religious and a political movement that rejected the sanctity of religions. images and icon veneration. Although episodes or campaigns of I. took place in different historical periods and in different countries, the prototypical I. as with the so-called. scale and duration, and in terms of the depth of the argumentation developed by its supporters and opponents in defense of their positions, the iconoclastic disputes in Byzantium in the 8th-9th centuries are considered. I. should be distinguished from aniconism - a cult that does not use images of a deity as the dominant or central cult symbol, the place of which is taken by either an anicon image or sacred emptiness.

Historical situation

I. was introduced into Byzantium as a state. doctrines of the imp. Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) as part of large-scale reforms of the state, economy and law. The two main sources testifying to the events of the 1st period of I., “Brief History” of the K-Polish Patriarch St. Nikephoros I (806-815) and “Chronography” by St. Theophan the Confessor, report practically nothing about the causes of I. and its beginning. St. Nikephoros mentions volcanic eruptions on 2 islands of the Aegean, which, according to him, were perceived by the emperor as a sign of Divine wrath, etc. prompted him to change policy (Niceph. Const. Brev. hist. P. 128-129). St. Theophanes writes in the Chronicle under 724/5: “... this year the wicked King Leo began to talk about the destruction of holy and honest icons” (Theoph. Chron. P. 404). However, even before the open introduction of I. St. Herman I, Patriarch of K-Poland (715-730), in messages quoted at the VII Ecumenical Council, accused Metropolitan. John of Sinada and Bishop. Constantine of Nakolia (both from Phrygia), as well as Bishop. Thomas of Claudiopolis in iconoclastic views, the latter especially in the destruction of icons, which testifies to the local iconoclastic movement in M. Asia even before the start of officialdom. AND.

The first and one of the main manifestations of I. was the removal of the icon of Christ, which was placed above the Chalki Gate of the Great Palace in K-pol, and its replacement with an image of the Cross with a poetic inscription. This event can be dated to the reign of the imp. Leo III (see: Baranov. 2004; at the same time, some scientists have questioned the historicity of this episode, see: Auz é py. 1990). In 730, for the formal approval of I., the emperor convened a silentium, a meeting of the highest secular and church dignitaries, dating back to the time of the reign of the emperor. St. Justinian I (527-565) discussed cases of betrayal and crimes against the emperor, as well as issues of church structure. This indirectly indicates that the emperor did not consider the issue of icon veneration dogmatic, but attributed it to the field of religion. practices. St. Herman considered the emperor's actions to be interference in matters of doctrine and refused to approve the emperor. decree demanding the convening of an Ecumenical Council, after which he was forced to renounce the Patriarchate and retire to the family estate of Platanion, where he lived the rest of his life.

Son of the Emperor Leo III, imp. Constantine V, ascended the throne in 741 and continued his father's policies. After a year of rule, he was forced to flee the capital due to the uprising of Artavazd, but in November. 743 he managed to regain the throne. In 754, he convened a Council of 388 bishops in Hieria (see Art. Council of Hieria) to receive official. Council approval of I., and in preparation for the Council he wrote several. theological works entitled “Questions”, fragments of which have come to us as part of the “Refutations against the wicked Mammon” by St. Nikephoros, written more than half a century later. The Council claimed to be called the “seventh ecumenical”, although none of the East. no patriarchs or papal legates were present. The meetings of the Council were presided over by Bishop. Theodosius of Ephesus, since Anastasius, who became Patriarch of K-Poland (Jan. 22, 730 - Jan. 754) after St. Herman, died before the Council began, and the new patriarch, Constantine II (754-766), was elected only at its last meeting.

After the Council, the struggle against icons and monasticism continued with renewed vigor, and mass persecution of icon worshipers began (Gero. 1977. P. 111-142). Prmch. Stefan the New, who enjoyed great authority among icon-worshipers, was tortured and executed in 765; in 766, by order of the emperor, monks were mocked at the K-Polish hippodrome, and in 768 several were closed. important metropolitan Mont-Rey. The scale of persecution in the provinces depended on the jealousy of local rulers. St. Theophanes reports the special cruelty of Michael Lachanodrakon, the ruler of the Thracesian theme in the west of Asia, who gathered the monks and offered them the choice of immediate marriage or blindness and exile. The persecution subsided only after the death of the emperor. Constantine V, during the reign of his son, Emperor. Leo IV (775-780), when prisoners and exiled icon venerators received freedom and the opportunity to return home.

Widow imp. Leo IV, imp. St. Irina, became regent under her son, ten-year-old emperor. Constantine VI. Being a convinced icon-worshipper, she made every effort to cancel the decisions of the Council in Hieria, for which she tried to convene an Ecumenical Council in 786. Her first attempt was unsuccessful due to the disturbances at the opening of the Council that occurred in the troops, who were mostly pro-iconoclast ( Kaegi. 1966). After St. Irina ordered the troops to leave K-field, she succeeded on September 24. 787 to convene the VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The Council was presided over by Patriarch Tarasius of K-Poland (784-806), who was elected instead of the elderly Patriarch Paul IV (780-784), who abdicated the throne and retired to the monastery. The VII Ecumenical Council completely restored the veneration of icons and declared icons to have equal dignity with the Cross and the Gospel. At the 6th session of the Council, the definition of the iconoclastic Council of Hieria was read out and consistently refuted.

I. resumed under the imp. Leo V the Armenian, who was impressed by the long and successful reign of the iconoclast emperors. The emperor convened a commission, assigning its members the task of selecting paternal evidence in favor of I.; St. Nikifor refused to cooperate with the commission and was forcibly removed. After Easter 815, an Iconoclastic Council was convened, the meetings of which were held in the Church of St. Sophia. The Council proclaimed the truth of the teachings of the Iconoclastic Council in Hieria, and the persecution of icon-venerators resumed, although not for several years. less force than after the Council of Hieria. Imp's dream Leo V's plans for a long reign were not destined to come true - he was killed in 820 (see: Afinogenov. 2001). His killer and successor, Emperor. Michael II Travl (820-829) suspended the persecution, but did not make any fundamental decisions to end the conflict.

The last outbreak of history in Byzantium dates back to the reign of the emperor. Theophilus (829-842), who, under the influence of the Patriarch of Poland John VII Grammar (837-843), banned the production of icons and persecuted famous icon-worshipers, including the smchm. Euphemia, Metropolitan Sardsky, Spanish Theodore the Inscribed and the icon painter Lazarus. Emperor's wife Theophila, imp. St. Theodora was an icon venerator and after the death of her husband she achieved the restoration of icon veneration. The last iconoclastic patriarch and theological adviser to 3 iconoclast emperors, John the Grammaticus, was deposed and exiled, and in March 843, under the new patriarch, icon-venerator St. Methodius I (843-847), the complete restoration of icon veneration was proclaimed. In the 2nd half. 9th century several Councils were again condemned by I. (Dvornik. 1953), and until the 11th century. the controversy related to icon veneration and I. was not renewed.

Disputes about I. gained new strength in connection with what was undertaken in 1081-1082. imp. Alexei I Komnenos confiscated precious church objects for melting down, in order to replenish the impoverished treasury, among which were liturgical vessels with sacred images. Lev, Metropolitan Chalcedonian, made dogmatic objections, accusing those who destroyed sacred images for any purpose of wickedness. Dogmatic disputes took up several. years and led to the fact that at the K-Polish Council of 1086, Met. Leo was accused of heresy and deposed. The disputes, however, did not end there, and in 1094, at the Council of K-pol, Leo repented of his errors and was restored to the see (for the theological arguments of the dispute, see: Louri é. 2006).

The main source on the history of the 1st period of iconoclastic disputes in Byzantium is the “Chronography” of St. Theophan the Confessor, covering 285-813. Since this work is to a large extent a combination of excerpts from earlier texts, subjected to varying degrees of abridgement and paraphrasing, the problem of the sources of St. Feofana is very complex, especially since he himself rarely indicates the origin of his material. In addition to the Greek sources for the 7th-8th centuries. Feofan uses east. source - sir. chronicle (or chronicles), translated into Greek. language in the East and originating from Melkite circles (Mango, Scott. 1997. P. LXXXII). In addition to St. Theophan the Confessor illuminates the events of the 1st period of iconoclastic disputes in the “Brief History” of St. Nikephoros, covering the events of 602-769. (Niceph. Const. Brev. hist.). Like St. Theophan, St. Nicephorus depicts events from an anti-iconoclastic position, but unlike St. Feofana does not follow the chronicle system. Attributed to St. Nikephoros short “The Chronicler soon” (Chronographia brevis; ed.: Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica/Ed. C. de Boor. Lpz., 1880, 1975r. P. 81-135) is a list of rulers from the Creation of the world to 829. As a result of searches used in Byzantium. chronicles of sources for the period of the reign of the emperor. Researchers have reconstructed Leo III several times. sources: material favorable to Leo III, conventionally called “Vita Leonis” by P. Speck (Uspensky. 1950, 1951; Speck. 1981. S. 238-239), and a polemical anti-iconoclast treatise conventionally called “Historia Leonis” (Afinogenov. 2002 . P. 7-17).

The events of the 2nd iconoclastic period are described by Theophanes' Successor, the author of a collection of chronicles, preserved in a single manuscript of the 11th century, Vat. gr. 167. Despite the fact that the anonymous author of the 1st of 4 parts (for 813-867) considers himself a successor to St. Theophan the Confessor, his chronicle has a different compositional structure, representing a series of biographies of emperors (Theoph. Contin.; rev. ed.: Kumaniecki. 1932). “Review of Histories” by John Skylitzes (Scyl. Hist.), describing the events of 811-1057, is also considered as a continuation of the work of St. Theophan the Confessor, whom John Skylitzes praises as a reliable historian; The “Historical Synopsis” of George Kedrin (Cedrenus G. Comp. hist.) from 811 closely follows the chronicle of Skylitzes.

The author of the anonymous “History of the Emperors” (Joseph. Reg. lib.) trad. Joseph Genesius is considered to be, mentioned in the preface of the chronicle of John Skylitzes thanks to a note with his name in the text of the manuscript. This essay was written at the court of the Emperor. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it covers 813-886. and sets out the events from the point of view. Macedonian dynasty. George Amartol is the author of the Chronicle from Adam to 842 (Georg. Mon. Chron.). The historical value of the information contained in the polemical text of the chronicle is difficult to assess objectively. For the 8th century Amartol's main source was the work of St. Feofana; events 813-842 stated independently.

In addition to these sources, there are a number of important texts of a fragmentary nature, which contain details that are not found in St. Theophan the Confessor and the Successor of Theophan. The first of them, the anonymous text “On the Armenian Lion,” dates back to 811-820. and describes the reigns of the emperors Michael I Rangave and Leo V the Armenian (De Leone Armenio (e cod. Paris. gr. 1711) / Ed. I. Bekker. Bonn, 1842. P. 335-362; rev. ed.: Browning R. Notes on the "Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio" // Byz. 1965. Vol. 35. P. 391-406; new edition: Scriptor Incertus: Testo crit., trad. e not. / Ed. Fr. Iadevaia. Messina , 1987). The second text, the so-called “Chronicle of 811” describes the crushing defeat of the Byzantines from the Bulgarians in 811. Although it was previously believed that both texts belonged to the same source, in the present day. At the time, scientists are inclined to believe that they date differently. "Chronicle of 811" is, in all likelihood, not a fragment of a chronicle, but a “historical-hagiographical” composition based on official. evidence and eyewitness testimony (see: Brubaker, Haldon. 2001. P. 179-180; Kazhdan. 2002. P. 270-274).

Despite the wealth of historical material, the chronicles contain almost no data on the theology of the iconoclasts. The most important source from the viewpoint. Byzantine theology of the image are 3 “Defensive words against those who condemn sacred images” by St. John of Damascus (Ioan. Damasc. De imag.). Since the 2nd Word was written as an abbreviation of the 1st and contains a mention of the recent removal from the pulpit of St. Herman (Ibid. 2.12) in 730, the 1st and 2nd Words can be dated to the first years of I. They contain evidence of the theological positions of both sides at an early stage of the controversy; The 3rd, more extensive Word, develops a system of arguments in defense of the sacred images of the 1st Word and contains a much more extensive florilegium than both first treatises. St. John briefly summarizes the arguments in defense of icons in one of the chapters of “An Exact Exposition Orthodox faith"(Idem. De fide orth.). Third "Refutation against the wicked Mammon" by St. Nikephoros (Niceph. Const. Refut. et evers.) ends with the chapter “Accusing Christians, or Iconoclasts,” probably intended as an addition to the work of St. John of Damascus "On Heresies".

Reliably dated back to the period of early history, 3 epistles of St. Herman to Bishops John of Sinada, Constantine of Nakolia and Thomas of Claudiopolis (CPG, N 8002-8004; ed.: Th ü mmel. 1992. S. 374-387), read out at the VII Ecumenical Council. Epistle of St. Herman to Pope Leo III is reconstructed on the basis of quotes from the speech of the saint in defense of icons, contained in the “Life of Stephen the New” (PG. 100. Col. 1084-1085; new edition: Auzé py. 1997. P. 99. 7-100 . 4). The pen of Patriarch Herman most likely also belongs to the “Sermon on the deliverance of Constantinople from the Arab siege” of 717 (Grumel. 1958), a short “Sermon on the Holy Icons” (CPG, N 8005, 8016) and a fragment related to the Arab siege (CPG, N 8017; about the literary heritage of Patriarch Herman, see: Kazhdan. 2002. P. 82-105). Part of the treatise “On Heresies and Councils” (CPG, N 8020), traditionally attributed to Patriarch Herman, concerns I., in the present. time is considered interpolation and dates back to the 2nd half. VIII century (Brubaker, Haldon. 2001. P. 247-248). Another important polemical text is “The Tale of the Cross and Icons against Heretics” (CPG, N 8033), which has come down to us only as a cargo. (ed.: Van Esbroeck. 1999) and slav. translations (Baranov, Gigineishvili. 2006). Although in the manuscript tradition this work is attributed to Patriarch Herman, a comparison of the arguments given in it in defense of the icons with the authentic texts of the saint, as well as the mention of some kind of conciliar decision of the iconoclasts (Crimea could only have been the Council of 754) force us to date this monument to a later time. Fragment attributed to St. Andrew of Crete, which contains a description of the face of Christ and certain miracles from the icons of the Virgin Mary (PG. 97. Col. 1301-1304; CPG, N 8193), is not his work (Τωμαδάκης. 1965. Σ. 192). An important source of the 1st period of I. is the treatise “The Elder’s Instruction on the Holy Icons” - a dispute between the elder icon-venerator George and the imperial iconoclast official Cosmas (ed.: Melioransky. 1901. P. V-XXXIX). The treatise was written shortly before 754 and expanded until 787. One of the surviving evidence of the fierce political struggle between iconoclasts and icon-worshipers is the one attributed to St. John of Damascus treatise “On the Holy Icons against Constantine the Horseman” (CPG, N 8114). This work is probably an example of a special genre of polemical pamphlets created by both warring parties (traces of similar iconoclastic propaganda are found in the “Chronicle” of Michael the Syrian; see: Gero. 1976). Researchers have proposed a hypothesis about several. stages of processing the original (written before 754, but not extant) treatise (Auzépy. 1995; Brubaker, Haldon. 2001. P. 250-251). “The Tale against the Iconoclasts” also belongs to the same genre of polemical treatises (CPG, N 8121; PG. 96. Col. 1348-1361 - under the name of St. John of Damascus or the monk John of Jerusalem; PG. 109. Col. 501-516 - anonymous ), dating back to ca. 770 based on the chronological indications contained in the text (see: Alexakis. 1996. P. 93-99).

