class="subtitle">
The period of iconoclasm in Byzantium lasted more than a hundred years - from the beginning of the 8th to the middle of the 9th century. At the center of the conflict was a debate between admirers of icons and those who were against such idols. Historians believe that it was rather a struggle between the state and the church, because it was the emperors who initiated the conflict.
In the 8th century, during the time of Leo III, icon veneration crossed all boundaries. Icons were not just worshiped, they were considered simply magical. Let us clarify: not the saints on the icons, but the icons themselves. For example, there were rumors that if you scrape a little paint from a certain icon, dilute it in water and drink it, you will definitely be healed and wiser. The distribution of icons was so widespread that it began to extend beyond the boundaries of churches: artists began to be given tasks to paint residential buildings. In general, icon chaos began, and the emperor became slightly worried.
At the same time, to the south of Byzantium, a newfangled movement began to bloom wildly - Islam, to which entire countries were converted. Icons were prohibited there, and no one really cared about it. It was not that the Byzantine emperor wanted to convert to Islam - rather, he wanted to keep his less superstitious subjects from fleeing their native religion. But the decision was made unequivocally: icons should be banned.
Here, near the island of Crete, a volcano began to erupt just in time, it was declared an angry sign of God - and it began. At first, however, the reforms proceeded rather sluggishly: they simply ordered icons to be hung higher so that people would not paw them. The people did not understand the hints, and the first blood was shed: the official who had thought of knocking down the icons with an ax was dragged down the stairs and torn into pieces. After the sad incident, especially ardent icon-lovers were ordered to be hanged higher. At the same time, burning icons, destroying mosaics and frescoes that decorated the walls of temples.
As a result, a new style appeared in the construction of churches - the “era of iconoclasm”, or aniconic painting. The walls of the temples were plastered generously and covered with simple patterns combined with primitive drawings. No saints or fancy 2D images. Maximum crooked cockerels, fish, bunches of grapes and all sorts of flowers and plants in general. Symbolism flourished here: each element meant almost an entire parable from the Bible. There are a lot of such churches in Cappadocia - if you come, be sure to meet at least one.
The icon painters themselves were subjected to severe repression and torture. They had no choice but to flee from Byzantium. Mostly they fled to Crimea. It was then that the legendary"Cave cities of Crimea". They turned a blind eye to icon painters here, but they knew how to dig caves and paint temples. As a result, entire monasteries began to appear like
The development of Christian art was interrupted by iconoclasm, which established itself as the official ideology of the empire from 730. This caused the destruction of icons and paintings in churches. Persecution of icon worshipers. Many icon painters emigrated to the distant ends of the Empire and neighboring countries - to Cappadocia, Crimea, Italy, and partly to the Middle East, where they continued to create icons. Although in 787, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy and a theological justification for icon veneration was formulated, the final restoration of icon veneration came only in 843. During the period of iconoclasm, instead of icons in churches, only images of the cross were used, instead of old paintings, decorative images of plants and animals were made, secular scenes were depicted, in particular, horse racing, beloved by Emperor Constantine V.
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. In Hagia Sophia, luxurious mosaics were replaced by simple crosses. The only mosaics that survived the period of iconoclasm are those of the Basilica of St. Demetrius in Thessaloniki.
The main theme of the images was pastoral. Emperor Theophilus decorated buildings with similar ornamental-bucolic images in large quantities. Theophilus built pavilion-temples, which were called the Pearl Triclinium, the Bedchamber of Harmony, the Temple of Love, the 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. In decorative techniques, a precise adherence to illusory perspective and other achievements of Hellenistic pagan culture is noticeable.
The result of iconoclasm was the disappearance in eastern church sculptural images of saints or scenes of Sacred history. After the restoration of icon veneration, church art did not return to such forms of sacred images. 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. The following have been preserved: mosaics in the Omar Mosque in Jerusalem (692), made by masters invited from Constantinople, mosaics in the courtyard of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus (711).
For religious purposes, sculpture was used sparingly from the very beginning, because the Eastern Church always looked unfavorably on statues, considering their worship to be in some way idolatry. Until the 9th century, round figures were still tolerated in Byzantine churches, but by the decree of the Council of Nicaea in 842 they were completely eliminated from them. That. sculpture was used only in sarcophagi, ornamental reliefs, small diptychs given by emperors to dignitaries and church hierarchs, book bindings, vessels, etc. The material for small crafts of this kind was in most cases ivory, the carving of which reached significant perfection in Byzantium.
Basilica of St. Demetrius- a five-nave Christian basilica, built in the Greek city of Thessaloniki on the site of the death of the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki.
The first church on the site of the dungeon was built between 313-323. A hundred years later, the Illyrian nobleman Leontius built the first large church.
John Kameniata writes about services in the churches of Thessaloniki (including those held in the Basilica of St. Demetrius) in his work “ Capture of Thessalonica", dedicated to the capture and robbery of the city by the Arabs in 904 (the basilica was not damaged then):
The basilica was built in the early Christian Hellenistic style and has the shape of a quadrangle, to which later extensions were added (the chapel of St. Euthymius - the 13th century, the vaulted peristyle - the 15th century). The basilica is five-nave, the length of the temple with the altar is 43.58 meters, the width is 33 meters. The temple has two entrances leading to the vestibule. Along the pulpit, the central nave is crossed by a transept framed by a colonnade. The altar part is topped with a conch and is found only in the central nave, which ends in an apse that does not protrude beyond the perimeter of the temple. The roof consists of five slopes; the temple does not have a dome. There are balconies in each of the side slopes and in the nave. The façade of the basilica is asymmetrical; a bell tower topped with a cross is attached to the left side.
The naves of the basilica are separated by a colonnade of white, green and dark red marble columns. The capitals are very varied; The capitals with leaves of thorny bushes blowing in the wind look especially elegant. This type was common in the 4th century and is found, for example, in the temple of St. Apollinaris in Ravenna. In another type of capital, the leaves are arranged vertically and their jagged tips point downwards. In some places, instead of curls, there are ram heads with twisted horns in the corners.
The pediments of the arches were decorated with slabs of dark blue or greenish marble, and in their interior there was a geometric pattern with inserts of white, black and red marble.
Some mosaic paintings of the 7th-8th centuries (the rest perished during the war) are perhaps the only ones that survived the era of iconoclasm in Byzantium. The ancient tradition is noticeable in the mosaics, but the faces are already ascetically strict, reminiscent of late Byzantine icons. However, when comparing mosaics from the Basilica of St. Demetrius with Constantinople monuments of the same period, an abundance of oriental types, a tendency towards frontal constructions and a more emphasized linearity of compositions. In all mosaics, the Great Martyr Demetrius has individual facial features, which indicates different times of their execution. The best-preserved mosaic paintings include: Mosaic " Saint Demetrius and children", Mosaic " Saint Demetrius with patrons».
Demetrius with the clergy. The saint is depicted with his hand on the priest's shoulder, expressing his benevolence.
Dimitri and children. Children's faces have individual features. The saint holds his hand on the shoulder of one of them, and the other is raised with an open palm. This gesture probably conventionally depicts that the saint is praying. This is one of the most ancient mosaics of the basilica (probably made immediately after its renovation in the middle of the 7th century). On it, Demetrius is presented as a young man with idealized facial features and short straight brown hair, dressed in a chiton and a luxurious robe, which, like in all other images, is fastened on the right shoulder. The mantle is decorated with a tablion - a quadrangular patch of a different color at chest level, which reflects the noble origin of Demetrius.
Demetrius with patrons. Also one of the oldest mosaic paintings. Demetrius is depicted surrounded by the ecclesiastical (right) and secular (left) rulers of the city.
Theotokos and Saint Theodore Stratilates. The mosaic dates back to the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries. The Mother of God and Saint Theodore are depicted praying, and the figure of Christ is visible above them, blessing them with his right hand.
The frescoes that previously decorated the walls of the basilica are preserved only in its right nave. The fresco cycle was completed in several stages in the 8th-14th centuries. Among them, the ones in the best condition are:
Barbarian invasion of Thessaloniki. The siege of the city is depicted Slavic tribes in 616, the victory of the Greeks in which is attributed to the intercession of St. Demetrius. The fresco shows an image of the church, which is considered to be the Basilica of St. Demetrius, and the inscription “ holy church near the stadium»;
Dimitri covers the bishop with a cloak with a halo, in sakkos and omophorion, which burns incense to the saint, above is the Virgin Mary with the Child Christ. The fresco was made in the last third of the 14th century. There is an opinion that the bishop is Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, and the Mother of God is depicted not with Christ, but with Joasaph of India (patron after the monastic name of Emperor John VI Cantacuzene). This interpretation is contradicted by the iconographic features of those depicted;
Allegorical fresco depicting a man being pursued by a wild animal;
The Emperor Approaches the City- the most well-preserved, executed at a high artistic level, scene of the entrance of the Byzantine emperor (possibly Justinian II) to Thessaloniki.
Architecture
A creative rethinking of the heritage of antiquity manifested itself in the early Byzantine period both in the fine arts and in architecture. Basilicas and mausoleums became prototypes of the two main types of Christian churches - basilical and centric. Temples were now thought of not as a place for a statue of a deity, but as huge houses for communal prayer. Basilicas were elongated rectangular buildings with an altar in the eastern part; Later, cross-domed churches spread - square in plan, with four pillars in the center supporting the dome. The outer walls of the temples lost their decoration and columnar decoration: the architectural forms embodied the idea of protection from the outside world. Severe, smooth, monolithic walls served as a sacred fence, sheltering believers from sinful existence. The stinginess and simplicity of the external appearance of the temples contrasted with the splendor of the interiors. Mosaic compositions created on the walls of churches the image of the Garden of Eden and the shining Kingdom of Heaven (mosaics in Ravenna, Italy, 5th–7th centuries). Even the images of earthly rulers - Emperor Justinian, his wife Theodora and courtiers on the walls of the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna (c. 547) acquired unearthly grandeur.
The center of cultural life of this and subsequent periods was Constantinople. In the 4th–5th centuries. In the capital, grandiose church and secular construction was underway, which combined Roman scale and constructive rationalism with oriental luxury. Triple fortress walls with towers rose around the city, the city center was highlighted (the forum with the Column of Constantine and the Hippodrome), magnificent palaces with mosaic floors, baths, and libraries were erected. The main temple of the Byzantine Empire was Sophia of Constantinople (532-37; architects Anthymius and Isidore).
The main problem of early Byzantine architecture is usually formulated as follows: how to put the dome of the Pantheon on the Basilica of Maxentius? To cover a vast space with a dome, the Byzantines came up with the so-called. sail. The sails are triangular fragments of a spherical surface, the lower corner of which continues at the bottom with a supporting pillar, and the upper arc forms part of the circle that lay at the base of the dome. This invention, known since late antiquity, made it possible to build a basilica with one or more domes. Church of St. Sophia of Constantinople was built in 532–537 according to the design of the architects Anthimius of Thrall and Isidore of Miletus. The nave of the temple is covered with a dome on sails, to which semi-domes adjoin from the east and west; on the southern and northern sides the dome rests on wide arches, part of the load is transferred to powerful buttresses attached to the wall outside. Side naves with galleries surround the central hall. As in early Christian basilicas, the splendor of the interior here contrasts sharply with the modesty of the outer walls.
In the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna, the dome on sails rests on eight pillars. The central volume of the temple, which has an octagonal plan, is surrounded by vaulted galleries.
About a century and a half after its heyday under Justinian, the Eastern Church found itself the scene of iconoclastic disputes: the ban on the creation of sacred images caused enormous damage to Byzantine fine art: new icons were not painted, and old ones were destroyed. The situation in architecture was better (the bans did not affect it), but the general situation was not conducive to the scope of construction activity.
Periodization of Byzantine architecture:
The history of Byzantine architecture falls into seven periods:
Maturation (395–527), early Byzantine architectural experimentation in Italy, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Macedonia;
First flowering (527–726), an era of political power and active construction;
Iconoclasm (726–867), a time of internal unrest, political instability and the decline of construction;
Second flowering (867–1204), a new phase of the power of power and the scope of construction; - -- Latin Empire (1204–1261), a period of national catastrophe, loss of independence, complete stop of construction;
Palaiologan Renaissance (1261–1453), a time of decline of external power and majestic cultural flourishing, when construction was carried out mainly in the Balkans;
The era of derivative styles (from 1453 to the present), which came with the fall of the Byzantine Empire, after which, however, the influence of its architectural style continued in Russia, the Balkans and regions with strong Islamic influence.
Construction Materials.
In the Byzantine Empire, the favorite building material was plinth, a large, flat baked brick measuring approx. 35.535.55.1 cm. During the masonry, a very thick cement mortar was used (with the addition of crushed baked clay and crushed brick), which made it possible to make the seams equal to the brick in thickness and without fear for the strength of the masonry. To reinforce the structure or enhance the decorative effect, three or four courses of brickwork were often interspersed with a row of ashlar or marble.
Architectural details - such as columns, capitals, inset panels, grilles, wall coverings, floors - were made from different types of marble and porphyry. All vaults, as well as the upper part of the walls, were usually covered with luxurious colored mosaics made of valuable smalt glass cubes, carefully fixed in a layer of specially prepared mortar.
Vaults and domes were built mainly from brick. The use of a solution of high viscosity made the construction of wooden circles, which were used by the Romans, unnecessary. As a result, the lateral thrust was significantly reduced and after construction was completed, the dome acquired the character of a monolith.
Building construction.
The structural simplicity and efficiency of the Byzantine method of constructing vaults and domes did not in themselves guarantee that the domed architectural style would be brought to perfection. Previously, large domes were built only over rooms that were round in plan. In the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople, built in 532–537 by the architects Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Trallus, the sail system was improved and the dome was erected over a square space in plan. The creators of the project fully understood the importance of their achievement and used it in the development of purely vaulted principles of roofing in the design of all parts of the cathedral. Arches, vaults, semi-domes and cupolas supported by pillars are made the leading structural elements. The columns are relegated to the background and are used between the colossal pillars as a partition dividing the internal space, and also as a scale-setting element. The classical orders were abolished, the plastic concept in the design of the plan, facade and interior acquired its final form, expressing in all its aspects the primacy of the arched-vaulted principle.
Exterior appearance of buildings.
The main role in Byzantine buildings is played by the dome or domes, rising above the massive volume of the church itself, which ends on the eastern side with one or more apses topped with semi-domes and has on the sides vaulted naves in one or two tiers. Window openings are most often topped with an arch (or arches) and equipped with gratings or stone slabs with large openings. Doors were often made of bronze, decorated with applied reliefs, ornamental rosettes and borders, which gave them massiveness. In the early stages of Byzantine architecture, little external decoration was used, and domes were usually built low, merging with the volume of the building. Later, the dome was often mounted on a drum with windows around the perimeter, but windows could also cut through the base of the dome itself. Later, taller temples were built, the verticality in them became stronger, more decorations appeared on the outside, patterned brickwork, marble cladding, blind and through arcades, pilasters, groups of complex windows, niches, profiled belts and cornices. In later buildings, smaller in size, but superior in the skill of plastic and rhythmic development of the project, protruding porticoes and attached aisles are not uncommon.
