marched on the city, took it, blinded Artabasdus and began a furious revenge on all rebels and image-worshippers (743). His treatment of Anastasius is a typical example of the way these later emperors behaved towards thepatriarchs through whom they tried to govern theChurch. Anastasius was flogged in public, blinded, driven shamefully through the streets, made to return to his Iconoclasm and finally reinstated as patriarch. The wretched man lived on till 754. The pictures restored by Artabasdus were again removed. In 754 Constantine, taking up hisfather's originalidea summoned a great synod at Constantinople that was to count as theSeventh General Council. About 340bishops attended; as theSee of Constantinople was vacant by the death of Anastasius, Theodosius of Ephesus and Pastilias ofPerge presided.Rome, Alexandria,Antioch, andJerusalem refused to sendlegates, since it was clear that thebishops were summoned merely to carry out the emperor's commands. The event showed that thepatriarchs had judged rightly. Thebishops at the synod servilely agreed to all Constantine's demands. They decreed that images of Christ are eitherMonophysite orNestorian, for — since it is impossible to represent His Divinity — they either confound ordivorce His two natures. The only lawful representation of Christ is theHoly Eucharist. Images ofsaints are equally to be abhorred; it is blasphemous to represent by dead wood or stone those who live withGod. All images are an invention of thepagans — are in fact idols, as shown by Ex xx, 4, 5; Deut. v, 8; John iv, 24; Rom. i, 23-25. Certain texts of the Fathers are also quoted in support of Iconoclasm. Image-worshippers areidolaters, adorers of wood and stone; the Emperors Leo and Constantine are lights of the Orthodoxfaith, our saviours fromidolatry. A special curse is pronounced against three chief defenders of images — Germanus, the formerPatriarch of Constantinople,John Damascene, and amonk, George of Cyprus. The synod declares that "the Trinity has destroyed these three" ("Acts of the Iconoclast Synod of 754" in Mansi XIII, 205 sq.).

Thebishops finally elected a successor to the vacant see of Constantinople, Constantine,bishop of Sylaeum (Constantine II, 754-66), who was of course a creature of the Government, prepared to carry on its campaign. The decrees were published in the Forum on 27 August, 754. After this the destruction of pictures went on with renewedzeal. All thebishops of the empire were required to sign the Acts of the synod and to swear to do away with icons in theirdioceses. ThePaulicians were now treated well, while image-worshippers andmonks were fiercelypersecuted. Instead ofpaintings ofsaints the churches were decorated with pictures of flowers, fruit, and birds, so that the people said that they looked like grocery stores and bird shops. Amonk Peter was scourged to death on 7 June, 761; theAbbot of Monagria, John, who refused to trample on an icon, was tied up in a sack and thrown into the sea on 7 June, 761; in 767 Andrew, a Cretanmonk, was flogged and lacerated till he died (see the Acta SS., 8 Oct.; Roman Martyrology for 17 Oct.); in November of the same year a great number ofmonks were tortured to death in various ways (Martyrology, 28 Nov.). The emperor tried to abolish monasticism (as the centre of the defence of images);monasteries were turned into barracks; the monastic habit was forbidden; the patriarch Constantine II was made to swear in theambo of his church that although formerly amonk, he had now joined thesecular clergy.Relics were dug up and thrown into the sea, the invocation ofsaints forbidden. In 766 the emperor fell foul of his patriarch, had him scourged and beheaded and replaced by Nicetas I (766-80), who was, naturally also an obedient servant of the Iconoclast Government. Meanwhile the countries which the emperors power did not reach kept the old custom and broke communion with the IconoclastPatriarch of Constantinople and hisbishops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore ofJerusalem were all defenders of the holy icons in communion withRome. The Emperor Constantine V died in 775. His son Leo IV (775-80), although he did not repeal the Iconoclast law was much milder in enforcing them. He allowed the exiledmonks to come back, tolerated at least the intercession ofsaints and tried to reconcile all parties. When the patriarch Nicetas I died in 780 he was succeeded by Paul IV (780-84), a Cypriotemonk who carried on a half-hearted Iconoclast policy only through fear of the Government. But Leo IV's wife Irene was a steadfast image-worshipper. Even during her husband's life she concealed holy icons in her rooms. At the end of his reign Leo had a burst of fiercer Iconoclasm. He punished the courtiers who had replaced images in their apartments and was about to banish the empress when he died 8 September, 780. At once a complete reaction set in.