Sources on the early period of I. were preserved as part of the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. These include: the letters of St. Herman, letter from the Pope to St. Gregory II (715-731) St. Herman (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 92-100; for authenticity see: Brubaker, Haldon. 2001. P. 277) and letters to St. Gregory imp. Leo, which contain excerpts from the emperor’s message to the pope (for the text, see: Gouillard. 1968. P. 277-305; the authenticity of these letters is the subject of debate, see: Alexakis. 1996. P. 108-110, 119-123 ). An important source for understanding the theology of the iconoclasts is the definition of the Council in Hieria in 754, which was read in parts and refuted at the VII Ecumenical Council (ed.: Krannich. 2002).

The main theologians of the icon venerators of the 2nd period of I. were St. Nikifor and etc. Theodore the Studite. Chronology lit. activities of St. Nikephoros is established on the basis of certain absolute dates and internal chronological indications contained in his works (Alexander. 1958. P. 182-188). His letter to Pope Leo III (Mansi. T. 14. Col. 29-56) was written in 811 or 812; “The Small Protective Word” (PG. 100. Col. 833-850) was probably written in 813-815, even before the emperor. Leo V openly took an iconoclastic position, since the author calls him “pious” (εὐσεβής). The same period belongs to “On Magnet” (814; ed.: Featherstone. 2002) - a treatise criticizing the quotes used by iconoclasts from the work of Macarius Magnet (probably the same person as Bishop Macarius of Magnesia, who, according to St. Photius, participation in the so-called Council “At the Oak” 403). The next work of the patriarch, according to P. Alexander, could be the lost homily for the death of the emperor. Leo V, spoken at Christmas 820, fragments of which are preserved in the works of George the Monk and Genesius. The death of the emperor is also mentioned in “The Refutation and Refutation of the Impious Determination of the Council of 815” (Featherstone. 1997. P. 4-5), dating from 820-828. Other works of St. Nikephoros are dated relatively: op. "Against Eusebius and Epiphanides" with criticism of the iconoclasts' use of quotations from Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Epiphany of Cyprus, published card. Jean Pitra in the form of 2 separate treatises (Pitra. 1858. P. 173-178; 371-503), was written before the “Condemnation and Refutation of the Unholy Definition of the Council of 815”, but after the work “Convicting and Refuting” (818-820 ), consisting of the “Great Defensive Word” (PG. 100. Col. 533-831) and 3 “Refutations against the wicked Mammon” - this is the order in which these works are found in manuscripts. This work is mentioned in the introduction to op. “Against Eusebius and Epiphanides” as a previous work dedicated to refuting the arguments of Mammon, i.e. imp. Constantine V, set out by him in “Questions” - a series of theological works written by the emperor on the eve of the Council of 754. In the work “Against the Iconoclasts” (ed. Pitra. 1858. P. 233-291) St. Nikifor simplifies, popularizes and complements Op. "Against Eusebius and Epiphanides." Corpus of anti-iconoclastic works of St. Nikephoros concludes with “Twelve Chapters” (ed.: Papadopoulos-Keramevs. 1891. pp. 454-460; see: Grumel. 1959) and a 7-part treatise “On the Cherubim Made by Moses” (ed.: Declerck. 2004), where the patriarch justifies the holiness of religious objects. arts and their veneration using the example of the man-made cherubs of the Tabernacle and their relationship to heavenly prototypes, touching on the problem of cause and effect in the relationship of images and their prototypes.

Theological works of St. Theodore the Studite against I. are: 3 “Refutations” (Theod. Stud. Antirrh.), where, with the help of logical evidence, the superiority of the theology of icon worshipers over the opinions of iconoclasts is shown; “Some questions proposed to the iconoclasts” (Idem. Quaest.), as well as 7 chapters “Against the iconoclasts” (Idem. Adv. iconomach.). Of particular interest is the “Refutation of Impious Verses” (Idem. Refut. et subvers.), which contains a collection of iconoclastic epigrams and a refutation of their theology. Polemical works of St. Theodora complements the apologetic “Epistle to Plato on the veneration of holy icons” (Idem. Ep. ad Plat.). Also in a number of other letters to St. Theodore the Studite concerns the theoretical foundations of icon veneration and anti-iconoclast polemics.

In addition to the works of St. Nikephoros and etc. Theodore the Studite and other works devoted to the veneration of icons have been preserved: some texts by St. Methodius I (843-847), Patriarch of K-Poland (see: Afinogenov. 1997. P. 182-195; Darrouz è s. 1987. P. 31-57), including the canon on the restoration of the veneration of icons (PG. 99. Col. 1767-1780 - under the name of St. Theodore the Studite); “Message of the Three Eastern Patriarchs to the Emperor Theophilus” and the related “Message of Theophilus to the Emperor on Saints and Venerated Icons” (CPG, N 8115; both sources published in 2 editions: Gauer. 1994; Munitiz. 1997), parts of “Synodicon vetus” ( ed.: Duffy, Parker. 1979. P. 123-133, 190-196) and “Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (ed.: Uspensky. 1893. P. 6-14; Gouillard. 1967; Idem. 1982; Afinogenov. 2004 . pp. 147-152); a number of liturgical works, such as the anacreontic poems of Michael Syncellus on the Triumph of Orthodoxy (Crimi. 1990) or the canon of the VII Ecumenical Council (RKP. Theologicus gr. 187 of the National Library in Vienna, ca. 1500), attributed by some researchers to St. Theodore Studite (Johannet. 1987). Op. "Chapters against the iconoclasts of Photius, Patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore the Studite" (ed.: Hergenr ö ther. 1869) contains brief definitions and conceptual tools of a philosophical nature associated with the theology of the image and icon veneration (see: Th ü mmel. 1983), as they were preserved in subsequent Byzantine times. traditions. Encyclicals, epistles and homilies of St. Photius also contain anti-iconoclast material and serve as an important source of information about the years immediately following the restoration of icon veneration (see, for example: Mango. 1958. P. 236-296).

Florileges occupied an important place in the theological polemics about icons. The earliest of the florilegies in defense of icon veneration accompany 3 “Words against those who condemn sacred images” by St. John of Damascus; an extensive florilegium accompanies the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council, a florilegium of 18 excerpts in defense of icons complements the compilative treatise of the 7th century. “The Teaching of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word” (CPG, N 7781; ed.: Diekamp. 1981. S. 326. 14-330. 15; see: Alexakis. 1996. P. 58-71, 123-125); a short florilegium accompanies the “Life of Niketas of Midice” (BHG, N 1341) (Th ü mmel. 1993/1994; Alexakis. 1994); An important icon-veneration florilegium is contained in the RKP. Parisinus Graecus 1115 (235v - 283v; see: Alexakis. 1996). Traces of an early iconoclastic florilegium may be present in the “Words” of St. John of Damascus (Baranov. 2002).

Almost everything available today. At the time, information about iconoclast teaching was contained in the works of icon worshipers. Some scientists, explaining this fact, argued that iconoclastic literature was deliberately destroyed by icon worshipers (see, for example: Herrin. 1987. P. 326). The Fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council forbade rewriting and ordered the authoritative text for iconoclasts to be burned - the story from the apocryphal “Acts of the Apostle John” about how the apostle. John the Theologian reproached his follower Lycomedes for ordering an image of the apostle from the painter (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 176A). But 9th is right. The same Council prescribes that iconoclastic texts should not be hidden, but deposited in a special repository of heretical and apocryphal texts of the Polish Patriarchate. Apparently, a more likely explanation for the fact that the iconoclast texts have not survived is that after the final victory of icon veneration in 843, they simply ceased to be copied in sufficient quantities. Oblivion was typical not only of iconoclastic works - after the tension of the disputes had subsided, probably no one had enough interest or motive to rewrite the polemical texts concerning the condemned and forgotten ideas. Thus, the collection of letters of Ignatius Deacon (c. 785 - c. or after 847), a former iconoclast, and later repentant author of the Lives of St. Tarasiya and St. Nikephoros, was preserved without indicating the author's name in only one manuscript (Mango. 1997); “Refutation” of the iconoclastic Council in St. Sophia of 815 St. Nikephoros was published only in 1997 on the basis of 2 surviving manuscripts; treatise on the Cross and icons, attributed in the manuscript tradition to St. Herman K-Polish, preserved only as cargo. and glory translations; Recently a treatise by St. Nikephoros about the cherubim, preserved in 3 manuscripts; An anonymous refutation of 3 fragments of the last iconoclastic patriarch John the Grammar remains unpublished (preserved in a single damaged manuscript; fragments published in: Gouillard. 1966).

On the part of the iconoclasts, we have only one source, the authenticity and integrity of which is beyond doubt - a letter from Emperors Michael II and Theophilus to Cor. francs to Louis the Pious (824; Mansi. T. 14. Col. 417-422; Michaelis et Theophili Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum epistula ad Hludowicum Imperatorem directa // MGH. Leg. Conc. 2/2. P. 475-480), which has a political orientation and is not of particular interest for the history of theology. All other iconoclastic sources consist of quotations preserved in the works of icon venerators, including: fragments of the “Questions” of Imp. Constantine V - in the “Refutation against the wicked Mammon” by St. Nikifor; definition of the Council in Jeria in 754 - in the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council; a collection of iconoclastic poetic inscriptions - in “Refutation of wicked verses” by St. Theodora Studita; fragments of the definition of the iconoclastic Council in St. Sophia in 815 - in “Exposure and Refutation...” by St. Nikifor; 3 fragments from the writings of Patriarch John the Grammar - in the anonymous “Refutation” (ed.: Gouillard. 1966).

The era of iconoclastic disputes, especially starting from the period called by A.P. Kazhdan “the time of monastic revival” (c. 775 - c. 850), was very fruitful for the genre of hagiography (for a review of the main monuments, see: Kazhdan. 2002. P. 222 -487). A special group of lives tells of the suffering of confessors of icon veneration at the hands of iconoclasts. Vivid examples of this group are: “The Life of Stephen the New” (BHG, N 1666), written in 809 by Stephen the Deacon (ed.: Auz é py. 1997; see: Eadem. 1999), and “The Life of Michael Sincellus” ( 761-846; BHG, N 1296; Cunningham. 1991). For understanding the iconoclastic era, the Lives of St. Tarasiya (BHG, N 1698; Efthymiadis. 1998) and St. Nikephoros (BHG, N 1335) by Ignatius Deacon. The hagiographic genre includes works dedicated to the transfer of the relics of St. icon-worshipers (see: Lidov. 2006. pp. 43-66), as well as a special genre of description of miraculous events associated with sacred images or their miraculous acquisition (Dobsch ü tz. 1899. pp. 213**-266**; Tale about the godly image of our Lord Jesus Christ in Latomu // Papadopoulos-Keramevs. 1909. pp. 102-113; see: Lidov. 2006. pp. 304-316), and “The Tale of the Forgiveness of Emperor Theophilus” (Afinogenov. 2004).

Due to the exceptional wealth of hagiographic material, con. 1st half 9th century And internal features several monuments, it was suggested that certain lives of saints, written during iconoclastic disputes, could have been created in iconoclastic circles (Š ev č enko. 1977. P. 120-127; this hypothesis was supported by M. F. Ozepi: Auz é py 1992; Eadem 1993; see Longo 1992). Iconoclasts sometimes learn certain examples of liturgical poetry (see: Theod. Stud. Ep. 276. 74-76; Pratsch. 2000. N 5, 83; Ronchey. 2001. P. 332, 335).

Despite belonging to one genre or another, a significant part of the literature of I.’s time had a polemical orientation, and almost every polemical source of icon venerators allows us to highlight certain theological positions of the iconoclasts. So, for example, even in sermons intended for the inhabitants of his monastery, St. Theodore the Studite repeatedly refutes certain teachings that were known to his listeners and even, perhaps, attractive to some of them (see, for example: Auvray. 1891. P. 20-21, 54-55). Despite the small volume and fragmentary nature, all the iconoclastic sources that we have at our disposal, when correlated with much richer sources of icon venerators, can provide a sufficient amount of new data for the analysis of iconoclastic teaching due to the saturation of their theological argumentation, which is typical for iconoclastic inscriptions , compiled and painted on public buildings for the purpose of propaganda, and for the most important fragments of iconoclastic theological works, which icon-worshippers, contemporaries of the controversy, considered dangerous and worthy of refutation.

Reasons for Byzantine I.

The acts of the VII Ecumenical Council emphasize the non-Byzantine. roots of I.: in the “Tale against the Iconoclasts” of John of Jerusalem about the beginning of Iconoclasts in Syria read at the Council (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 197A - 200B; see: Alexakis. 1996. P. 208-209) it was reported that I. came from a Jewish magician, who convinced Caliph Yazid II (720-724) to destroy all the images in the Arab Caliphate, ensuring that this would bring the ruler a long reign (see: Gero. 1973. P. 189-198; Afinogenov. 2002. P. 1-6). The documents of the Council also indicated that the first iconoclast bishops from Phrygia knew about I. Yazid and deliberately imitated the Muslims in their actions against the Church. Thus, accusations of iconoclasts in imitation of Jews and Muslims become a common place of polemics among icon-worshipers.

Aniconicity of Judaism or Islam before the present day. time is considered as one of the probable sources of the Byzantines. I. This is confirmed by the origin of the 1st iconoclastic emperor from the Arab-Byzantine border. zones, as well as proximity in time to Muslims. I. Caliph Yazid II (721, see: Vasiliev. 1956) and iconoclastic measures of the emperor. Leo III. However, despite the fact that the connection between the iconoclasts and the Jews is constantly discussed by researchers, historical evidence shows that there are very weak grounds for recognizing the real influence of Judaism on early Israel, either directly or through Islam: there is no data on the special role of the Jewish population in Byzantium at that time ; legal legislation imp. Leo III contains strict measures against the Jews, prohibiting them not only from holding high positions in the Byzantine Empire. bureaucratic apparatus, but also threatening the death penalty in case of circumcision of Christian slaves or conversion of a Christian to Judaism (Burgmann L., Troianos S. P. Appendix Eclogae // FM. 1979. Bd. 3. S. 102, 105, 112-113; Ecloga Leonis et Constantini cum appendice / Ed. A. G. Monferratus. Athenis, 1889. P. 64-67, 72-73; A Manual of Roman Law: The Ecloga / Ed. E. H. Freshfield. Camb., 1926. P. 130-132, 137 -138); imp. Leo III imposed forced baptism on the Jews. As shown by S. Gero’s detailed research on the emergence of Islam, in independent sources (Armenian, Syrian or Christian Arabic) the iconoclastic measures of Caliph Yazid are not associated with the influence of the Jews (Gero. 1973. P. 60-74, 193-198 ). Similar problems arise when considering the possible ideological influence of the iconoclastic policies of the Umayyads on the Byzantine Empire. I. The iconoclastic measures of Muslims were directed both against icons and against the Cross as a public symbol of Christianity and were based primarily on the Koran’s rejection of the divinity of Christ and the reality of His sacrifice on the Cross. The difference between Byzantine. and Islam. arguments against icon veneration can be seen when comparing the “Protective Words...” of St. John of Damascus and the treatise on Christ. the practice of venerating icons of the monk from Sava the Consecrated Lavra of the monastery. Theodore Abu Kurra (c. 750 - c. 825), who wrote several times. later Rev. John of Damascus. The treatise dates back to after 799, its main goal is to strengthen the faith of Christians who abandoned the veneration of icons due to accusations of idolatry emanating from Judaism and Islam. environment, and keeping those hesitant from accepting Islam due to social pressure (ed.: Arendzen. 1897; English. Transl.: Griffith. 1997; For an analysis of the historical and social context of the treatise, see Griffith. 1985).

