Religion and Theology

The iconoclastic Controversy involved the premeditated and intentional destruction of the icons of the Orthodox religions during the Byzantine period.  This paper considers what iconography was, why it was important to the concept of truth in the representation of the divine and the effect that Byzantine images had on the political and religious factions of Byzantine itself.  It assesses the series of events of the Iconoclastic Controversy before progressing to identify its ultimate outcome and the effect that it had on the two factions involved.

Icons
In reviewing iconoclasm and the Iconoclastic Controversy, it is worth taking a look at Icons, their functions and their forms.  The word icon is derived from the Greek word eikones, which were sacred images that represented religious characters such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus, the Saints and angels, or events associated with their lives.  During the Byzantium period icons were created using a wide variety of media including marble, wooden panels, stones, metals, frescos and mosaics.  They were usually characterized by bright, vivid images and ranged in size.  Some icons, for example, may take the form of a pendant or flag, while others were created in the form of a fresco or tablet that was used to decorate holy buildings.

The icons we are familiar with today are very often presented with a 2D appearance and seem to lack depth something that one would expect in a traditional painting or picture.  Icons, however, were purposely created without this depth, the intention being that the spiritual meaning of it stretched beyond what the eye alone could see.  They were not intended as simple works of art, they were perceived as being a vehicle through which someone could connect to the person depicted they were intended as a window into heaven

When the Byzantines set up icons () it was not in order to have a representation of a person who was absent, who was not there.  On the contrary an image is a revelation, the visibility, and therefore the very presence of the person depicted.  An image is an image precisely because it bears the archetype in itself, so that a Byzantine icon is not merely a picture but a power (Safran, 48).

Icons, therefore, were not just the work of an artist they were the work of a theologian.  However, it was not always this way and the need to separate the spiritual from the material was a major cause of the Iconoclastic Controversy.

Iconoclasm
Iconoclasm concerns the deliberate destruction of the religious icons concerned with a particular culture or civilization with such an act usually being carried out because of religious or political motivations.  It literally means image breaking and is primarily involved with political or religious changes that are taking place on a domestic front.  

The people who order or carry out iconoclasm are referred to as iconoclasts--image breakers--and they are people who attempt to destroy established religious and theological conventions.  Conversely iconodules were the venerators of icons.

The Iconoclasm Controversy
The Byzantine iconoclasm controversy constitutes one of the most prominent conflicts in the history of Christianity and it encompassed both a religious and political crisis.  It occurred in two separate phases 726-787, and 815-843 and it divided the Western Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy churches while simultaneously shaking the core of Byzantium.

The issues pertaining to the use of Icons arose as a direct result of the way in which the Byzantines used them.  In the early 8th century icons were a significant part of life for the Byzantines and their veneration for icons was ingrained in their daily lives.  People would pray to them, carry them as good luck charms and worship them as a means of communicating with the religious figures they revered.  However, for many, this was perceived to be at odds with the Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments, which explicitly forbade the worship of a graven image or committing idolatry.  Opponents to iconophiles criticized people who worshipped the icons because they felt that they were praying to an icon, as opposed to an image and pressure was placed on iconophiles to stop their adulation of icons.

The first iconoclastic period 730-787
The first major period of the iconoclasm controversy was between 730 and 787 AD and it was started when Emperor Leo III ordered that an image of Jesus was removed from the entrance to the Great Palace of Constantinople.  A riot followed and the people of Constantinople rose up against the actions of the Emperor.  However, attempts to restore an iconodule society were largely unsuccessful and the people who fought for the restoration of icons were persecuted, tortured and many of them were killed.

Emperor Leos actions caused a split in the Empire and two factions emerged the west and the east.  Charlemagne, who slowly began to align the west with European ideas and belief, ultimately ruled the West, which initially under the papacy was largely supportive of the Iconodule practices.

The first iconoclastic period came to an end when Emperor Leo IV died and his wife came into power.  She was an Iconodule and immediately began to restore icons and remove the Iconoclast bishops that had been put in place by her husband and his father.  In 780 her son, Constantine VI ascended the throne but was not old enough to rule and Irene continued to hold the majority of power.  Her efforts to restore the practices of iconic worship were met with some resistance from factions of the army she finally issued a guidance for the freedom of Speech at the Council of Nicea in 787 and icons were restored to the churches and monasteries.

