The controversy over icons during the eighth and ninth centuries shook the entire Byzantine Empire. Emperor Leo III triggered the dispute with an open condemnation of icons in 726, and only the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 787, could reverse the iconoclastic current. Soon, however, iconoclasm was revived during the reign of Leo V (813-820), and it was not until 843, during a council convened by empress Theodora, that icon veneration was formally restored for good. That the dispute over icons was considered to be of great importance is evidenced by the fact that the 843 restoration of icons was characterized as 'the Triumph of Orthodoxy', as well as by the fierce persecutions carried out against the iconophiles and the latter's willingness to die for their cause. In the words of one scholar, André Grabar, "Byzance a vu des gens mourir pour les images" (i.e., Byzantium saw men die for images).^[1] But what, exactly, was this controversy about? What were the central issues and concerns in the dispute? I hope to show that a number of issues and concerns underlie the iconoclast controversy, with the most important of these issues relating to salvation and power.

1. Salvation

As in most religious controversies in Byzantium, one of the central issues in the debate over icons was the salvation of humanity. This often seems ignored by modern scholars who prefer instead to emphasize the issues of christology and the sacredness of creation.^[2] But in the iconoclast dispute these issues concerned the Byzantines only insofar as they were related to soteriology, or so I will endeavour to show.

1.1 Icons and Christology

For iconoclast and iconophile alike, the legitimacy of icons was an issue of great importance, for this had far-reaching implications for christological, and hence soteriological, doctrine. The iconophile theologians took the icon of Christ as a proof,^[3] or at least as a safeguard or confession, of the incarnation. Icons of Christ are not only justified by the incarnation ^[4]; they also justify it. Such a view obviously makes the manufacturing of icons essential, as well as making any iconoclast liable to the charge of not genuinely believing in the incarnation.

Iconoclasts, on the other hand, viewed icons as a threat to christology. This seems to be the result of two views on the nature of icons upheld by iconoclasts, particularly emperor Constantine V Copronymus (741-775) in his theological Inquiries. Firstly, the icon and its prototype are considered to be consubstantial, or of the same essence. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the only suitable icon of Christ is the Eucharist, whereas an image of Christ (since it must be viewed as identical to Christ himself) is a mere idol.

Secondly, icons (of Christ) are viewed as having one of two aims: either they try to represent both the divine nature and the human nature of Christ, or they purport to depict only his human nature. In the former case, the iconographer attempts to depict the Godhead, but this cannot be depicted, or else he runs the risk of mingling or confusing it (the Godhead) with the manhood, but this is monophysitism. In the latter case, he is guilty of representing the human nature of Christ as separate from the divinity which is united with it, but this is Nestorianism.^[5]

The iconophile response to the iconoclasts' dilemma emphasized two key points: (a) the icon represents neither Christ's divine nature nor his human nature, but his person which unites in itself these two natures, and (b) the fact that Christ assumed all the characteristics of a human being (except sin), including describability, thus making images of him possible.^[6] In addition, the either/or dilemma put forward by Constantine V has the appearance of a work of sophistry (according to one scholar, "to say it is improper for us to see images of Christ is the same as to say it was improper for his disciples to see him"^[7]), and so it casts some doubt over the apparent religious nature of the emperor's christological concerns.

1.2 Icons and Matter

The iconoclast dispute reflects not only a concern for christology, but also a related concern for the value of matter and the body, and the relationship between the visible and invisible worlds, which were for the Byzantines equally real.

Through iconography iconophiles aimed at affirming the goodness of the material creation. All forms of material substance were seen as a worthy means of expressing and proclaiming sacred realities, for God, through his incarnation, has deified matter, making it spirit-bearing.^[8] The incarnation, having given to matter a new function and glory, legitimizes (if not necessitates) art. "Without this theological rationale," to quote Kenneth Parry, "Byzantine culture would have been the poorer."^[9]

Iconoclasts, by contrast, were concerned with maintaining the superiority of spirit to matter. "It is a degradation and a humiliation," they argued, "to depict Christ in material representations. It is better that He should remain in mental contemplation."^[10] Their disdain for matter, possibly influenced by the Manichaean tendencies of the Paulicians as well as by pagan neoplatonism ^[11], led them to reject the view that the material image could assist the mind in spiritual elevation.