Muslim Aniconism as a universal ideology is being formed towards the end. VII century, and Muslim episodes. I. are clearly recorded only in the last decades of the Umayyad reign, coinciding with the Byzantines. I. (Schick. 1995. P. 208-209), while in the previous period, a number of figurative mosaics, frescoes and reliefs were created by order of the Umayyad aristocrats (Allen. 1988), although not in religion. context. Abd al-Malik's coinage reform, when aniconic texts took the place of Byzantine-inspired anthropomorphic images. or Sassanian samples, occurred only in 696-697. for gold coins and in 698-699. for silver. Among the Muslims. Aniconism, which is relatively young in itself, simply did not have enough time to form stable pro-iconoclastic sentiments in the Byzantine Empire, and given the ancient tradition of the forcible removal of unpopular emperors existing in Byzantium, it is unlikely that the first iconoclastic emperor. Leo III would have decided to proclaim I., if he had not been sure that such a policy would be favorably accepted by at least some part of the population of the empire. Similar difficulties are presented by the assumption about the possibility of influence of the Armenian ideology on the iconoclastic policy in Byzantium. iconoclastic movement beginning VII century (Der-Nersessian. 1944/1945. P. 58-87; Eadem. 1946. P. 67-91; Van Esbroek. 2003), although the teaching of veneration of the Cross while rejecting sacred images can be traced in the “Admonition” of Catholicos Sahak III Dzoraporetsi ( 678 - ca. 703) to the Kuropalat Smbat Bagratuni, with whom the emperor could have come into contact. Leo III, when, as a spafarius, he lived in the Caucasus (Van Esbroek. 1998. P. 118-119).

Thus, only the external pressure of Islam and the possible personal acquaintance of the imp. Leo III with Armenian Aniconism would not have been enough for the emergence of Byzantium. I. Therefore, external influences cannot be considered the only reasons for I. For the introduction of open I. as a state. politics was necessary for Byzantium itself. society was ready to accept these influences. The cause of I. could have been some kind of Byzantium. aniconic tendency. All this allows us to consider Byzantium. I. as with t.zr. internal tradition of Christ. aniconism, and so on. possible external reasons that caused the transformation of aniconism into history in Byzantium at the beginning. VIII century Focusing on the last question, pl. Researchers view history primarily as a social and political movement associated with the redistribution of formal and informal power in Byzantium. society at a time of external and internal crisis (see, for example: Brown. 1973; Haldon. 1977) or with a rethinking of one’s identity (Whittow. 1996. P. 163-164), associated with Arab. invasion and loss of the East by Byzantium. Mediterranean. This approach is due in part to the paucity of authentic sources on the part of the iconoclasts and the fragmented state of those available, as well as the perception of evidence of iconoclast polemics as ideologically biased, leading scholars to focus on sources such as chronicles or hagiographies that provide data of a social, political and economic nature. Thus, I. appears as an attempt to implement the Byzantine Empire. variant of Caesaropapism (Lander. 1940; see: Auz é py. 1998), restoration of traditions. for the late Roman Empire imp. cult (Barnard. 1973) or a reason for the confiscation of monastic and church property (Syuzyumov. 1948; for a review of the early historiography of I. see: He. 1963). Such approaches imply a secondary importance to the theological component of the disputes and the assumption that it developed later, by the 50s. VIII century, as the only “ideological” language that was understandable to the Byzantines. At the same time, due importance is not given to the fact that all sources present I. as primarily a theological dispute. Still at the end. 20s XX century G. Ostrogorsky suggested that the dispute about religion. art in Byzantium VIII-IX centuries. was a continuation of Christological disputes (Ostrogorsky. 1927); the theology of the image and its origins received detailed coverage in the monograph card. Christoph Schönborn (Schönborn. 1999).

Theology of Byzantine I.

The argumentation of the icon-worshipers of the early period of iconoclastic disputes is evidenced by the letter of St. Herman bishop Thomas Claudiopolsky. To justify the images of St. Herman uses both an early version of the Christological argument and an argument about the usefulness of sacred images for the “less spiritual” members of the Church: “Depicting the image of the Lord on icons in His fleshly form should also expose the empty idea of ​​heretics, who talk in vain that He did not truly become a man , as well as as a guide for those who cannot rise to the height of spiritual contemplation, but have a need for some carnal assimilation of what they hear, as far as this is useful and permissible" (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 116A; DVS. T. 4. C 469). St. Herman follows the tradition that divided Christians into “Gnostics,” who reconciled faith with philosophical knowledge, and “simpletons,” who were content with faith alone, which had its foundations in early Christ. literature (Baranov, Gigineishvili. Unpublished. Slavic translation. 2006). A position on the issue of cult images, very similar to the argument put forward by Patriarch Herman, can also be traced from Hypatius of Ephesus, who similarly divides Christians into more or less “spiritual” in the context of assessing the relative usefulness of images in his “Mixed Questions” - treatises on various theological topics. In one of the fragments devoted to cult images, Hypatius defends church art as a useful aid for uneducated people for their advancement from material to spiritual contemplation of divine objects (Th ü mmel. 1992. S. 320. 22-321. 27). Despite the importance of this text for the theology of the image in Byzantium. tradition, the text of Hypatius of Ephesus acquired significance precisely during the iconoclastic disputes, where it was quoted in two sources coming from icon-worshipers: in the letter of St. Theodore Studite (Theod. Stud. Ep. 499) and in the florilegium in defense of sacred images from the RKP. Parisinus gr. 1115 (Fol. 254v - 255v). Such a “compromise tradition” testifies to the lack of development of the Christological component of the theology of the image in the earliest period of disputes and is ultimately rejected by both sides (Gero. 1975. P. 210-211). St. John of Damascus transfers the concept of the icon of Christ and its veneration from the area of ​​personal piety and liturgical practice to the area of ​​dogmatics, thereby defining the next, Christological stage of debate. The monk proclaimed the icon to be the central expression of the dogma of the true Incarnation, necessary for all members of the Church without exception (Ioan. Damask. De imag. I 4). The very prohibition of religions. art in the 2nd commandment of the Decalogue is also understood in a Christological context: St. John of Damascus emphasizes that the Old Testament prohibition of images was of a temporary nature, and when the invisible God of the OT becomes visible and tangible in the incarnation of God the Word, there can be no question of idolatry, since Christians saw their God and contemplated the glory of His deity on Tabor face to face (Ibid. I 16-17). The VII Ecumenical Council also affirms the Christological position (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 256C). Thanks to iconoclastic theologians, the doctrine of the icon as a necessary evidence of the truth of the Incarnation, since the iconoclastic disputes, has become an integral part of the theological heritage of the Orthodox Church. Churches.

According to the generally accepted picture of the history of iconoclastic disputes, at their initial stage, old arguments from polemics between pagans, Christians and Jews, based on the literal understanding of the 2nd commandment by the iconoclasts, prevailed, with certain elements of Christological teaching. The 2nd stage can be called actually Christological: this is the stage of theology imp. Constantine V, the iconoclastic Council in Hieria and the VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, after which comes the 3rd and last period of polemics about sacred images - the so-called. scholastic, when the philosophy of Aristotle in the form as it was known in Byzantium began to be actively used to justify sacred images. schools (Alexander. 1958. P. 37, 46-49, 196-198).

However, a comparison of “Protective Words...” by St. John of Damascus, the first 2 of which can be dated to the early stage of the controversy, with later iconoclastic sources showing that traces of many. theological positions discussed in later sources are present in these early polemical works. Perhaps there was an early iconoclastic source, which was refuted by St. John of Damascus and who was later used by the iconoclasts of the Council of Hieria (Baranov. 2006). Contained in this early and not reaching us source, the accusation of icon worshipers of Nestorianism due to the depiction of the flesh of Christ without His deity on the icon (cf.: Ioan. Damasc. De imag. I 4) was later transformed into a Christological dilemma, according to the cut Icon worshipers supposedly not only fall into the Nestorian error, depicting the flesh of Christ on icons without His deity, but also into the error of the Monophysites, describing the deity of Christ through the description of His depicted flesh (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 241E, 244D, 252A).

In attempts to analyze the theology of the iconoclasts, many. scientists followed the generally accepted division of Christological positions into 3 groups: Monophysite, Orthodox, based on Chalcedonian dogma, and Nestorian. However, from this point of view. the position of the iconoclasts, following from their own texts, turns out to be contradictory at first glance. On the one hand, iconoclasts formally follow tradition. Chalcedonian theology and terminology (cf.: PG. 100. Col. 216BC; Mansi. T. 13. Col. 272A, 336BC). Individual expressions of the iconoclasts, taken in themselves, can be interpreted as a deviation into Monophysite theology (the iconoclasts were compared with the Monophysites at the VII Ecumenical Council - Mansi. T. 13. Col. 180; for arguments in support of the assumption of the influence of the Monophysites on iconoclastic theology, see: Alexander. 1958. P. 48; Meyendorff. 1975. P. 182; for a refutation of the connection between the iconoclasts and the Monophysites, see Brock. 1977) or in Nestorian theology (Gero. 1974. P. 29). Thus, in describing the union of natures in Christ, iconoclasts prefer to use the formula “from two natures” (ἐκ δύω φύσεων - Mansi. T. 13. Col. 272B; PG. 100. Col. 296C; cf.: PG. 100. Col. 332B ) instead of tradition. Chalcedon’s formula “in two natures” (ἐν δύω φύσεσιν), and the definition of the Council of Hieria speaks of the flesh of Christ as “wholly accepted into the divine nature and wholly deified” (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 256E) or “intertwined with the deity and deified” (Ibid. Col. 257E).

Contrary to the assumption of their Monophysitism, the iconoclasts insisted on a clear distinction of natures in Christ. So, in 3 fragments from “Questions” by imp. Konstantin V, as well as in the definition of the cathedral in Ieria, when describing the Union, the natural in Christ uses the term “inconsistent” (ἀσύγχυτος) without the usual Chalcedon addition “inseparable” (ἀχώριστος - PG. 100. Col. 216bc, 232a, 329a; Mansi. T. 13. Col. 252AB). In addition, the sources contain explicit accusations of the imp. Constantine V in Nestorian relation to the Most Holy. Mother of God. So, under 762/3, St. Theophan the Confessor conveys the following dialogue between imp. Constantine V and Patriarch Constantine II: “What prevents us from calling the Mother of God the Mother of Christ?” The same (patriarch - V.B.), embracing him, says: “Have mercy, sir, even if such a word does not enter your thoughts! Don’t you see how the whole Church glorified and anathematized (for this) Nestorius?” And the king replied: “I asked only to find out. This is between us"" (Theoph. Chron. P. 435; cf. under 740/1: Ibid. 415). This position of Constantine V is also evidenced by the Life of Nikita of Midice, where it is reported how the emperor took a purse of gold and, making sure that everyone had testified to its value, shook out the contents from it and asked: “And now?” After this, he stated that the Mother of God was honored while Christ was in Her, and at Christmas She was no different from all other people (Afinogenov. 2001. P. 120). Nevertheless, such a radical position is not reflected in any way in the definition of the Council in Hieria and is attributed in all sources only to the imp. Constantine V.

The special teaching about the role of the soul of Christ as a mediator between the divine nature of the Logos and the “rudeness” of human flesh (σαρκὸς παχύτητι - Mansi. T. 13. Col. 257A, cf.: Ibid. 213D) provides theological justification for both the Christological dilemma and the Christology of the iconoclasts generally. The doctrine of the special mediating function of the soul, found even in Plato and constituting an important aspect of the theology of Christ. Platonists Origen, Didymus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, explains the internal logic of the iconoclasts' dilemma: the inability of iconoclasts to reproduce the soul of Christ on the icon leads to the separation or fusion of natures, since it is the intermediary soul that unites the 2 natures together, ensuring their inseparability, while at the same time guaranteeing the non-fusion and clear distinction of natures. Thus, the icon remains a soulless (one of the favorite terms of iconoclasts) piece of wood, and those who turn to it with prayers are no different from the pagans who worship soulless idols. The Platonic paradigm of the iconoclasts also included the disparagement of matter as a lower principle, which entailed the rejection of the veneration of St. relics and their physical destruction (see: Gero. 1977. P. 152-165). In response, icon worshipers developed a doctrine about the possibility of the deification of matter without any intermediary principle, based on another Christology - the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council about the interpenetration of the created and uncreated natures of Christ and the “communion of properties” (communicatio idiomatum) of these natures, which serves as a justification for both icon veneration (allowing us to talk about the depiction of the indescribable God on the icon according to His describable human nature) and veneration relics of saints.

Iconoclastic dispute in Byzantium in the 8th-9th centuries. raised the question of the “correct” way to worship God. Iconoclasts advocated imageless mental contemplation as the only way proper worship of God, following the Platonic epistemological tradition introduced into Christian use by Origen and systematically developed by Evagrius Pontius. Quoting the words of Christ about the need to worship God “in spirit and truth” (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 280E; Featherstone. 1997. P. 13), the iconoclasts tried to justify the obvious contrast to the “correct” worship - mental, without any images , and the “wrong”, from their point of view, worship of icon worshipers - “idolatry” of sensual material images (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 229E, 336E; cf. the words of the iconoclast from the “Refutation” of St. Theodore the Studite about the need for mental contemplation of Christ , and not humiliation before His material images - PG. 99. Col. 336B; see also: Florovsky. 1950).

In defense against accusations of incorrect worship of the Divine and the worship of man-made images as idols, icon worshipers developed several. arguments. The first of these is the distinction between "service worship" (λατρείας προσκύνησις), as relating exclusively to God, and "relative veneration" (σχετικὴ προσκύνησις), relating to the Mother of God, saints and sacred objects, including icons and relics. Further, in response to the iconoclastic teaching about “mental worship,” icon worshipers argued that the need for sensually perceived material images corresponds, firstly, to the incarnation of God the Word (cf.: Ioan. Damasc. De imag. I 4), and secondly, our life in the material world and in the material body. In general, agreeing with the iconoclasts that the Divinity must be approached “mentally,” St. John of Damascus is developing such a teaching that would include the icon in the system of “mental worship.” He builds such a theory on the basis of Aristotle's epistemology, adapting its basic principle of the intermediary image as a condition of any mental activity to the function of reminding the icon of the past (Ibid. I 13; III 23). St. John of Damascus argues that the approach of icon worshipers to the Divine through icons is also a “mental” approach, since it is the human mind that serves as the final point where the mental image from the sensually perceived material sacred image ends up: “And like a book for those initiated into letters, image - for those who are illiterate; and like a word for hearing, an image for sight, we are mentally united with it (νοητῶς δὲ αὐτῷ νούμεθα)” (Ibid. I 17). Later, this argument was repeated by the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 220E; DVS. T. 4. P. 519) and St. Photius (Mango. 1958. P. 294).