The second general council (Nicæa II, 787)

The Empress Irene was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-97), who was nine years old when hisfather died. She immediately set about undoing the work of the Iconoclast emperors. Pictures andrelics were restored to the churches;monasteries were reopened. Fear of the army, now fanatically Iconoclast, kept her for a time from repealing thelaws; but she only waited for an opportunity to do so and to restore the broken communion withRome and the otherpatriarchates. ThePatriarch of Constantinople, Paul IV, resigned and retired to amonastery, giving openly as his reason repentance for his former concessions to the Iconoclast Government. He was succeeded by a pronounced image-worshipper, Tarasius. Tarasius and the empress now opened negotiations withRome. They sent an embassy toPope Adrian I (772-95) acknowledging the primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to sendlegates to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 754. Thepope answered by two letters, one for the empress and one for the patriarch. In these he repeats the arguments for the worship of images agrees to the proposed council, insists on the authority of theHoly See, and demands the restitution of theproperty confiscated by Leo III. He blames the sudden elevation of Tarasius (who from being alayman had suddenly become patriarch), and rejects his title ofEcumenical Patriarch, but he praises hisorthodoxy andzeal for theholy images. Finally, he commits all these matters to the judgment of hislegates. Theselegates were anarchpriest Peter and theabbot Peter of St. Saba nearRome. The other threepatriarchs were unable to answer, they did not even receive Tarasius's letters, because of the disturbance at that time in theMoslem state. But twomonks, Thomas,abbot of anEgyptianmonastery and John Syncellus of Antioch, appeared with letters from their communities explaining the state of things and showing that thepatriarchs had always remained faithful to the images. These two seem to have acted in some sort aslegates for Alexandria,Antioch andJerusalem.

Tarasius opened the synod in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. in August, 786; but it was at once dispersed by the Iconoclast soldiers. The empress disbanded those troops and replaced them by others; it was arranged that the synod should meet at Nicaea in Bithynia, the place of the first general council. Thebishops met here in the summer of 787, about 300 in number. The council lasted from 24 September to 23 October. The Romanlegates were present; they signed the Acts first and always had the first place in the list of members, but Tarasius conducted the proceeding, apparently because thelegates could not speak Greek. In the first three sessions Tarasius gave an account of the events that had led up to the Council, thepapal and other letters were read out, and many repentant Iconoclastbishops were reconciled. The fathers accepted thepope's letters astrue formulas of theCatholicFaith. Tarasius, when he read the letters, left out the passages about the restitution of the confiscatedpapal properties, the reproaches against his own sudden elevation and use of the titleEcumenical Patriarch, and modified (but not essentially) the assertions of the primacy. The fourth session established the reasons for which the use ofholy images is lawful, quoting from theOld Testament passages about images in the temple (Exodus 25:18-22;Numbers 7:89;Ezekiel 41:18-19;Hebrews 9:5), and also citing a great number of the Fathers. Euthymius ofSardes at the end of the session read a profession offaith in this sense. In the fifth session Tarasius explained that Iconoclasm came fromJews,Saracens, andheretics; some Iconoclast misquotations were exposed, their books burnt, and an icon set up in the hall in the midst of the fathers. The sixth session was occupied with the Iconoclast synod of 754; its claim to be ageneral council was denied, because neither thepope nor the three otherpatriarchs had a share in it. Thedecree of that synod (see above) was refuted clause by clause. The seventh session drew up the symbol (horos) of the council, in which, after repeating theNicene Creed and renewing the condemnation of all manner of formerheretics, fromArians toMonothelites, the fathers make their definition. Images are to receive veneration (proskynesis), not adoration (latreia); thehonour paid to them is only relative (schetike), for the sake of their prototype (for the text of this, the essential definition of the council, seeVENERATION OF IMAGES).Anathemas are pronounced against the Iconoclast leaders; Germanus,John Damascene, and George of Cyprus are praised. In opposition to the formula of the Iconoclast synod the fathers declare: "The Trinity has made these three glorious" (he Trias tous treis edoxasen). A deputation was sent to the empress with the Acts of the synod; a letter theclergy of Constantinople acquainted them with its decision. Twenty-two canons were drawn up, of which these are the chief:

An eighth and last session was held on 23 October at Constantinople in the presence of Irene and her son. After a discourse by Tarasius the Acts were read out and signed by all, including the empress and the emperor. The synod was closed with the usual Polychronia or formal acclamation, and Epiphanius, adeacon ofCatania inSicily, preached a sermon to the assembled fathers.