Interior decoration.
Byzantine architects abandoned the classical orders, and instead developed column supports, capitals, cornices, friezes and architectural profiles. Unlike classical examples, in Byzantine works the heels of raised arches were often placed directly on the capitals. As a rule, the capitals were made of drilled white marble and covered with gilding; the bases were also made of profiled white marble, contrasting with the rich colors of the column trunks, which were covered with colored marble or porphyry (often in red, blue or green tones). Columns were used as auxiliary elements, for example in arcades connecting supporting pillars. The combination of a pillar, arch, vault and dome is a design feature of the “arched” style. This plastic principle is invariably present in all parts of the Byzantine temple, but the dome remains the dominant element.
The interior as a whole is distinguished by aesthetic perfection. Despite the importance of the constructive achievements of Byzantine architecture, its main advantage lies in the greatness of the detail-thought-out and functionally determined decoration, highly logical and at the same time reverently emotional.
The floors were covered with marble slabs that formed geometric patterns. The lower part of the interior walls was often faced with thin slabs of multi-colored marble, sawn to reveal the rich texture of the material. Rows of these slabs alternated with blocks of marble of a different color, flat or carved, so that everything together formed a single whole. Sometimes inset carved panels were used, on which linearly stylized ornaments, such as vines and peacocks, were depicted in bas-relief technique. Marble-clad walls were separated from curved or vaulted surfaces, usually along the line where the vaults meet the wall, with marble profiled belts, cornices or friezes - flat, molded, carved or inlaid. These surfaces were reserved for the placement of mosaics, and in a later period, tempera replaced mosaics.
Mosaics were made from small pieces of smalt. The sizes of the smalt pieces varied, and the surface of the image was deliberately made slightly uneven so that the light would be reflected from different points at different angles. The background of the mosaic was usually filled with pieces of sparkling gold smalt, between which silver inserts were made here and there. In early mosaics the background was sometimes green or blue. Visual motifs (biblical scenes, saints, figures of emperors and their entourage, symbols, floral patterns and borders) were placed in the middle, in the most spectacular places.
The most striking examples of this art include the mosaics of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, the monasteries of St. Luke in Phocis (1st half of the 11th century), Daphne near Athens (11th century), Chora in Constantinople (early 14th century), San Marco Cathedral in Venice (11th–15th centuries), as well as numerous fragments in other places.
BUILDING TYPES
There are five main types of Byzantine churches.
Basilica. The basilica variety of the church appeared in Constantinople quite early.
Simple centric type. The centric plan, in its circular or polygonal variants, was widely used in Byzantine architecture. A simpler form (the baptistery of St. Sophia in Constantinople) comes from Roman mausoleums or round rooms in Roman baths. The Church of San Vitale in Ravenna (526–547), with its radiating apse and seven exedra, played a significant role in the development of the predominantly domed character of Byzantine architecture.
Type of domed basilica. This type is distinguished by a less elongated main nave, covered with a dome without a transept. The side aisles are the same length as the main one and have a second tier for women. The most classic example of a building of this type is the Cathedral of St. Sofia in Constantinople. The temple, in which the size of the main nave increased significantly, created ideal conditions for worship.
Cross-dome type. Although recognized as a Byzantine type, cross-domed churches nevertheless did not become widespread. They are characterized by a clear cruciform plan formed by a nave and a wide transept crossing it. The Middle Cross and all four branches of the cross are topped with domes, which rest on pillars standing in groups, between which there are side naves (San Marco Cathedral in Venice). The interior and exterior of temples of this type are distinguished by their special plastic beauty.
HAINTY SOPHIA(532–537) - a grandiose patriarchal temple in Constantinople, the main temple in the Byzantine Empire. The uniqueness of this huge building is that it is a domed basilica of three naves, built in just six years. The idea of building the main temple in honor of St. Sophia in Constantinople belonged to Emperor Constantine the Great (c. 285–337), under whom a small temple was built, which was destroyed by fire in 532. By order of Emperor Justinian I (482/83–565), construction began a new temple in honor of St. Sophia. The builders of the temple were the Asia Minor architects Anthimius of Thrall and Isidore of Miletus, who created a cathedral of grandiose proportions.
The compositional basis of the temple is based on the plan of a three-nave basilica in combination with the type of centric building. The centric origin of the cathedral dominates, creating the impression that its dome is floating in space. The design of St. Sophia is based on precise calculation; the architects of the temple invented a system of semi-domes connecting the main dome with the base of the basilica. This system includes two half-domes and five small domes. Initially, six small semi-domes were planned, but one of them was replaced by a barrel vault over the main entrance to central part interior from the narthex (narthex). This highlighted the main entrance portal and two smaller portals on its sides.
Four powerful central pillars supporting the dome divide the internal space into three naves, among which the central one dominates, with the middle part under the dome dominating it. The middle part of the central nave is covered with a grandiose dome (diameter 31.5 m, height 65 m). The cathedral used a new system for connecting the dome with the square space it overlaps. The structural system transferred the load of the dome thrust to light sails (concave spherical triangles), with the help of which the transition from the circle of the dome to the square of the nave was carried out, to wide girth arches and four massive pillars, reinforced on the outside with buttresses. From the west and east, the dome is supported by two semi-domes, which, in turn, rest on the vaults of smaller exedra, which are adjacent in threes on both sides and give the illusion of lightness. The central space with a dome is surrounded by a two-story bypass gallery of the side naves and narthex. The side naves are a suite of arched openings covered with cross vaults.
St. Sophia was built of brick with cut stone linings, the massive dome pillars were made of large limestone blocks. The arches under the dome are made of very large square bricks with a side of 70 cm. The dome is made of bricks on thick layers of mortar. But the weight of the walls and pillars in the temple is not felt; its forms look weightless. The central space of the interior, growing towards the dome, is light and airy. In the temple with its grandiose dimensions (area - 75.5 × 70 m), one gets the impression of a single space, flooded from all sides with light, inside which the masses of the walls seem to disappear, the supporting pillars merge with them. Two floors of columns and upper windows give the walls a light, openwork appearance. The dome pillars are disguised with colored marble slabs, light, polished, capable of reflecting light. Their mirror surfaces hide the weight of the supports, all the walls of the temple are perceived as thin partitions, and the outer ones look delicate due to the large number of windows. Inside the cathedral, the lower parts of the walls were covered with carved blue-green and pink marble. The dome of the temple, altar apse, vaults, walls were covered with mosaic sacred images, and there were fresco paintings in the upper galleries of the temple. According to contemporaries, the dome was decorated with a mosaic depicting the face of Christ Pantocrator. Mosaics are characterized by conventional representation, static poses, and elongated proportions of figures. To decorate the Church of St. Sophia, huge malachite and porphyry columns (more than 100) were brought from Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt. The ancient order was transformed: the horizontal entablature was replaced by arcades, the remains of the entablature formed an impost above the capital.
Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople- destroyed in 1461. A number of shrines and treasures of the temple, stolen during the Fourth Crusade (1204), are kept in the Basilica of St. Markav of Venice (Italy).
The original basilica building was built around 330 by Constantine the Great as the main temple of the new capital of Constantinople, completed by his son Constantius II, who placed the coffin of his father in it, thus beginning the tradition of burial in the temple for the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire.
With the completion of the construction of the Cathedral of St. Sofia, the first Church of the Apostles found itself in the shadow of this grandiose structure. To rectify the situation, Emperor Justinian instructed Isidore of Miletus to build a new temple on the site of the Constantine Basilica, designed to become the tomb of the entire imperial family. It was consecrated on June 28, 550 and remained the second most important temple of Byzantium for seven hundred years.
From an architectural point of view, Justinian's Church of the Apostles is very unusual - it was a five-domed temple and, apparently, the prototype of all multi-domed Orthodox churches that became widespread, in particular in Russia.
Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe- a monument of early Byzantine art in Ravenna. The basilica was built in the second quarter of the 6th century. Decorated with the latest of the Ravenna mosaics of the Justinian period, preserved in the apse conch.
It is built of thin baked brick (48 x 4 cm), fastened with mortar, the white stripes of which reach a thickness of 4 cm. The facade is decorated with Lombard arcature: small double arches are located between the flat pilasters. Light enters the building through the high semicircular windows of the facade and numerous windows of the central and side naves. The central nave is completed by a pentagonal apse with five windows. The dimensions of the basilica are 55.58 by 30.3 meters. The interior space is divided into three naves. The central nave is framed by a colonnade of 12 columns in each row. They are mounted on square bases and topped with composite capitals of Byzantine workmanship with flowing tracery leaves in the shape of butterflies. On the floor of the basilica, in its northeast and southwest corners, fragments of the original mosaic floor are preserved. Attached to the basilica is a cylindrical bell tower with a height of 37.5 meters and a diameter of 6.17 meters.
During the 6th-9th centuries, the mosaic decoration of the basilica was created. The basilica is decorated with the latest of the Ravenna mosaics from the Justinian period (mid-6th century), preserved in its apse. Other mosaics were created in the second half of the 7th and 9th centuries. In the post-Justinian era, a tendency appeared for the frontal depiction of figures, in which there was a refusal to convey any movements and turns. The mosaics of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, like the Basilica of San Vitale, do not represent the events of sacred history in their historical sequence, they aim to illustrate the dogmatic teaching of the Church, revealed through the symbolism of the Holy Scriptures. Despite the use of colored glass, smalt, gold and semi-precious stones, marble was used for faces and light-colored clothing, resulting in flatter shapes. In the central nave of the basilica, on a raised platform, there is a large altar dedicated to the Virgin Mary, it was created in the 11th century using materials from the altar of the 6th century.
Between the windows of the apse there are mosaic portraits of the bishops of Ravenna; they are depicted in identical clothes, holding the Gospel in their hands. Each figure is placed in a small arch with snow-white curtains. There are two large mosaics on the side walls.
Basilica of San Vitale- early Christian basilica in Ravenna, the most important monument of Byzantine art in Western Europe. The basilica was founded in 527 by the Bishop of Ravenna, Ecclesius, after his return from Byzantium. In the 13th century, a bell tower was added to the southern wall of the church and the wooden ceilings of the arcades were reconstructed. A large-scale reconstruction of the temple was carried out in the 16th century: in order to combat rising groundwater, the floor level was raised by 80 cm, the presbytery was updated, and removed.
The basilica was built in the form of an octagonal martyrium of the Byzantine type. The outer walls do not have any decorative elements and are divided by vertical and horizontal buttresses. The building is topped with a faceted drum dome. The architecture of San Vitale combines elements of classical Roman architecture (dome, portals, stepped towers) with Byzantine influences (three-lobed apse, narrow brick shape, trapezoidal capitals, pulvan, etc.). The bottom of the interior walls of the basilica is lined with marble, and the inlaid floor of the temple is decorated with geometric patterns. The structure of the building is supported by eight central pillars, which support a dome with a diameter of 16 meters. To reduce lateral pressure, the dome is given a conical shape. The dome was built from lightweight material. The supporting pillars form a rotunda in the center of the temple, on the second tier of which there are choirs. The interior of the church seems to be flooded with light, and the surrounding galleries are artificially immersed in a mystical twilight, which immediately draws the attention of those entering to the mosaics of the apse.
The main space of the basilica is decorated with marble inlay, and the concave surfaces of the apse (arcades, vaults, conch) and walls (vima) of the presbytery are covered with Byzantine mosaics. The mosaics of San Vitale were intended to demonstrate to the Western world the power and impeccable taste of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian during the short reign of the Byzantines in Italy. The mosaics of San Vitale are a rare example for Europe of early Christian monumental painting created using the Byzantine mosaic technique. Of particular importance are the lifetime portraits of Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora. Using mosaics, the masters were able to emphasize the architectural elements of the basilica, emphasizing the symbolic connection between the structural element and the image applied to it.
In the side galleries there are several early Christian sarcophagi.
The conch is decorated with a mosaic depicting Jesus Christ in the form of a young man with a cross-shaped halo, sitting on an azure celestial sphere, surrounded by two angels. Christ in one hand holds a scroll sealed with seven seals, and with the other he holds out the martyr’s crown of glory to Saint Vitaly, who is led to him by an angel. The second angel introduces Bishop Ecclesius of Ravenna to Jesus, presenting a model of the Basilica of San Vitale, which he founded, as a gift. The four rivers of Eden flow from under the feet of Jesus over rocky soil covered with lilies. The mosaic of the conch is one of the most delicate in execution, distinguished by its emphatically symmetrical composition and solemn character. At the same time, the mosaics of the apse also reveal the typically Byzantine immobility of the figures, all the characters are depicted full-face, standing. Even the participants in the two processions seemed to stop for a moment to show themselves in a stationary position to allow the viewer to admire their persons.
On the side walls of the apse, on either side of the windows, there are mosaic portraits depicting Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, surrounded by nobles, court ladies and clergy. These are historical portraits created by the best Ravenna masters based on capital samples. The images, executed as a frieze, are distinguished by their frontal composition and uniformity of poses and gestures. At the same time, the masters were able to depict the imperial family with individual facial features in the image of ideal rulers, and the composition itself conveys the movement of two processions towards the altar.
Justinian I
Emperor Justinian brings a paten as a gift to the church and is depicted, like all other figures, in a frontal pose. His head, crowned with a diadem, is surrounded by a halo, reflecting the Byzantine tradition of marking a reigning person in this way.
Justinian is flanked by courtiers and clergy. Among them are: old man in the clothes of a senator (the only one standing in the second row, according to one version, this is the moneylender Julian Argentarius, who financed the construction of the basilica, according to another, the commander Belisarius, according to the third, praefectus praetorio (praetorian prefect) - executive, representing the person of the emperor on the day of the consecration of the temple), Bishop Maximian with a cross in his hand and two deacons (one holding the Gospel, and the other a censer). In this mosaic, Justinian and Maximian are depicted as authoritarian representatives of secular and ecclesiastical authority, so their figures occupy
The arch framing the apse conch was called triumphal due to its rich mosaic decoration. It is decorated with a mosaic depicting seven pairs of cornucopias surrounded by flowers and birds. Near the upper pair of horns are images of imperial eagles, and between them is the monogram of Jesus Christ. The outer side of the arch, facing the presbytery, is decorated with the image of two angels raising a medallion with a cross. They are depicted between two centers of Christian pilgrimage - Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Monastery of St. Catherine- one of the oldest continuously operating Christian monasteries in the world. Founded in the 4th century in the center of the Sinai Peninsula at the foot of Mount Sinai. The fortified building of the monastery was built by order of Emperor Justinian in the 6th century. The emperor ordered the construction of powerful fortress walls that surrounded the previous buildings of St. Helena, and a church that has survived to this day, and also sent soldiers to Sinai to protect the monks. Since the 11th century, in connection with the spread of veneration of St. Catherine, whose relics were found by Sinai monks in the middle of the 6th century, the monastery received a new name - St. Catherine's Monastery.
