-From debate between Patriarch Germanos and the local bishop Konstantinos in early 8th century, concern for and against images began before the Isaurians enacted any policies; Germanos cited both Leo III and Konstantinos V (father-son co-emperors) as image adoring, when reprimanding bishop KonstantinosAt the end of the day, I find Brubaker a generally reliable guide. She's not the most insightful or penetrating mind when it comes to the theology of icons, but she has a solid and capable grasp of the issues. This defect might not even be her fault, as this work was designed for popular consumption. High octane theological distinctions (which she doesn't shy away from) is not something a "lay-reader" will easily grasp.
-Leo was a reformer, implementing OT-based laws to reflect New Rome's status as the New Israel, as well as empire's need for reform; Leo's legal reforms reinforced a political theology of emperor as special divine representative and having special relationship with God [I'm not sure how well Brubaker assesses this evidence, as it's not clear how much the ruling political theology reflected the actual opinions of rulers and their courts/administrators/generals]
-Unclear of Leo's actual iconoclasm: account of removing icon from Chalke gate in the Liber Pontificalis was later interpolation, and the accounts from Life of Stephen the Younger and Theophanes' history were written 80 years after Leo, with differing accounts of how this attempted removal went down; both had focus to blacked Konstantinos V [If it's a total fabrication, it's odd that the details of which icon, and where, were the same; Brubaker's skepticism about the event itself seems a little too strong, even if it was not a pitched battle between concerned citizens (Theophanes) or women (Stephen the Deacon) against the emperor's troops]
-Council of Hiereia (754) was a product of Konstantinos V's theology, with the council's president, Theodosios (metropolitan of Ephesus), as a lackey of the emperor; resultant horos (definition) banned future icon production, but left alone all icons that were on liturgical instruments, which were to specifically remain unmolested unless given a direct order from emperor or patriarch, lest God was blasphemed; in contrast to iconic real presence, Konstantinos elevated eucharist as only legitimate real presence of Christ
-Hiereia didn't attack/reduce cult of the saints, or of Mary Theotokos; also, cross was highly venerated as a sacred symbol to placed everywhere
-Unintended results of council: increased focus on symbol of the cross, unease with material in relation to bearing the spiritual, unease with presence of relics of saints at altars where God Himself was to be present in the eucharist, and a shift of focus to top-down mediating presence of God through the hierarchy rather than the bottom-up mediation of God through icons that could exists outside of official ecclesiastic channels
-Post-Hiereia, there was little icon destruction, with few examples of icons replaced by crosses (two), one was lightly white-washed, and another was covered over, only to be later uncovered without any damage; in contrast, Konstantinos V's reign was marked by investment in the arts and a building campaign
-Konstantinos V's attacks on certain monks or monastic institutions had more to do with imperial politics and court intrigues, not likely persecution of iconodules; the emperor executed Stephen the Younger likely out of his association with a court faction plotting a coup (which even Theophanes notes); Konstantinos endowed monasteries and promoted monks, from which came the power to plot and scheme against him
-Eirene's (the wife, turned regent-empress during Konstantinos VI, of Leo IV, son of Konstantinos V) turn to iconodulia, and calling for a council (Nicaea II, 787) was to reunify the church between East and West (Rome had rejected Hiereia); Eirene sought to undo Rome's growing reliance/partnership with the Franks and their Carolingian overlords
-Like Hiereia, Carolingian theologians rejected "real presence" of icons, but unlike Hiereia did not proscribe making icons, seeing in all art a means for contemplation and a book for the illiterate
-Eirene's coinage continued to show prior Isaurian dynasty; her iconodulia did not cut her off from the perceived legitimacy of Leo III/Konstantinos V
-Leo V's (formerly Leo the Armenian, military-governor of Anatolia who seized the throne) return to iconoclasm was less dogmatic than before: icons were simply false, not idols; living Christians were the "real presence" of God, not painted objects; Michael II (who overthrew Leo) continued this policy, but due to increased threats from Arabs and Bulgars spent even less time bothered about ecclesiastical practice; result was unofficial toleration for icons
-The second Iconoclasm was intentionally modeling the imperial policies of Leo III and Konstantinos V, who were seen as model emperors/generals/administrators, not out of dogmatic attachments; while Theophilos (who succeeded Michael II) was more ardently iconoclastic, his policy enforcement was intermittent (he exiled, and then recalled, iconodule Methodios)
-Theology of icons followed popular practice in the 7th c., tidying it up into more refined theological dogma; the practice of iconodulia, not the theology, was what Konstantinos V's iconoclasm responded to; it was never highly dogmatic theology in itself that was at issue
One result of this read was a general distaste for intellectual posturing that one sees very commonly in inter-confessional debates among Christians. Styled as dealing with strong positions, not strawmen, confessional titans will haul their apparatus with them, detailing the glories of their theology. But if one peers a little bit behind it, most of the time one will find a complete mess. It turns out few, not even professional theologians, fully understand or adhere to the confessional position that marks their faction out as a single bloc. But the fact is that accessible dogma only really ever comes through practice. Tangible changes are the only ways forward. Simply trying to add a gloss to a popular practice does little. Accordingly Brubaker notes that dogmatic iconodulia never quite matched the popular practice, which was wilder and more unhinged than many wanted to admit. But this didn't preclude from dogmaticians from joining in. After recounting Anastasios of Sinai's story of the bleeding icon that slayed two dozen Arabs, Brubaker writes:
"as soon as we leave the rarefied atmosphere of learned theological treatises, the properties of the sacred portrait so carefully distinguished by Byzantine churchmen collapse. This is true not only of 'popular' literature such as saints' lives and miracle accounts, but also of non-theological texts written by the same elevated churchmen"She goes on to cite Theodore the Studite's letter, where he commends his friend for using an icon of St. Demetrios as a god-father. God-parenthood was important in Byzantium, and thus replacing a living (and perhaps far less holy) man for the saint, even though the saint was present as a wooden painting, was not simply valid, but commendable. Truly, the icon was not simply a window into heaven, but a living presence of a holy one.
I'm not sure of Brubaker's personal beliefs, but her account of "inventing" iconoclasm is not wholly hostile. She appears to find the easily produced icons as a sign of popular power, where common people are able to claim the presence of the holy without it having to be filtered through a top-down, imperially appointed, hierarchy. The victory of icons was not designed to be a popular victory, but it functioned like it. Bishops and emperors had to cow before popular devotional practices. While Brubaker notes that Konstantinos V had the tradition on his side, this doesn't really influence her positive account of iconodulia.
All in all, none of this answers the question of biblical normativity (though her remarks about tradition would suggest an answer), but it does show a history that does not fit most positions taken today.
No comments:
Post a Comment