In “Protective Words...” St. John of Damascus develops a system of 6 types of images. His classification includes: the Son as a natural image, or icon, of the Father and types of the created world as the divine plan of the created world; The 3rd type of images is represented by man, created in the image of God; 4th type - these are images of the Holy. Scriptures that reveal in visible form the invisible reality; The 5th type is represented by Old Testament typological images pointing to the future, just as the Burning Bush prefigured the Mother of God, and, finally, the 6th type includes an image “installed to remember the past” through words or material objects, including sacred images ( Ioan. Damasc. De imag. III 18-23; cf. Ibid. I 9-13). Listing the varieties of images, St. John goes from the “highest” - uncreated (the Son of God) to the “less” sublime - the eternal incorporeal ideas of the created world, then to created images, including man, and, finally, to the images of the Holy One. Scriptures, including icons. Unlike the author of the Areopagitik, on whose works he relies, St. John does not provide any "mechanism" for the ascent from less sublime to more sublime images, which would weaken his main argument - the justification of material images as direct and sufficient revelations of God incarnate. A system consisting of both consubstantial images and images created by God Himself and the hands of man, as well as through the definition of an image, along with similar properties, necessarily implying a certain difference with the original (Ibid. III 16), Rev. John of Damascus lays the foundation for refuting the iconoclastic teaching about the only legitimate type of image - consubstantial, which, in other words, iconoclasts, only the Eucharist strictly corresponded as a true non-anthropomorphic icon of Christ. The further development of the theology of the image during the iconoclastic debates consisted in clarifying the boundaries of this similarity and difference. At a later stage of the debate, iconoclasts countered the iconoclasts' argument about the consubstantial image with the help of Aristotle's doctrine of categories: the image of Christ on the icon is wood and paints in its essence, but Christ - by the coincidence of the name and by the category of relationship (πρός τι; see, for example. , St. Theodore the Studite: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. // PG. 99. Col. 329A, 341AB, 345A, 360D; 429BC; St. Nikephoros: Niceph. Const. Refut. et evers. // PG. 100. Col. 280B, 316A; Featherstone 1997, 22; Alexander 1959, 192 sqq.).

Dr. The Christological objection of the iconoclasts was based on the premise that in the Incarnation Christ receives from us “only the substance of the human essence, perfect in everything, but not characterized by his own face” and inconceivable, in order to avoid the risk of idolatry (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 264A; see St. Theodore the Studite has the same iconoclast argument: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. // PG. 99. Col. 396D). Thus, if an icon painter depicts Christ, this icon, unlike the Eucharist, will not be “true”, since the bodily features of Christ will be the result of the artist’s arbitrary choice. The arbitrariness of the icon, and therefore its inapplicability as an object for veneration, is also spoken of in the surviving fragments of the writings of the last iconoclastic patriarch John the Grammar, but now not in Christological, but in philosophical language. According to the fragment, the exact definition of each of the creatures within one species can only be given verbally - for this it is necessary to make a description separating it from the other members of the same species on the basis of the individual accidents inherent in a given creature (τὰ ἰδιάζοντα συμβεβηκότα). However, for an unambiguous definition of a single individual, only depictable individual characteristics are not enough; it can only be achieved with the help of verbal descriptions, such as the person’s origin, his country, way of life, etc. (Gouillard. 1966. P. 173-174). Thus, from the point of view. John the Grammar, looking at the image of K.-L. person, one cannot be sure that this particular person is reproduced in the portrait.

The next fragment continues this line of argumentation, moving to the general species level. If the image is not enough even to convey the intraspecific characteristics of a particular creature, then the greater the disadvantages of the image encountered if we try to characterize the general specific characteristics. If a person is defined as “a rational mortal being, possessing the capacity of reason and knowledge,” and the image does not contain any part of the logical definition of a person, but conveys only a material component, the image is again epistemologically inconsistent with what is depicted, or simply false (Ibid. P. 174). In response to such arguments, icon worshipers develop the doctrine of the icon as an image of the hypostasis. And St. Theodore the Studite directly refutes John the Grammar: it is impossible to depict nature as such, since it always exists in a specific hypostasis, and it is the hypostatic features, in addition to the general species definition or nature, that distinguish a specific individual from other representatives of the same species. Thus, the describability or depictability of Christ, who has the same full human nature as all other people, is also determined by His individual and depictable hypostatic idioms, by which He or any other person differs from all other representatives of humanity (Theod. Stud. Antirrh. // PG. 99. Col. 405AC, 397D).

In the course of theological polemics, icon worshipers develop the doctrine of the icon as an image of the hypostasis and of the homonymy of the image and its prototype. In parallel, the practice of obligatory inscription on the icon of the name of the person depicted is developing, which is intended to ensure the accuracy of identification of the image and the depicted. Since, according to the teachings of the Cappadocian fathers, a proper name refers to the hypostasis, it also implies all those personal characteristics of the individual that the iconoclasts demanded for its precise and unambiguous definition. “Authentication” of an image with an appropriate inscription was not mandatory in pre-iconoclastic times, but was rather determined by the personal choice of the artist. The practice of consecrating an image in the name of the one depicted is referred to by St. John of Damascus (Ioan. Damasc. De imag. I 16) and the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 269D - 272A).

In addition to Christological and epistemological arguments, iconoclasts also put forward an argument about the impossibility of depicting the resurrected body of Christ. In two places in the definition of the Council of Hieria there are descriptions of the body of Christ with radically contradictory properties: in the description of the Christological union, the soul of Christ serves as a mediator between the deity and the “gross materiality” of the flesh (σαρκὸς παχύτητι - Mansi. T. 13. Col. 257AB), while how in one of the anathemas of the same Council it is stated that Christ will come to judge the living and the dead in a “more God-like” body (θεοειδεστέρου σώματος) “beyond gross materiality” (ἔξω παχύτητος - Ibid. Col. 336D; see description of the resurrection our body of Christ "is not in rough materiality and not in description" (οὐκ ἐν παχύτητι οὐδὲ ἐν περιγραφῇ) by the iconoclast from the “Refutations” of St. Theodore the Studite - Theod. Stud. Antirrh. // PG. 99. Col. 38 4D). This contradiction can be resolved if we relate the descriptions to different periods of the life of Christ: the 1st description in the “gross flesh” refers to the temporary state of the materiality of Christ from His incarnation to the resurrection, in the 2nd description we're talking about about future Last Judgment, when Christ “beyond gross materiality” comes in a “more God-like” body already transformed after the Resurrection. Since this body is subtle and indescribable, capable of appearing and disappearing through closed doors, the appearance of Christ to the disciples after the Resurrection is perceived by iconoclasts (Ibid. Col. 384D) like prophetic visions when the incorporeal God appeared to the holy OT in bodily form (Dan 7.9, 13- 14, 22).

This teaching also resulted in the special teaching of the iconoclasts about the Eucharist as the “true” image of Christ, in contrast to the “false” icons of the iconoclasts. In view of the teaching of the iconoclasts about the indescribability of the resurrected “god-like” and subtle body of Christ, it can be argued that the difference lay in the characteristics of the materiality, tangibility and describability of the Holy Gifts in contrast to the subtle, immaterial body of Christ after the Resurrection. The liturgical rite of the Eucharistic consecration transfers the “hand-made” bread and wine into the realm of “not made by hands” (the term used in the NT to describe the resurrected body: 2 Cor 5. 1; cf. Mk 14. 58), while the icon without such a liturgical rite consecration remains “man-made” (Niceph. Const. Refut. et evers. // PG. 100. Col. 337C) and “common and unworthy of reverence” (κοινὴ κα ἄτιμος - Mansi. T. 13. Col. 268BC). The teaching of the iconoclasts about the Eucharist as the true non-anthropomorphic image of Christ (Ibid. Col. 261D, 264B) was sharply criticized by the iconoclasts, who perceived the Holy Gifts not as an image, but as the very true body and blood of Christ. The answer of the icon venerators also lay in the teaching about the preservation of the properties of the body of Christ, including describability, after the Resurrection, with the postponement of such natural bodily infirmities as hunger or thirst (Mansi. T. 13. Col. 288; Niceph. Const. Refut. et evers. // PG. 100. Col. 444AB), as well as in the correlation of the image (χαρακτήρ) of Christ with His Hypostasis, regardless of the period of His life and the state of His body (Schönborn. 1999. pp. 207-212). As a visible expression of this teaching, the iconography “Descent into Hell”, where Christ in His ordinary human form descends into hell and brings out the Old Testament righteous at the moment when He rests in the flesh in the tomb, awaiting the Resurrection, becomes of particular importance for icon worshipers (Baranov. 2002). In post-iconoclast times, “The Descent into Hell” becomes Byzantine. tradition with the standard iconography of the Resurrection (Kartsonis. 1986). As a possible polemical response to the teaching of the iconoclasts about the Eucharist as an icon “not made by hands,” the Image of the Savior from Edessa, not made by hands, acquires special significance for icon venerators.

As a complex historical and theological phenomenon, iconoclastic disputes influenced all aspects of the life of the Byzantine Church, but their main result was manifested in the formation of the theology of the image - as a result of the disputes, the icon of Christ, along with His natures, wills and actions, was included in a single theological system. The sacred images were proclaimed as a visible expression of the prologue of the Gospel of John: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...” (John 1.14) and the dogma of the IV Ecumenical Council about the two perfect natures of the one incarnate God the Word. The successful transfer of the practice of veneration of sacred images into the field of dogma and the provision of the practice of icon veneration with the necessary philosophical apparatus allowed the icon venerators to win not only a political, but also a theological victory over the iconoclasts, making icon veneration an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. Churches.

Lit.: Bekker I., ed. Theophanes Continuatus. Bonnae, 1838; idem., ed. Leonis Grammatici Chronographia. Bonnae, 1842; Pitra J.B. Spicilegium Solesmense. P., 1858. Graz, 1962r; Hergenr ö ther J . Ex Nicephoro et Photio Patriarchis Constantinopolitanis et magno Theodoro Studita contra Iconomachos // Idem. Monumenta graeca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia. Ratisbonae, 1869. P. 53-62; Auvray E., ed. Theodori Studitis praepositi Parva Catechesis. P., 1891; Uspensky F. I. Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy: Code. text with adj. Od., 1893; Papadopoulo-Keramevs A. ᾿Αναλέκτα ᾿Ιεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυολοϒίας. St. Petersburg, 1891. Brux., 1963r. T. 1; aka. Varia Graeca Sacra. St. Petersburg, 1909. Lpz., 1975r; Arendzen J. Theodori Abu Kurra De cultu imaginum libellus e codice arabico nunc primum editus latine versus illustratus. Bonnae, 1897; Dobschütz E., von. Christusbilder: Untersuch. z. Christlichen Legende. Lpz., 1899; Melioransky B. M. George of Cyprian and John of Jerusalem, two little-known fighters for Orthodoxy in the 8th century. St. Petersburg, 1901; Ostrogorsky G. A. Connection of the issue of holy icons with the Christological dogmatics of the Orthodox Church. apologists of the early period of iconoclasm // SK. 1927. T. 1. P. 35-48; Kumaniecki C. Notes critiques sur le texte de Théophane Continué // Byz. 1932. Vol. 7. P. 235-237; Lander G. B. Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy // Medieval Studies. 1940. Vol. 2. P. 127-149; Der-Nersessian S. Une Apologie des Images du septième siècle // Byz. 1944/1945. Vol. 17. P. 58-87; eadem. Image Worship in Armenia and its Opponents // Armenian Quarterly. N.Y., 1946. Vol. 1. P. 67-81; Syuzyumov M. Ya. Problems of iconoclasm in Byzantium // UZ Sverdlovsk State. ped. in-ta. 1948. Issue. 4. P. 48-110; aka. Main directions of historiography of the history of Byzantium during the iconoclastic period // VV. 1963. T. 22. P. 199-226; Uspensky K.N. Essays on the history of the iconoclastic movement in the Byzantine Empire in the 8th-9th centuries: Theophanes and his chronography // VV. 1950. T. 3. P. 393-438; 1951. T. 4. P. 211-262; Florovsky G. Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy // Church History. 1950. Vol. 19. N 2. P. 77-96; Vasiliev A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453. Madison, 1952. Vol. 1; idem. The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid the Second, A. D. 721 // DOP. 1955/1956. Vol. 9/10. P. 25-47; Dvornik F. The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm // DOP. 1953. Vol. 7. P. 67-98; Alexander P. J. Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire. Oxf., 1958; Grumel V. Homélie de S. Germain sur la délivrance de Constantinople // REB. 1958. Vol. 16. P. 183-205; idem. Les douze chapitres contre les Iconomaques // REB. 1959. Vol. 17. P. 127-135; Mango C. A., ed. The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Camb. (Mass.), 1958; idem., ed. The Correspondence of Ignatios the Deacon. Wash., 1997; Τωμαδάκης Ν. Β. ῾Η βυζαντινὴ ὑμνοϒραφία κα ποίησις. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1965. T. 2; Gouillard J. Fragments inédits d"un antirrhétique de Jean le Grammairien // REB. 1966. Vol. 24. P. 171-181; idem. Le Synodikon de l"Orthodoxie: Éd. et comment. // TM. 1967. Vol. 2. P. 43-107, 169-182; idem. Aux origines de l"iconoclasme: Le témoignage de Grégoire II // TM. 1968. Vol. 3. P. 243-307; idem. Nouveaux témoins du Synodicon de l "Orthodoxie // AnBoll. 1982. Vol. 100. P. 459-462; Kaegi W. E. The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm // Bsl. 1966. Vol. 27. P. 48-70; Hennephof H., ed. Textus byzantinos ad iconomachiam pertinentes. Leiden, 1969; Barnard L. W. The Emperor Cult and the Origins of Iconoclastic Controversy // Byz. 1973. Vol. 43. P. 13-29; Brown P. A. Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy // EHR. 1973. Vol. 88. N 1. P. 1-34; Gero S. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources. Louvain, 1973; idem. Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 8th Cent. // Byz. 1974. Vol. 44. P. 23-42; idem. Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images // Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults : Stud. for M. Smith at Sixty. Leiden, 1975. Pt. 2. P. 208-216; idem. The Resurgence of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 9th Cent., according to a Syriac Source // Speculum. 1976. Vol. 51. N 1. P. 1-5; idem. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources. Louvain, 1977; Meyendorff J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Crestwood (N.Y.), 1975; Brock S. P. Iconoclasm and the Monophysites // Iconoclasm / Ed. A. Bryer, J. Herrin. Birmingham, 1977. P. 53-57; Haldon J. F. Some Remarks on the Background of the Iconoclastic Controversy // Bsl. 1977. Vol. 38. P. 161-184; Sevčenko I. Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period // Iconoclasm. Birmingham, 1977. P. 113-131; Duffy J., Parker J., ed. The Synodicon Vetus. Wash., 1979; Stein D. Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites und seine Entwicklung. Münch., 1980; Diekamp F., Hrsg. Doctrina patrum de incarnatione verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jh. Munster, 1981; Speck P. Versuch einer Charakterisierung der sogenannten Makedonischen Renaissance // Les Pays du Nord et Byzance: Scandinavie et Byzance. Uppsala, 1981. P. 237-242; Thümmel H.-G. Eine wenig bekannte Schrift zur Bilderfrage // Studien zum 8. und 9. Jh. in Byzanz. B., 1983. S. 153-157; idem. Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und Untersuch. z. Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit. B., 1992; idem. Das Florileg des Niketas von Medikion für die Bilderverehrung // BZ. 1993/1994. Bd. 89/88. S. 40-46; Grabar A. L "iconoclasme byzantin: Le dossier archéologique. P., 19842; Griffith S. H. Theodore Abu Qurrah"s Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images // JAOS. 1985. Vol. 105. P. 53-73; idem, ed. Theodore Abu Qurrah: A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons. Leuven, 1997; Kartsonis A. D. Anastasis: The Making of an Image. Princeton (N.J.), 1986; Darrouz è s J . Le patriarche Méthode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites // REB. 1987. Vol. 45. P. 15-57; Herrin J. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, 1987; Johannet J. Un office inédit en l"honneur du culte des images, oevre possible de Théodore Studite // Nicée II, 787-1987: Douze siècles d"images religieuses: Actes du colloque intern. P., 1987. P. 143-156; Allen T. Aniconism and Figural Representation in Islamic Art // Idem. Five Essays on Islamic Art. , 1988. P. 17-37; Schreiner P. Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: Krit. Analyze d. zeitgenössischen Meinungen u. d. Urteil d. Nachwelt bis heute // Bisanzio, Roma e l"Italia nell"alto Medievo. Spoleto, 1988. T. 1. P. 319-407. (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull "alto medioevo; 34); Treadgold W. T. The Byzantine Revival, 780-842. Stanford, 1988; Auz é py M.-F. La destruction de l"icône du Christ de la Chalcé par Léon III: Propagande ou réalité? // Byz. 1990. Vol. 60. P. 445-492; eadem. L"analyse littéraire et l"historien: L"example des vies de saints iconoclastes // Bsl. 1992. Vol. 53. P. 58-67; eadem. À propos des vies de saints iconoclastes // RSBN. 1993. Vol. 30 P. 2-5; eadem. L "Adversus Constantinum Caballinum et Jean de Jérusalem // Bsl. 1995. Vol. 56. P. 323-338; eadem., ed. La vie d"Etienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre. Aldershot, 1997. (BBOM; 3); eadem. Le Christ, l"empereur et l"image (VIIe-IXe siècle) // ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ: Mélanges offers à H. Ahrweiler . P., 1998. Vol. 1. P. 35-47; eadem. L "Hagiographie et l" Iconoclasme Byzantin: Le cas de la Vie d "Etienne le Jeune. Brikfield, 1999; Crimi C., ed. Michele Sincello: Per la restaurazione delle venerande e sacre immagini. R., 1990; Cunningham M. B., ed. The Life of Michael the Synkellos. Belfast, 1991; Longo A. A. A proposito di un articolo recente sull "agiografia iconoclasta // RSBN. 1992. Vol. 29. P. 3-17; Alexakis A. A Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medicion and a Letter of Theodore of Studies // DOP. 1994 48, pp. 179-197; idem. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype. Wash., 1996; Gauer H. Texte zum byzantinischen Bilderstreit. Fr./M., 1994. (Stud. u. Texte z. Byzantinistik; 1); Schick R. The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Hist. and Archaeol. Study. Princeton, 1995; Whittow M. The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025. L., 1996; Afinogenov D. E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784-847). M., 1997; aka. The life of our venerable father Constantine, one of the Jews. Life of St. Confessor Nikita, Abbot of Midice. M., 2001; idem. The Conspiracy of Michael Traulos and the Assassination of Leo V: History and Fiction // DOP. 2001. Vol. 55. P. 329-338; idem. A Lost 8th Century Pamphlet Against Leo III and Constantine V? // Eranos. 2002. Vol. 100. P. 1-17; aka. “The Tale of the Forgiveness of Emperor Theophilus” and the Triumph of Orthodoxy. M., 2004; Featherstone J. M., ed. Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinoploitan Refutatio et eversio definitionis synodalis anni 815. Turnhout; Leuven, 1997. (CCSG; 33); idem. Opening Scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the Citations from Macarius Magnes // REB. 2002. Vol. 60. P. 65-112; Mango C. A., Scott R., ed. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. Oxf ., 1997; Munitiz J. A. et al., ed. The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos and Related Texts. Camberley, 1997; Efthymiadis S., ed. The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon. Aldershot, 1998; Van Esbroeck M. La politique arménienne de Byzance de Justinien II a Léon III // Studi sull "Oriente cristiano. R., 1998. Vol. 2. N 2. P. 111-120; idem. Un discours inédit de saint Germain de Constantinople sur la Croix et les Icônes // OCP. 1999. Vol. 65. P. 19-51; idem. Der armenische Ikonoklasmus // Oriens Chr. 2003. Bd. 87. S. 144-153; Schönborn K. Icon of Christ: Theological foundations. Milan; M., 1999; Pratsch T. Ignatios the Deacon - Churchman, Scholar and Teacher: A Life Reconsidered // BMGS. 2000. Vol. 24. P. 82-101; Brubaker L., Haldon J . Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680-850): The Sources, an Annot. Survey. Aldershot, 2001; Ronchey S. Those “Whose Writings were Exchanged”: John of Damascus, George Choeroboscus and John “Arklas” according to the Prooimion of Eustathius"s Exegesis in Canonem Iambicum de Pentecoste // Novum Millenium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to P . Speck. Aldershot, 2001. P. 327-336; Baranov V. A. Art after the storm - a theological interpretation of some changes in the post-iconoclast iconography of the Resurrection // Golden, silver, iron: Mythological model of time and artistic culture: Materials of the conf. , May 2002. Kursk, 2002. P. 34-49; aka. Theological interpretation of the iconoclastic inscription in Halki // History and theory of culture in university education: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Novosibirsk, 2004. Issue. 2. pp. 181-186; idem (Baranov V. A.). Theology of Early Iconoclasm as Found in St. John of Damascus" the "Apologies" // ХВ. Н. p. 2006. T. 4(10). P. 23-55; Kazhdan A.P. et al. History of Byzantine literature (650-850) St. Petersburg, 2002; Krannich T., Schubert Ch., Sode C. Die Ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754. Tüb., 2002; Declerck J. Les sept opuscules “Sur la fabrication des images” attribués a Nicéphore de Constantinople // Philomathestatos : Stud. in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to J. Noret for his 65th Birthday. Leuven, 2004. P. 105-164; Baranov V. A., Gigineishvili L. L. Unpublished glorious translation of the anti-iconoclast polemical treatise “The Tale of the Cross” and holy icons" by Patriarch Herman I of Constantinople: Text and commentary // History and theory of culture in university education. Novosibirsk, 2006. Issue 3. pp. 167-188; they are also. On the little-known pre-iconoclast doctrine of the “moderate” veneration of icons // World of Orthodoxy. Volgograd, 2006. Issue 6. pp. 48-60; Lidov A. M., ed. Relics in Byzantium and Ancient Rus': Written sources. M., 2006; Lourie V. M. Une dispute sans justes: Léon de Chalcédoine, Eustrate de Nicée et la troisième querelle sur les images sacrées // StPatr. 2006. Vol. 42. P. 321-340.