Tarasius sent to Pope Adrian an account of all that had happened, and Adrian approved the Acts (letter to Charles the Great) and had them translated into Latin. But the question of theproperty of theHoly See in SouthernItaly and the friendship of thepope towards theFranks still caused had feeling between East and West; moreover an Iconoclast party still existed at Constantinople, especially in the army.

The second Iconoclast persecution

Twenty-seven years after the Synod of Nicaea, Iconoclasm broke out again. Again the holy pictures were destroyed, and their defenders fiercelypersecuted. For twenty-eight years the former story was repeated with wonderful exactness. The places of Leo III, Constantine V, and Leo IV are taken by a new line of Iconoclast emperors — Leo V, Michael II, Theophilus.Pope Paschal I acts just as didGregory II, the faithful Patriarch Nicephorus stands for Germanus I,St. John Damascene lives again inSt. Theodore the Studite. Again one synod rejects icons, and another, following it, defends them. Again an empress, regent for her young son, puts an end to the storm and restores the old custom — this time finally.

The origin of this second outbreak is not far to seek. There had remained, especially in the army, a considerable Iconoclast party. Constantine V, their hero had been a valiant and successful general against theMoslems, Michael I (811-13), who kept the Faith of theSecond Council of Nicaea, was singularly unfortunate in his attempt to defend the empire. The Iconoclasts looked back regretfully to the glorious campaigns of his predecessor, they evolved the amazing conception of Constantine as asaint, they went inpilgrimage to his grave and cried out to him: "Arise come back and save the perishing empire". When Michael I, in June, 813, was utterly defeated by the Bulgars and fled to his capital, the soldiers forced him to resign his crown and set up one of the generals Leo theArmenian (Leo V, 813-20) in his place. An officer (Theodotus Cassiteras) and amonk (the Abbot John Grammaticus) persuaded the new emperor that all the misfortunes of the empire were a judgment ofGod on theidolatry of image-worship. Leo, once persuaded, used all his power to put down the icons, and so all the trouble began again.

In 814 the Iconoclasts assembled at the palace and prepared an elaborate attack against images, repeating almost exactly the arguments of the synod of 754. ThePatriarch of Constantinople was Nicephorus I (806-15), who became one of the chief defenders of images in this secondpersecution. The emperor invited him to a discussion of the question with the Iconoclasts; he refused since it had been already settled by theSeventh General Council. The work of demolishing images began again. The picture of Christ restored by Irene over the iron door of the palace, was again removed. In 815 the patriarch was summoned to the emperor's presence. He came surrounded bybishops,abbots, andmonks, and held a long discussion with Leo and his Iconoclast followers. In the same year the emperor summoned a synod ofbishops, who, obeying his orders, deposed the patriarch and elected Theodotus Cassiteras (Theodotus I, 815-21) to succeed him. Nicephorus was banished across the Bosporus. Till his death in 829, he defended the cause of the images by controversial writings (the "Lesser Apology", "Antirrhetikoi", "Greater Apology", etc. in P.G., C, 201-850; Pitra, "Spicileg. Solesm.", I, 302-503; IV, 233, 380), wrote a history of his own time (Historia syntomos, P.G., C, 876-994) and a general chronography from Adam (chronographikon syntomon, in P.G., C, 995-1060). Among themonks who accompanied Nicephorus to the emperor's presence in 815 wasTheodore,Abbot of theStudium monastery at Constantinople (d. 826). Throughout this second IconoclastpersecutionSt. Theodore (Theodorus Studita) was the leader of the faithfulmonks, the chief defender of the icons. He comforted and encouraged Nicephorus in his resistance to the emperor, was three times banished by the Government, wrote a great number of treatises controversial letters, and apologies in various forms for the images. His chief point is that Iconoclasts areChristologicalheretics, since they deny an essential element ofChrist'shumannature, namely, that it can be represented graphically. This amounts to a denial of its reality and material quality, whereby Iconoclasts revive the oldMonophysiteheresy. Ehrhard judgesSt. Theodore to be "perhaps the most ingenious [der scharfsinnigste] of the defenders of the cult of images" (in Krumbacher's "Byz. Litt.", p. 150). In any case his position can be rivalled only by that ofSt. John Damascene. (See his work in P.G., XCIX; for an account of them see Krumbacher, op. cit., 147-151, 712-715; his life by a contemporarymonk, P.G., XCIX, 9 sq.) Hisfeast is on 11 Nov. in the Byzantine Rite, 12 Nov. in the Roman Martyrology.