An important element of the Council of Nicea concerned their specification of how icons should be treated.  They ruled that individual could revere an icon but could only worship God.  They wanted people to accept that the icons were only a means of showing respect for religious figures and the events surrounding their lives, they were not a window to God.

The second iconoclastic period 814-843
Although icons were restored in 787, efforts to outlaw the practices of Iconodules continued to progress behind the scenes.  Although the papacy of the west empire had been in general support of the practice of the Iconodules, Charlemagne the new ruler, was not.  He renounced the council of Nicea and once again questioned the theology of Iconophiles.  This led to the rise of the second iconoclastic period, which, although less violent and bloody than the first, was equally significant.

In 842 Empress Theodora rose to power in the East Empire and she reconvened the council of Nicea. Again icons were restored but this time they started to take a very different form that they had previously.  The figures that appeared on the icons became two-dimensional instead of lifelike as they had previously.  Through presenting religious characters in this way the artists were able to avoid accusations that they were attempting to create an exact picture.  The images became representations and this avoided accusations that they were ignoring the rules of the Council of Nicea If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (, charaktr) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema  (The Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum, cited in Wikepedia, 2010).

The Iconoclastic Controversy  Two Perspectives
The Iconoclasts
There are several potential sources for the Iconoclastic attitudes that arose during the controversies.  Firstly, it is important to note that the first phase of Iconoclasm carried out was heavily reliant upon the actions of the Army under Emperor Leo.  At the time, the Iconoclasts were actually a minority among the faithful but they were able to overthrow the Iconodules using the force of the Army (who were largely Iconoclasts).  There is a strong possibility that the Army had been influenced by Moslem and Jewish factions that also rejected the worship of icons and similar trends were being observed in their own places of worship (Norwich, 111).

A second source for Iconoclasm may have engendered as a result of peoples views that the material world was corrupt.  Icons were created from precious materials, gold, jewels and expensive elements and this caused critics to argue that worshipers of icons were deifying the material possession, not the spiritual meaning they werent showing respect to the figure or the religion but the actual icon.

The third source for Iconoclastic thinkers was the New Testament itself and the directive that Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image (Cited in. Besanon, 187).

The Iconodules
The Iconodules believed that the material world offered a means of reaching the spiritual world and they enacted this through their icons.  For Iconodules icons represented a means of uniting the spiritual world with their material world One of the most fundamental arguments in favor of the use of icons was the belief that the material world possesses the capacity to signify and mediate the spiritual world (McGraph, 32).  Iconodules didnt worship the icons they worshiped God through the icons.

The Iconodules too turned to the second commandment in justifying their position but interpreted this in a different manner to the Iconoclasts.  They also believed that Gods appearance to Moses on Mt. Sinai was a representation of the combination of spiritual and earthly things.  They believed that the second commandment permitted the worship of earthly things, provided they were utilized to worship God and no other God.

The Outcome of the Iconoclastic Controversy
The Iconoclastic Controversy was settled in part by the Second Council of Nicea (787) and this established an understanding of how icons could be used.  A clear definition of worship was established as a result of this council and people were forced to distinguish between worshiping God alone and venerating a saint or image.  From this date onwards the ways in which Saints, religious events and religious figures were depicted in iconic form changed and the artistic representations of them became two-dimensional, formal and symbolic.  This was intentional as expressing religious forms in a less than realistic manner entailed that the distinction between dulia (veneration) and latria (worship) could be clearly made and understood.  Unfortunately many of the Byzantine icons of the pre-Iconoclastic Controversy do not survive and as such the majority of icons available today are in the two-dimensional form.

Icons remain an essential part of Eastern Orthodox churches and have been since the days of the controversy.  For the West, however, things remained largely unsettled.  Similar issues were later to resurface during the Reformation of the Catholic Church and later during the Protestant Reformation.

Conclusion
The Iconoclastic Controversy highlights two opposing theologies concerning the relationship between visual arts and Christianity.  At the heart of the conflict was the concept of the reincarnation of Christ and the question of whether icons were worthy of worship.  The iconoclasm had profound effects for both the religious and political systems within the Byzantine empire and the impact of these are observable today both in terms of the art that survives the period and the extent to which images are perceived and treated by various religious factions.