I. and apology for religious images in the West

In the period following the death of Emperor. Constantine V in 775, the history of Europe was determined by the interaction of 3 main forces: K-field, Rome and the kingdom of the Franks. Although officially the Pope supported Byzantium. icon-worshipers, he was forced to take into account the opinion of the emperor. Charlemagne, whose relations with Byzantium were deteriorating. Charles rejected the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council (in which representatives of the Franks did not take part) and included his name in a treatise refuting the veneration of icons, called the “Carolinian Books” (Libri Carolini // MGH. Leg. Conc. T. 2. Suppl. 1-2). This treatise was written in 790-793. Ep. Theodulf of Orleans and modified by certain other theologians (about the authorship, see: Freeman. 1957), it was an official. response of Charlemagne and his court to the decrees on the veneration of icons of the VII Ecumenical Council. The purpose of the Caroline Books was not only to criticize the beliefs of the Greeks regarding religions. images, but also proof of the superiority of the franc. theology. The central position of the treatise is the declaration of both positions of the East as heretical. Church, namely: demands to destroy images, according to the iconoclastic Council in Hieria, and inappropriate worship of images, proclaimed by icon-worshippers in Nicaea (according to a distorted Latin translation of the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council, which fell into the hands of the Franks, the Greek term προσκύνησις (veneration) was consistently translated from the Latin adoratio (worship) and thus, according to the translation, supporters of icon veneration believed that icons should be worshiped as God). Moderate tradition of religious acceptance. images could be traced even earlier in the letters of St. Gregory I the Great, Pope (590-604), iconoclastic bishop. Serenus of Marseilles (Greg. Magn. Reg. epist. IX 105; XI 13), where St. Gregory urged not to destroy, but also not to worship (adoratio) images of saints. However, the thought of St. Gregory on the didactic benefits of religions. images, so important for the missionary tasks of the West. The church in his time does not appear in any way in the Caroline Books. The author of the treatise contrasts the study of the divine word and the commandments of the Holy Father with the prayers of the Greeks addressed to icons. Scriptures, using expressions that could well have come from the mouth of any leader of the Reformation.

As a result, he approved the moderately iconoclastic position of the Caroline Books Paris Cathedral 825, which had a certain influence on subsequent attitudes towards religion. images in Western Churches, despite the fact that the Caroline Books themselves were soon forgotten and found again only in the 16th century, when they found their way into the Catholic Church. list of banned books. In lat. In the West, unlike Byzantium, no active attempts were made to justify sacred images as evidence of the incarnation of Christ, although after the translation of the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus in the 12th century. into Latin, performed by Burgundio of Pisa, theory of the Byzantine image. icon-worshipers became known in the West and entered the West. tradition thanks to the "Sentences" of Peter of Lombardy. There have also been some attempts to theologically substantiate the connection between the image and the model. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-1274) used Aristotle's doctrine of relation: the mind moves towards an image in two ways - one movement is made towards the image in itself as a thing, the other towards the image as an image of something, and veneration should not be related to the image of Christ in the first sense, as to wood and paints, but to an image in the second sense (Thom. Aquin. Sum. th. 3a. q25, art3), for which he was criticized by Durand of Saint-Pourcin, who considered images to be simple signs, and their veneration unnecessary (Wirth. 1999).

Moreover, due to the formal acceptance by Rome of the icon veneration of the VII Ecumenical Council without theological assimilation of its Christological arguments, the absence of its own developed metaphysics of the icon and the latent tradition of moderate iconoclasm in the north and west of Europe (cf. “Apology” of the Cistercian Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), where contains sharp accusations of the Benedictines of Cluny for excessive luxury in decorating churches and for the vanity of church art: Bernardus Claraevallensis. Apologia ad Guillelmum Sancti-Theodorici abbatem. 12 // PL. 182. Col. 914-918; Rudolph. 1990) in the zap. religious art is dominated by the paradigm of St. Gregory the Great and objects of religions. arts mainly continue to perform traditions. function as “books for the illiterate” or serve as intermediaries in religion. the practice of devotional contemplation and reflection (Kessler. 2006). In the era of the late Middle Ages, there was a special flowering of iconographic themes, intended not so much for prayer as for contemplation and therefore saturated with symbolism to awaken imagination and visual interaction with the texts of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and those who acquire it. the additional meaning of “visual” exegesis (Belting. 2002. pp. 457-468; see the analysis of the symbolism of the iconography of the “Merode Triptych” in: Hahn. 1986). On the one hand, religion. images lose their liturgical and cult functions, turning into a visible expression of certain theological programs, on the other - grassroots popular veneration of images, their participation in religions. dramas and festive processions make the images themselves objects of holiness or divine presence.

Unlike Byzantium, the iconoclasm of the Reformation was not a unified policy of the church or secular leadership, emperors or bishops, and was not even the intention of theologians, who tried to soften, explain and in some cases stop the iconoclastic actions of people. The Reformation movement itself was not concerned with the issue of “religious art” in the broad sense of the word; the concerns of the leaders of the Reformation were what they perceived as dangerous and idolatrous practices of the late Middle Ages. Christianity, mainly in religion. and liturgical context. Pamphlets against religions. images that operated traditionally. Biblical prohibitions on the image of the Deity cannot explain the choice of objects that were attacked, many others. of which were images of saints or church furnishings, neither the purpose of the attacks nor the timing of the attacks. In the early years of the Reformation, iconoclasts acted in small and unrelated groups (contemporaries were shocked by the number of iconoclasts in Basel in 1529, amounting to 200 people) of people of completely different origins, social or political status and educational level, united only by the goal of destruction religious Christ images and the task of articulating a new vision of a purified and renewed Church (Wandel. 1995. P. 12-15).

The special polemical context of the Reformation brought to the surface certain issues related to religion. aesthetics, which provoked open iconoclastic actions, which were supported and approved by some leaders of the Reformation and condemned by others, as shown by the episode with the beginning of iconoclasm in Wittenberg in 1522. After the departure of M. Luther (1483-1546) to the Wartburg, his comrade Karlstadt promoted Wittenberg radical reforms and spoke in the treatise “On the Elimination of Images” for the removal from churches and destruction of images, according to the 2nd commandment, without the sanction of church or civil leadership. The authorities were forced to retroactively sanction outbreaks of iconoclasm for fear of further unrest. Luther spoke out in defense of religions. art in sermons and addresses in March 1522, developing in 2 more extensive texts (“Against the Heavenly Prophets” and in a sermon on the 2nd book of Moses) his doctrine of the neutrality of the image and the loss of its didactic functions for an enlightened viewer, for The word of the Lord in the Holy Scriptures has an absolute salvific status of grace. Scripture. Although images, like texts, can point to God's creations, they should not be revered, but interpreted. W. Zwingli (1484-1531) also followed a more moderate position on the issue of religions. images. He made a proposal to the Zurich council to remove the images from churches without violence and while preserving the property rights of the citizens or communities who donated them, who could take them and keep them. J. Calvin (1509-1564) took a more radical position and, in the rigoristic separation of the spiritual and material, rebelled not only against veneration, but also against the making of images of God, whose only reflection is, in his opinion, the Holy One. Scripture. Calvin considered religion. images only of anthropomorphic idols that offend God, but at the same time allowed images outside the church context: paintings of historical events for teaching and instruction and images without historical interpretation, created for pleasure (Jannis Calvini Opera selecta / Ed. P. Barth, W. Niesel. Münch., 1928. Bd. 1. S. 100 sqq.). As a reaction to the attitude of the Reformation towards religion. art, the Council of Trent called for the continued veneration of religions. images and relics and confirmed the usefulness of church art for teaching the people the principles of faith and for reminding people of miracles, but at the same time called for the elimination from church use of “images that depict false teaching or suggest ordinary people a reason for dangerous delusion,” and also seduce with excessive beauty (Belting. 2002. pp. 617-618), initiating with their decisions a rationalistic approach to church art and a rejection of the Middle Ages. symbolism.

Lit.: Freeman A. Theodulf of Orleans and the “Libri Carolini” // Speculum. 1957. T. 32. P. 663-705; Campenhausen F. H., von. Zwingli und Luther zur Bilderfrage // Das Gottesbild im Abendland. Witten, 19592. S. 139-172; idem. Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation // Idem. Tradition und Leben - Kräfte der Kirchengeschichte. Tüb., 1960. S. 361-407; Kollwitz J. Bild und Bildertheologie im Mittelalter // Das Gottesbild im Abendland. Witten, 19592. S. 109-138; Freedberg D. The Structure of Byzantine and European Iconoclasm // Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the IX Spring Symp. of Byzantine Stud., 1975. Birmingham, 1977. P. 165-177; Jones W. R. Art and Christian Piety: Iconoclasm in Medieval Europe // The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam Art. Missoula (Mont.), 1977. P. 75-105; Stirm M. Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation. Gütersloh, 1977; Chazelle C. M. Matter, Spirit and Image in the Libri Carolini // Recherches Augustiniennes. P., 1986. Vol. 21. P. 163-184; Hahn C. “Joseph will Perfect, Mary Enlighten and Jesus Save Thee”: The Holy Family as Marriage Model in the Mérode Triptych // Art Bull. N.Y., 1986. Vol. 68. P. 54-66; M â le E . Religious Art in France: The Late Middle Ages. Princeton (N.J.), 1986; Feld H. Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens. Leiden; N.Y., 1990; Rudolph C. The “Things of Greater Importance”: Bernard of Clairvaux's “Apologia” and the Medieval Attitude toward Art. Phil., 1990; Wandel L. P. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Camb .; N. Y., 1995; Wirth J. La critique scolastique de la théorie thomiste de l "image // Crises de l "image religieuse: De Nicée II and Vatican II. P., . P. 93-109; Belting H. Image and cult: History of the image before the era of art. M., 2002; Kessler H. L. Gregory the Great and Image Theory in Northern Europe during the XII and XIII Centuries // A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe. Oxf., 2006 . P. 151-172; Mitala ï t é K. Philosophie et théologie de l "image dans les "Libri Carolini". P., 2007.