The first thing the new patriarch Theodotus did was to hold a synod which condemned the council of 787 (the Second Nicene) and declared its adherence to that of 754. Bishops,abbots,clergy, and even officers of the Government who would not accept itsdecree were deposed, banished, tortured.Theodore of Studium refused communion with the Iconoclast patriarch, and went into exile. A number ofpersons of all ranks wereput to death at this time, and his references; pictures of all kinds were destroyed everywhere.Theodore appealed to thepope (Paschal I, 817-824) in the name of thepersecuted Eastern image-worshippers. At the same time Theodotus the Iconoclast patriarch, sentlegates toRome, who were, however not admitted by thepope, since Theodotus was aschismatical intruder in thesee of which Nicephorus was still lawfulbishop. But Paschal received themonks sent by Theodoret and gave up themonastery of St. Praxedes to them and others who had fled from thepersecution in the East. In 818 thepope sentlegates to the emperor with a letter defending the icons and once more refuting the Iconoclast accusation ofidolatry. In this letter he insists chiefly on our need of exterior signs for invisible things:sacraments, words, thesign of the Cross. and all tangible signs of this kind; how, then, can people who admit these reject images? (The fragment of this letter that has been preserved is published in Pitra, "Spicileg. Solesm.". II, p. xi sq.). The letter did not have any effect on the emperor; but it is from this time especially that theCatholics in the East turn with more loyalty than ever toRome as their leader, their last refuge in thepersecution. The well-known texts ofSt. Theodore in which he defends the primacy in the strongest possible language — e.g., "Whatever novelty is brought into theChurch by those who wander from thetruth must certainly be referred to Peter or to his successor . . . . Save us, chiefpastor of theChurch underheaven" (Ep. i, 33, P.G., XCIX, 1018); "Arrange that a decision be received from oldRome as the custom has been handed down from the beginning by the tradition of our fathers" (Ep. ii, 36; ibid., 1331 --were written during thispersecution).

The protestations of loyalty to oldRome made by the Orthodox andCatholicChristians of theByzantine Church at the time are her last witness immediately before the Great Schism. There were then two separate parties in the East having no communion with each other: the Iconoclastpersecutors under the emperor with their anti-patriarch Theodotus, and theCatholics led byTheodore the Studite acknowledging the lawful patriarch Nicephorus and above him the distantLatinbishop who was to them the "chiefpastor of theChurch underheaven". OnChristmas Day, 820, Leo V ended his tyrannical reign by beingmurdered in a palace revolution that set up one of his generals, Michael II (the Stammerer, 820-29) as emperor. Michael was also an Iconoclast and continued his predecessors policy, though at first he was anxious not to persecute but to conciliate every one. But he changed nothing of the Iconoclast law and when Theodotus the anti-patriarch died (821) he refused to restore Nicephorus and set up another usurper, Antony, formerlyBishop of Sylaeum (Antony I, 321-32). In 822 a certain general ofSlav race, Thomas, set up a dangerous revolution with the help of theArabs. It does not seem that this revolution had anything to do with the question of images. Thomas represented rather the party of themurdered emperor, Leo V. But after it was put down, in 824, Michael became much more severe towards the image-worshippers. A great number ofmonks fled to the West, and Michael wrote a famous letter full of bitter accusations of theiridolatry to his rival Louis the Pious (814-20) to persuade him to hand over these exiles to Byzantinejustice (in Manse, XIV, 417-22). OtherCatholics who had not escaped wereimprisoned and tortured, among whom wereMethodius of Syracuse and Euthymius,Metropolitan ofSardes. The deaths ofSt. Theodore the Studite (11 Nov., 826) and of the lawful patriarch Nicephorus (2 June, 828) were a great loss to theorthodox at this time. Michael's son and successor, Theophilus, (829-42), continued thepersecution still more fiercely. Amonk, Lazarus, was scourged till he nearly died; anothermonk, Methodius, was shut up inprison with common ruffians for seven years; Michael, Syncellus ofJerusalem, and Joseph, a famous writer ofhymns, were tortured. The two brothersTheophanes and Theodore were scourged with 200 strokes and branded in the face with hot irons asidolaters (Martyrol. Rom., 27 December). By this time all images had been removed from the churches and public places, theprisons were filled with their defenders, the faithfulCatholics were reduced to asect hiding about the empire, and a crowd of exiles in the West. But the emperor's wife Theodora and her mother Theoctista were faithful to the Second Nicene Synod and waited for better times.