For the modern observer, the problems of iconoclasm turned out to be so impenetrable and the very fact that for a whole century there was a struggle not to the death, but to the death over questions of religious cult, turned out to be so incomprehensible that, contrary to all the evidence of the sources, iconoclasm was interpreted as a social reformist movement.
Where source materials contradicted this interpretation, they were rejected with utter contempt.
Where there were no necessary elements for this design, they were invented.
G.A. Ostrogorsky
The idea of the state and the image of the Church yesterday and today
The first duty of historical and legal science is to find out, reveal and understand the facts and circumstances of events of long-gone centuries. In order to know which socio-political structures are optimal, ideal, or even the only possible, you need to know about the bitter experience of previous generations and the merits of ancient recipes. Alas, we must admit that this natural requirement is often ignored to the detriment of opportunistic political correctness, which has recently become almost the dominant principle of modern “science.” The law of the scientific genre requires the researcher get used to the era being studied, for a while to become someone whose life has become the object of his own scientific study, to breathe the air of those hoary centuries - and not be puzzled only by being considered a “modern” scientist, equidistant both from the eras described and, in reality, from real science.
Today, legal scholars declare without any embarrassment that there is no single scientific definition of the state, and everyone is inclined to identify it with the administrative apparatus, that is, the bureaucracy. Of course, in the minds of the masses, the state immediately acquires the tyrannical features of a coercive body, which the “free individual” is called upon to fight. The state itself is recognized mechanical a union of a certain number of people, regardless of language, culture and nationality, united by just a single authority and law. At the same time, they argue that power is a phenomenon derived from the state, and it is bad like any force directed against a person. And the law is from the people, and it is good because it ensures their rights. This is how people think (schematically, of course) in our time, but it was not like this before.
For ancient man, the state was organic union, was a politically organized fatherland, a polis or res publica, and it itself, by virtue of its natural causes considered himself an organ of the state, to which he was completely subordinate in everyday life. It was obvious to the contemporaries of Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) that the power that governs the state was created pre-eternally. She is not a natural evil, but law of the universe. Power exists in different forms and is realized in various forms, forming the core of the social hierarchy. Power permeates everything human society, and the barbarian world knows power - however, in the lower forms of its manifestation, since it is not secured by law and does not form a state. Even the first Christians, persecuted by political power, were convinced that the state was by its nature a divine institution. And those who disobey him - even for the best reasons - must still bear the legal punishment for disobedience.
This organic feature of the ancient worldview was preserved even when, over time, the ancient state was transformed into its highest form - an empire. This change was especially evident in the example of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. It goes without saying that the policy system had changed radically by that time. From now on and forever, the form of human participation in governing one’s own fatherland has taken on mainly indirect features: through representative bodies of power, spontaneous or pre-legalized plebiscites, etc. But even in this case, the understanding of the state was based on ideas very precisely voiced by one Soviet song: “I, you, he, she - together the whole country" Of course, the process of transforming a polis into an empire was accompanied by a counter-process of atomic decomposition - these two phenomena have inevitably accompanied human society from time immemorial. The good old Roman municipal government was failing, and the ethnically diverse provinces were restless and periodically rebelled against Rome. And the barbarians who settled in the imperial territories, of course, were far from recognizing Byzantium as their homeland, of which they should become a part. But here the Catholic Church providentially came to the aid of the ancient Roman statehood.
The Church, by its divine nature, organically unites the entire human race created by our Savior, and its natural state is a sign of catholicity, universality. Church life knows its hierarchy, affecting not only people, but also heavenly powers, and every a Christian has his ministry depending on his sacred, social or political status. And, therefore, always in one form or another complicit in the management of church life. There are duties performed in the Church purely by the priesthood, but even within the priesthood these powers often differ significantly. For example, the consecration of a priest can only be performed by a bishop, and his competence includes the church court and some individual rites. However, the service of a layman is irreplaceable by anyone. It is rightly said that without a bishop there is no Church. But she doesn’t exist even without a flock. And this state of affairs is eternal and unchanged until the end of the century.
The merger of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, and even at a time when the participation of the population in the affairs of the state was not forgotten, gave new impetus to the renaissance of the old organic understanding of this political union. And although many direct forms of direct democracy were no longer possible, the idea of the state successfully overcame the crisis of atomic decomposition and retained its integrity. This went on for almost two millennia, and only in the 20th century did the “modern” definition of the highest political union begin to take over.
Of course, this ideological transition did not occur instantly, and even at that time in the works of writers of a liberal orientation one can find reflections of the old organic understanding of the state. However, the 20th century, as mentioned above, was less sentimental in this regard. And there is no doubt that the current and ancient understanding of the state radically are different. Therefore, any attempts to think of Byzantium by the standards of modern liberals from science are the same thankless task as describing the snows of Yakutia in the language of an Ethiopian. In turn, according to one subtle remark, “the concept of democracy, which so inspires the modern world, would have horrified the Byzantines.”
To a certain extent, this is the inevitable result of the tragic “evolution” that the Eastern Church went through during the times of religious genocide, when the Roman Empire perished and finally fell, and the communist repressions of the 20th century. But does this mean that this state of affairs is natural for the Church? The question is, of course, rhetorical. The practice of “modern” church-state life spans at most several centuries, which are far from being similar even to each other in different periods. And behind the organic church life there are millennia.
In accordance with the laic worldview of the modern era, it has become a rule of good form to contrast the Church with the state and vice versa. But in those distant times, when the Church embraced the entire human society, when the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church represented whole, it was not surprising that both emperors and secular officials bore especially responsible obediences in the form of church bodies. In the same way, since the time of the Emperor Saint Constantine Equal to the Apostles (306-337), priests were often endowed with political powers to carry out the instructions of the king, that is, they became bodies of state power. The phenomenon of “symphonic” Byzantium lies precisely in the fact that it was a “Church-empire”.
If the Church and the Christian empire are ideally one, then what does it matter what is the name of a government body responsible for maintaining justice and order in an Orthodox society-state? Of course, the priesthood did not carry out military service and did not hold a sword in their hands - there is a direct canonical prohibition on this matter - and the emperors did not serve the liturgy. But with a few (albeit significant) exceptions, there were no strict boundaries on the distribution of powers between the priesthood and the bureaucracy. To delimit their competence the term is more appropriate "specialization", based, of course, not only on the conjuncture of specific conditions, but also on the differences in the natures of political and priestly authorities.
This difference was maximally reflected in the personality of the emperor - the bearer of sacred prerogatives given to him directly by Christ, the supreme ruler of the Byzantine state and the head of church administration, resolving church disputes and eliminating political unrest, a single ruler, whose power was recognized by all church departments without exception. He was a living, concrete and animated image (in the spirit of the Chalcedonian Oros) of the indivisible and unmerged Roman Empire-Catholic Church.
Of course, we know from history that even in those blessed times there were often disagreements, often resolved by Ecumenical Councils, when parties arose that held radically different points of view on controversial dogmas of faith. Today, in the specialized literature, these parties are unreasonably and arbitrarily called “church parties,” although they have always included clergy, high dignitaries, and ordinary people in their composition. To believe that one party was purely “clerical” and the other “state” is completely wrong.
And always, without exception, the party that found itself in the minority - regardless of whether its point of view was subsequently adopted by the Catholic Church or recognized as heretical - felt the full brunt of persecution. And not only from the side of the supreme power, but also from the clergy - as state criminals and heretics, since unbelief was recognized as a criminal offense in Byzantium. In this regard, any lamentations that the Church was persecuted by kings during certain periods of its “imperial” existence represent a textbook example of a distorted logical syllogism.
Conscious The ancient Church did not know the heresiarchs who had as their goal to split her body. There were supporters of different points of view, and they quite naturally turned to the highest bodies of the Church-empire - the emperor, the patriarchs, the Councils - in order to ensure their position received imperial and churchwide recognition and refute the opinions of their opponents. As for ways to achieve the goal, then in this respect both Orthodox and heretics, as a rule, rarely differed from each other. And, alas, the methods by which the truth was sometimes defended are not always an example of Christian humility and love of philosophy. It is enough to recall the circumstances surrounding the holding of the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431 and its ideological antipode, the “Robber Council” in 449, to illustrate what has been said.
Milestones of Iconoclasm
Perhaps most textbook (in the worst sense of the word) such a “modern” approach to the study of past events is used in the study of one of the most tragic and confusing pages in the history of the Catholic Church - the era of Byzantine iconoclasm, the main idea of which was the refusal to one degree or another and various motives from the worship of holy icons. Let us briefly recall the main stages in the development of this crisis.In 730 (according to other sources - in 726), the Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) issued an edict banning the veneration of icons. The first victims of the state’s new religious policy were several dozen ordinary people who died in Halki Square in Constantinople after they, having killed an officer who was knocking down the image of Christ, clashed with soldiers. If this event did not cause any particular negative reaction in the East, then in the West it was perceived quite differently. True, Rome remained completely indifferent to the theological attempts of the Byzantines to reveal the mystical nature of holy images, but held the firm conviction that icons are indispensable for propaedeutic purposes, so that ordinary Christians could clearly understand the characters and events of Holy Scripture. Of course, the exclusion of icons from church life went against the beliefs of the Roman Curia. And Pope Gregory II (715-731) immediately opposed the policy of the Eastern Church, writing several angry letters to the emperor, where denunciations were interspersed with not entirely correct expressions addressed to the royal person.
Faced with an unexpected front, the basileus proposed convening Ecumenical Council to clarify the controversial issue, but the pontiff did not support it. “You wrote that an Ecumenical Council should be convened; we thought it was useless. Imagine that we listened to you, the bishops gathered from all over the Universe, that the synclite and council are already seated. But where is the Christ-loving and pious emperor, who, as usual, should sit in the council and honor those who speak well, and persecute those who move away from the truth - when you yourself, the emperor, are a fickle and barbarian person? .
The pontiff's reaction is puzzling. As a rule, when dubious teachings appeared that worried the Church, the emperors initiated the convening of the next Ecumenical Council, and the popes usually did not refuse them. And suddenly such an unexpected answer. Meanwhile, this begs the question: if Pope Gregory II had agreed with the proposal of Emperor Leo III and the VII Ecumenical Council would have been assembled not in 787, but half a century earlier, would there really be a concurring voice? of the entire Universal Church would not have been able to overcome dogmatic differences in conditions when politics had not yet played a decisive role in this conflict? Or, at least, set the right direction for the theological search? After all, as you know, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem throughout the entire era of iconoclasm stood in the position of venerating holy icons. However, all this should be attributed to the realm of subjunctive assumptions.
Relations between Constantinople and Rome sharply deteriorated during the pontificate of the next apostle Gregory III (731-741). To strengthen his position, the new pope convened a Council of 93 Italian bishops in Rome on November 1, 731, which anathematized the iconoclasts. Although the emperor personally was not excommunicated from the Church, the mere fact of convening a Council without the permission of Basileus and anathematism against everyone Iconoclasts meant a refusal to recognize the authority of the Byzantine king.
Wanting to arrest and punish the rebellious pope, the basileus sent two ships to the shores of Italy, but he was saved by a storm that scattered and sank the Byzantine ships. But the threat from the Lombards, whom the pope had called for help from the Byzantine troops a little earlier, flashed again. Now the saviors of the pontiff themselves began to look at Rome. Desperate to get soldiers and money from Constantinople, the pope turned to the Franks for help. He not only wrote a letter full of humiliation to their majordomo (manager of the king’s affairs) Charles Martell (714-741), but also recognized him your lord, handing over the keys of the Apostle Peter to the leader of the Franks and endowing him with the status of a Roman patrician.
Surprised by such an unexpected proposal, Martell remained silent, without outwardly reacting to the letter from Rome. And then the pope found temporary allies in Italy itself in the person of the Dukes of Spoleto and Benevento, secretly promising them, in return for military assistance, support in their quest to get out of the power of the Lombard king. In dire need of money, he, citing the heresy of Constantinople and the illegitimacy of the royal power, refused to pay taxes and taxes from Rome and all of Italy to the Byzantine emperor. This was an open break, and in response, the basileus, by his decree, reassigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople the metropolises of Epirus, Dacia, Illyria, Thessaly, and Macedonia, which had previously been under the omophorion of the pontiff. This decision, as we know now, predetermined the historical portrait of the Balkans for the next millennium.
This was a severe blow to the power of the Bishop of Rome, although it was explained not only by the front and insolence of the pontiff. Leo III the Isaurian was far from the idea of forcibly spreading iconoclasm throughout the entire empire. He simply acted in accordance with his concept of government. The Emperor by that time had no other way of controlling Italy except from the unreliable Ravenna, where his exarch was stationed. But the territories indicated above were provinces of the empire, and it was quite justified to extend the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the lands where the power of the emperor still had a strong position.
After the death of the emperor and the pope, the intensity of passions subsided somewhat and the ban on icon veneration was frankly nominal. But, having dealt with the contenders for the royal throne and the Bulgarians, the son of the late Leo III, Emperor Constantine V the Isaurian (741-775), resumed the persecution of adherents of holy icons. Of course, the new wave of iconoclasm was not born out of nowhere and was brought to life not only by religious motives. Constantine V was greatly impressed by the fact that the usurpation of Artavazd, who captured Constantinople from 741 to 743 under a living and legitimate emperor, took place under the banner of icon veneration. And, perhaps, to an even greater extent, the support provided to the usurper by Pope Zacharias (741-752), who recognized him as the legitimate Roman king and simply not noticing Constantine V. Finally, the third circumstance finally strengthened the king in his iconoclasm - a conspiracy in 765 against him by his closest and most trusted dignitaries, who put up their banner for the restoration of icon veneration. From now on, the basileus became an irreconcilable fighter against icons.
Meanwhile, the Western Church still did not accept iconoclasm and was increasingly inclined towards an alliance with the Franks, which gradually developed into political dependence popes from their king and predicted the coming fall of Italy from Byzantium. Of course, this did not go unnoticed in Constantinople, where it was not unreasonably believed that the only moral support for admirers of icons in the East was the Roman Curia. The church schism obviously undermined the authority of the basileus and the political authorities in general, as well as the Byzantine hierarchy, since for the most part they were on the side of the iconoclasts. But the apostle was supported by Eastern monasticism, popular in popular circles, although not everyone: in this environment there were many ardent supporters of the new dogmas. Having encountered resistance from some of the monastics, Constantine V subjected them to persecution as state criminals. However, the severity of the persecution, as is usually the case, was largely predetermined by the personal qualities of the provincial rulers, who differed in their attitude towards icons, rather than by directives from the Byzantine capital.
In defiance of Pope Stephen II (752-757), who crowned Pepin (747-768) to the Frankish kingdom, bypassing the legal heir to the throne and concluding a political agreement with him, without even informing Constantinople about it, Constantine V convened in 754 year Council in Hieria of 330 eastern bishops, anathematizing the icon-venerators. The emperor himself actively studied the controversial issue for several years and developed a rather original Christological argument. He, like the icon-worshipers, considered it impossible to depict God, the Divine nature and the Divine essence. According to the Tsar, the depiction of both human and Divine nature on the icon is Monophysitism, merger two natures in Christ. If admirers of icons do not pretend to merge two natures by depicting the two natures of the God-Man on icons, then, consequently, they inevitably fall into Nestorianism. After all, it is obvious to everyone, Constantine V believed, that in this case they share two natures of the Savior, and this is precisely the distinctive feature of Nestorianism.