V. A. Baranov

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select job type Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Examination Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

Iconoclasm- This is a spontaneous reaction in Byzantium to the veneration of icons. In the 7th century, the cult of icons received great development. The icon was seen as an idol - the essence of idolatry. Monasteries were centers of icon painting.

Icon veneration is the embodiment of the power of the Church.

The Patriarch of Constantinople also venerated icons.

Thou shalt not make thyself an idol in the Bible.

The opponents were:

1. Provincial clergy deprived of colossal profits

2. Geographical relationship

3. The church posed a danger to the state. The ruling circles wanted to strengthen their power at the expense of icons.

717 - Constantinople is besieged by the Arabs - a coup takes place. The Irakleian dynasty ended, in which Justinian I was, and the Isaurian dynasty began to rule with the founder of the dynasty a lionIII Isaurian(reigned 717 - 741). Leo the Isaurian seized power and lifted the siege of the Arabs.

He said: “I am a king, I am a priest.”

623 - public policy is iconoclastic and is divided into 3 stages:

1). An attempt to wean citizens away from icons. Leo's son killed more than his father. He closed monasteries, they turned into barracks, libraries with religious literature were burned, other books were given to the laity. The church was crushed.

767 - Constantine V convened a Church Council and condemned the veneration of icons. It would seem that there was a victory, but.... .

780 - Regent Irina came to the throne under her son Constantine VI. She found support in the person of the Patriarch, who approved the usurpation of power and his son’s eyes were gouged out and he soon died, i.e. there was a murder. Irina proclaimed herself emperor. Under her, icon veneration was restored, and the authority of the Church was great. The persecution gave great authority to monasticism, and the veneration of icons received a great stimulus - a spiritual one.

Irina, later, went to the monastery due to the coup. She is also: the wife of Leo IV, the mother of Constantine VI. Deposed by logothete Nikephoros and exiled to the island of Lesbos, where she died. End of the Isaurian dynasty.

2). 802 - 843 - Organized by monk Fyodor the Studite. The stage is characterized as: “There is still smoke, but there is no more fire.” There were no repressions, but icons were confiscated. The Church was losing its power. It started Orthodoxy, which was poorer than Catholicism.

843 - victory of the icon worshipers.

In the 9th century, Byzantium was in schism. There was a major uprising led by Thomas the Slav, who in 820 was proclaimed the rebel emperor. He besieged Constantinople for a year, then went to Thrace, where he was defeated by government troops and executed in 823.

Also, in the 9th century it arose Paulicianism- Christian movement of followers of Elder Constantine, who preached New Testament with the letters of the Apostle Paul. In the middle of the 9th century. They marched through Asia Minor with weapons in their hands, exterminating the infidels. Emperor Basil I (ruled 867 - 886) defeated the Paulicians, but accepted many of their demands. From this moment on, the revival of Greek civilization and learning began.

The Pavlikians began to fight everything material world, and not just with icons. They believed that there is a God of Light and darkness, spirit and matter - this is a teaching, which means we must abandon the material. Thus, internal strife is the reason for reconciliation.

In the mid-9th century, the power of the Church was undermined. The church submitted to the state.

Consequences for Byzantium:

1. Strengthening the state. The femme nobility is included in the state, in the highest positions

2. Celebration Byzantine Symphony - a harmonic diagram of the relationship between church and state. The doctrine of harmony between the spiritual and the state. The church is responsible for the spiritual and moral, and the state is responsible for the material. This means unity, from that moment on the priests turned into reliable servants of the state.

Consequences of iconoclasm:

1. Orthodoxy took shape, i.e. the most perfect in everything, canons and aesthetics have been developed. Catholicism was developed back in the 6th century.

2. Earlier design: dogmatic and ritual. They did not allow any departure from anything. Catholic Christianization was easier, but Orthodoxy acquired a more spiritual character, because did not fight for power, there was the authority of monasticism.

3. Consequences of the West:

The popes began to ascend to their power after iconoclasm

Cultural gap between Byzantium and the West

4. Differences in rituals, dogmas and organizational issues began to accumulate - this prepared a split in the Church.... in the Christian Church, a division into 2 parts.

Periods of iconoclasm (does not coincide with the notebook, from the Internet; in the notebook there are 3 stages from 623):

In the 20s VIII century Iconoclasm began in Byzantium - a movement against the veneration of icons. While fighting for the complete subordination of the church to state power, some emperors took the side of the iconoclasts.

They equated icon veneration with idolatry. The similarity with the Muslim teaching about the inadmissibility of sacred images is obvious here. Of course, the Byzantine iconoclasts themselves did not even think about such a similarity. They perceived it as an unheard of insult when icon worshipers called them “Sarakinofrons,” that is, thinking like Saracens (Arabs). However, one can hardly doubt that Islam had a certain, albeit not direct, but mediated by various factors influence on iconoclasm. Iconoclasts and icon-worshipers fought with varying success for more than a hundred years, until in 843 Empress Theodora restored icon-veneration.

The victory of the icon venerators marked the end of the penetration of eastern elements into the religious life of Byzantium. However, in other areas, the influence of the Arab East on the culture of the Romans became more intense after that. This is explained by the fact that in the 9th-10th centuries. The Arabs' creative assimilation of the cultural achievements of other peoples had gone so far that they themselves could teach their teachers something.

Elements of Arabic decor gradually penetrated into Byzantine fine art. In some ornaments decorating architectural monuments of the 11th century. in Greece, letters of the Kufic script are found.

The Byzantines began to adopt the achievements of the Arabs in the fields of mathematics and natural sciences. Greek manuscripts on scientific topics (astronomical, mathematical, etc.) use the experience of Arab scientists. Byzantine scientists, for example, were well aware of the names of such Arab astronomers of the 9th-10th centuries, such as al-Battani from Baghdad and al-Zarqali from Toledo (Spain). Over time, in Greek scientific treatises, references to the works of Arab and other Muslim scientists became more and more numerous.

Kufic Koran. VIII century

The Greeks also assimilated the achievements of Arab medicine. In the second half of the 11th century. The Byzantine physician Simeon Seth wrote a treatise in which, in addition to the ancient tradition and personal experience, he also used Arabic medical literature. His knowledge of Arabic helped him in this. Among the medicines he mentions ambergris, camphor and musk, which were widely used in Arab medicine.

Simeon Sif also translated the collection of fables “Kalila and Dimna”. This book basically belongs to Indian literature. Then it was translated into Arabic, from which Simeon made his translation. In Greek, the collection was called “Stephanit and Ikhnilat” (literally: “Crowned and Pathfinder”), under which it became known in Rus'.

Around the same time, a certain Mikhail Andreopul translated from Syriac “The Book of Sindibad” (not to be confused with Sinbad the Sailor!). This work made an even more difficult journey to Byzantium than “Kalila and Dimna”. It is based on the Indian story of the seven sages, which has given rise to numerous translations or, more precisely, adaptations. First, the story was translated into Middle Persian, then into Arabic, and from there into Syriac. One of the editions of “The Book of Sindibad” in Arabic was included in the collection “One Thousand and One Nights”, where it was called “The Tale of the Seven Viziers”. The Syriac edition served as the basis for the Greek translation by Michael Andreopoulos. In Byzantium the story was called “The Book of Sintipa.”

Despite certain editorial differences, the factual basis of this work has remained unchanged in all translations. Its content boils down to the following: a philosopher named Sindibad (Sintipa) teaches various sciences to the royal son, after which he returns the young man to his father. However, the unfavorable location of the stars forces the prince to remain silent for seven days, so as not to incur trouble. The king's wife (according to another version - a slave or concubine) tries to seduce him, but fails. Then she tries to denigrate her stepson in the eyes of the king. The father wants to execute his son. But seven wise advisers (in Arabic - viziers) decide to save the young man. They take turns coming to the king and telling him stories about women’s cunning and treachery. After the story of each adviser, the king cancels the order of execution. But the wife also brings the corresponding story in her defense, and the order of execution again comes into force. After seven days, the prince is able to speak and reveals the truth to his father. Justice triumphs, and the king, wanting to know what his son learned from the philosopher, asks him various questions, which the young man answers in the style of aphoristic folk wisdom.

This moralizing tale was very popular in the Middle Ages. Stories from the “Book of Sintipa” penetrated in the West into the collection “The Acts of the Romans”, into Boccaccio’s “Decameron”, into Old Spanish, Germanic and Slavic literature. At the end of the 16th century. From Poland the story of the seven wise men came to Russia.

Socio-economic and political changes in Byzantium in the 7th - 8th centuries.

The reign of Emperor Justinian.

State system of Byzantium.

Plan.

The emergence of feudal relations in Byzantium IV-VIII centuries.

Lecture 3.

1. . Socio-economic features of Byzantium in IV-VI centuries

Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire), which emerged as an independent state in the 4th century. as a result of the division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western (395), it surpassed the Western in the degree of development of crafts and trade, the wealth of cities, and the level of spiritual culture. During the period of dominance, the center of economic and cultural life of the Roman Empire increasingly moved to the East. Therefore, in 324 - 330. Emperor Constantine I built the new capital of the empire - New Rome - on the site of Byzantium, an ancient Megarian colony on the Bosphorus. Various nationalities and tribes lived on the lands of the empire: Greeks, Thracians, Illyrians, Hellenized Asia Minor tribes (Isaurians, etc.), Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Jews, Copts, Germans (Goths, etc.). The Greeks occupied a dominant position among the motley population of the empire, and the Greek language was the most widely spoken. Romanization was superficial. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Byzantium called themselves Romans (Romeans), and the empire itself was officially called Romean.

1. Socio-economic features of Byzantium in IV-VI centuries The territory of the empire covered the countries of ancient agricultural culture. Plowing was widespread in many areas. Irrigation played a significant role in the agriculture of the eastern provinces, especially Cyprus and Syria. Viticulture and olive culture, horticulture were developed, and industrial crops (flax, etc.) were grown; Cattle breeding was widespread.

The socio-economic development of the Eastern Roman Empire had significant features:

1. First of all, the features of the decline of agriculture became noticeable here later than in the West, only at the end of the 6th century.

2. The second feature was the comparatively smaller and slower development of large landownership of the latifundial type than in the West.

3. Another feature of the agrarian system of Byzantium was the increase in the IV-VI centuries. the role of free peasant land tenure and community.

4. The main form of using slave labor in agriculture was the provision of land to slaves in the form of peculia. In Byzantium, it was widespread even on a larger scale than in the West. colonate.

5. Byzantium IV-VI centuries. was rightfully considered a country of cities. While cities in the West fell into decline, in the East they continued to develop as centers of craft and trade.

6. Rich reserves of iron, gold, copper, marble stimulated the development of mining, weaponry, production of tools for crafts and agriculture.

7. The abundance of convenient harbors and dominance over the straits connecting the Mediterranean and Black Seas contributed to the development of navigation and maritime trade, including transit, in Byzantium.

The preservation of significant masses of the free peasantry and peasant community, the widespread spread of colony and slavery with the provision of peculium led to greater economic stability of the Eastern Roman Empire and somewhat slowed down the crisis of the slave system, its fall, and then the process of feudalization of Byzantium.

The flourishing of crafts and income from rich cities and wide overseas trade, significant revenues from taxes from the rural population and from imperial estates provided the government with significant resources to maintain a strong army and a powerful navy, and pay mercenaries. This helped Byzantium, unlike the Western Empire, where the cities were degraded at that time, to avoid barbarian conquest and survive as an integral independent state with strong centralized power.

2. State structure of Byzantium. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Byzantium acted as the sole legitimate heir of Rome and laid claim to dominance over the entire civilized world. In the Byzantine Empire itself, the doctrine of the divine origin of the power of the emperor, the ruler of the entire ecumene, of all Christian peoples, was formalized (the universalist theory of ecumenism). The emperor (in Greek “basileus”), in whose hands were all legislative and executive powers, was surrounded by worship and oriental luxury. True, theoretically, the power of the emperor was somewhat limited by such institutions as the Senate, the State Council (consistory) and Dima (from the Greek word “demos” - people) were organizations of free citizens of Byzantine cities, they performed economic, political and military functions. In his policies, the emperor had to take into account the church.

3. The reign of Emperor Justinian. The Byzantine Empire reached its greatest prosperity during the reign of Emperor Justinian I (527-565). At this time, the internal stabilization of the Byzantine state took place and extensive external conquests were carried out.

Justinian's domestic policy was aimed at strengthening the centralization of the state and strengthening the economy of the empire, intensifying trade and searching for new trade routes. Justinian patronized the growth of large church landownership and at the same time supported the middle strata of landowners. He pursued, albeit inconsistently, a policy of limiting the power of large landowners, and primarily the old senatorial aristocracy.

During the reign of Justinian, a reform of Roman law was carried out. In a short period of time (from 528 to 534), a commission of outstanding jurists headed by Tribonian carried out a huge amount of work to revise the entire rich heritage of Roman jurisprudence and created the Code of Civil Law. Justinian's legislation (especially in the Code and Novellas) encouraged the provision of peculium to slaves, made it easier to free slaves, and the institution of colonat received clear legal formalization.

Justinian's active construction activities, aggressive policy, maintenance of the state apparatus, and the luxury of the imperial court required enormous expenses, and Justinian's government was forced to sharply increase the taxation of its subjects. Population dissatisfaction with tax oppression and the persecution of heretics led to uprisings of the masses. In 532, one of the most formidable popular movements in Byzantium broke out, known in history as the Nika uprising. It was associated with the intensified struggle of the so-called circus parties of Constantinople. The defeat of the Nika uprising marks a sharp turn in Justinian's policy towards reaction. However, popular movements in the empire did not stop.

In his foreign policy in the West, Justinian was guided primarily by the idea of ​​​​restoring the Roman Empire. To implement this grandiose plan, Justinian needed to conquer the barbarian states that arose from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire. As a result of the conquests, many of the previously included regions were re-annexed to the Byzantine state. However, the restoration policy of the Byzantines objectively delayed the feudalization processes, caused discontent among the conquered population, and Justinian's conquests turned out to be fragile.

Under Justinian's successors, the empire, exhausted by long wars and ruined by unbearable taxes, entered a period of decline.

3. Socio-economic and political changes in Byzantium in the 7th - 8th centuries. Economic decline, socio-political crisis and Civil War beginning of the 7th century caused the territorial losses of the empire and facilitated the penetration of the Slavs into its lands, and in the mid-30s of the 7th century. with a new formidable enemy - the Arabs. Invasions of the Slavs and other barbarian tribes combined with popular movements, civil war of the beginning of the 7th century. contributed to the further reduction of large landholdings of the slave type. Free rural communities have now acquired great importance. The remaining large landholdings were increasingly rebuilt on a new feudal basis; the use of slave labor decreased and the importance of exploitation of various categories of dependent farmers increased.

The administrative structure of the Byzantine state was radically changing. Old dioceses and provinces are replaced by new military-administrative districts - fems. The core of their population consisted of masses of colonists from Slavs, Armenians, Syrians and representatives of other tribes settled in Byzantium. From them, as well as from free Byzantine peasants, a peasantry was created in the 8th century. special military class stratiotov. For performing military service, stratiots received land plots from the government for hereditary ownership. Stratiot land ownership became privileged, exempt from all taxes except land taxes. The stratiots constituted the main force of the thematic army and the basis of the thematic system. The themes were led by the commanders of the theme army - strategists, who concentrated in their hands all the military and civil power in the themes.

The creation of a feminine system meant a certain decentralization of government, which was associated with the feudalization of the country. However, a feature of the Byzantine state system in comparison with most other early feudal states was the preservation of a relatively strong central government during this period.

