Byzantine Iconoclasm
Iconoclasm involves a complex series of evolving debates set in train by a problematic piece of canonical legislation. Debates were narrowly focused upon the question of the icon’s truthfulness of visual representation and ultimately led to the period of breaking images. Charles Barber states in Figure and Likeness on the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm that it is wrong to treat iconoclasm or its adherents as a single entity. He argues that the iconoclastic dispute concerned the definition of the icon itself as an appropriate medium for theology. Thus, according to the Charles, the icon must defend itself by resolving its status as a work of art, a necessary artifact. The necessity of this status is done in evolving debates
…show more content…
that used Aristotelian logic to demonstrate that an icon has the likeness of a holy figure yet it is different in essence.
The author states a view that visual representation can present the things it shows in a manner that is akin to the relics themselves. He focuses on matter and memory and he uses specific examples by providing texts such as when Leontios of Neapolis replies: “The command that forbade Israel to make any graven thing, neither image nor likeness of things in heaven or of things that are on the earth, is terrible; and yet he commanded Moses to make graven figures of cherubim, and he showed Ezekiel the temple of full of images and likenesses of graven figures, of lions, palm trees, and men” (pg. 17). The Jews say, “But these likenesses were not worshipped as gods, they were only intended as reminders” (pg.17). Thus, Christians were able to use the Jews response to justify icons because they were not worshiped as gods but were essential reminders of what God did. Charles successfully states what the iconophiles must do which is to distance Christians from the charge of idolizing or worshipping material things made by hand while maintaining a value for the icons medium of knowledge. “Thus, O Man, when Christians embrace crosses and icons, they do not bring reverence to the wood or the stones, to the gold or the perishable icon, or to the container or the relics, but through these offer glory, greeting, and reverence to God, the creator of them and all things” (pg.18). He transitions from matter to memory such as when he provides an example of the figure of the cross being venerated for the sake of Christ who was crucified on it. It is a memory of what Jesus did which gives it value, but if the wood is separated to two sticks, it is worthless and should be burned. The author provides both the iconoclasts and iconophiles views and arguments. He provides sources in the forms of texts and then he explains it in a simpler way that can be understood and he goes even further by proving that his interpretation is correct by providing more texts.
The author then transitions from the matter and memory of the icon to the term of the icon and the issue of idols. He stated that the veneration of images and objects could be traced for more than a hundred years prior to the onset of iconoclasm (pg. 39). He builds his argument by interpreting the iconoclast’s use of the term idolatry to identify a turn in the view of icons. Leviticus 26: 1 says “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God”. The concern during the iconoclasm period was the validity of the visual description of theological matters in an icon. The definition of idolatry and what is consists of affected the acceptance of icons in the Byzantine Empire. Charles Barber then provides an iconophiles point of view that if idolatry were present in the church prior to the council, then the fathers who attended it would have brought it to light and addressed it. Since it was previously mentioned that icons were present in earlier times then the claim is strong. Furthermore, icons for iconophiles was a way of understanding the depth of the humility of the Word of God (through His incarnation), His passion and saving death, and of His redemption. The author also includes paintings such as the Adoration of the crucified Christ (a fresco on the triumphal arch in Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome). Charles continuously points out limits on each side and what iconoclasts or iconophiles must assert to counterattack statements. The iconophiles had a difficult task of responding to the fact that an idol of dead matter couldn’t be considered an adequate likeness of a creature that has lived and (according to iconoclasts) an icon was partial and false because it only focused on the visible material of the creature and not on the invisible deity.
The author now transitions to personally arguing that Christology alone is an insufficient language for the complete defense of the icon as a medium of conveying Christian subjects. The reason for this is that Christology couldn’t provide an answer to how the icon truthfully shows the things it claims to describe. Idolatry was refuted because Christ had “overthrown” idols and opened divinity to visibility through His incarnation. “When the one who is bodiless and formless, immeasurable and boundless in his own nature, existing in the form of God, takes the form of a servant in substance and in stature and is found in a body of flesh, then you may draw his image and show it to anyone wishing the visual contemplation of it” (pg.70). Thus, Charles demonstrates that when one of the Trinity becomes flesh then the divine representation of Christ becomes possible.
After, the author looks into the investigation of how art may or may not show the Christian God.