The chairman of the iconoclastic Council was Metropolitan Theodosius of Ephesus, the son of the former Byzantine emperor Tiberius III (698-705). He was actively assisted by the Metropolitan of Antioch of Pisidia, Basil Tricocaus, and the Metropolitan of Perga of Pamphylia, Sisinius Pastilla. The definitions of this church meeting are not without theological interest. In particular, its participants decided following rules:
- “Painting icons of the Mother of God and saints using base Hellenic art seems offensive. The image is a product of paganism and denial resurrection of the dead»;
- “The use of icons is prohibited in Holy Scripture”;
- “Every icon made from all kinds of substances and painted with paints using the criminal craft of painters must be rejected.”
“If anyone plans to represent the Divine image of God the Word as incarnate, through material colors, instead of wholeheartedly worshiping Him with mental eyes, above the radiance of the sun, at the right hand of God in the highest, sitting on the throne of glory, let him be anathema.”
And one more canon, extremely interesting in the context of accusations against the emperors: “At the same time, we decree that none of the primates of the Churches should dare, under the pretext of removing icons, to lay their hands on objects dedicated to God, on which there are sacred images. Whoever wishes to remake them should not dare without the knowledge of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the permission of the emperors. Let no one, under this pretext, lay hands on the temples of God and take them captive, as happened before from some outrageous people.”
It is quite obvious that this rule is directed against extreme iconoclasts who did not hesitate to lay hands on church property. It is also clear that the basileus, who personally organized the Council, was directly related to the authorship of this canon.
Generally speaking, the Council of 754 was not purely heretical. Strictly speaking, he only condemned idolatry, and not the veneration of icons itself. The 2nd canon of the Council prohibited depicting the Divinity of Christ, but none of the true admirers of icons attempted such sacrilege. They only depicted His image in which the Savior revealed Himself to the world, that is, human image of God. The main mistake of the Council was that, finding idolatry harmful, it banned icons altogether.
If the tsar had previously had doubts about his own theological position, now he was convinced that he was right and, with his characteristic energy, set about implementing the conciliar decisions regarding the ban on icons. Like many Byzantine emperors, Constantine V perceived the decision of any Council, especially one claiming the status of “ecumenical”, as infallible voice of the Church- an illusion that has failed overly gullible kings more than once.
At the same time, it should be noted that the iconoclast emperor went much further than the members of the Council he convened were ready to go. Unfortunately, over time, Monophysite tendencies began to appear more and more in the theology of Constantine V, which the Council in every possible way eliminated from the official iconoclastic teaching it declared. This circumstance was aggravated by the determination and strong character of the king. Therefore, after the Council and the offering everyone The Byzantines swore on the Holy Gospel that they would never worship “idols”; the number of victims numbered in the thousands. Devotees of holy icons were deposed, tortured, sent into exile, and monks were expelled from their monasteries. There were also cases of their killing by a crowd of angry iconoclasts, such as St. Stephen the New. In those years, many admirers of holy icons sought and found salvation in Italy, where the Bishop of Rome organized shelter for them.
The subsequent period - from the death of Constantine V to 787 - is characterized by a hidden confrontation between representatives of both parties, who actively tried to win over the royal power. Finally, convened by the order of the Empress Saint Irene (797-802) and her son Constantine VI (780-797), the VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea dealt a heavy blow to iconoclasm, but did not destroy it. It should be noted that this Council, at which the papal legates shone in an aura of glory, became another success of the Roman see, which earned many praises from the invited bishops and monks, as well as from the empress and her royal son.
But after the overthrow of Saint Irene from the royal throne, under Emperor Nikephoros I (802-811), a careful restoration of iconoclasm began, restrained by the royal power. The iconoclasts practically restored their positions at court, in the highest echelons of power and in the episcopate. However, wanting to equalize the chances of the opposing parties and stay away from the conflict, the basileus demonstratively appointed an obvious icon-venerator and his secretary, Saint Nikephoros (806-815), to the See of Constantinople. His strategy turned out to be the only correct one for that time.
On the contrary, the attempt of Emperor Michael I Rangawa (811-813) to solve everything with one powerful blow in favor of ecumenical definitions immediately failed. If Constantine V the Isaurian was rightly called a persecutor of iconoclasts, then Rangave during the short time of his reign was known as a persecutor of iconoclasts. Many of them, including iconoclast monks, were executed, tortured and exiled. But many bishops and dignitaries did not support the basileus, and the army categorically rejected the emperor, who overhauled the religious policy of the glorious victorious kings from the Isaurian dynasty. As a result, Emperor Michael I lost his throne, and admirers of icons lost the halo of martyrs for the faith, which the iconoclasts now began to share with them.
The hidden struggle of the parties continued, and only at the Council of 815 under Emperor Leo V the Armenian (813-820) did representatives of the iconoclastic party gain a temporary upper hand, although the edition of the council's oros was no different from the cautious definitions of the Council of 754.
During the reign of the next emperor, Michael II Travlus (820-829), the time of neutrality began. Basileus returned from exile the admirers of holy icons who had once been sent there, but categorically forbade any disputes and councils on this matter. He himself did not personally show any special affection for any of the contending parties. But, oddly enough, this emperor deserved many praises addressed to him from the Monk Theodore the Studite, who was not disappointed external Travl's reluctance to support admirers of icons.
A completely different picture arose during the reign of his son Emperor Theophilus (829-842): iconoclasm began to flourish again, sometimes it even seemed that the times of persecution of Constantine V had come. There were reasons for this: the young basileus grew up in an iconoclastic environment, and his teacher was an ideological iconoclast , future Patriarch of Constantinople John the Grammar (837-843). But there is every reason to believe that in addition to the religious aspects, the rebellion (apostasy) of the usurper Thomas the Slav, which lasted almost three years, also played a role, which also took place under the motto of restoring icon veneration. It is interesting to note that although the ranks of icon venerators grew, O the majority of Byzantine society remained loyal to the emperor; this predetermined his victory. Just as a boy, Theophilus took an active part in the hostilities and hardly became sympathetic to the rebels who almost destroyed the empire and his father.
Finally, after the death of Theophilus, the widow-empress Saint Theodora (842-856) initiated a new church council, which finally overthrew iconoclasm. This great event has been celebrated since 843 and to this day every first Sunday of Great Lent as the day of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Separate isolated groups of iconoclasts still existed in the East, but their fate was sealed. The last phenomena of this never happened powerful current we see only at the Council in Constantinople in 869-870 under Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (867-886).
However, at a time when iconoclasm was already fading away in the East, it unexpectedly arose, albeit in moderate forms, in the West. To a certain extent, this was facilitated by the dogmatic indifference of the Latins to attempts to reveal mystical creature icons as images. In addition, the political situation prevailed: the popes, often extremely rigorous and “easy” in their disdain for the Byzantine kings, were thrilled, when the Frankish kings turned a stern gaze on them. Therefore, they obediently tolerated the theological absurdities born in the heads of the Gallic (Frankish) bishops and their royal rulers, even if the dogmatic positions of the Franks ran counter to the papal point of view, as well as the conciliar definitions of the Eastern Councils recognized by the pontiffs.
Already the Frankfurt Council of 794, where the Frankish bishops gathered, was indignant at the “Greek heresy” of the VII Ecumenical Council of 787. A little later, several authoritative Gallic bishops openly opposed the veneration of icons. And the Bishop of Turin Claudius, an ethnic Spaniard, whom the Frankish king Louis the Pious himself (814-840) appointed to the episcopal see, declared himself an enemy of the cross and holy relics, which even extreme iconophobes in Constantinople did not reach. The error of the Frankish bishops was so strong that in 825, at the Council of Paris, the worship of icons was again rejected, and a copy of the council’s definition was sent to the Pope as a direct reproach to him regarding the pontiff’s recognition of the VII Ecumenical Council.
An extremely unpleasant situation arose for Rome, which the popes tried to resolve at several Western Councils. By agreeing with the dubious theological prescriptions of the Franks, they undermined their authority in the East as the infallible and first see of the Catholic Church. But it was also more expensive to oppose the Franks: in those decades, the popes were entirely dependent on them. Teachings of Bishop Claudius in soft terms was recognized as an extreme, and in 863, under Pope Nicholas I (858-867), a Council was convened, which declared that with the help of painting a person could still rise to the contemplation of Christ.
But although the Western Church eventually accepted the VII Ecumenical Council, on the whole it remained in the moderately iconoclastic positions of the Frankfurt Council of 794. And it is no coincidence that even in the 13th century, Guillaume Durand wrote in his treatise that “the paintings and decorations in temples are the teaching and writing of the laity; we worship images as permanent memories and reminders of things done long ago." It seems that the monks John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite with a light soul and quite justifiably would condemn such a wretched understanding of the holy image.
Motives of iconoclasm and its leaders
 |
But the question is, why did the emperor rebel against the Church, destroying the “symphonic” unity that had developed over centuries? In order to extend their power to the Church and deprive it of its material base, at the same time sharply weakening monasticism, from among which came the most irreconcilable opponents of the ideology of “Caesaropopapism,” so beloved by the tsarist authorities. In general, iconoclasm is often seen as a failed attempt by the state to subjugate the Church.
Let's turn, however, to the facts. Indeed, much is known about the close contacts of Emperor Leo III with the Khazars, among whom Jewish preachers actively carried out missionary work. Shortly before their collapse in 969, when the Russian prince Svyatoslav (942-972) erased this people into the dust of history, the Khazars even recognized Judaism as their state religion. But the spread, and by no means total, of Judaism among the Khazars occurred during the reign of their kagan Obadiah, who lived half a century later. Attributing Leo III the Isaurian to the “Judaizers,” historians forgot to ask the basileus himself about his attitude towards representatives of this religion. Meanwhile, he did not at all favor them and, in particular, in 732 he ordered forcibly baptize Jews throughout the empire.
The hypothesis about the Muslim influence on iconoclasm is also not credible. It is well known that Islam is not only intolerant of sacred paintings, but also denies any images of people and living creatures. In addition, Muslim aniconism (a cult that categorically denied the possibility of using a deity as a central symbol and allowed only an aniconic image or “sacred emptiness”) had not yet been formulated in its final form and could not become the ideological basis of Byzantine iconoclasm.
Passion for Arab culture (but nothing more) became fashionable in Byzantine society much later, already under Emperor Theophilos, whose role model was the legendary Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). And a century earlier, Leo III and Constantine V presented the image of undaunted fighters against the Arabs, giving no reason to reproach them for Islamophilism. Thus, the aniconism of Muslims and the iconoclasm of Leo III can hardly be linked together according to the law of cause and effect. Let us also remember that for Muslims the Christian cross is as hateful as icons, but never During the entire period of iconoclasm, the question of abandoning the cross and its image did not arise at all in Byzantium.
They often talk about the influence on iconoclasm of Christian sects, which existed in large numbers in Asia Minor, where the emperor himself was from. Indeed, some extreme Monophysites and Paulicians - a strong and numerous sect that eventually moved to Bulgaria - do not accept the cult of icons. Perhaps their ideological influence on some of the “early” iconoclasts could indeed have taken place. But it should be remembered that both the Monophysites and the Paulicians belonged to outcasts circles of Byzantine society as heretics and state criminals. Of course, while hiding their affiliation with the sect, some of their representatives occupied high positions. However, in general, the influence of these renegades could hardly be large-scale and deep on the iconoclasts who were part of the political elite of the Byzantine Empire.
Of course, those explanations for the emergence of iconoclasm that place the motive of secularization of church property by emperors at the forefront do not stand up to any criticism. Attempts partially to limit the right of the Church to acquire land and to stop numerous abuses arising in the usual practice of commercial transactions were undertaken even under the emperor Saint Mauritius (582-602). Leo III the Isaurian only consistently developed his thoughts in Chapter 4 of Title XII of his famous Eclogue. In particular, the tsar decreed that if the Church does not need one or another plot of land she cannot alienate it into private hands, but is obliged to transfer it to the state treasury. However it was the only thing restriction in relation to the Church, and it did not apply to monastic property at all. The confiscation of monastic lands from monasteries disobedient to the royal will took place in exceptional cases and was not framed in any ideological veil. In addition, a significant part of the monastic possessions in Asia Minor and the Balkans were located in war-torn areas. The Byzantine government did not know what to do with vast uncultivated wastelands, and he clearly had no time to increase them through the massive confiscation of monastic landholdings.
Another hypothesis of the initial confrontation between the iconoclasts and the monasteries looks much more logical. As you know, monasteries traditionally housed magnificent collections of icons and other ancient relics that came under condemnation. Pilgrimages to holy icons, many of which were reputed to be miraculous, have been known since ancient times, and therefore these sacred objects served as one of the main sources of income for the monasteries. Of course, the monks reacted sharply to the emperor’s innovations, believing that in this way he was destroying the monasteries. Of course, the mercantile motive was hardly decisive in subsequent years. But, apparently, he played far from a minor role in the first stage of this ideological struggle, when the parties, instead of dogmatic convictions, were often guided by completely practical considerations.
It is impossible not to mention the fact that Byzantine monasticism was far from a homogeneous environment. In addition to the brilliant ascetics of the faith and hermits, stylites and ascetics, outstanding theologians and popularly revered spiritual fathers, the monastic community often included people with dubious qualities. Already at the “Robber Council” of 449 in Ephesus, the Eastern monks (Constantinople and Syrian), led by their leader Barsuma, committed the most brutal crimes, beat the Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Flavian (447-449) half to death with clubs and terrified the rest of the participants in this shameful meeting.
Morals in the monastic community sometimes fell so low that many venerable church assemblies had to adopt special rules dedicated to describing and eradicating abuses in monastic communities. This is how, for example, 24, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47th canons of the Trullo (V-VI) Ecumenical Council of 691 appeared, as well as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- th canons of the “Twice” Council in Constantinople in 861. Naturally, we are talking only about time close to the era we are considering.
In addition, the thesis about the “genocide” of monks by some iconoclast emperors requires some clarification. Yes, King Theophilus was known as a persecutor of monks, but let us pay attention to the following interesting detail. During his reign, the most famous and irreconcilable icon-worshipers did not suffer in any way, among whom were, among others, the closest disciples of St. Theodore the Studite: Nicholas, the future abbot of the Studite monastery, Athanasius, the future abbot of Sakkudion, St. Ignatius, the son of Emperor Michael Rangave, the future of Constantinople patriarch (846-858 and 867-877). And Saint Methodius, one of the heroes of the Council of 843, generally lived freely in the royal palace. And in the martyrology of those who suffered under Emperor Theophilus, we do not see the leaders of icon veneration - persons occupying modest positions appear, primarily ordinary monks. However, they suffered not for the worship of holy images, but for propaganda of icon veneration- the difference is more than obvious.