1.3 Christology, Matter, and Soteriology Underlying the preoccupation with christology and matter was a concern for the salvation of humanity. This is particularly evident with the iconophiles. In defending sacred images, they felt themselves to be defending the doctrine of the incarnation and the sanctity of matter. But since the purpose and meaning of the incarnation was seen as the 'deification' of humanity, and since matter has become (through the incarnation) a vehicle of salvation (i.e., a means by which to attain salvation, rather than an obstacle to attaining it), a defence of icons was essentially a defence of the foundation of the Christian faith, viz., salvation. This connection between icons and soteriology was famously expressed by John of Damascus: "I have seen God in human form, and my soul has been saved."^[12]

2. Power

Another significant matter standing in the background of the iconoclast controversy was power. Indeed, both groups involved in the dispute were ultimately concerned with power (in its various guises - political, spiritual, military, etc.), as will be borne out by focusing on two aspects of the controversy, viz., caesaropapism and monachomachy.

2.1 Caesaropapism

That the idea of caesaropapism (unlimited power of the emperor over the church) was attempted to be put into effect by at least some iconoclastic emperors is undeniable. These emperors frequently intervened in the dispute (which would ordinarily have been reserved to ecclesiastical authority) and made a determined effort to have their views on the issue enforced on their subjects, particularly through fierce repression of iconophiles. It is this attempt to put caesaropapism into practice that provides the background to Leo III's comment to pope Gregory II (715-731), "I am King and priest as well,"^[13] and to Theosterictus' observation, in his Life of St Nicetas of Medikion, that iconoclasm differed from all earlier heresies in that it originated, not from the bishops and lower clergy, but from the rulers themselves.^[14]

Also undeniable, however, is the strong resistance put up by iconophiles to such intervention of imperial power in church affairs. Characteristic is the remark of Theodore the Studite (759-826): "To you, Emperor [i.e., Leo V], has been entrusted the body politic and the army. Take care of them and leave the church to its shepherds and teachers."^[15]

It is clear, then, that the attempt to implement the idea of caesaropapism and the resistance that followed reflects a power struggle between iconophile church members and iconoclastic state officials. We witness, in other words, a struggle for a proper balance of power between the two parties, with the iconophiles conceiving of church-state relations in terms of interdependence and 'synergy', while the iconoclasts preferred a subordinationist or caesaropapist model.

2.2 Monachomachy

Constantine V is well-known for his cruel persecution of monasteries and monks. "Ever since he became emperor," writes Theosterictus, "his entire purpose and desire was to wipe out the entire monastic garb."^[16] Constantine forced monks to parade in the hippodrome at Constantinople, each leading a woman by the hand. Upon finding out that the persecution carried out by the 'strategos' (i.e., army general) Michael Lakhanodrakon had left no monk in the Thracesian theme, the emperor wrote to him, "I found you a man after my own heart; you are acting as I wish."^[17] Monasteries were taken away from the monks and transformed into public houses. Laymen were forbidden or prevented from entering monasteries. All this led to wide migration of monks to areas beyond the control of the emeperor's persecutions.

It is worth noting, in this context, that iconophiles consisted mainly of monks and laymen, whereas the iconoclast faction usually comprised of the emperor, the civil service, and the army. Therefore, any persecution of iconophiles entailed a persecution of monks.^[18] The latter (persecution of monks), however, could sometimes constitute the hidden agenda of the former, as actually occurred with Constantine V. The real target was, in some cases, the monk and not the icon.

What this reveals is not merely a desire for the dissolution of the Byzantine monasteries, but moreover a determination to break the power of 'the holy man' (ho hagios, who was usually a monk) in Byzantine society. The holy man of monastic background formed a locus of power that was independent and centrifugal: he met needs that were private, not collective; he was often situated in a non-urban environment (e.g., in a desert or provincial monastery); and his power or holiness was not invested by an appropriate authority, such as a bishop. Consequently, both emperor and bishop often felt their ecclesiastical and political authority threatened by the social influence exerted by the holy man. Thus, the monachomachy of Constantine V and the numerous bishops who followed him - which included the secularization of monastic property, the burning of books such as the Sayings of the Fathers, and forbidding people to visit an 'abba' or to receive communion from him - was aimed at severing the links between the monastic spiritual adviser and his clientele, links which were viewed as undermining the vested power structures of the church and empire.

3. Idolatry

Idolatry was synonymous with pagan worship in the Byzantine mind, and was therefore something that both iconophile and iconoclast fought against. For the iconoclasts, however, the veneration of icons (as well as of relics) constituted a revival of paganism that had to be arrested in order that Christianity may be restored to its original purity. To properly understand why the iconoclasts adopted this position, we need to consider their view of the nature of icons and their interpretation of some key Old Testament passages.

