Oxford history of the christian church

The opening conflict under Leo III.

The reasons for the flare-up of the controversy in the eighth century are still disputed and to such an extent that assessments vary from considering it as the most significant event in Byzantine history to regarding it as of almost only peripheral importance. In examining the causes (and course) of the struggle interpretations to some extent seem to reflect the individual interests of scholars, the more secularminded historian regarding the movement as part of wider imperial policies while to the Orthodox the fight for icons was so closely related to the basic Christological position as to involve the presentation of an integral part of their belief. Lossky even went as far as to say that icons were the expression of Orthodoxy as such. Moreover it is difficult to get a fair picture of the iconoclasts partly because their writings were destroyed except in so far as extracts were preserved because refuted in Orthodox councils, and partly because they understandably had a bad press in Orthodox chronicles and histories, though surviving oriental sources have done something to correct the Greek bias. ⁹

In attempting to discover why the movement against icons took official form under the eighth-century North Syrian (mistakenly called Isaurian) Emperors, Leo III and his son Constantine V, scholars have noticed a similar tendency among Muslims whose power was increasing so rapidly at this time. The two religions, Islam and Christianity, were now face to face. To some extent they shared common ground and had common roots and their relations were marked by more than perpetual antagonism, as the fruitful cross-fertilization in the long history of Byzantino-Arab relations was to reveal. It is therefore necessary to consider contacts, and debts if any, between Byzantium and Islam in initiating the policy of banning the use of icons.

Leo III, originally called Conon, was himself of North Syrian origin, born at Germaniceia (Marash). Thus he began life in a Jacobite milieu, though he must later have professed himself a supporter of Chalcedon since he held official positions in Byzan tium. Armenian sources seem to show him as a protector of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, something that iconophile Byzantine sources would hardly stress. ¹⁰ Whether or not he was transplanted to Mesembria in Thrace by Justinian II in the late seventh century, as the Greek chronicler Theophanes says, ¹¹ appears to be uncertain and is not supported in the Patriarch Nicephorus' writings or in the oriental sources. Germaniceia was the scene of Byzantino-Arab warfare and it is probable that in his early years Leo may have been open to Muslim influence and he probably spoke Arabic.

It has often been claimed that there is a more direct link than this rather general early influence and that when Leo III made his first open move against icons in 726 he was motivated by the example of the Muslim ruler Yazid (720-4). But in fact very little is known about the Muslim edict against images. Theophanes makes brief mention of an edict promulgated in the year in which Yazid died (that is, between the beginning of the year, 1 September 723 and his death on 27 January 724), and he then adds 'Most people had not heard of his devilish edict'. ¹² It is unlikely that this little-known edict sparked off the action of Leo III, though he was known to have had a renegade Syrian, Beser, as one of his advisers. Yazid seems to have been engaged in a 'smear campaign' against the Christians and was subsequently made a scapegoat for Byzantine iconoclasm, as shown by John of Jerusalem's somewhat exaggerated account of the iconoclast movement at the council of Nicaea II in 787. But in the early Syriac and Arabic sources Leo III is not linked with Yazid's policy. ¹³ There is in fact eighth and ninth-century evidence that the Byzantines attributed iconoclasm to Jewish rather than Muslim influence, and with a good deal of legendary accretion, such as the introduction of an odd figure called Tessaracontapechys (forty cubits). ¹⁴ The connection between the Old Testament prohibition and the Jewish religion was understandably stressed in iconophile polemic and is found in a work attributed to Germanus, ¹⁵ as also in John of Damascus. ¹⁶ In this connection a Jewish soothsayer was said to have promised Leo a long reign if he banned images. It is this Jewish theme which was elaborated in John of Jerusalem's Narratio which he produced at the fifth session of Nicaea II, ¹⁷ only here he specifically described the Jew as a magician from Tiberias called Tessaracontapechys who made the promise not to Leo but to Yazid, and who thus caused the heresy to arise whereby the pseudo-bishop of Nacoleia imitated the lawless Jews and the impious Arabs. This variation was in keeping with the understandable desire of the council of Nicaea to avoid casting any kind of official blame on Leo III, who was after all the founder of the reigning house and the great-grandfather of the young Constantine VI.