It may seem surprising, but among the iconoclasts we find many monks immortalized by chroniclers who made a significant contribution to the fight against icon veneration. It is reliably known, in particular, that it was the position of one famous hermit, absolutely intolerant of icons, that had a decisive influence on the religious views of Emperor Leo V the Armenian and, to a certain extent, gave rise to the second wave of iconoclasm.
It must be said that there were objective reasons for the skeptical and sometimes intolerant attitude towards icon veneration. So, for example, the eyes of enlightened contemporaries and intellectuals were often simply offended by the crude scenes of ungodly worship of icons, even their deification by ordinary Christians. Everywhere, magical, mysterious properties were prescribed to icons. The priests scraped off the paint from them and placed them in the Chalice, where they mixed them with the Holy Gifts. There were cases (and quite numerous) when persons who took monastic vows preferred to give their hair not to clergy, but rather piled it near icons. Some wealthy Christians ignored holy churches and, having created altars in their homes from icons, demanded that priests perform the sacraments on them.
It is clear that such scenes caused a response. For example, even the sister of the Emperor Saint Constantine the Great (306-337), Constance, considered it unworthy of Christ to put His images on a tree. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (5th century), who visited a diocese in Palestine, saw in the temple a curtain with the image of a man and angrily tore it, giving the material to cover the coffin of some beggar. As they say, the following words belong to him: “Put up icons for worship, and you will see that the customs of the pagans will do the rest.”
In 306, at the Council of Elvira, the 36th canon was adopted with the following content: “The placement of picturesque images in the church should be prohibited, since the object of worship and veneration has no place in churches.” In Marseilles, Bishop Seren in 598 tore down the icons in the temple, which were superstitiously revered by the flock. And the Pope, Saint Gregory I the Great (590-604), praised him for his zeal for the faith and encouraged such actions in every possible way. In the 7th century on the island of Crete, a large group of Christians came before the bishop with a demand to ban icons, since written images contradict the texts of the Old Testament. As the chronicles testify, in Constantinople itself the iconoclastic movement was so strong that back in 713, Emperor Philippicus (711-713), preoccupied with the desire to please ordinary Byzantines, almost issued a special edict banning the veneration of icons.
Even later, when many pagan abuses in icon veneration had already been dispelled, ridiculed and forgotten, the great ascetic of Orthodoxy, an irreconcilable fighter against iconoclasts, the Venerable Theodore the Studite (9th century) praised one nobleman who declared the icon of the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica godfather own son. And it is not surprising that many Christians criticized icon veneration, categorically denying icons. Error took up arms against lies, and as a result rebelled against the truth. This is how iconoclasm was born.
Qualitatively different attitude to icons, which was common in the East, undermined not only a single religious cult, but also unwittingly split the Church from within, and this threatened the security of the empire. In the conditions of the “symphonic” unity of the Church and the empire, when any religious disorder could bring negative political fruits, discrepancies in icon veneration concealed centrifugal tendencies that destroyed the Byzantine Empire and fueled separatism in the context of the continuing strong Arab threat.
Of course, such facts required a certain reaction from the Byzantine emperor as recognized by the Church as her defensor(defender) and head of church administration. In this regard, Leo III the Isaurian only continued a practice that originated during the time of the first Christian Roman kings and existed throughout the first centuries of the imperial existence of the Church. The emperors Saint Constantine I Equal to the Apostles (306-337), Constantine II (337-340), Constant I (337-350), Constantius (337-361), Saint Theodosius I the Great (379-395), Saint Theodosius acted in the same way II the Younger (408-450), Saint Marcian (450-457), Saint Leo I the Great (457-474), Justin I (518-527), Saint Justinian I the Great (527-565), Heraclius the Great (610-641 ), Constant II (641-668), Constantine IV (668-685) and Justinian II Rhinomet (685-695 and 705-711). Their works were assessed differently by their contemporaries and the Church, but one cannot help but notice that the zeal of many of them in faith was rewarded in the highest way - they were canonized. This happened before the emperors of the Isaurian dynasty, and this continued after them until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Modern researchers are usually indignant at the claims of Leo III the Isaurian in his letter to the apostle to consider his status similar to that of an bishop. True, the pope himself did not see anything reprehensible in this; he only blamed the emperor for the fact that such powers could be recognized as Orthodox basileus, and urged the emperor to take them as a role model. The Pontiff could not, of course, be surprised by such a passage, since even the king, Saint Constantine the Great, called himself "bishop of the outside". And Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus (668-685), convening the VI Ecumenical Council of 680-681, wrote to Pope Agathon (678-681): “I will sit among the bishops not as emperor, and I will not speak in the same way , as an emperor, but as one of the bishops."
Leo III the Isaurian did not come up with anything new, convening a synclite of bishops and dignitaries in order to study complaints about pagan forms of icon veneration and make a specific decision. Moreover, having pondered this step for many years before deciding to take it, the basileus came to the conviction that the issue put on the agenda was not dogmatic in nature, but related to problems ritual practice .
It would be an intolerable lie to characterize the heresy of iconoclasm as if “the whole Church” stood for the preservation of icon veneration, that is, the enlightened priesthood and monasticism, and the uneducated and rude secular authorities stood against the icons. In fact, iconoclasm arose among the clerical circles of the most educated and modern-minded people of their time, including many metropolitan bishops. They sincerely and ardently wanted to rid the Church of the superficial elements of paganism and, of course, did this by convincing the supreme authority that they were right, since no other ways to overcome heresy at that time simply existed.
Already in the 20s of the 8th century, a small but influential circle of well-educated and enlightened iconoclasts was formed in Constantinople, headed by Bishop Constantine of Nakolia, originally from Phrygia. His main assistants were Bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis, Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus and Patriarchal Syncellus (secretary) Anastasius, who later became Patriarch of Constantinople. They sincerely believed that with the destruction of the icons, numerous superstitions would disappear and the Church would regain its spiritual purity. They were supported by many military leaders, and soon the emperor was surrounded by people actively pushing him to take active actions. In their opinion, the cross , How ancient symbol Christianity, almost ideally satisfied the requirements for achieving church unity and military well-being, and therefore, there was no need for “dubious” icons.
Subsequently, the ranks of the iconoclasts were replenished with enviable consistency by clerics of the highest ranks, including patriarchs. It should be noted that six of the ten patriarchs of this era who occupied the See of Constantinople were iconoclast leaders: Anastasius (730-754), Constantine II (754-766), Niketas I (766-780), Theodotus Kasitera (815-821), Anthony I (821-837), John VII Grammar (837-841). The clerical influence on iconoclasm was especially noticeable during the period of its renaissance after the VII Ecumenical Council, when the leaders of the heresy were not kings, but, first of all, the capital’s patriarchs and other bishops. This fact, by the way, completely neutralizes any accusations by later historians of the iconoclast emperors of “Caesaropopapism” and church reformation.
And besides the patriarchs, to which camp should we include hundreds of bishops who participated in the activities of the Councils of 754 and 815, and thousands of bishops who led the Eastern Church in the era of iconoclasm, carrying out the instructions of their patriarchs, instructing the flock, blessing the “enemy of the monks” Michael Lachanodrakon - the head of the Thracian fems - and other executioners? But it was he who went on a rampage when, having driven all the monks and nuns from the nearest monasteries to Ephesus in 766, he offered them a choice: either cut their hair and get married, or be blinded and exiled to the island of Cyprus. Descending the ladder of the church hierarchy, we will have to rightfully classify tens of thousands of ordinary priests who lived in this era and their flock of millions as iconoclasts (even passive ones). If this is not the “Church,” then what concept can characterize Byzantine society during the described 120 years?
Both in the iconoclastic era, and earlier, during the period of widespread spread of the heresies of Arianism and Monothelitism, the truth was held by individual holy individuals. The words spoken at the VII Ecumenical Council by some repentant bishops will apply to the overwhelming majority of Christians of that time: “We did not tolerate violence, nor were we carried away; but, having been born in this heresy, we were raised and grown in it.” The fact of the matter is that in such eras the whole Church was ill the disease of another heresy.
On the contrary, the lists of ardent and devoted admirers of holy icons include many secular persons. First of all, the two holy empresses, personally who overthrew the iconoclastic parties and managed to curb the rebellious army. In addition to them, we should mention many high dignitaries of the imperial court, who received the crown of martyrdom for following their convictions, and tens of thousands of ordinary people who, under threat of punishment, kept icons in their homes and secretly read the messages of the Monks John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite.
Of course, the balance of power in the priestly environment and among the laity did not remain unchanged throughout the bloody century. But initially the sympathies of many were on the side of the iconoclasts. And, in that turbulent time, issuing an edict banning the veneration of icons, King Leo III the Isaurian was convinced that the bulk of the population, including the priesthood, will support him; and he was not mistaken. Only a few European themes and, of course, Rome acted as opponents.
The description of the misadventures between the Roman Curia and the iconoclast emperors should be anticipated by one general observation. Without in any way detracting from the honor of the primates of the apostolic see, who have done much to debunk errors and the triumph of Orthodoxy, it should be remembered that the popes traditionally were extremely negatively opposed to any dogmatic teachings coming from the East. For Rome, any attempt by Constantinople to invade without permission the “holy of holies” - the teaching of the Church, the guardian of which it considered the sole see of the Apostle Peter - always caused a painful reaction. Iconoclasm was no exception. Of course, the pope was even more offended by the fact that the teaching received the support of Emperor Leo III, whom he unsuccessfully tried to attract to help save Italy and the papacy itself from the Lombards. The apostle’s attitude towards innovations supported by the imperial power can be adequately expressed by the following phrase: “It would be better if they, the Byzantines, saved Italy from the barbarians, rather than mind their own business.”
This situation was not unusual for the practice of confrontation between two great departments. And if this dispute remained on a purely religious basis and continued within the borders of one state, it would be safe to say that soon, following the example of other ecumenical heresies, iconoclasm would quickly debunk itself. Alas, this time the dogmatic dispute largely crept across the borders of the Byzantine Empire, becoming hostage to political passions, betrayals and betrayals that abounded on both sides.
Political crisis and vicissitudes of iconoclasm
Unlike previous “ecumenical” heresies, which were of a purely dogmatic nature, iconoclasm almost immediately took on stable features political confrontation West and East, and theology played a far from primary role in this struggle. Neither the admirers of holy icons, nor their ideological opponents initially had any single and integral teaching on which they could rely in their debates. Only during the centuries-long confrontation did the opponents create works in which they tried to prove their point of view based on the analysis of Holy Scripture and patristic literature.This is how “Defensive words against those who condemn sacred images” appeared by the Monk John of Damascus (8th century), 13 works of Emperor Constantine V the Isaurian and the famous letter of the emperors Michael Travlus and Theophilus to the Frankish king Louis the Pious, numerous letters of the Monk Theodore the Studite (9th century), “ Refutations" of the Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Methodius, "Apologetics" in defense of the icons of the Patriarch Saint Nicephorus (806-815) and the works of the iconoclast Patriarch John of Constantinople John the Grammar, definitions of the VII Ecumenical Council and the Council of 754, not counting Western works, from which one cannot but highlight quite a few the superficial and hardly literally Orthodox works of Charlemagne (768-814), as well as the definitions of the Council of Frankfurt in 794 and the Council of Paris in 825, which approved the moderately iconoclastic position of the Carolingian Books.
This feature of the iconoclastic crisis was first clearly revealed at the VII Ecumenical Council, where it was scrupulously established that the overwhelming majority of all the arguments of the iconoclasts were deliberate or unconscious distortions of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, as well as borrowings from the works of persons already anathematized by the Church. So, for example, at the fifth meeting of this majestic (and last) Ecumenical Council, the apocryphal work “The Journey of the Holy Apostles”, which served as the basis for the definitions of the iconoclastic council of 754, was studied. It was rightly recognized as heretical. The same fate befell arguments borrowed from the writings of Eusebius Pamphilus (IV century), a brilliant historian and one of the leaders of Arianism, whose writings were favorites for iconoclasts.
One cannot help but recall the very unexpected order of the VII Ecumenical Council. Usually on ecumenical meetings First of all, they studied heretical teaching and formulated a truly Orthodox version of the dogma, and then moved on to issues of disciplinary practice and the acceptance of repentant heretics into fellowship. This time everything was exactly the opposite. Already at the first meeting, the question arose about the admission into church communion of iconoclast bishops who had been declared or recognized themselves as criminals for refusing to venerate holy icons. And only after all willing iconoclasts came forward with repentance, the time came to begin studying the essence of the dogmatic dispute.
Why, one might ask, did the political component begin to play such a significant role in a seemingly purely dogmatic dispute? Always Previously, when waves of heresy clouded church consciousness, the Roman See became that impregnable rock of Orthodoxy, on which, as during a flood, fighters against lies were saved. It often happened that one or another Byzantine emperor, misled by a mistaken church party, found only in the Roman bishops authoritative opponents who forced him to take into account a different point of view on the dogmatic subject under discussion. Rome was rightfully recognized as the place where it was possible to appeal to the decisions of local councils and even patriarchs, where everyone who considered themselves unfairly offended by the bishops or imperial authorities hurried. Saints Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Saints Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite and hundreds, hundreds of other persons turned to the Roman popes for support and a fair trial in moments of danger - “they are countless” . And usually Rome remained at the height of its position, very often keeping the Church from being carried away by erroneous theories and saving the honor of many saints and martyrs for the faith.
It is well known that the Roman bishops treated their brothers in Constantinople very strictly and without much reverence, especially after the adoption of the 28th canon on the advantages and honor of the capital see at the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451. But when the Roman Curia encountered imperial power, the parties usually kept themselves within the bounds of decency: the Byzantine kings treated papal messages addressed to them with due respect, and the pontiffs, even blaming the mistakes of the basileus, never questioned the fundamental values of the empire and imperial prerogatives . However, this time everything turned out differently.
Never before had any apostle dared to call basileus "barbarian" and under no circumstances did he deny the rights of the emperor’s already crowned son to the throne in favor of the usurper, as was the case with Constantine V and Artavazd. Even in moments of great danger, the popes did not question the principle of universalism of the empire. Not to mention the fact that, as a rule, the emperor’s proposals to convene an Ecumenical Council of the pope were also not rejected. The only early exception was the V Ecumenical Council of 553 under the emperor Saint Justinian the Great, when Pope Vigilius (537-555) publicly ignored the high assembly, daring to go against the will of the basileus. In turn, the emperors also never treated the popes as robbers, they showed them honor and in every possible way demonstrated respect for the first see of the Catholic Church. Now the usual picture of the confrontation between Rome and Constantinople has been complicated by some new significant details.
Italy objectively needed soldiers and money to repel threats from the Lombards, but Constantinople, waging a life-and-death war with the Arabs, could not help the dying remnants of the Roman Empire in the West. The Byzantine kings habitually demanded from the Roman bishops complete submission to their will, but skillfully did not notice the heart-rending cries for help from the West. Thus, even if not of their own free will, they skimped on the responsibilities of protecting from enemies All territory of the empire. In turn, the pope asked the emperor to send troops, appealing to his duties to defend Italy, but at the same time he was harsh and disrespectful, as if he were talking to his servant. Competing in pride, both sides only aggravated the split and the political position of each other. The political crisis took, in one apt expression, “the form of a dispute over icons.”
