Context Surrounding the Rise of Iconoclasm
This past Sunday, the first Sunday of Great Lent, we celebrated the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which (to state in an overly simplified way) is the restoration of the use of icons. With that in mind, I will post a couple of articles about the Iconoclasm movement which brought about the controversy.
“History makes no sharp turns.” That is what my history professor back in college would say over and over. Just as with everything else in the quest to understand history, the story of the struggle over the use of icons in the Church is wrapped up in a tangled web of issues which delve into the spiritual, practical, political, monetary, military, cultural, linguistic, and class issues of the time.
Though I will not treat of these issues at any depth, and you will undoubtedly be able to question some of the statements I make, a few of the issues involved in the Iconoclasm crisis of the 8th century in the Christian east have have some overarching themes which will help us to understand the struggle against the icons.
In our quick study of this period in history class, I noticed in particular the recurring mention of the eastern portion of Asia Minor, and especially the interplay of the political, cultural, and religious issues which arose between this portion of Asia Minor and the rest of the empire.
One of the most important points to mention, if nothing else were covered at all, would be that the line of emperors which led the charge against icons (and relics), the Isaurian emperors, were from this area. The first of these emperors was Emperor Leo III. He came to power after a decisive and overwhelming victory against the Arabs. So important was this victory that A. A. Vasiliev (an historian who knows much more about this than I do) states that Leo III saved not only Constantinople and the eastern areas of the Roman Empire, but also stopped the Arabs from infiltrating the western regions of the Empire as well.
This victory firmly established Leo III as emperor, but along with his unquestionable military genius, he brought along with him, as it seems from my simple look into this era, some aspects of his culture in Asia Minor. And those, in turn, seem to have driven his policy as emperor. He was a military commander from the eastern portions of Asia Minor, and evidently, much of the ranks of the military were made up of men from this same area of the empire. And indeed, later, the military were, for the most part, on the side of those who sought to destroy the icons.
Why is that? I will continue to paint the picture. We must also mention the incredible number of monks in the empire at that time: 100,000. There was not a significant monastic presence in the eastern portions of Asia Minor, and by contrast, these eastern portions of the empire bordered and had much more communication with the Muslims of neighboring lands.
So, if the emperor and much of the military were from an area which had relatively little contact with the faith and life of the monastics, but rather were regularly in contact with those of a faith which is vehemently opposed to any images at all, even outside of religious-oriented locations, and even refusing to use coinage which had iconographic images on it, it makes a lot more sense that the peoples of eastern Asia Minor would, to put it as mildly as possible, have sensitivities to icons, not so much for theological as much as for cultural reasons.
It is hard to determine for certain how much influence the Islamic culture had on the issue of Iconoclasm, but the same historian, Vasiliev, cautions those of us trying to make sense of this crisis that “Muhammedan influence upon the eastern provinces should be taken into consideration in any study of the anti-image movement.” And that, of course, does not mean that Islam necessarily had any direct involvement in any of the events, but rather, as Priest Alexander Schmemann states, that the actions of the emperor and the other iconoclasts was perhaps partly “an attempt at a certain psychological compromise with Islam”.
Whatever the underlying cultural make-up the Isaurian emperors had and how it affected their decisions, there was a definite drive to reform Christianity in order to change it back to (what they thought to be) its earlier and purer form, that is without icons or relics.
One more major issue that certainly could have been a major factor motivating the anti-icon policies of the Isaurian emperors is the bitterness which could so easily arise from such a multitude of monks, (100,000 or more). Not only did these monasteries have vast properties which were not subject to taxation, but also the empire did not have the benefit of these multitudes of men either in military or civil service. Even if the loss of revenue was not a conscious factor, it still remains that 100,000 men not benefitting the empire in any way (from the perspective of their detractors, of course) and also slipping out of paying the taxes everybody else had to pay, would almost certainly exacerbate whatever other grievances the iconoclasts had against them.
I do not pretend to present well-researched and decisive conclusions as to the cause of Iconoclasm, but even with these few brief looks into some of the issues surrounding Constantinople’s crisis of the 8th century, it is easy to see how some of the political and cultural factors could have greatly compounded the more superficial and outwardly obvious issues we might read about in a simple explanation of Iconoclasm.
“History makes no sharp turns.” That is what my history professor back in college would say over and over. Just as with everything else in the quest to understand history, the story of the struggle over the use of icons in the Church is wrapped up in a tangled web of issues which delve into the spiritual, practical, political, monetary, military, cultural, linguistic, and class issues of the time.
Though I will not treat of these issues at any depth, and you will undoubtedly be able to question some of the statements I make, a few of the issues involved in the Iconoclasm crisis of the 8th century in the Christian east have have some overarching themes which will help us to understand the struggle against the icons.
In our quick study of this period in history class, I noticed in particular the recurring mention of the eastern portion of Asia Minor, and especially the interplay of the political, cultural, and religious issues which arose between this portion of Asia Minor and the rest of the empire.
One of the most important points to mention, if nothing else were covered at all, would be that the line of emperors which led the charge against icons (and relics), the Isaurian emperors, were from this area. The first of these emperors was Emperor Leo III. He came to power after a decisive and overwhelming victory against the Arabs. So important was this victory that A. A. Vasiliev (an historian who knows much more about this than I do) states that Leo III saved not only Constantinople and the eastern areas of the Roman Empire, but also stopped the Arabs from infiltrating the western regions of the Empire as well.
This victory firmly established Leo III as emperor, but along with his unquestionable military genius, he brought along with him, as it seems from my simple look into this era, some aspects of his culture in Asia Minor. And those, in turn, seem to have driven his policy as emperor. He was a military commander from the eastern portions of Asia Minor, and evidently, much of the ranks of the military were made up of men from this same area of the empire. And indeed, later, the military were, for the most part, on the side of those who sought to destroy the icons.
Why is that? I will continue to paint the picture. We must also mention the incredible number of monks in the empire at that time: 100,000. There was not a significant monastic presence in the eastern portions of Asia Minor, and by contrast, these eastern portions of the empire bordered and had much more communication with the Muslims of neighboring lands.
So, if the emperor and much of the military were from an area which had relatively little contact with the faith and life of the monastics, but rather were regularly in contact with those of a faith which is vehemently opposed to any images at all, even outside of religious-oriented locations, and even refusing to use coinage which had iconographic images on it, it makes a lot more sense that the peoples of eastern Asia Minor would, to put it as mildly as possible, have sensitivities to icons, not so much for theological as much as for cultural reasons.
It is hard to determine for certain how much influence the Islamic culture had on the issue of Iconoclasm, but the same historian, Vasiliev, cautions those of us trying to make sense of this crisis that “Muhammedan influence upon the eastern provinces should be taken into consideration in any study of the anti-image movement.” And that, of course, does not mean that Islam necessarily had any direct involvement in any of the events, but rather, as Priest Alexander Schmemann states, that the actions of the emperor and the other iconoclasts was perhaps partly “an attempt at a certain psychological compromise with Islam”.
Whatever the underlying cultural make-up the Isaurian emperors had and how it affected their decisions, there was a definite drive to reform Christianity in order to change it back to (what they thought to be) its earlier and purer form, that is without icons or relics.
One more major issue that certainly could have been a major factor motivating the anti-icon policies of the Isaurian emperors is the bitterness which could so easily arise from such a multitude of monks, (100,000 or more). Not only did these monasteries have vast properties which were not subject to taxation, but also the empire did not have the benefit of these multitudes of men either in military or civil service. Even if the loss of revenue was not a conscious factor, it still remains that 100,000 men not benefitting the empire in any way (from the perspective of their detractors, of course) and also slipping out of paying the taxes everybody else had to pay, would almost certainly exacerbate whatever other grievances the iconoclasts had against them.
I do not pretend to present well-researched and decisive conclusions as to the cause of Iconoclasm, but even with these few brief looks into some of the issues surrounding Constantinople’s crisis of the 8th century, it is easy to see how some of the political and cultural factors could have greatly compounded the more superficial and outwardly obvious issues we might read about in a simple explanation of Iconoclasm.
Comments
Post a Comment