Even so, the legendary embroidery in iconodule literature was already obscuring the motives and influences behind the controversy, though some corrective of this can now be found in the less biased oriental sources which also do justice to the North Syrian rulers' military achievements, even representing them as defenders of the faith. Added to this, the comparative paucity of sources and the survival of iconoclast material only in an iconophile setting must inevitably increase the difficulties of fair appraisal. The possibility of cross-currents of general Semitic influence, particularly on the eastern borders, if not proven, at least cannot be ruled out. But there is no evidence of direct contact between Leo and Yazid. There is however sufficient internal evidence to account for the movement on two grounds: popular practice and imperial policy. The growing use of icons, and particularly its abuse, had increasingly concerned churchmen, as has already been shown, and is reflected in the measure of support which the iconoclasts Leo III and Constantine V received. And the imperial aspect of the policy is revealed in an analysis of the two main phases of the movement in the eighth century.

Some of the few surviving documents of the very early phase refer to disquiet in Asia Minor. Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (715-30) wrote to three prelates, Metropolitan John of Synnada, Bishop Constantine of Nacoleia (both of Phrygia), and Bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis (one of Leo III's close advisers), reproaching them with iconoclast views and, in the case of Thomas, with the actual destruction of icons. ¹⁸ These bishops were known to have visited Constantinople but there is no evidence as to whether they did, or did not, discuss their problem with the Emperor. All that can be said is that certain churchmen in Asia Minor held iconoclastic views. In the De Haeresibus et Synodis attributed to Germanus the author makes Constantine of Nacoleia the main leader of those departing from the traditions of the Fathers. ¹⁹ He regards supporters of such views as undesirable innovators rather than heretics and there is no hint of any kind of doctrinal implication. Nor is there any assertion of ecclesiastical independence, or outspoken criticism of the Emperor, though there is a suggestion that certain people (unspecified) at court ²⁰ are also acting against the devout. This attitude may have been politic on the author's part and was later stressed at the council of Nicaea (787) by Patriarch Tarasius who also castigated Constantine of Nacoleia as the originator of the movement. Such writings and letters, whether by Germanus or not, certainly indicate that there was local iconoclast feeling and action in AsiaMinor, but the authoritative lead was to come from the Emperor.

Leo III's first dramatic action against icons was to order the removal of the mosaic image of Christ above the Chalce entrance to the complex of imperial palace buildings. This was in the early autumn of 726 after a volcanic eruption which threw up a small island off Thera (Santorin) and Therasia, an event regarded by some as an expression of divine displeasure (presumably at the use of icons). The chronicler Theophanes says that Leo had already begun to speak out against icons, ²¹ but just how far his iconoclast views had previously been publicized is unknown, or whether such pronouncements (if made) did in fact cause the rebellion in the Helladic theme and the Cyclades which some historians attribute to purely economic reasons. The Chalce episode of 726 certainly provoked violent opposition from the Constantinopolitans. It has been suggested that there is evidence that an edict was also issued in this year, ²² in which case the Patriarch Germanus presumably temporized from 726 to 730 (the year of his deposition), which might account for his being described as 'two-faced' by the iconoclast council of 754. But on the whole the consensus of opinion supports 730 as the date of the first formal edict. On 17 January a silentium or imperial council was held in the palace in the Hall of the Nineteen Divans and a decree issued for the destruction of the icons of the saints. Germanus, who had hoped to change Leo's views, refused to put his signature to any decree of this kind and he therefore had to retire from office and went to live on his private estates where he died in 733. He was succeeded by his syncellus, Anastasius (730-54) who supported Leo. Something of the ravages of the iconoclasts at this time is known from the De Haeresibus et Synodis. These despoilers not only broke up and burnt images but destroyed or removed altar furniture and cloths and stripped relics of their valuable reliquaries, all of which was later condemned and forbidden by the iconoclast council of 754, thus confirming the account in the tract. On the nature of persecution against iconophiles there is relatively little information for Leo III's reign, and also very little on early iconoclast tenets. The infringement of the second commandment, the cult of icons with burning of candles and incense, worship rather than veneration of the saints, were all condemned. Christ was to be represented not in human form but by the Cross, and it is possible that the series of short iambic poems on the Cross by iconoclasts, preserved because they were commented on by the iconophile Theodore Studites, can be dated to this early period. ²³