Wilken's ch. 31 covers "Images and the Making of Byzantium." It's mostly on the iconoclasm controversies in the eighth and ninth centuries (wikipedia). Of course, these were periods in which the Byzantine empire was greatly reduced in extent and power and threatened by Muslims, so Wilken covers some of that ground, as well.
Siege of Constantinople (674–678, wikipedia) by the Muslims for a period of four years. The Greeks were able to overcome partly by "Greek Fire" (wikipedia). This was not the first siege of Constantinople, even in the same century. Fifty years earlier the city had been besieged by the Persians and Avars (wikipedia).
Wilken prepares for talking about iconoclasm by tracing some early Greek Christian thoughts about images. Images were brought up in a couple of canons of the Council in Trullo (692, wikipedia), a.k.a., the Quinisext Council, called by the emperor, Justinian II. It met in a hall covered by a dome (trullus) in the imperial palace (wikipedia) of Constantinople, and it was intended to complete the work of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils. Though the assembly considered itself to be an ecumenical council, it was basically an eastern council, as Wilken (pp. 298–99) shows.
The acts of the Council in Trullo are available in several editions, but a most convenient edition, printing the acts in Greek, Latin, and English, appeared in 1995.
The council discussed all kinds of issues, and one who looks through the canons (as I have done, in that 1995 edition) will be struck by how much they talk about marriage and sex. Wilken mentions this topic as the first major thing addressed by the council (canon 3, pp. 69–74 in the 1995 edition), and they stressed that the eastern practice allowed for marriage of priests, whereas the western practice preferred a celibate priesthood (which would become canon law in the west in the twelfth century). But in the East, a married bishop could not live with his wife (canon 12, pp. 82–83).
The gathered bishops stressed in other canons their distinction from Rome (wikipedia) and other eastern groups (e.g., Armenians, wikipedia), such as on the practice of fasting on Saturdays during Lent (see canons 55–56, cf. canon 99).
The Council in Trullo claimed to speak for the Church at large, but as one reads through its canons it is apparent that it is describing a distinctly Byzantine Christian world that was emerging in the years after the hammering it had taken from the Arabs. And it is this feature that gives the council its historical significance: it offers us a glimpse of the form of Christian life that would define the Greek East and later the Slavic Christian world, what came to be called Eastern Orthodoxy. (Wilken p. 299)
Back to images. Wilken mentions two particular canons, one on crosses and the other on depictions of Christ. Here are the relevant canons, copied from the 1995 edition.
73. That the sign of the cross must not be set into the floor.
The life-giving cross has shown us salvation, and we ought with all diligence to render fitting honour to that through which we have been saved from the ancient fall. Wherefore, paying reverence to it in mind and word and sentiment, we command that signs of the cross which have been set into the floor by certain persons should be erased completely, in order that the trophy of our victory may not be insulted by the trampling feet of those who walk upon it. We decree, therefore, that those who henceforth set the sign of the cross into the floor should be excommunicated. (p. 155)
82. That artists are not to protray the Forerunner pointing to a lamb.
In some depictions of the venerable images, the Forerunner is portrayed pointing his finger to a lamb, and this has been accepted as a representation of grace, prefiguring for us through the law the true Lamb, Christ our God. Venerating, then, these ancient representations and foreshadowings as symbols and prefigurations of truth handed down by the Church, nevertheless, we prefer grace and truth, which we have received as fulfilment of the law. Therefore, in order that what is perfect, even in paintings, may be portrayed before the eyes of all, we decree that henceforth the figure of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Christ our God, should be set forth in images in human form, instead of the ancient lamb; for in this way we apprehend the depth of the humanity of the Word of God, and are led to the remembrance of his life in the flesh, his passion and his saving death, and of the redemption which thereby came to the world. (pp. 162–64)
As for canon 73, Christians should reverence images of the cross, which means not putting them in the floor. And for canon 82, Christ should not be depicted as a lamb. Wilken (p. 300) gives the example of such a depiction as the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna. The Wikipedia page has a not-very-close picture of the image of Christ as a lamb on the ceiling of this church building. A better shot is provided by this website or in the video produced by the tourism board of Ravenna.
100. "That those things which incite pleasures are not to be portrayed on panels."