Those times came as soon as Theophilus died (20 January, 842). He left a son, three years old, Michael III (the Drunkard, who lived to cause the Great Schism of Photius, 842-67), and the regent was Michael's mother, Theodora. Like Irene at the end of the firstpersecution, Theodora at once began to change the situation. She opened theprisons, let out the confessors who were shut up for defending images, and recalled the exiles. For a time she hesitated to revoke the Iconoclastlaws but soon she made up her mind and everything was brought back to the conditions of theSecond Council of Nicea. The patriarch John VII (832-42), who had succeeded Antony I, was given his choice between restoring the images and retiring. He preferred to retire. and his place was taken by Methodius, themonk who had already suffered years ofimprisonment for the cause of the icons (Methodius I, 842-46). In the same year (842) a synod at Constantinople approved of John VII's deposition, renewed thedecree of theSecond Council of Nicaea andexcommunicated Iconoclasts. This is the last act in the story of thisheresy. On the firstSunday ofLent (19 February, 842) the icons were brought back to the churches in solemn procession. That day (the firstSunday ofLent) was made into a perpetual memory of the triumph oforthodoxy at the end of the long Iconoclastpersecution. It is the "Feast of Orthodoxy" of theByzantine Church still kept very solemnly by both Uniats and Orthodox. Twenty years later the Great Schism began. So large has this, the last of the oldheresies, loomed in the eyes ofEastern Christians that theByzantine Church looks upon it as a kind of type ofheresy in general the Feast of Orthodoxy, founded to commemorate the defeat of Iconoclasm has become a feast of the triumph of theChurch over allheresies. It is in this sense that it is now kept. The greatSynodikon read out on that dayanathematizes allheretics (inRussia rebels and nihilists also) among whom the Iconoclasts appear only as one fraction of a large and varied class. After the restoration of the icons in 842, there still remained an Iconoclast party in the East, but it never again got the ear of an emperor, and so gradually dwindled and eventually died out.

Iconoclasm in the west

There was an echo of these troubles in theFrankish kingdom, chiefly through misunderstanding of the meaning of Greek expressions used by theSecond Council of Nicaea. As early as 767 Constantine V had tried to secure the sympathy of theFrankishbishops for his campaign against images this time without success. A synod at Gentilly sent a declaration toPope Paul I (757-67) which quite satisfied him. The trouble began whenAdrian I (772-95) sent a very imperfect translation of the Acts of theSecond Council of Nicaea toCharles the Great (Charlemagne, 768-814). Theerrors of this Latin version are obvious from the quotations made from it by theFrankishbishops. For instance in the third session of the council Constantine,Bishop ofConstantia, inCyprus had said: "I receive the holy and venerable images; and I give worship which is according to real adoration [kata latreian] only to theconsubstantial and life-giving Trinity" (Mansi, XII, 1148). This phrase had been translated: "I receive the holy and venerable images with the adoration which I give to theconsubstantial and life-giving Trinity" ("Libri Carolini", III, 17, P.L. XCVIII, 1148). There were other reasons why theseFrankishbishops objected to the decrees of the council. Their people had only just been converted fromidolatry, and so they were suspicious of anything that might seem like a return to it. Germansknew nothing of Byzantine elaborate forms of respect; prostrations,kisses,incense and such signs that Greeks used constantly towards their emperors, even towards the emperor'sstatues, and therefore applied naturally to holy pictures, seemed to theseFranks servile, degrading, evenidolatrous. TheFranks say the wordproskynesis (which meant worship only in the sense of reverence and veneration) translatedadoratio and understood it as meaning the homage due only toGod. Lastly, there was their indignation against the political conduct of the Empress Irene, the state of friction that led to thecoronation ofCharlemagne atRome and the establishment of a rival empire. Suspicion of everything done by the Greeks, dislike of all their customs, led to the rejection of the council did not mean that theFrankishbishops andCharlemagne sided with the Iconoclasts. If they refused to accept the Nicene Council they equally rejected the Iconoclast synod of 754. They hadholy images and kept them: but they thought that the Fathers of Nicaea had gone too far, had encouraged what would be realidolatry.