The Second Commandment in Exodus 20:4 ^[19] and in parallel passages ^[20] were interpreted by the iconoclasts as an unconditional prohibition of icons. Furthermore, the iconoclast definition of 'icon' as something that is "identical in essence with that which it portrays"^[21] also led, as mentioned earlier, to a charge of idolatry. For since an icon of Christ is clearly ontologically distinct from Christ, it could only pretend to be God and, as such, was an idolatrous impostor. Such views were also reinforced by the spread of superstitious practices associated with icons.

Iconophiles, however, were equally keen to avoid idolatry, as is shown by their response to the accusation that icons are idols. To the argument from the identification of type with prototype, the iconophiles objected that such an identification is "senseless and ridiculous."^[22] It is obvious, they argued, that an image is not always like its prototype in every respect, for the image is one thing and the thing depicted is another. An ontological difference exists between an image and its prototype,^[23] thus rendering the charge of idolatry ineffective. Iconophiles also pointed out that another important difference between an icon and its prototype is that only the prototype (in the case of an icon of Christ) can receive divine adoration and worship (latreia), whereas an icon can only receive relative veneration of honour (proskunêsis). Thus image worship and hence idolatry are ruled out.

With respect to the biblical objections of the iconoclasts, the iconophiles responded that their opponents (i.e., the iconoclasts) had taken the second prohibition of the Decalogue out of its historical context and had therefore misinterpreted it. The iconophiles also pointed to the fact that this injunction did not prohibit the Jews from creating images of cherubim without this implying that the Jews had succumbed to idolatry or breached the Mosaic command (see Exodus 25:18-20, 26:1, and 1 Kings 6:23-28). Finally, the event of the incarnation was seen a further reason for not applying the Old Testament prohibition to icons.

4. Tradition

A major concern for both sides in the controversy was tradition, both biblical and non-biblical. Basing themselves on the assumption that what the Church has done in the past must be right, each side fought to accumulate as much biblical and patristic testimony as possible in support of their cause.

To illustrate this deference to tradition, a few examples may be given, beginning with the iconophiles. Each of John of Damascus' three apologies (against the iconoclasts) concludes with an extensive selection of patristic passages showing that the use of icons had been present in the Christian community for centuries. During the fourth and fifth sessions of the 787 Council in Nicea, a total of fifty-one patristic and historical texts were used to show that iconography was an accepted tradition of the Church. The Council could therefore declare that "antiquity itself and the teaching of our Fathers…testify that they [the Fathers] were gratified to see icons inside the venerable churches."^[24]

Iconoclasts, likewise, made a strong appeal to tradition. As is evidenced by the Confession of Faith of the iconoclast Council of 754, iconoclasts produced in support of their cause a variety of patristic testimonies and references that are against icons, most notably the works of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca.263-ca.340) and Epiphanius of Cyprus (ca.315-403).^[25] The six Ecumenical Councils were also sometimes put forward as being supportive of iconoclasm.^[26] For the Byzantines, one may conclude, it was of great importance to remain faithful to the traditions of the Church, to "guard the deposit" (1 Timothy 6:20).

5. Access to the Divine

A further key concern underlying the iconoclast controversy was tangible access to the divine. Such access was usually provided by the holy man, but when he was physically absent (due to distance or death) this function was transferred to the icon. And so the determined effort of the iconophiles to hold onto icons was, to some extent, an expression of the desire to hold onto this access.

But how, for the Byzantine, was an icon to provide access to the divine? Firstly, and most importantly, through the icon's intercessory power. The icons themselves make this clear when they represent angels, saints and, especially, the Virgin interceding with Christ. When the face of the local saint was no longer visible (because of the saint's physical absence), popular piety focused its prayers, hopes, and fears on the face of the holy man pictured in an icon as standing or kneeling with outstretched arms before God. The icon, by providing the face of an intercessor, was taken as a window into the distant vault of heaven.

Secondly, what was lost with the disappearance of the holy man was not only an intercessor, but also communion or contact with him, which provided another avenue to the divine. It is this that the icon regained, for it acted as 'a place of encounter' - it mediated the presence of the holy person in a tangible and immediate way.

The icon also secured access to the divine through its potential for working miracles and cures. Often, the living holy man himself or some object blessed by him served as a vehicle for miraculous cures. The silent portrait of the deceased holy man could have the same effect: an ill woman, for example, approaches the icon of St Symeon the Younger, trusting that "if I can only see his face, I shall be saved."^[27]

6. Concluding Remarks

Modern scholars have provided many and varied explanations as to why immense importance was attached by the Byzantines to the issue of the acceptability of icons. Indeed, the matter is in some danger of being explained away, for as Peter Brown has stated, "Altogether, the Iconoclast controversy is in the grip of a crisis of over-explanation."^[28] Nevertheless, any plausible account of the iconoclast controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries must at least make reference to the five issues identified above as lying behind the dispute: (i) soteriology, or the salvation of humanity, (ii) power structures within Byzantine society, (iii) the wish to avoid idolatry, (iv) the desire to remain faithful to religious tradition, and (v) access to the divine. The controversy over icons, when placed in the context of these five fundamental concerns, may help to explain why this dispute provoked so much violence and so much resistance.