Especially bright political component The iconoclastic crisis manifested itself during the years of unexpected confrontation between Byzantium and the Frankish kingdom. When a new center of political power suddenly opened up in the West, the Roman Church hastily began to “liberate” itself from the state influence of Byzantium, separate yourself from the empire. Whether forced or not, the popes did a lot to ensure that this confrontation arose, and yesterday’s barbarians suddenly felt the courage to lay claim to the prerogatives of the Roman emperors. But, having linked their fate not with Byzantium, but with the Franks, the popes found themselves in a very ambiguous position. This was not yet very noticeable under the predecessors of the Frankish king Charlemagne (768-814), but it took on completely obvious features during his long reign.
But the situation was such that the empress, who decided to restore icon veneration, was on the brink of an abyss: a year earlier, in 786, iconoclast soldiers from the capital’s regiments almost tore apart the bishops who had gathered for the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. Out of harm's way, Saint Irene decided to move the Council to Nicaea, not without difficulty eliminating the danger of a new soldier's revolt. The only faithful assistant to the empress was her former secretary, appointed by the will of the holy queen to the see of Constantinople, Saint Tarasius (784-806), and several other ordinary bishops. In the event of another failure of the Council, the risk for her and her son, the young Emperor Constantine VI, of losing everything, including their lives, was very great. In 780, she already had to neutralize the conspiracy of the highest iconoclast dignitaries who wanted to place a certain Caesar Nicephorus on the throne. The capital's bishops also plotted several times against the Patriarch Saint Tarasius. It should be said that three years later, the army, dominated by the iconoclasts, nevertheless took revenge on Saint Irene, recognizing the only one Emperor Constantine VI, and removing her from power.
Under these conditions, the first duty of the pontiff, if, of course, he remembered the glory of the Roman see and responsibility before God, is to support the empress, her comrades and make it as easy as possible for her to solve the problem at the Council. What really happened? Forgetting about everything and wanting only to humiliate his centuries-old eastern opponent, the pope sent a message to Constantinople full of impudent and sometimes offensive hints and phrases. In it, Adrian stated that he would never wouldn't approve(?) Patriarchate of Saint Tarasius, if he had not been a faithful assistant to him and the emperors in restoring Orthodoxy. Of course, such messages did not add authority to the empress and patriarch. And, in order not to raise a scandal, these messages were read out at the VII Ecumenical Council with bills .
In the next letter, the apostle turned his arrows towards the Byzantine queen herself, to whom he cited the figure of his “spiritual co-father, Roman patrician and sovereign of the West” Charlemagne as a positive antipode.
Of course, this part of the pope's letter openly ignores the forms of addressing royalty recognized at that time. In addition, in complete oblivion, the imperial idea, to which Rome and Constantinople remained faithful for many centuries, suddenly arose alternative ruler in the person of the Frankish king Charles, for whom the pope recognized the rights to the “barbarian nations” of the West. It would seem that this phrase has nothing to do with the issue of the territorial integrity of the empire. But she should not deceive us: if many regions of Italy and all of Gaul had already been conquered by the barbarian Germans, and the pontiff recognized the rights of Charles as the legitimate ruler of these lands, then, consequently, the Frankish king is legal ruler of the West.
So, along with the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which ideally embraces All humanity, All without exception, peoples and nations, its Western counterpart suddenly appears. The subtlety of the letter was that dad gradually allowed an alternative to such sad prospects. The Roman Empire could maintain its integrity, but only if it received a more worthy sovereign. This option was most interesting for Charlemagne, who later twice proposed to Saint Irene the idea of a marriage alliance to unite the West and East within the framework of one restored Roman Empire, but with himself at the head. The allusion to the “hereticism” of the Byzantine kings served him only as a tactical weapon.
One had to be completely ignorant of Constantinople to believe that on the banks of the Bosphorus someone would seriously meet the Frankish king halfway. And, as an unexpected and unwanted consequence of the whole combination, another political force began to form in the West, which did not yet dare to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, but assumed sovereign features and included the Western Church in its influence.
This was inevitable, because although the VII Ecumenical Council took place, there was no reconciliation between the West and the East. It would be unfair to blame the Roman See for this alone. The Pope, in his own way, was absolutely right when he believed that, following the anathematization of iconoclasm and recognition of the merits of the Roman Curia, the metropolises in the Balkans that had been taken away in favor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian should be returned to it. But restitution did not happen, which, however, is also quite understandable: the Empress Saint Irene could not undermine the power of “her” patriarch, who with great difficulty maintained order in the Eastern Church and strengthened the positions of the VII Ecumenical Council. As a result, Rome saw prospects for itself exclusively in an alliance with the Franks, to whom they clung more and more strongly and whom they helped in achieving their goals.
The rejection of the papacy from the empire and the resulting alliance between Rome and the Franks further split the Church. The impudent hints and arrogance of the pope, due to extreme necessity, could still have been allowed in Constantinople (this has already happened more than once), if they did not know that the apostle was in a rather humiliated position and dependent on Charlemagne. He himself pointed the pope to his place, writing in one of his messages to Rome that the king’s job is to defend the holy Church of Christ, strengthen it and spread the Catholic faith, and the concern of the Bishop of Rome is prayer for the king. And not a word about the power prerogatives of the Apostolic See.
The Pope was indignant at Leo III the Isaurian, calling him a usurper and a heretic, and Charlemagne in 789 formed a collection of canons, choosing from a host of church rules those that he considered useful for his subjects, and published it in his own name. It is noteworthy that the king, as if nothing had happened, did not include in the collection the 6th rule of the Nicene (I Ecumenical) Council of 325 in the Latin edition, on which the Roman See usually based its exclusive powers of the highest court. And Rome again remained modestly silent.
Considering himself a major theologian, Charlemagne categorically did not accept the VII Ecumenical Council, seeing non-existent errors in its acts. In his letter, he wrote: “Immeasurable ambition and an insatiable thirst for glory have taken possession of not only kings, but also bishops in the East. In disregard of the holy and saving teaching of the apostles, breaking the commandments of the fathers, they, through their shameful and most absurd Councils they tried to introduce new beliefs that neither the Savior nor the apostles knew. These Councils desecrated the Church and rejected the teaching of the fathers, who do not command that icons be given divine veneration, but that they be used only for the decoration of churches.”
In fact, according to one fair remark, the childish Frankish theological science, which adhered mainly to the allegorical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, arrogantly and frivolously saw in the disputes the “furious mind” of Eastern theologians, although in reality it only repeated what had long been read in Constantinople and a forgotten page.
To “refute” the VII Ecumenical Council, Charles urgently convened a very representative council of the Western Church in Frankfurt, which opened in 794. It was no secret to any of the participants that the purpose of the meeting was discredit Constantinople and the doctrine formulated by the Byzantines on the worship of holy icons. Pope Adrian understood perfectly well that the VII Ecumenical Council could in no way be classified as a heretical meeting, and therefore he sent to Frankfurt the same legates who represented him in Nicaea and signed the conciliar acts and definitions on behalf of the pontiff. Perhaps the Bishop of Rome hoped that they, as living eyewitnesses of those events, would be able to open the eyes of the Frankish bishops to the truth.
But it happened differently. Charlemagne simply ordered anathematize the VII Ecumenical Council to the Apostle. The Pontiff made a timid attempt at resistance. He wrote a letter to the king, where in very careful terms he tried to explain the impossibility of carrying out Charles’ order: “The decisions of the Council are correct, and the Greeks accepted them in order to return to the bosom of the Church. How will I appear before the Judge if I throw so many Christian souls back into destruction?” However, the Frankish king insisted, and Pope Adrian, who had recently so arrogantly reprimanded Saint Irene, wilted before demanding the franc. To give your anathematisms at least semblance of decency, he declared to Charles: “I will exhort the Emperor Constantine VI to restore to Saint Peter all his lands which he has taken; if he refuses, I will declare him a heretic."
Thus, through the united efforts of the pope and Charlemagne, iconoclasm moved more and more into the realm of politics. Since in those distant times the orthodoxy of a person and his political trustworthiness were synonymous words, the position of the Bishop of Rome sharply undermined the confidence of the Byzantines in the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council. Moreover, the iconoclasts could quite reasonably refer to the definitions of the Frankfurt Council, signed by Rome, in order to discredit the ecumenical oros.
The crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III (795-816) as emperor on December 25, 800 in Rome with a huge crowd of people had even more serious consequences for the veneration of icons. It doesn’t matter in this case what motives the apostle was guided by, but the act he committed meant spontaneous allocation Western Church from the Byzantine Empire. In Constantinople, not without reason, they saw in the coronation of the Frankish king a humiliation of the imperial dignity of the Roman kings and recognized the coronation illegitimate. In turn, in the West they openly questioned the royal status of Saint Irene, exploiting the argument that a woman cannot rule the state. It was a real political revolution, which had fatal consequences.
From that moment on, any appeal to Rome and communication with the popes was qualified in the East as a criminal offense - after all, the pontiff found himself on the side of the enemies of the empire, who encroached on the status and legitimacy of the Byzantine kings. As a result, icon veneration suffered, which was associated either with rebellion or outright treason. And it is no coincidence that, according to one fair opinion, it was during this period of time that the next peak of iconoclasm occurred.
It is characteristic that the future Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Methodius (843-847), was not exiled for his beliefs. In the Byzantine capital he was recognized politically unreliable for the reason that he lived in Rome for a long time and was among the assistants of the pontiff. The image of a political criminal, but not a heretic, haunted him in the future: under Emperor Theophilus, Saint Methodius was recalled from exile, but kept in isolation, not allowing relations with the outside world.
Of course, it is precisely these reasons that explain the rapid restoration of iconoclasm in the East. For the church and political elite of Byzantium, it became not just a dogmatic teaching, but political idea a new national party seeking to preserve the integrity of the Roman Empire and ensure the independence of the Eastern Church from opportunistic, treacherous and unprincipled Rome. As before, this party traditionally included in its ranks many clergy of the highest ranks. Very valuable for us in this regard is the personal confession of the Empress Saint Theodora, who directly said that she was prevented from restoring the veneration of icons by “hordes of synclitists and nobles devoted to this heresy, no less than them by the metropolitans overseeing the Church, and most of all by the patriarch.”
One author once expressed it in the spirit that the government of Leo III and Constantine V the Isaurians, through its policies, literally pushed the papacy into the arms of the Franks. But now one could say differently: with their position, the popes simply forced Byzantine emperors tended toward iconoclasm.
Supporting supporters of icon veneration was tantamount to agreeing with the claims of the Roman bishops to absolute supremacy in the Catholic Church, which was painful for the pride of the Byzantine hierarchs. And the highest circles of Byzantine society, not without reason, identified the personality and way of thinking of the pontiff with his betrayal of the interests of the Roman Empire and the seizure of Byzantine lands in Italy by the Franks. It got to the point that even Emperor Nikephoros I, who was far from iconoclasm, forbade the Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Nikephoros, from sending ordinary synodics to Rome.
And although in 812 Charlemagne convinced the Byzantines to recognize their title (but not as Roman Emperor, but Just Emperor) in exchange for the lands he had previously seized in Italy, this event did not essentially change anything. It arose not theoretically, but actually two empire, and the Bishop of Rome was associated exclusively with the Frankish power, that is, with the potential enemy of Constantinople.
It is not surprising that the ranks of the iconoclasts were soon replenished with sincere patriots who had little understanding of the intricacies of theology; The latter circumstance is quite understandable for ordinary soldiers. On the contrary, the most ardent admirers of the veneration of holy icons were, although again not all, monastics. Due to the nature of their rank, they were incomparably less bound by the political interests of the Byzantine spiritual and military elite. They were dominated by a sense of the universalism of the Universal Church, regardless of the relations in which this moment time, the Byzantine king and the Frankish king, the pope and the patriarch were between each other.
It is no coincidence that the subsequent period of the second wave of iconoclasm takes place exclusively under the auspices of politics. Despite the many Councils and ongoing debates, we will find almost no new arguments that could be brought forward in defense of one or the other doctrine. Both the Iconoclastic Council of 815 and the Council of Constantinople of 843, which forever refuted heresy, also do not present any new arguments, leafing through the old records of previous Councils and updating only the list of anathematized persons. The statistics were not improved by another Council, which took place in 869-870 under Emperor Basil I the Macedonian, which finally put an end to the iconoclastic crisis.
It is significant only because it witnessed the mutual anathematization of iconoclasm as a heresy by the Roman Pontiff and the Patriarch of Constantinople, which for contemporaries became symbol of the newly restored unity of the Catholic Church. From a church point of view, there was no longer any need for this: in the capital of Byzantium, only four iconoclasts were found, three of whom immediately confessed to heresy and were forgiven. It is noteworthy that eight years earlier, in 861, at the “Twofold” Council in Constantinople, iconoclasm was not mentioned not a word. This is not surprising: this meeting was held under the auspices confrontation to the Bishop of Rome and consolidating the prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Under these conditions, if the Byzantine king took the position of icon-worshippers, in the eyes of the imperial elite he automatically became a traitor to the state and the Church, which in the West fell into the hands of yesterday’s barbarian Frank. Therefore, some emperors preferred, for their own good, to support the iconoclasts, who actively defended their own royal prerogatives and the independence of the Church of Constantinople from Rome. And, accordingly, subject to criminal prosecution of admirers of holy icons.
It must be said that the persecuted leaders of icon veneration, carried away by the purely theological aspect of iconoclasm and not noticing its political component, did a lot to ensure that they were classified as criminals and traitors. For example, they directly stated to the Bishop of Rome that he was simply must end all relations with the Byzantine emperor as already excommunicated for heresy from the Catholic Church. A characteristic letter from St. Theodore the Studite to Rome has been preserved, in which the following passage deserves attention. “You cannot enter into communication with them, iconoclasts, even if they show repentance. For their repentance is not sincere; like the Manichaeans, they take an oath from their followers to renounce their beliefs if questioned, and then profess them again. That they are excommunicated from the Church is evidenced by a recently sent letter from the most holy bishop of ancient Rome. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Roman apocrisiaries did not want to enter into communication with them, did not want to see them or talk to them.”
That's it - without a Council and a church court All the iconoclasts were determined by Studite to be eternally anathema only because the papal legates did not enter into communication with the Byzantine hierarchy, and the Bishop of Rome blasphemed someone in his letter. Moreover, the leaders of the famous Studite monastery almost twice plunged the Eastern Church into schisms, refusing to recognize the hierarchy of persons who seemed dubious to them in their views and actions - the leaders of icon veneration, the Patriarchs St. Methodius and St. Nicephorus.