The answer to the decrees of the second Council of Nicaea sent in this faulty translation byAdrian I was a refutation in eighty-five chapters brought to thepope in 790 by aFrankishabbot, Angilbert. This refutation, later expanded and fortified with quotations from the fathers and other arguments became the famous "Libri Carolini" or "Capitulare de Imaginibus" in whichCharlemagne is represented as declaring his convictions (first published atParis by Jean du Tillet,Bishop of St-Brieux, 1549, in P.L. XCVIII, 990-1248). The authenticity of this work, some time disputed, is now established. In it thebishops reject thesynods both of 787 and of 754. They admit that pictures ofsaints should be kept as ornaments in churches and as well asrelics and thesaints themselves should receive a certain proper veneration (opportuna veneratio); but they declare thatGod only can receive adoration (meaningadoratio, proskynesis); pictures are in themselves indifferent, have nonecessary connexion with the Faith, are in any case inferior torelics, the Cross, and theBible. Thepope, in 794, answered these eighty-five chapters by a long exposition and defence of the cult of images (Hadriani ep. ad Carol. Reg." P.L., XCVIII, 1247-92), in which he mentions, among other points, that twelveFrankishbishops were present at, and had agreed to, the Roman synod of 731. Before the letter arrived theFrankishbishop; held the synod ofFrankfort (794) in the presence of twopapal legates, Theophylactus and Stephen, who do not seem to have done anything to clear up the misunderstanding. This Synod formally condemns theSecond Council of Nicea, showing, at the same time, that it altogether misunderstands the decision of Nicaea. The essence of thedecree atFrankfort is its second canon: "A question has been brought forward concerning the next synod of the Greeks which they held at Constantinople [theFranks do not evenknow where the synod they condemn was held] in connexion with the adoration of images, in which synod it was written that those who do not give service and adoration to pictures ofsaints just as much as to the Divine Trinity are to beanathematized. But our most holy Fathers whose names are above, refusing this adoration and serve despise and condemn that synod."Charlemagne sent these Acts toRome and demanded the condemnation of Irene and Constantine VI. Thepope of course refused to do so, and matters remained for a time as they were, the second Council of Nicaea being rejected in theFrankish Kingdom.

During the second iconoclasticpersecution, in 824, the Emperor Michael II wrote to Louis the Pious the letter which, besides demanding that the Byzantinemonks who had escaped to the West should be handed over to him, entered into the whole question of image-worship at length and contained vehement accusations against its defenders. Part of the letter is quoted in Leclercq-Hefele, "Histoire des conciles", III, 1, p. 612. Louis begged thepope (Eugene II, 824-27) to receive a document to be drawn up by theFrankishbishops in which texts of the Fathers bearing on the subject should be collected. Eugene agreed, and thebishops met in 825 atParis. This meeting followed the example of the Synod ofFrankfort exactly. Thebishops try to propose a middle way, but decidedly lean toward the Iconoclasts. They produce some texts against these, many more against image-worship. Pictures may be tolerated only as mere ornaments.Adrian I is blamed for his assent to Nicaea II. Twobishops, Jeremias ofSens and Jonas of Orléns, are sent toRome with this document; they are especially warned to treat thepope with every possible reverence andhumility, and to efface any passages that might offend him. Louis, also, wrote to thepope, protesting that he only proposed to help him with some useful quotations in his discussions with the Byzantine Court; that he had noidea of dictating to theHoly See (Hefele, 1. c.). Nothing isknown of Eugene's answer or of the further developments of this incident. The correspondence about images continued for some time between theHoly See and theFrankish Church; gradually the decrees of the second Council of Nicaea were accepted throughout the Western Empire.Pope John VIII (872-82) sent a better translation of the Acts of the council which helped very much to remove misunderstanding.

There are a few more isolated cases of Iconoclasm in the West. Claudius,Bishop ofTurin (d. 840), in 824 destroyed all pictures and crosses in hisdiocese forbadepilgrimages, recourse to intercession ofsaints, veneration ofrelics, even lighted candles, except for practical purposes. Manybishops of the empire and aFrankishabbot, Theodomir, wrote against him (P.L. CV); he was condemned by a local synod. Agobard ofLyons at the same time thought that no external signs of reverence should be paid to images; but he had few followers. Walafrid Strabo ("De. eccles. rerum exordiis et incrementis" in P.L., CXIV, 916-66) andHincmar of Reims ("Opusc. c. Hincmarum Lauden.", xx, in P.L. CXXVI) defended theCatholic practice and contributed to put an end to the exceptional principles ofFrankishbishops. But as late as the eleventh century Bishop Jocelin ofBordeaux still had Iconoclastideas for which he was severely reprimanded byPope Alexander II.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT