Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T12:39:16.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Icons before Iconoclasm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Norman H. Baynes
Norman H. Baynes
Affiliation:
London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“The feeling against ikon-worship suddenly burst out in the earlier part of the eighth century when the iconoclastic (ikon-smashing) emperors of Constantinople tried to suppress the practice by force.” So wrote Edwyn Bevan in an admirable essay on Idolatry. And from modern accounts of the iconoclast movement one does generally get the impression that after the violent challenge of Epiphanius in the fourth century — when he tore down a pictured curtain which hung in a church — the East Roman world had accepted without protest and without question the widespread cult of the icon, while the policy of iconoclast emperors appears as a sudden breach with a universally recognized tradition. But is such an impression justified? When we put together such fragmentary pieces of evidence as we possess is it not rather probable that there was a continuous questioning of the legitimacy of the cult? May not the part played by the icon in the life and religious usage of the Byzantine world have been subjected to the constant criticism of pagans, Jews and even of Christians? And if this is so, it may help us to understand somewhat more clearly the primary motives which inspired the policy of the iconoclast rulers. It may be worth while to consider the evidence afresh since it has been increased by two recent publications.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1951 , pp. 93 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Edinburgh Review, vol. 243, No. 496 (April 1926), pp. 253–272.

2 I accept the authenticity of the Epiphanian documents. For a criticism of the argument of Ostrogorsky, G., Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Historische Untersuchungen, Heft 5) Breslau, 1929Google Scholar see Dölger, Franz, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, August 1929, pp. 353–372Google Scholar.

3 In his Analecta Patristica (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 117), Rome, Pont. Inst. Orientalium Studiorum, 1938, pp. 109–153, text at pp. 127–129.

4 See G. Ostrogorsky, Les Débuts de la Querelle des Images, Mélanges Charles Diehl, vol. 1, pp. 235–255.

5 P.G. 86b col. 3220 (P.G. = Migne, Patrologia Graeca).

6 Byzantion 17 (1944–45), p. 66.

7 Mansi, vol. 13, col. 164–65.

8 Pseudo-Athanasios P.G. 28, col. 621–624.

9 Malalas (Bonn ed.), p. 491 19–20.

10 I do not understand the relation between the text cited from Mansi vol. 13, P.G. 93, col. 1597–1609 and the extracts quoted by John of Damascus P.G. 94.

11 Translated in Dawes, E. and Baynes, N. H., Three Byzantine Saints, Blackwell, Oxford, 1948Google Scholar.

12 P.G. 93, col. 1597–1609.

13 For the argument derived from God's direction concerning the Cherubim see P. — supra.

14 Cf. P.G. 94, col. 1384 A–B.

15 Cf. John of Damascus De Imaginibus Oratio, III, P.G. 94, col. 1384 A–B quoting Leontius: Solomon ἐκ νόμου λαβὼν τὸ τύπωμα.

16 Cf. ibid., col. 1381 S.f. νομικὴ γὰρ αὔτη ἡ παράδοσις καῖ οὐχ ἡμɛτέρα.

17 Cf. Byzantion 17(1944–45), p. 59 “Et Dieu ne désapprouva pas et il l'appela le temple de son nom.”

18 This theme of the function of the icons to keep alive men's memory is constant, cf. e.g., the citations of Leontius in P.G. 94 col. 1276 A ἀνάμνησις and in ibid., 1385 A; ὑπάμνησις in 1384 B and P.G. 28 col. 621 D. John Bishop of Thessalonica in Mansi 13 col. 164 on the icons of the saints. ɛἰς τὸ μɛμνῆσθαι αὐτῶν καὶ τιμᾶν αὐτοὺς … ὡς γνησίους δούλους καὶ ϕίλους θɛοῦ καὶ παρρησίαν ἕχοντας πρɛσβɛύɛιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Of the icons we read in Quaestiones; ad Antiochum, Ducem P.G. 28 col. 621 οὔσπɛρ δι᾽ ὑπόμνησιν καὶ μόνον ἐντυποῦμɛν καὶ οὐ δι᾽ἕτɛρον τρόπον cf. Stephen of Bostra P.G. 94 col. 1376 B–D.

19 Cf. Les Trophées de Damas, ed. G. Bardy, Patrologia Orientalis Tome 15, Fasc. 2, Paris 1920, p. 245 (75) —Isaiah 4414–17 quoted; Quaestiones ad Antiochum Ducem P.G. 28 col. 621 B and the fragment ibid. col. 709 A.

20 Cf. P.G. 94 col. 1384 D.

21 Cf. τῆ σαρκί P.G. ibid. 1385 B and the fragment P.G. 28 col. 709.

22 Cf. P. G. 94 col. 1385 B ὸ σκοπὸς ἐξɛτάζɛται.

23 P.G. 93 col. 1601 διὰ τί οὺκ ἐγκαλɛῖς τῷ Ἰακὼβ προσκυνήσαντι ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῤάβδου τοῦ Ἰωσήϕ. Jacob did not make obeisance to the wood but through the wood to Joseph. Hebrews, 11,21. Cf. F. Nau, La Didaskalie de Jacob, Patrologia Orientalis vol. 8, fasc. 5 p. 740 (30), Quaestiones ad Antiochum Ducem P.G. 28 col. 621.

24 Cf. P.G. 94 col. 1385 D.

25 P.G. 94 col. 1272 C-D.

26 P.G. 28 col. 621 C. For a story of a demon and the icon of the Virgin ibid.

27 Les Trophées de Damas, ed Bardy. Patrologia Orientalis vol. 15, Fasc. 2 p. 273 (103) and cf. ibid. p. 272 (102).

28 Cf. P.G. 94 col. 1276 A.

29 G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, 1933, p. 110.

30 It would, for example, be of interest to know whether there are parallels to the view of Leontius that the world of nature needs the help of man before it can worship its Creator.

31 P.G. 28 col. 621.

32 Les Trophées de Damas, ed. G. Bardy, Patrologia Orientalis vol. 15, p. 245.

33 On this dialogue see A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos, Cambridge, 1935, pp. 169–174.

34 La Didascalie de Jacob, Patrologia Orientalis vol. 8, 5, p. 740.

35 P.G. 28 col. 621 B.

36 Ibid.

37 P.G. 40 col. 865. It may be noted that the cult of the Cross was not extended to embrace other objects connected with the passion — the ass, the holy lance, the sponge, the reed — and when Christians asked the reason for this ἄγια γὰρ ɛὶσι καὶ ταῦτα καθὰ καὶ ὸ σταυρός it was not easy to find a satisfactory answer, see P.G. 28 col. 624, Trophées de Damas p. 249.

38 Sirarpie der Nersessian, Une Apologie des Imzges du septième Siècle, Byzantion 17 (1944–45), pp. 58–87. By her translation of these texts and her fully documented commentary Miss der Nersessian has rendered a great service to those of us who cannot read Armenian works.

39 So Gerhart B. Ladner, Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy, Mediaeval Studies 2 (1940), Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, pp. 127–149. I prefer Louis Brehier's summing up of Les caractères généraux et la portée de la réforme iconoclaste, Revue des Cours et Conférences for 11 April 1901, pp. 226–235.