It is quite obvious that, taken to their logical conclusion, these extremes would become the most destructive weapon of the Byzantine Empire and the entire Christian world. And the fact that the Monk Theodore the Studite spent many years in exile is due not only to his persistent conviction and courage, and not even to the impudent epithets addressed to the iconoclast emperors, which he often allowed himself, but - most importantly - to his political position, as it was automatically assessed by contemporaries in the context of the situation. The same can be said in relation to almost all the ideologists of icon veneration of the second period, when the purely dogmatic component of the heresy had already lost its relevance.
After iconoclasm: ecclesiastical and political consequences
The Universal Church has survived more than one heresy and, perhaps, will survive more than one. And the algorithm for the appearance of iconoclasm is hardly significantly different in any way from other “ecumenical” heresies that affected the body of the Church: Arianism, Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Like any other heresy, iconoclasm did not arise out of nowhere, but, having appeared, gave the Church the opportunity to formulate the necessary dogmatic teaching on the disputed issue. In those ancient times, no one had a pre-compiled catechism of Orthodox dogma, and the truth was revealed as they tried to understand it. Never The Church does not theologize in advance, just in case. Especially in the form of public definitions on certain issues.
“The Church Fathers were reluctant to commit the faith to writing, and most of what they wrote was conditioned by certain circumstances - for example, to dissociate themselves from heretical teachings. It must always be remembered that the Christian teaching, insofar as it is written and defined, represents only a part of the whole, because in its entirety it surpasses those aspects of it that can be obtained directly from the Holy Scriptures, or the works of church authors, or from dogmatic formulations.
Like any heresy, iconoclasm was allowed by the Lord so that the truth would be revealed in the fight against lies. And, as usual, the truth won. The VII Ecumenical Council and the brilliant ascetics of Orthodoxy formulated the Orthodox teaching on the worship of holy images, passing between the Scylla and Charybdis of Latin rational abstraction and Greek rigoristic theology. The overcoming of iconoclasm and the formation of a complete and complete Orthodox teaching on their veneration made a decisive revolution in the everyday church life of Byzantium. The practice of painting small portable icons arose, which filled the houses of ordinary Byzantines in large numbers. The images were standardized, churches began to be painted with frescoes and covered with mosaic icons, and rules arose for the arrangement of holy images on the iconostasis. From now on, when the nature of the image was revealed, the icons became the subject of special veneration and pilgrimage.
Despite the wretched theology of the Western episcopate and the moderate iconoclastic position of the highest circles of the Frankish kingdom, the mass migration of admirers of holy images to the West also gave rise to the practice of worshiping icons and holy relics by ordinary Christians, which had previously been very weak in Gaul. It was at that time that the relics of many saints were transported to the European continent: for example, St. Vitus in 751, St. Sebastian in 826, St. Helena in 840.
But, unfortunately, the positive theological and ritual results of overcoming the iconoclastic crisis can hardly fully compensate for the destructive political processes that were brought to life. And it happened before that “ecumenical” heresies brought great harm to the Church. Thus, after Monophysitism and Monothelitism, for the first time, church organizations arose that categorically refused to enter the fold of the Catholic Church - the Nestorian Church in Syria and the Coptic Church in Egypt. But the Church itself and the Roman Empire remained unchanged. Now something unprecedented has happened.
The main specificity of the iconoclastic crisis lies precisely in the fact that the Church, in the course of overcoming heresy for the first time was separated from the state, as a result, split, and its western part created an alternative empire. The old united imperial world collapsed, the new political order became multiple and hostile. Loss political universalism of the Roman Empire, the emergence along with it of the Frankish state and the creation in the West of a new core of the political life of the German peoples predetermined the great schism of 1054 that followed a couple of centuries later. The Church of that time could not exist in the state usual in our “modern” era; she, like a thread following a needle, followed political power.
Previously, she was in her usual forms of “symphony” - hugging All a society of believers and consolidated with political power to achieve common goals. Having recognized the power of the Frankish king and legalized his rights, the Roman Curia could no longer maintain the old practice of relations with the Byzantine emperors through the head of the new ruler of the West. For her, the German emperor became closer and more important than the sovereign ruling in Constantinople. And although for many more centuries it was the Byzantine emperors and Roman bishops who would jointly strive for the reunification of the Churches and the Roman Empire itself, the former unity still did not work out. Thus, the political crisis became the cause of the church schism, which consistently led the Western Church to spiritual impoverishment, the papal “pornocracy” of the 10th century and the total dependence of the Bishop of Rome on the secular authorities.
In turn, the Eastern Church, without much regret, parted with the idea church universalism. The Byzantine hierarchs were completely satisfied with the title “ecumenical”, which the Patriarch of Constantinople had, and focused all their attention exclusively on the East, where the Greek element dominated. Soon the Eastern Church will literally become national- both in terms of the composition of its members and the scope of its interests.
The party that suffered the most from the iconoclastic crisis, oddly enough, was the Byzantine emperors. They were not only brought into conflict with the authoritative Roman See, which led to its rapid decline, but they themselves quickly lost their positions in the management of the Eastern Church and the empire. Trying to raise the status of the capital's patriarch, the basileus transferred incredible, unprecedented prerogatives to him, willingly or unwillingly giving birth to “Byzantine papism” - the true gravedigger of the Roman Empire, the helpless remnants of which in 1453 unrequitedly asked for help from their ancient imperial territories in Italy and the West. But the West remained silent: “When what was left of Byzantium fell victim to the Islamic invasion, Europe washed its hands and turned away, confident in its growing power and happy future.”
Iconoclasm is a religious and political movement in Byzantium in the 8th - early 9th centuries, directed against the veneration of icons. Iconoclasts considered sacred images to be idols, and the cult of veneration of icons to be idolatry, referring to the Old Testament commandments (“you shall not make for yourself an idol or any image of anything that is in heaven above... you shall not worship them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4-5) ).
In 730, Emperor Leo III the Isaurian banned the veneration of icons. The result of iconoclasm was the destruction of thousands of icons, as well as mosaics, frescoes, statues of saints and painted altars in many churches. Iconoclasm was officially recognized at the Iconoclastic Council in 754 with the support of Emperor Constantine V Copronymus, who severely took up arms against icon worshipers, especially monks. With the support of Empress Irina, the widow of Leo IV the Khazar, the Seventh Ecumenical Council was held in 787, which approved the dogma of icon veneration and overturned the decision of the previous church council, depriving it of its “ecumenical” status. Emperors who ruled after her: Nikephoros? Genik and Michael I Rangave adhered to icon veneration. However, the crushing defeat of Michael I in the war with the Bulgarians in 813 brought Leo V the Armenian to the throne, under whom iconoclasm was resumed and the decisions of the council of 754 were again recognized.
During the regency of Empress Theodora, Patriarch John VII was overthrown, and in his place was erected the defender of icon veneration, Methodius. Under his chairmanship, a church council was held in 843, which approved and approved all the definitions of the VII Ecumenical Council and again excommunicated the iconoclasts. At the same time, the rite of proclaiming eternal memory to zealots of Orthodoxy and anathematizing heretics was established and performed for the first time (March 11, 843), which is performed in the Orthodox Church to this day on the Week of Orthodoxy (“Triumph of Orthodoxy”).
John Chrysostom writes about the distribution of images of Meletius of Antioch, and Theodoret of Cyrus reports about portraits of Simeon the Stylite being sold in Rome.
Despite such support for the depiction of persons and events of Sacred and Church history, in the same period the first objections to the use of icons appeared. So 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 (c. 300), a decree was passed against wall painting in churches.
By the beginning of the 6th century, iconoclastic positions intensified due to the spread of Monophysites in the Byzantine Empire. The leader of the Monophysites, Sevier of Antioch, denied not only the icons of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints, but even the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. The breadth of the movement to deny icon veneration during this period is evidenced by reports that Anastasius Sinait wrote in defense of icons, and Simeon the Stylite (the younger) complained to Emperor Justinian II about insulting “the icons of the Son of God and the All-Holy Most Glorious Mother of God.” Iconoclasm intensified at the end of the 6th-7th centuries. In Marseilles, Bishop Seren in 598 destroyed all the icons in the church, which in his opinion were superstitiously revered by the parishioners. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to him about this, praising him for his zeal in the fight against superstition, but demanded that the icons be restored since they serve ordinary people instead of books and asked him to explain to his flock the true way of venerating icons.
The emergence of Islam, which was hostile to images of the animate, played a great role in the growth of iconoclasm. In the regions of the empire bordering the territories of the Arab tribes, the Christian heresies of Montanism, Marcionism, and Paulicianism have long flourished. For their adherents, Islam revived doubts about the legitimacy of icons. The Byzantine emperors, trying to ensure a peaceful neighborhood with Muslims, made concessions to the iconoclasts. So Emperor Philippic, 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.”
2. Reasons for iconoclasm
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; You shall not worship them or serve them…” (Exodus 20:4-5). Although picturesque images of Christ and saints were already known to the ancient church, there was no uniform canon of attitude towards icons. At the same time, the icons were surrounded by superstitious worship among the masses:
Among the masses, icon veneration was sometimes refracted by crude and sensual superstition... The custom arose of taking icons as children's recipients, mixing paint scraped from icons into Eucharistic wine, placing the sacrament on the icon in order to receive it from the hands of the saints, etc... In other words, something happened with icon veneration , which previously happened often with the cult of saints and the veneration of relics. Having arisen on the correct Christological basis, as the fruit and revelation of the Church’s faith in Christ, they are too often torn away from this basis, turned into something self-sufficient, and consequently fall back into paganism.
(Schmeman A. The historical path of Orthodoxy)
There was “an increase in magical absurdities in the veneration of sacred objects, a gross fetishization of the icon.” This behavior led to accusations of paganism and idolatry. Academician V.N. Lazarev also notes that religious art in that period was already characterized by excessive sensitivity, which for some questioned the holiness of the icon. At the same time, as the historian Kartashev notes, enlightenment in Byzantium by this time had significantly decreased compared to the times of Emperor Justinian, and “the subtle problems of dogma became beyond the capabilities of most theological minds.”
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 political role The church in the empire strengthened significantly, and there was a significant increase in church property and monasteries. The clergy began to actively participate in the administration of 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 everything to the state treasury. Therefore, as the Greek historian Paparrigopulo 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.”
3.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 the veneration of icons, 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 disciples; their executions, according to A.V. Kartashev, forced them to compare the times of Copronymus with the time of Diocletian. For their sympathy with this icon-venerator, on August 25, 766, 19 high-ranking officials were publicly ridiculed and punished at the hippodrome.
A number of Constantinople patriarchs suffered from persecution (Herman I, Nikephoros), diocesan bishops (for example, St. Evschimon, who died in exile), among theologians John of Damascus was anathematized, the brothers Theophanes and Theodore, distinguished by “extraordinary learning,” were subjected to scourging, and Their faces are carved with iambic verses composed by Emperor Theophilus (for this the brothers received the nickname Inscribed). Under Emperor Leo V he was sent into exile and died in exile on one of the islands Aegean Sea the famous Byzantine chronicler Theophanes, who was an implacable enemy of the iconoclasts.
Persecution and confiscation of monastic property caused a massive migration of monastics to places unaffected by imperial policies. During the reigns of Leo III and Constantine V, about 50,000 monks moved to Southern Italy alone. The northern shores of the Black Sea and the coast of Syria and Palestine also became places of migration.
Persecution of icon painters
The fight against the spread of iconographic images also affected their creators. The best known story is the story of the monk-icon painter Lazarus, who suffered under Emperor Theophilus:
...he decided to force the monk Lazar (he was a famous draftsman of that time). However, the monk turned out to be above flattering convictions... he repeatedly blasphemed the king, and he, seeing this, subjected him to such torture that his flesh bled out along with his blood and no one thought that he was still alive. When the king heard that the imprisoned draftsman had gradually come to his senses and, having again taken up his art, was depicting the faces of saints on tablets, he ordered hot metal plates to be applied to his palms. The fire consumed and consumed his flesh until he fell exhausted, almost dead.
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.
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, which lasted about 50 years, begins during the reign of Emperor Leo III and ends with the regency of Empress Irene. The second period, which lasted about 30 years, begins with the reign of Emperor Leo V and ends with the regency of Empress Theodora. In total, during the iconoclast 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.
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 an emperor and a 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:
...the wicked king Leon began to talk about the destruction of holy and venerable icons. Having learned about this, Gregory, the Pope of Rome, deprived him of taxes in Rome and the rest of Italy and wrote an instructive message that the king should not interfere in matters of faith and change the ancient teachings of the church, decreed by the holy fathers.
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 of this, 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 beheading, lashes, expulsion and deprivation of property, especially people famous both by birth and education.” 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 the Hagia Sophia during the reign of Leo the Isaurian.
These actions of the emperor caused irritation among the icon-worshipers (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.
Patriarch Herman of Constantinople 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.
 |
...Leon gathered a council against the saints and venerable icons in a tribunal of 19 advisers, to which he also called His Holiness Patriarch Herman, hoping to convince him to sign against the holy icons. But the courageous servant of Christ not only did not succumb to his hateful malice, but, affirming the word of truth, renounced the episcopacy, put off his omophorion and uttered the instructive words: “If I am Jonah, then throw me into the sea. Without an ecumenical council I cannot change my faith, sir.”
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 started throwing your portraits on the ground, trampling them underfoot and disfiguring 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 Longobards, Byzantine governors increased taxes in southern Italy, which Pope Gregory II opposed. In response to the message of Patriarch Anastasius, the pope rejected the epithet of “brother and co-servant” that 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 assembled a Council of 93 bishops in Rome, which decreed: “In the future, whoever takes away, destroys, or dishonors and desecrates icons... let him be excommunicated.”
In the East, the strongest opponent of iconoclasm in this era was the famous theologian John of Damascus, who wrote in 726-730 “Three words of defense against those who condemn holy icons.” In his work, for the first time, the differences between “service” due only to God and “worship” provided to created things, including icons, were defined.
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 synodbook compiled after the restoration of icon veneration, only 40 names were indicated during the reign of Leo, that is, at first the iconoclasts took a wait-and-see attitude.
The son and successor of Leo III, Constantine V Copronymus (in Church Slavonic: the namesake of pus, dung, feces), the nickname given to the emperor by icon venerators) spoke out against icon veneration with even greater energy, despite the difficult struggle (at the beginning of his reign) with the Orthodox party, which opposed him the new emperor, his son-in-law Artavazd, who ruled Constantinople for almost two and a half years (741-743). During this period, even the iconoclast patriarch Anastasius recognized the icons and publicly declared Constantine a heretic.
Wanting to more definitely implement iconoclastic ideas, and having prepared minds for this through “popular 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, at which 348 bishops, but not a single representative from Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem. The Council, which declared itself the “Seventh Ecumenical”, decided:
Who tries to depict on icons as a keepsake, with soulless and voiceless material colors, the faces of saints, which do not bring any benefit, because this is a stupid idea and an invention of the devil’s cunning, instead of depicting their virtues, which are narrated in the scriptures, in themselves, as if some animated images of them, and thus arouse in oneself jealousy to be like them, as our divine fathers said, let him be anathema.
At the same time, the council did not speak out against the veneration of saints and relics, but, on the contrary, declared an anathema to everyone “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. So 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 the “Persecution of Constantine” 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).