5. Iconoclastic movement. Military successes strengthened the position of the femme nobility, which began to demand the transfer of government to the military service class, the partial secularization of monastic lands and the distribution of these lands to the military. Within the ruling class, a struggle begins for land and the right to collect rent from the peasants, which took the form of a struggle between iconoclasm and icon veneration.

Wanting to undermine the ideological influence of the higher clergy, the iconoclasts opposed the veneration of icons, calling it idolatry. The iconoclastic movement was led by the emperors of the Isaurian dynasty themselves, who expressed the interests of the military-serving femme nobility. In 726, Emperor Leo III openly opposed the veneration of icons. Iconoclastic ideas also found a response among part of the masses who were dissatisfied with the growth of monastic land ownership. Among the people, iconoclastic ideas took on a more radical character and were supported by heretical sects, for example the Paulician sect. Iconoclasm met with the most fierce resistance from the highest clergy and monasticism. Fanatical monasticism in the European regions of the empire managed to rouse part of the masses against the iconoclasts. The icon venerators were supported by the city's dignitaries and the top of the Constantinople trade and craft circles, concerned about the strengthening of the military class.

The struggle between iconoclasts and icon worshipers unfolded with particular force under Emperor Constantine V, who began to confiscate church treasures and secularize monastic lands. These lands were transferred in the form of grants to the military service nobility. In 754, Constantine V convened a church council, which condemned the veneration of icons and removed all its supporters from church positions. This victory was fragile. In 787, at the VII Ecumenical Council, iconoclasm was condemned. But the icon-worshippers did not celebrate the victory for long. At the beginning of the 9th century. their opponents were again temporarily victorious.

So, from the 4th to the 7th century. In Byzantium, the process of decomposition of slave-holding relations was underway and the first elements of the feudal system were emerging. From the 7th century The period of the genesis of feudalism begins in Byzantium. The uniqueness of this process in the empire in comparison with the countries of Western Europe consisted of:

· in longer-term preservation of the slave system,

· in the sustainability and viability of a free rural community,

· in preserving large cities as centers of crafts and trade,

weak disurbanization

· and finally, important feature The genesis of feudalism in Byzantium was the presence there of a strong centralized state in the early Middle Ages.

Despite such support for the depiction of persons and events of Sacred and Church history, during the same period the first objections to the use of icons appeared. Thus, Eusebius of Caesarea speaks negatively about the desire of the emperor’s sister to have an icon of Christ. He explains this not by the Old Testament prohibition, but by the fact that the divine nature is indescribable. Active iconoclastic actions during this period are also known: Epiphanius of Cyprus, seeing a curtain with the image of a man in the church, tore it and gave it to cover the coffin of a beggar; in Spain, at the Council of Elvira (early 4th century), a decree was passed against wall painting in churches:

The emergence of Islam, which was hostile to images of the animate, played a great role in the growth of iconoclasm. In the areas of the empire bordering the territories of Arab tribes, Christian heresies have long flourished - Montanism, Marcionism, Paulicianism. For their adherents, Islam revived doubts about the legitimacy of icons. Byzantine emperors, trying to ensure a peaceful neighborhood with Muslims, made concessions to the iconoclasts. Thus, Emperor Philippicus, before his overthrow in 713, was going to issue a law against the veneration of icons. Defenders of icon veneration called such iconoclast emperors “ Saracen wise».

Causes of iconoclasm

Theological

The iconoclasts based their views on one of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth; do not worship them or serve them..."(Ex.). Although picturesque images of Christ and saints were already known ancient church, but there was no uniform canon of attitude towards icons. At the same time, the icons were surrounded by superstitious worship among the masses:

Happened " the growth of magical absurdities in the veneration of sacred objects, the gross fetishization of icons" This behavior led to accusations of paganism and idolatry. Even before the start of iconoclasm, Anastasius Sinait (VII century) wrote: “ Many people think that baptism is sufficiently honored by those who, upon entering the church, kiss all the icons, not paying attention to the liturgy and worship».

Political

Researchers divide the political reasons for iconoclasm into two groups:

Related to Judaism and Islam Through iconoclasm, the Byzantine emperors wanted to destroy one of the main obstacles to the rapprochement of Christians with Jews and Muslims, who had a negative attitude towards icons. Through this it was planned to facilitate the subjugation of the peoples professing these religions to the empire. Fight against the power of the church By the 8th century, the political role of the church in the empire had increased significantly, and there was a significant increase in church property and monasteries. The clergy began to actively participate in the affairs of governing the empire, so in 695 Abba Theodotus became Minister of Finance, and in 715 the deacon of Hagia Sophia was appointed commander-in-chief of the troops. For this reason, the iconoclast emperors considered it necessary to divert manpower and funds from the church and direct them to the state treasury. Therefore, as the Greek historian Paparrigopoulou notes, “ In parallel with the religious reform, which condemned icons, banned relics, reduced the number of monasteries and at the same time did not affect the basic tenets of the Christian faith, social and political reform was carried out».

Repression

Destruction of icons, mosaics and frescoes

During the period of iconoclasm, works of art dedicated to Christian themes were mercilessly destroyed: icons were burned, mosaics and frescoes adorning the walls of churches were knocked down. The most famous facts of vandalism include the destruction of the decoration of the Church of the Virgin Mary in Blachernae, which hosted the iconoclastic council of 754. The life of Stephen the New, who suffered for icon veneration, reports: “ ...the icons were thrown - some into the swamp, others into the sea, others into the fire, and others were cut and crushed with axes. And those icons that were on the church walls - some were touched with iron, others were covered with paint».

Persecution and execution of icon venerators

Many commanders and soldiers were subjected to various executions and cruel tortures due to the slander that they worshiped icons. He obliged by oath everyone in his kingdom not to venerate icons and forced even Constantine, the falsely named patriarch, to ascend to the pulpit and, raising the honorable and life-giving trees, swear that he did not belong to the venerators of holy icons. He convinced him to become a monk and marry, eat meat and be present at the royal table during songs and dances.

The persecution primarily affected Byzantine monasticism: Constantine V declared their rank politically unreliable. Supporters of Constantine publicly persecuted and reviled the monks, throwing stones at them: “ ...he killed many monks with blows of whips, and even with a sword, and blinded countless numbers; some had their beards smeared with wax and oil, then the fire was turned on and thus burned their faces and heads; after many torments he sent others into exile" Stefan the New suffered from persecution with his students; their executions, according to A.V. Kartashev, forced them to compare the times of Copronymus with the time of Diocletian. For their sympathy with these icon venerators, on August 25, 766, 19 high-ranking officials were publicly ridiculed and punished at the hippodrome. A number of monks who suffered from persecution were later canonized (for example, John Psychait, Martyr Andrew of Crete and others).

A number of Constantinople patriarchs (Herman I, Nikephoros), diocesan bishops (for example, St. Evschimon, who died in exile, Basil of Paria) suffered from persecution; among theologians, John of Damascus was anathematized, the brothers Theophanes and Theodore, distinguished by “ extraordinary learning", were subjected to scourging, and iambic verses composed by Emperor Theophilus were carved on their faces (for this the brothers received the nickname Inscribed). Under Emperor Leo V, the famous Byzantine chronicler Theophanes, who was an implacable enemy of the iconoclasts, was sent into exile and died in exile on one of the islands of the Aegean Sea.

Persecution of icon painters

The fight against the spread of iconographic images also affected their creators. The best known is the story of the monk-icon painter Lazarus, who suffered under Emperor Theophilos:

Researchers note that during the period of iconoclasm, religious art physically could not exist. Icon painters who suffered from repression went to remote monasteries (for example, in Cappadocia) and continued their work there.

Chronicle of iconoclasm

Emperor	Years board	Constantinople patriarch	Years patriarchate
Leo III the Isaurian	717-741	Hermann I	715-730
		Anastasy	730-754
Constantine V Copronymus	741-775
		Constantine II	754-766
		Nikita I	766-780
Leo IV Khazar	775-780
Constantine VI the Blind	780-797	Paul IV	780-784
		Tarasiy	784-806
Irina	797-802
Nikephoros I	802-811
		Nikifor	806-815
Stavrakiy	811
Michael I Rangave	811-813
Leo V the Armenian	813-820
		Theodotus I	815-821
Michael II Travl	820-829
		Anthony I	821-837
Theophilus	829-842
		John VII Grammar	837-843
Theodora (regent under Michael III)	842-856
		Methodius I	843-847

Byzantine iconoclasm is divided into two periods, the border between which is the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the subsequent temporary restoration of icon veneration. The first period, lasting about 50 years, begins during the reign of Emperor Leo III and ends with the regency of Empress Irene. The second period, lasting about 30 years, begins in the reign of Emperor Leo V and ends in the regency of Empress Theodora. In total, during the iconoclastic period in the empire, there were 12 emperors, of whom only 6 were active iconoclasts (the throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople during this time was occupied by 11 people, 6 of them were iconoclasts). The table shows the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople of this period, the iconoclasts are marked in yellow.

1st period of iconoclasm (730-787)

By the 8th century, exaggerated forms of icon veneration brought reproaches of idolatry upon Christians, especially from Muslims, who at that time not only energetically spread their religion, which denied any form of icon veneration, but also demanded that Christians under their control stop worshiping icons. Leo III the Isaurian, who became emperor in 717 (a native of Germanicia on the border with Syria, accustomed during the years of his governorship in Phrygia to the ideas of iconoclasm and Paulicianism), sought in the course of his military campaigns not only to subjugate the territories occupied by the Arabs to the empire, but to spread among Muslims and Jewish Christianity. At the same time, he believed that it was permissible for the emperor to interfere in matters of church life; he wrote to Pope Gregory II: “ I am the emperor and the priest", thereby expressing his ideas of Caesaropapism.

In the first ten years of his reign, Leo did not take energetic action in the field of church activities; we only know about his demand in 723 for the Jews and the Montanist sect to accept baptism. Only in 726, according to Theophanes:

In the same year, a strong volcanic eruption occurred northwest of Crete and a new island was formed among the Cycladic Islands - this was perceived by Leo as a sign of God's wrath for idolatry and he began a campaign against icon veneration. The first decisive action was the removal of the icon of Christ from the gates of Chalcopratia. As a result, clashes between townspeople and soldiers occurred: “ they killed some of the royal people who were removing the icon of the Lord from the copper gates of the great church; and many for zeal for piety were executed by truncation of members, lashes, expulsions and deprivation of estates, especially people famous both by birth and enlightenment" Icons began to be removed from prominent outdoor places; in churches they were raised higher so that people would not kiss or bow to them. At the same time, icons were not removed from Hagia Sophia during the reign of Leo the Isaurian.

These actions of the emperor caused irritation among the iconodules, iconolaters, idolaters - icon-worshippers, idolaters, as their opponents called them), which included mainly the clergy and especially monks, the masses of the common people and women of all classes of society; when the icons were destroyed, fights took place and carnage. The population of Greece (Hellas) and the Cyclades Islands, having proclaimed a new emperor, rose up in revolt, which ended in the complete defeat and victory of Leo III. Many inhabitants of the interior parts of the empire fled to the outskirts of the state; a significant part of the Italian possessions of Byzantium, together with Ravenna, came under the rule of the Lombards.

The Patriarch of Constantinople Germanus began to denounce Leo for heresy. Leo invited him to a meeting of the Privy Council (Silentium), but the patriarch, when asked about the veneration of icons, replied that he did not agree to introduce anything new in matters of faith without an ecumenical council. On January 17, 729, the Emperor invited the patriarch to a meeting of the Supreme Council and again raised the issue of icon veneration. Herman objected to iconoclasm, but, not finding support among the imperial entourage, resigned from the patriarchal power:

Before this, Germanus wrote to the pope about his resistance to the emperor and sent to Rome a number of Constantinople shrines, which are currently kept in the personal papal chapel of San Lorenzo next to the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano.

Instead of Herman, the iconoclast Anastasius became Patriarch of Constantinople, who signed an edict against the veneration of icons. This edict became the first iconoclastic document issued not only on behalf of the emperor, but also on behalf of the church.

In the West, Leo's policies became known from Western merchants who were eyewitnesses of the removal of the image of Christ from the gates of Chalcopratia. Pope Gregory II wrote to the emperor: “ Arriving at your homeland, they told... about your childish actions. Then everywhere they began to throw your portraits on the ground, trample them underfoot and disfigure your face" In 727, the Pope convened a Council in Rome, which confirmed the legality of icon veneration. Byzantium's relations with the West deteriorated significantly. After the capture of Ravenna by the Lombards, Byzantine governors increased taxes in southern Italy, which was opposed by Pope Gregory II. In response to the message of Patriarch Anastasius, the pope rejected the epithet “ brother and co-worker”, which the patriarch applied to him, convicted him of heresy and, under threat of anathema, demanded his repentance and return to Orthodoxy. After the death of Gregory II, his successor Gregory III took the same firm position. He convened a Council of 93 bishops in Rome, which decided: “ From now on, whoever confiscates, destroys or dishonors and desecrates icons... may he be excommunicated from the church».

In the East, the strongest opponent of iconoclasm in this era was the famous theologian John of Damascus, who wrote in -730 “Three words of defense against those who condemn holy icons.” In his work, for the first time, the differences between “ service"befitting only God, and " worship", rendered to created things, including icons.

Despite such strong opposition, Leo, relying on the army and the court aristocracy, who formed the main stronghold of the iconoclast party (iconomachos, iconoclasts, iconocausts - crushers, burners of icons, as their opponents called them), and also found support for himself in some part of the clergy, until the end of his reign supported iconoclasm. At the same time, as historian F.I. Uspensky notes, in the synodikum compiled after the restoration of icon veneration, only 40 names are indicated during the reign of Leo, that is, at first the iconoclasts took a wait-and-see attitude.

Constantine V and the Iconoclastic Council

Wanting to more definitely implement iconoclastic ideas, and preparing minds for this by “ people's assemblies» Constantine in 754 convened a large cathedral in the palace of Hieria, on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus, between Chalcedon and Chrysopolis (Scutari), which later received the name iconoclastic, on which there were 348 bishops, but not a single representative of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Council, which declared itself " Seventh Ecumenical", decided:

At the same time, the cathedral did not speak out against the veneration of saints and relics, but, on the contrary, declared anathema to everyone who “ does not ask for prayers from them, as from those who have the boldness, according to church tradition, to intercede for peace" The Oros of the cathedral was solemnly proclaimed on August 27 at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, Constantine V was called the 13th apostle and anathema was proclaimed to the defenders of the icons: Herman of Constantinople, John of Damascus and George of Cyprus.

After the council, Constantine began to implement his decisions: icons, mosaics, and illuminated manuscripts began to be destroyed en masse (sheets of some were cut out, some were burned). Instead of the previous iconographic images, the walls of the temples were decorated with arabesques and vignettes of birds and plants. Although the council did not reject the veneration of relics, the emperor was their opponent. Thus, in Chalcedon, on his instructions, the revered temple of St. Euphemia was closed, her relics were thrown into the sea, and the building itself was turned into an arsenal. This period was called " Constantine's persecution"and was marked by numerous executions of icon worshipers.

Under the influence of Constantine's patronage of the Syrians and Armenians, who adhered to Paulicianism, the eastern element (generally influential under the iconoclastic emperors) strengthened in the European part of the empire. After 761, Constantine not only began to openly persecute and torture individual representatives of monasticism (for example, the Venerable Martyr Stephen the New), but apparently also persecuted the very institution of monasticism. Thanks to this, the emigration of Greek monasticism increased, fleeing mainly to southern Italy and the northern shores of the Black Sea. Despite the strengthening of the opposition (which already included high-ranking secular figures), iconoclasm persisted not only until the death of Constantine, but also during the reign of his son, the more moderate iconoclast Leo IV the Khazar (775-780).