Notes

[1] André Grabar, L' Iconoclasme Byzantin. Dossier Archéologique (Paris: Collège de France, 1957), p.5.

[2] Patrick Henry, for instance, takes the incarnation as one of the concerns revealed in the light of the iconoclast controversy, but without relating this concern to soteriology ("What was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?" Church History 45 (1976): 21-25).

[3] Theodore the Studite, for example, writes: "The first and true argument that he [i.e., Christ] is a man is that he can be pictured" (Letters 2.64, in PG 99: 1285B).

[4] For example, John of Damascus (ca.675-749), one of the most prominent defenders of icons, wrote: "In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see" (On the Divine Images: Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images 1.16, trans. David Anderson, Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980, p.23).

[5] Monophysitism (the belief that in Christ there is only one nature) and Nestorianism (the belief that the humanity of Christ was so divided from his Godhead that he became two persons instead of one) were formally condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council (held at Chalcedon in 451).

[6] See Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon (New York: SVS Press, 1978), pp.152-53, and John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), pp.46-50.

[7] Henry, "What was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?" p.24.

[8] John of Damascus: "He [i.e., God] has deified our flesh forever, and has sanctified us by surrendering His Godhead to our flesh without confusion" (On the Divine Images 1.21, p.29).

[9] Parry, "Theodore Studites and the Patriarch Nicephoros on Image-Making as a Christian Imperative," Byzantion 59 (1989): 182.

[10] Quoted by Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons 1.7, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981), p.26.

[11] The Paulicians, a sect that originated in Armenia in the seventh century, seem to have been dualistic in doctrine, holding all matter (and therefore Christ's body, the Cross, and all icons) in contempt, for the source of the material universe was thought to be not the good God, but the evil Demiurge.

[12] John of Damascus, On the Divine Images 1.22, p.30.

[13] Quoted in Daniel J. Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), p.28.

[14] Theosterictus, Life of St Nicetas of Medikion, ch.27; see Paul J. Alexander, "Religious Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications," Speculum 52 (1977): 259.

[15] Theosterictus, Life of St Nicetas of Medikion, ch.33, quoted in Alexander, "Religious Persecution and Resistance," p.259.

[16] Theosterictus, Life of St Nicetas of Medikion, ch.29, quoted in Alexander, "Religious Persecution and Resistance," p.244.

[17] Quoted in Theophanes the Confessor's Chronographia, p.446 in vol.1 of C. de Boor's 1883 edition. I am here relying on the English translation of Harry Turtledove in The Chronicle of Theophanes: An English Translation of 'Anna Mundi' 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813), with Introduction and Notes (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), p.133.

[18] In the words of Peter Brown, "Iconomachy in action is monachomachy" ("A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy," The English Historical Review 88 (1973): 30).

[19] "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (NRSV).

[20] See Exodus 20:34, 34:17; Leviticus 19:4, 26:1; and Deuteronomy 4:15-19, 5:8, 27:15.

[21] Constantine V as quoted in Nicephorus' Refutations 1.15, in PG 100:225A.

[22] Nicephorus, Refutations 1.15, in PG 100:225A. Nicephorus, one of the leading defenders of icons, was patriarch of Constantinople from 806 till 815; for an excellent study of his life and thought, see Paul J. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958).

[23] This is why the iconophiles argued that the veneration shown to icons is directed not to wood and paint, but towards the person depicted. Hence the much quoted formula of Basil the Great (ca.330-379): "The honor given the image passes to the protoype" (On the Holy Spirit 18.45, trans. David Anderson, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980, p.72; cf. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons 2.24-6, pp.57-59).

[24] Quoted in Sahas, Icon and Logos, p.84.

[25] The iconophiles dismissed Eusebius' views by branding him an Arian, while the writings of Epiphanius were taken to be spurious. See, for example, John of Damascus, On the Divine Images 2.18, p.64, and Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons 2.49, p.74.

[26] Cf. Leo III's protest to the iconophile pope Gregory II: "Why was nothing said (defined) on the icons in the Six Councils?" (quoted in Sahas, Icon and Logos, p.28).

[27] Quoted in Brown, "A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy," p.15.

[28] Brown, "A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy," p.3.