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 Irina, 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 out, 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.
On September 24, 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council opened in Nicaea, in which, according to various estimates, 350-368 hierarchs took part, but the number of signatories of its Act was 308 people. The Council began its work by making a decision regarding the iconoclast bishops, many of whom were allowed to participate in the work of the Council, accepting their public repentance. And only at the fourth meeting, at the suggestion of the papal legates, the icon was brought to the temple where the Council met. At the council, the decrees of the iconoclastic council of 754 were rejected, the iconoclasts were anathematized, and the dogma of icon veneration was established:
...like the image of an honest and life-giving cross, believe in the saints God's churches, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons, painted with paints and from fractional stones and from other substances capable of this, constructed, like icons of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and Our immaculate Lady, the Holy Mother of God, and also the honorable angels, and all the saints and reverend men. ...and to honor them with a kiss and reverent worship, not true, according to our faith, worship of God, which befits the only Divine nature, but veneration in that image, like the image of the honest and life-giving Cross and the Holy Gospel and other shrines with incense and the lighting of candles, honor is given, such and the ancients had a pious custom. For the honor given to the image passes to the original, and the one who worships the icon worships the being depicted on it.
(Dogma on the veneration of icons of the Three Hundred and Sixty-seven Saints, father of the Seventh Ecumenical Council)
After the cathedral, the Empress ordered the image of Jesus Christ to be made and placed above 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], which was once overthrown by the ruler Leo, was again installed here by Irina.”
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.
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 icon-worshipers (led by Patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore the Studite) and iconoclasts (John the Grammaticus, Anthony of Syllae). The resonance of the discussion was the throwing of the image of Christ by 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 the “Defensive word to the Ecumenical Church regarding the new discord over honest icons” written by him.
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, the head of the Life Guards and, according to George the Monk, was completely uneducated and “more silent than fish” was elected as the new Patriarch of Constantinople. In 815, the emperor convened a council in the Church of Hagia Sophia (the 2nd Iconoclastic Council), which abolished the decrees 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 opposed to 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.
Leo's successor, Michael II the tongue-tied (Amorite), pursued a unique policy of tolerance regarding icon venerators: he gave an amnesty to everyone who suffered for icon veneration (including Patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore the Studite). Michael issued a decree: “...we insist: let there be deep silence about icons. And therefore, let no one dare raise a speech about icons (in one direction or another), but let the council of Constantine (754) be completely eliminated and removed. , and Tarasia (787), and now former under Leo (815) 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, did not worship a single icon all his 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 Theophilos (829-842), who, however, again began to energetically persecute icon worshipers.
“And the tyrant planned to destroy everyone who painted the divine faces, and so those who preferred life had to spit on the icon, as if it were some kind of junk, throw the holy image onto the floor, trample it underfoot and thus find salvation.” (Continued by Theophanes. “Biographies of the Byzantine kings”)
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 letter in defense of icons signed by three eastern patriarchs of the 11th 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 weaken everywhere. The movement was ideologically exhausted.”
After the death of Emperor Theophilus, his wife Theodora, raised in the tradition of icon veneration, became regent for Emperor Michael III’s early childhood. 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.
At the Council of Constantinople in 843, a tomos was read and approved, the text of which has not been preserved, but from other sources it is known that it proclaimed the need to restore the veneration of icons, confirmed the legality of the resolutions of the seven ecumenical councils and anathematized iconoclasm. The council also returned from exile all those previously convicted for venerating icons; iconoclast bishops were expelled from their cathedras, to which the bishops who had suffered under Theophilos returned. At Theodora’s request, her husband Theophilus was not subjected to anathema.
After the church council, which condemned the iconoclasts and restored icon veneration in the empire, Theodora organized a church celebration, which fell on the first Sunday of Lent, which was March 11 in 843 (according to other sources - February 19). In memory of this event, significant for the Christian world, and in memory of Blessed Theodora, every year on the first Sunday of Great Lent, the Orthodox Church solemnly celebrates the restoration of icon veneration, called the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.”
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 dignity, 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.
Diehl reports that Empress Theodora dreamed of the glory of exterminating heretics, and on her orders the Paulicians were offered a choice: conversion to Orthodoxy or death. After the Paulicians refused to change their religious beliefs, three military leaders were sent on punitive expeditions to the area of Asia Minor inhabited by them: Argir, Sudal and Ducas. About a hundred thousand people died under torture at the hands of the imperial inquisitors: “some of the Paulicians were crucified on the cross, others were condemned to the sword, others to the depths of the sea. About ten myriads accounted for the number of those destroyed, their property was sent and delivered to the royal treasury.
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 seen as the result of an iconoclastic system of government. Thus, many laws issued by iconoclast emperors were recognized as unsuitable in the 10th century and repealed.
The iconoclasts destroyed a significant layer of Byzantine fine art of previous centuries. Images were replaced by non-fine art with plant-zoomorphic themes. Thus, the gospel cycle in the Blachernae church was destroyed and replaced with flowers, trees and birds. Contemporaries said that it was “turned into a vegetable warehouse and poultry house.” In Hagia Sophia, luxurious mosaics were replaced by simple crosses. The only mosaics that survived the period of iconoclasts are those of the Basilica of St. Demetrius in Thessaloniki.
The main theme of the images was pastoral. Emperor Theophilus decorated buildings with large numbers of similar ornamental and bucolic images. “The fascination with bucolicism acquired very specific, romantic-sensual forms, clearly related to the general reformation program of iconoclasm.” Theophilus built pavilion-temples, which bore names such as the Pearl Triclinium, the Bedchamber of Harmony, the Temple of Love, the Temple of Friendship and others.
There was a rise and
 |
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 this as a partial victory of the iconoclasts over the immoderate icon venerators.
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.
The significance of iconoclastic ideology is far from limited to the boundaries of that period, which is called the iconoclastic period. Under different types, iconoclasm exists constantly ( Albigensians in the Middle Ages of France, Judaizers in Russia of the 15th century, Protestants). Therefore, the response of the Church in the VIII-IX centuries. retains its significance to the present day. From a doctrinal point of view, iconoclasm is a phenomenon and, as a heresy, not well studied. Iconoclasm existed long before state power openly took its side. It continued to exist even after the authorities took an openly hostile position towards it. It was repeated several times in the history of different countries with the same doctrinal premises.
By the middle of the 8th century. The basic dogmatic and canonical principles were finally established, theological disputes and the fight against heresies, which were mainly Christological in nature, ended. Sacred images took their rightful place in the liturgical life of Christians and began to be perceived by the most educated part of Christians as “theology in colors and lines.”
And when individual attacks on one or another aspect of the teaching about the Incarnation were repelled, a general attack began on the entire Orthodox teaching as a whole. Rule 82 of the Fifth-Sixth Council was caused by historical necessity, the need to express the Orthodox confession. Soon after this, an open struggle against the icons began. Iconoclasm VIII-IX centuries. - one of the most terrible heresies, undermining the foundations of Christianity.
At first, the positions of the iconoclasts were extremely primitive - a reproach for idolatry of stones, boards, walls, etc., based on the Old Testament prohibition of the image. But soon two main trends emerged:
- 1. Complete destruction of holy images, including the icon of Christ. Some also denied the veneration of relics, and the most intolerant - the veneration of the Mother of God and saints.
- 2. More tolerant, which, like the first, had several shades. They allowed images in the church, but did not agree on what the attitude of believers should be towards them. Some believed that it was impossible to venerate icons at all, others recognized the icon of the Savior, but denied the icon of the Mother of God and the saints, others argued that the Savior could only be depicted before His resurrection, after which He cannot be depicted.
From the very beginning, the confessors of Orthodoxy took a clear and uncompromising, dogmatic position. Immediately after the imperial decree John of Damascus wrote his first “Word” in defense of holy icons, which, together with the two subsequent ones, represented not only a response to the theoretical position of iconoclasm, but also a very complete and systematic theological presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the image.
Open iconoclasm in Orthodox world began on the initiative of government authorities. Emperor Leo the Isaurian, a despotic and rude man, in 726, under the influence of the bishops of Asia Minor, openly opposed the veneration of holy icons. His two corresponding decrees: 1st - in 726 was unanimously adopted by the Byzantine Senate, II - in 730 d. The existence of 2 councils is disputed by some scientists (G, Ostrogorsky), since these decrees have not reached us. Even if there was only one decree, in 730 g., it is known that four years before this had passed in attempts to persuade the emperor to iconoclasm Patriarch St. Herman And Pope Gregory II. St. Herman (715-730) categorically refused to sign the imperial decree. He demanded confirmation of the Ecumenical Council for such an important change in doctrine, was deposed, exiled and replaced by an iconoclast Anastasy (730-753). So the decree of 730 was signed by both the emperor and the patriarch, i.e. came both from the secular authorities and from the hierarchy of the Church of Constantinople. Icons began to be destroyed everywhere.
The first act was the removal of the miraculous image of the Savior from the Chalkopratian Gate, which caused great excitement among the people; the imperial envoy was killed. The defenders of the image became the first victims of the iconoclasts. A fierce struggle began. Orthodox bishops were deposed and exiled, laypeople were persecuted, often subjected to torture and death. This struggle lasted a total of 100 years and is divided into two periods. The first lasted from 726 to 787., when at Empress Irina The Seventh Ecumenical Council took place, restoring the veneration of icons and revealing the dogma of this veneration. The opposition to icon veneration was essentially a gross interference of state power in the internal affairs of the Church. For the iconoclasts, the power of the state over the Church, Caesar-papism, became the principle of normal life: “I am the king and the high priest,” Leo the Isaurian wrote to the Pope, which John of Damascus in his second “Word” called a robber attack.
The cruelty with which in 741-775. son of Leo III Emperor Constantine Copronymus persecuted defenders of icon veneration in the first period of iconoclasm, was especially sophisticated and took extreme forms. His persecution is comparable in strength and cruelty to the persecution of Diocletian. On his initiative in 754 g. was convened Iconoclastic Cathedral in Hierea, in which 388 iconoclast bishops took part. Constantine wrote a treatise outlining the ideology of iconoclasm, the contents of which we know from quoting him Patriarch Nikifor. The treatise was written in a very harsh form and expressed an extreme position of iconoclasm; the veneration of the Mother of God and saints was rejected. Later, in a decree, he abolished the name itself " mother of God" and prohibited the use of the words “holy” and “holy.” Too frequent attendance at church and celibacy were forbidden. The resolutions of the council were entirely included in the polemical part of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council decided that anyone who paints or keeps icons, if he is a cleric, will deposed, if a layman or monk, will be anathematized. Those guilty were brought before the civil court, and thus subjected to the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. After the council, all venerators of icons, defenders of the confessors of Orthodoxy, the holy Patriarch Germanus, St. John of Damascus and St. George of Cyprus were anathematized. From Believers were required to take an oath of iconoclasm, and the persecution of icon veneration after the Council became especially cruel.
Nevertheless, believers did not abandon the veneration of icons. Monasticism became the head of the believing Orthodox people. The persecution fell on them with particular force. Monks emigrated en masse to Italy, Cyprus, Syria and Palestine. Among them there were many icon painters, so the era of iconoclasm turned out to be the time of greatest flowering of church art for Rome. During the reign of Constantine Copronymus, all the popes (Zechariah, Stephen II, Paul I, Adrian I) firmly adhered to Orthodoxy and continued the work of their holy predecessors, painting churches with the help of monks who emigrated from the eastern part of the empire.
After the death of Copronymus, the persecution subsided. His son Leo IV was a moderate and rather indifferent iconoclast. In 780, after his death, his widow Irina immediately began to prepare for the restoration of Orthodoxy. Preparations began for the Ecumenical Council, the work of which was disrupted. However, later Irina renewed the attempt, and the Council was convened in Nicaea in 787. 350 bishops and big number monks The Council established the veneration of icons and relics and took a number of measures to restore normal life in the Church.
However, the Orthodox teaching on the church image was not accepted by its opponents. The peace lasted 27 years, followed by a second iconoclastic period.
Leo V the Armenian (813-820) believed that iconoclast emperors were happier both in politics and in war, and decided to return to iconoclasm. The ideologist of the iconoclastic revival, John the Grammar, was commissioned to write a treatise in favor of iconoclasm. The second wave, like the first, was the violence of state power over the Church. However, the emperor no longer had the support in the episcopate that Copronymus had. Attempts to convince the Patriarch, St. Nikephoros I (810-815) to compromise and, without destroying the icons themselves, to ban only their veneration failed. The Patriarch flatly refused. The Rev. who took part in the discussion of this issue with 270 monks Theodore the Studite declared that it was not his place to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church. Persecution began, the patriarch was removed in 815, exiled and replaced by an iconoclast Theodotus V (815-821). In the same year, a new iconoclastic council was convened in Constantinople. It was no longer so numerous and no longer had such great importance. In the second period, iconoclasm had already lost its strength. This time the council emphasized that icons cannot be considered idols, but, nevertheless, ordered their destruction. Iconoclasm was taught in school and presented in textbooks. The persecution was hardly less severe than under Copronymus. Emperor Michael II ascended the throne in 821. Being a moderate iconoclast, he brought back those exiled from exile and prison for icon veneration, and there was a lull. But during the reign of his son Theophila, John the Grammar ascends the patriarchal throne, and persecution resumes. This was the last outbreak of iconoclasm.
Widow Theophila, Empress Theodora in 842. becomes regent under the young Michael III. During her reign, the veneration of icons was finally restored. A Council met in Constantinople in the same year 842 under Patriarch St. Methodius (842-846). The Council confirmed the dogma of icon veneration of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, anathematized the iconoclasts and in March 843 established the celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of Great Lent with the erection of icons in all churches.
The iconoclasts were by no means opponents of art as such. Only images of the Savior, the Mother of God, and saints were persecuted. In this sense, the iconoclasts of the 8th-9th centuries. can be compared with Protestants. With the difference that the iconoclasts did not leave the walls of the holy temples empty. They were decorated in every possible way with genre scenes, landscapes, etc. Decorative and monumental forms played an important role. Iconoclastic art was also a return to Hellenistic sources, and borrowing from the Mohammedan East. In particular, Emperor Theophilus was very interested in construction and patronized monumental art. He built a palace in the image of those in Baghdad, decorating its walls with inlays, mosaics and paintings depicting shields, weapons, all kinds of animals and plants. In the same spirit he decorated churches. Constantine Copronymus, on whose orders the cycle of images on evangelical themes was destroyed in the Blachernae Church, replaced it with images of flowers, birds and other animals. He was reproached that in this way he turned the temple into an “orchard and poultry house.” In place of the fresco depicting the Sixth Ecumenical Council, he placed a portrait of his favorite racer.
In the West, during the 2nd Iconoclastic Period, Popes Paschal I and Gregory IV continued to protect and distribute icons. The cruelty and persecution of the iconoclasts aroused in the West, not only in Rome, but also in other countries, a particularly strong veneration of the saints and their relics. It was during this era that the relics of many saints were transported to France. The Roman Church did not succumb to the temptation of iconoclasm.