Wisdom commands, Let your eyes look directly forward and Keep you heart with all vigilance (Prov 4:25, 23); for the sensations of the body all to easily influence the soul. Therefore, we command that henceforth absolutely no pictures should be drawn which enchant the eyes, be they on panels or set forth in any other wise, corrupting the mind and inciting the flames of shameful pleasures. If anyone dares to do this, he shall be excommunicated. (pp. 180–81)
Wilken then cites Gregory of Nyssa's comment that every time he sees an artistic rendering of the Akedah, it brings him to tears. This is a comment Gregory of Nyssa makes in a minor treatise called De deitate filii et spiritus sancti et in Abraham. I haven't found an English translation of this work, but I did find an English translation of the relevant passage in an open access journal article, which cites the passage from Migne's edition (PG 46.572c–d). But there is a more recent and authoritative edition of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, the series Gregorii Nysseni Opera (GNO), and archive.org makes available to relevant volume: GNO 10.2. The relevant comment comes near the end of the treatise in the GNO edition on pp. 138–39: εἶδον πολλάκις ἐπὶ γραφῆς εἰκόνα τοῦ πάθους καὶ οὐκ ἀδακρυτὶ τὴν θέαν παρῆλθον, ἐναργῶς τῆς τέχνης ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν ἀγοήσης τὴν ἱστορίαν, "I have often seen an image of the suffering in a picture (γραφή) and I pass by the sight not without tears, what with the art bringing the story distinctly under the eye."
By the way, this is the same work with another famous comment from Gregory, noted here by Roger Pearse, about the way discussions of trinitarian theology were so commonly heard on the street. That passage is at GNO 10.2, p. 121.
It was Epiphanius who said "When images are put up the customs of the pagans do the rest" (Panarion 27.6.10). Here is the fuller context, in the translation by Frank Williams. Epiphanius is talking about the Carpocratians:
They have images painted with colors—some, moreover, have images made of gold, silver and other material—which they say are portraits of Jesus, and made by Pontius Pilate! That is, the portraits of the actual Jesus while he was dwelling among men! They possess images like these in secret, and of certain philosophers besides—Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest—and they also place other portraits of Jesus with these philosophers. And after setting them up they worship them and celebrate heathen mysteries. For once they have erected these images, theygo on to follow the customs of the heathen. But what are <the> customs of the heathen but sacrifices and the rest? (Panarion 27.6.9–10; trans. Williams, p. 114)
As Williams notes, Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25 also treats the Carpocratians, and at §6 he mentions their images, with some of the same comments that Epiphanius makes here.
Finally we get to the iconoclasm controversy, and I'll just put down a few notes.
Emperor Leo III (d. 741, wikipedia), in response to a volcanic eruption on the island of Thera: "The emperor thought the empire had been abandoned by God because the people had fallen into idolatry through venerating images. But there was no official prohibition and no systematic destruction of images" (p. 302).
Constantine V (emperor 741–775, wikipedia) was more opposed to images.
Council of Hieria in 754 (wikipedia). Wikipedia says there were 338 bishops in attendance, and they opposed icons.
John of Damascus (d. 750) had been a defender of the veneration of icons. He wrote Against Those Who Denounce the Sacred Images. Three treatises by John on the topic have been translated by Andrew Louth for the Popular Patristics series.
His signal contribution was to show that the prohibition of icons challenged the Christian belief in the Incarnation, that God who is before time and beyond space became man in the person of Jesus Christ and lived at a particular time and place in history. Because the divine Word, the eternal Son of God, had taken on human flesh, writes John, it is possible, indeed necessary, to "draw his image and show it to anyone willing to gaze at it." ... John readily granted that the Scriptures forbid the making of images of God, but the command against making graven images was given in ancient times to the Jewish people before the coming of Christ. Because God clothed himself in human form and became visible, says John, "you may draw his likeness." (Wilken pp. 302–3)
Leo IV (emperor 775–780, wikipedia) did not leave much of a mark, at least, not in the telling of Wilken. His widow was Irene or Athens (c. 750–803, wikipedia), and she was regent until her son, Constantine VI, came of age. Irene was less iconoclastic than the imperial family had been. Wilken makes it sound like she forced out Paul IV, the iconoclastic patriarch of Constantinople (wikipedia), though Wikipedia does it present Paul's retirement in those terms. Paul was replaced by Tarasios (wikipedia), who presided at the seventh ecumenical councils, Nicaea II (787, wikipedia), which condemned iconoclasm.
Theodore of Studium (759–826, wikipedia) was a pro-icon leader during the second wave of the iconoclasm controversy in the ninth century (wikipedia), which came to an end at the Council of Constantinople (843, wikipedia).
At the end of the chapter, Wilken says that the decisions at Nicaea II were not well-received in Charlemagne's court, and Theodulf of Orléans—whom I know more for his edition of the Vulgate—"prepared a lengthy refutation of the acts of the Council of Nicaea."
No comments:
Post a Comment