Seventh Ecumenical Council

After the death of Leo IV, due to the minority of his son, Emperor Constantine VI, his wife Empress Irene, a supporter of icon veneration, became regent. Having gained a foothold in power, she began preparations for holding an Ecumenical Council to resolve the issue of venerating icons. In 784, Patriarch Paul of Constantinople retired to the monastery of St. Florus, accepted the schema and announced his renunciation of the patriarchate. After this, at the suggestion of Irene, Tarasius, the imperial secretary (asicritus), was elected patriarch of Constantinople.

The first attempt to open a meeting of the council, which brought together representatives of all Christian churches, including the legates of the Pope, was made on August 7, 786. The cathedral was opened in the Church of the Holy Apostles, but when the holy scriptures began to be read, armed soldiers, supporters of the iconoclasts, burst into it and threatened to stop the meeting. After this, Irina, under a plausible pretext, moved the capital’s army to the provinces and released the veterans to their homeland, and then gathered a new army, placing loyal military leaders over them.

After the council, the empress ordered the image of Jesus Christ to be made and placed over the gates of Chalcopratia to replace the one destroyed 60 years earlier under Emperor Leo III the Isaurian. An inscription was made to the image: “ [the image] that the Lord Leo once overthrew was again installed here by Irina».

2nd period of iconoclasm (814-842)

"Iconoclastic Council of 815". Miniature from the Psalter of Theodora, 1066

The veneration of icons, restored at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, was preserved in the empire during the reign of Constantine VI and Irene. Emperor Nikephoros I, who took the throne in 802, also adhered to icon veneration and at the same time was tolerant of the iconoclasts and Paulicians, which caused discontent among the Orthodox party and especially the monks. Only during the short reign of Emperor Michael I (811-813), who was under the strong influence of the clergy, did the iconoclasts (and Paulicians) begin to be persecuted. In 813, Michael was overthrown by soldiers. Dissatisfied with the defeat in the war with the Bulgarians, the soldiers, who still shared the ideas of iconoclasm, burst into the tomb of Constantine Copronymus and opened it with the words “ Rise up and help the dying state!" Michael was forced to abdicate the throne and go to a monastery, and in his place was elevated to the energetic and popular commander Leo V the Armenian (813-820). This emperor of Eastern origin again took the side of iconoclasm.

John the Grammar under a Lebanese cedar with his hair sticking out on end with a wallet and the devil

Leo V, after his accession to the throne, instructed the then simple monk John the Grammar (future Patriarch John VII) to compile a selection of biblical and patristic texts against the veneration of icons. In December 814, a debate took place between the icon-worshippers (led by Patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore the Studite) and the iconoclasts (John the Grammaticus, Anthony of Syllae). The resonance of the discussion was the throwing of the image of Christ by the soldiers on the copper gates of the palace (Chalcopratia) and on January 6, 815, Emperor Leo, going to communion, for the first time did not bow to the image and ordered it to be removed under the pretext of protecting it from desecration. The reaction to this was the letters of Theodore the Studite to the Pope and the night local council of 70 bishops, held by Patriarch Nicephorus, as well as what he wrote “ ».

The emperor demanded from the patriarch an account of church property, accepted a number of complaints against him and demanded his appearance in court before several bishops and clergy. Nikephoros, not wanting to stand before the court of ordinary bishops, refused and on March 20, 815, resigned his rank and retired to a monastery. The iconoclast Theodotus, a relative of Constantine Copronymus, head of the Life Guard, who, according to George the Monk, was completely uneducated and “ more silent than fish" In 815, the emperor convened a council in the Church of Hagia Sophia ( 2nd iconoclastic), which canceled the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and restored the definitions of the council of 754, but did not recognize its ecumenical status. Also, the cathedral of 815 no longer calls icons idols and allows them to be placed in churches on high places as an edification for the illiterate, but without the possibility of lighting candles and lamps in front of them. At the council, hierarchs opposing the iconoclasts were anathematized and sent into exile. After the council of 815, the empire resumed the destruction of icons, the persecution of monks and their emigration to the East and Italy.

...we insist: let there be deep silence about icons. And therefore, let no one dare to raise a conversation about icons (in one direction or another), but let the council of Constantine (754), and Tarasius (787), and now the one that was under Leo (815) be completely eliminated and removed .) on these issues.

Despite this policy of tolerance, the emperor installed the famous iconoclast Anthony, Bishop of Syllae, as patriarch. The historian Kartashev writes that Mikhail, by his own admission, “ as a soldier, I have not worshiped a single icon all my life" Michael's iconoclastic sentiments are visible in his message sent to the West to Louis the Pious: " First of all, they expelled the holy cross from the churches and instead hung icons and lamps in front of them. They burn incense in front of them and generally show them the same respect as the cross on which Christ was crucified. They sing psalms before them, worship them and expect help from the icons." However, there are no facts about the persecution of icon worshipers during the reign of Michael, but indirect confirmation of the oppression can be the uprising of the impostor Thomas, probably raised in the name of Orthodoxy. Of the famous persons, only Presbyter Methodius, the future Patriarch of Constantinople, was persecuted. The decree of Michael II remained in force under his successor, Emperor Theophilus (829-842), who, however, again began to vigorously persecute icon worshipers.

According to a number of researchers, the reign of Theophilus was the most severe time of the second period of iconoclasm. A cruel decree was issued against icon venerators in 832, the execution of which was undertaken by Patriarch John the Grammar, popularly nicknamed the Lecanomancer (wizard): monasteries were closed, monks were persecuted and imprisoned. At the same time, a number of historians note that the emperor resorted to severe punishments only in exceptional cases.

The second period of iconoclasm is characterized by the participation in the defense of icon veneration by the primates of the Eastern Orthodox churches. There is a known message in defense of icons signed by three eastern patriarchs of the 9th century - Christopher of Alexandria, Job of Antioch and Basil of Jerusalem. In general, as F.I. Uspensky notes, during the second period of iconoclasm “ ...interest in iconoclastic ideas began to wane everywhere. The movement was ideologically exhausted».

"Triumph of Orthodoxy"

After the death of Emperor Theophilus, his mother Theodora, raised in the tradition of icon veneration, became regent for the early childhood of Emperor Michael III. She, with the support of other dignitaries (among them was Manuel, the empress's uncle, who probably acted for political reasons) and the clergy, decided to restore icon veneration in the empire. The iconoclast patriarch John VII Grammaticus was overthrown and in his place was erected the defender of icon veneration Methodius, who was persecuted under Theophilus.

Reaction period

After the Council of Constantinople, a period of reaction began in the empire, persecution of people who denied icon veneration began. The remains of the famous confessors of Orthodoxy Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, who suffered for their faith and died in exile, were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodora and her son and the entire courtyard came out to meet the remains, carrying candles in their hands. They followed the relics on foot to the Church of the Twelve Apostles. The tomb of Emperor Constantine V was desecrated, without any respect for the imperial rank, his remains were thrown into the street, and the marble sarcophagus was cut into thin tiles and used as cladding for one of the rooms of the imperial palace. As a sign of the victory of icon veneration, the image of Christ reappears on coins and seals after 843.

An angel drags an iconoclast sinner by the hair

F.I. Uspensky notes that the period of reaction is characterized not only by the restoration of the veneration of icons and the church reaction in general, but also by the abolition of many other innovations that were considered as the result of the iconoclastic system of government. Thus, many laws issued by iconoclast emperors were considered unsuitable in the 10th century and repealed.

Art of the Iconoclasm Period

The iconoclasts destroyed a significant layer visual arts Byzantium of previous centuries. Images were replaced by non-fine art with plant-zoomorphic themes, and aniconic decoration became especially widespread. Thus, the gospel cycle in the Blachernae church was destroyed and replaced by flowers, trees and birds. Contemporaries said that he " converted into a vegetable warehouse and poultry house" At Hagia Sophia, the luxurious mosaics were replaced by simple crosses. The only mosaics to survive the period of iconoclasm are those of the Basilica of Saint Demetrius in Thessaloniki.

The main theme of the images was pastoral paintings. Emperor Theophilus decorated buildings with similar ornamental bucolic images in large quantities. « The fascination with bucolicism acquired very specific, romantic-sensual forms, clearly related to the general reformation program of iconoclasm" Theophilus built pavilions-temples, which were called Pearl triclinium, Bedchamber of Harmony, Temple of Love, Temple of Friendship and others.

There was also a rise in secular painting, which regained the traditions of the former Roman imperial themes: portraits of emperors, scenes of hunting and circus performances, wrestling, horse racing - since the ban on the depiction of human images concerned only sacred themes. It is known that Emperor Constantine V ordered the compositions with scenes of the six Ecumenical Councils to be replaced on the walls of one of the churches with an image of his favorite charioteer. In decorative techniques, a precise adherence to illusory perspective and other achievements of Hellenistic pagan culture is noticeable.

Umayyad Mosque

The result of iconoclasm was the disappearance of sculptural images of saints or scenes of Sacred History in the Eastern Church. After the restoration of icon veneration, church art did not return to such forms of sacred images; a number of researchers see in this a partial victory of the iconoclasts over the immoderate icon-worshipers.

The main monuments of this period have not survived, since they were systematically destroyed by the victorious icon-worshipers, covering the ascetic works of the iconoclasts with mosaics and frescoes (for example, the mosaic of the apse of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki). However, the following works give some idea about them:

• mosaics in the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem (692), made by masters invited from Constantinople
• mosaics in the courtyard of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus (711).

The art of the period of the end of iconoclasm includes miniatures of the Khludov Psalter, in which researchers see the potential for the development of the next stylistic period.

Sources and historiography

The main primary sources on the history of iconoclasm are:

• « Chronography» Theophan the Confessor (covers the period up to 813). The work of Theophanes, a contemporary of the iconoclastic movement, devotes much more space to iconoclasm than other Byzantine chroniclers;
• The successor of Feofan. " Lives of Byzantine kings"(fully covers the second period of iconoclasm);
• « Chronicler of Patriarch Nicephorus"(covers the period up to 829);
• « Chronicle"George Amartol (covers the period up to 842) and his " Defensive word to the Universal Church regarding the new discord over honest icons"(stated Short story first period of iconoclasm);
• History of the Byzantine Empire by Josephus Genesius.

Data on the church position regarding iconoclasm is contained in:

• acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (recorded by the secretary of the council, the future Patriarch Nicephorus);
• church annals of Baronius (written in 1588-1607);
• lives of saints (especially the lives of Patriarchs Germanus I and Tarasius, as well as John of Damascus, brothers Theodore and Theophan the Inscribed and Stephen the New).

A general account of the history of iconoclasm is available in the works of Lebo ( English), Gibbon, Finlay, Gfrörer ( English), Herzberg ( English) and Schlosser. However, these works were already considered obsolete at the end of the 19th century. Among the works of Russian historians, numerous works on Byzantium by academician V. G. Vasilievsky, the work of F. I. Uspensky “ Council of Constantinople in 842 and the establishment of Orthodoxy", as well as a description of the iconoclastic period in his work " History of the Byzantine Empire", monograph by A. V. Kartashev " Ecumenical councils" And " History of the Byzantine Empire"A. A. Vasilyeva. The history of iconoclasm is also outlined by S. Diehl in his works on the history of Byzantium. The history of iconoclasm, especially the period of the patriarchate of Nikephoros, is described in the writings of the American Byzantinist Paul Alexander.

Given the insufficient development of the history of iconoclasm, both regarding the origin of this movement and regarding its nature and significance, there are significant disagreements: some historians see in it a broad progressive movement, an entire social, political and religious revolution, based on ancient Hellenic principles preserved in the east empire, where the reform came from and where the iconoclast emperors came from (Leo III, Constantine V, Leo IV, Leo V, Theophilus). Other researchers, without denying the importance of eastern elements in iconoclasm, are inclined to see, on the contrary, in the restoration of Orthodoxy the victory of European, more cultural elements. The question of the relationship of iconoclasm to Islam and to various Christian heresies of that time has also been little studied.

see also

	Iconoclasm in Wiktionary
	Iconoclasm on Wikimedia Commons

• Iconoclastic revolt in the Netherlands in August 1566

Notes

1. Iconoclasm // Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969 - 1978.
2. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. - Klin, 2004. - P. 574.
3. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 575.
4. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 576.
5. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 577.
6. This refers to the ban on depicting a person that exists in Islam.
7. Shmeman A. D. The historical path of Orthodoxy. - M.: Pilgrim, 1993. - P. 248-249. - 387 p.
8. Kolpakova G. S. Introduction // Art of Byzantium. Early and middle periods. - St. Petersburg. : ABC-classics, 2005. - P. 258. - 528 p. - ISBN 5-352-00485-6
9. Alexander Shmeman. Chapter 5. Byzantium // Historical path of Orthodoxy. - M.: Pilgrim, 1993. - 387 p..
10. Lazarev V. N. The emergence of iconoclasm // "History of Byzantine painting. - M.: Art, 1986.
11. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 578.
12. Vasiliev A. A. Chapter 5, section 4. Religious contradictions of the first period of iconoclasm // History of the Byzantine Empire. - T. 1.
13. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 579.
14. Popova Olga. The era of iconoclasm 730-843. // Byzantine icons of the VI-XV centuries.
15. Chronography of Theophanes, year 6263 / 763 (772)
16. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 601.
17. Chronography of Theophanes, year 6257 / 757 (766)
18. Translation, articles, comments by Ya. N. Lyubarsky. Book III. Theophilus // The successor of Theophanes. Lives of Byzantine kings. - St. Petersburg. : Nauka, 1992. - 352 p. - ISBN 5-02-28022-4
19. Andreev I. D. Herman and Tarasius, Patriarchs of Constantinople: their lives and activities in connection with the history of the iconoclastic turmoil. - Sergiev Posad: Science, 1907. - P. 78.
20. Chronography of Feofan, year 6215 / 715 (724)
21. Gregorii II Epistola XIII ad Leonern Isaurum Imperatorem (PL, t. LXXXIX, col. 521: “imperator sum et sacerdos”)
22. Chronography of Feofan, year 6217 / 717 (726)
23. Chronography of Feofan, year 6218 / 718 (726)
24. Chronography of Feofan, year 6218 / 718 (727)
25. Chronography of Feofan, year 6221 / 721 (729)
26. The Holy Staircase (History and Devotion). - Rome, 2000. - P. 5.
27. Photo of the altar of the chapel with Constantinople shrines
28. Quote // Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - pp. 584-585.
29. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 588.
30. John of Damascus. The first word of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. IV
31. Uspensky F. I. History of the Byzantine Empire VI-IX centuries. - M., 1996. - P. 573.
32. There are two points of view on the origin of the nickname: Feofan’s mention that the emperor soiled himself in the baptismal font, and the report of historians that Constantine, who loved horses, did not disdain their manure and assured his loved ones that it was both pleasant and good for health (See. : Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 590.)
33. V. G. Vasilievsky // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1877, June. pp. 286-287, 310.
34. Chronography of Feofan, year 6245 / 745 (754)
35. Resolution of the Iconoclastic Council of 754
36. Venerable Martyr and Confessor Stephen the New
37. Chronography of Feofan, year 6276 / 776 (784)
38. Chronography of Feofan, year 6277 / 777 (784)
39. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 619.
40. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 624.
41. Dogma on the veneration of icons to the Three Hundred and Sixty-seven Saints, Father of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
42. The inscription is based on a play on words Λέων - “lion”, a predatory beast and Ειρήνη - “peace, tranquility”
43. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 654.
44. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - pp. 646-647.
45. Kartashev A.V. Decree. Op. - P. 647.
46. Posnov M. E. History of the Christian Church (before the division of the Churches - 1054). - M.: Higher School, 2005. - 648 p. -