The focus is now on the possibility of visual knowledge through the use of icons. The iconoclastic cases are examined in depth, instead of such a heavy emphasis on the iconophiles. He shows how they were able to build an alternate model for Christian representation out of existing traditions within Christian thought. The term figure and sign are used in looking at the accepted representation: the cross. The cross became the exclusive icon of the Christian faith and the use of it to represent the Godhead was widely accepted. Any other icon was against tradition and a dishonor to Christ. “The Lord does not tolerate that Christ be depicted as a form voiceless and bereft of breath in earthy matter, which is condemned by the scriptures” (pg. 92). This leads to the debate that while the figure of the cross is accepted, honored, and venerated, the icon of Christ is more deserving of honor and veneration because it is the figure of the sanctifying …show more content…
body.
In the next section of the book, the author transitions to the form and the likeness between the icon and the holy figure. According to Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, the truth is shown in the likeness (pg.108). The cult of icons is defended by arguing the necessity of icons as evidence of the fullness of the Incarnation. The author examines three causes (efficient cause, material cause, and formal cause) for the origin of the work of art. This is when Aristotelian logic changes the discourse of the icon to the point that artists are elevated in standard and seen as a tool working in service of a higher inspiration. The artifact (archetype) mentioned in the beginning of the book is touched on again. The author demonstrates that the archetype is the cause that derives the resemblance (pg.110). Patriarch Nikephoros in his rich passage First Refutation says that an icon is a likeness of an archetype and a representation of things existing and being. The fundamental supposition is that an icon differs from the thing it shows both in terms of essence and subject (pg.111). The formal cause is that a true icon remains dependent upon the existence of the thing shown. Icon and archetype are connected by form and not by nature. Also, the author links back to a previous chapter to remind the reader that the iconoclasts criticized artifacts as an object made yet iconophiles argued that the concern of the artist was in the art alone, and the content was prior to the artist and not intervened by him or her. Furthermore, the origin of the work of art is God and not the artist. Charles Barber also provides an excerpt in which paintings cannot divide that which it represents because painting is distinct from what it represents. This is a response that the icon shows just the human part of Christ and not the divine part. The artist can only paint the physical aspects that are seen but the icon doesn’t seek to limit God’s power and it doesn’t claim to include the invisible and divine aspects of Christ.
The word and the image portion of the book are on the last complex iconoclast criticism. The criticism was that an icon does not have words so then is it even worth having and can it share any Christian knowledge? In other words, can an icon stand alone as a medium of such knowledge or does it require words to be intelligent? Theodore of Stoudios in First Refutation stated that words can give rise to disputes and doubts while images are direct and immediate (pg. 129). Moreover, the vision is more prompt to knowledge than hearing. “For surely, whenever the thing seen is touched and caressed by the outpouring and emanation of the optical rays, the form of the thing seen is sent on to the mind, letting it be translated from there to the memory for the accumulation of a knowledge that is without any error” (pg. 136).
In sum, in the beginning of the book, the author stated that the purpose was to understand iconoclasm (the iconoclasts and iconophiles reasoning for the acceptance or condemnation of icons).
The status of the work of art was questioned to that of theology. The iconophiles needed to successfully confront various issues in regard to the icon such as the question of its truthfulness in visual representation. This required Aristotelian concepts and the analysis of the term likeness. In the introduction, the author questioned if icons were truthful and in the conclusion two statements answered it. First, it’s truthful in relation to the person within its borders. Second, it’s truthful in terms of its own conditions as a medium that shows without representing (pg. 139). An icon is complete in itself yet partial in relation to the one represented therein. John of Damascus spoke of participation and commentated Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit by saying, “it is the same with material things which by themselves are not to be venerated, but if the one depicted is full of grace, they [the material things] become participants in grace in proportion to faith” (pg.121). Holiness is not present in icons by nature but can be thought of as being present because the holy persons participate in grace and honor. The icon is worthy by the person represented and it benefits viewers by providing a good and holy model to strive to be like. Overall, the author brought up the point that an icon
is a site in which one can find the precise and clear eyewitness of deeds and persons. It’s an eyewitness of events that does in fact make it valid and a necessary medium for Christian knowledge.
The sources used by the author are on the aspects of iconoclastic controversy, art historical discussions, on brief accounts on the onset of iconoclasm by various individuals, and even on the cult of images in the era before iconoclasm. He used all of these sources and provided them so that others could inform the reader by someone other than the author. The multitude of primary sources and second literature such as iconoclastic councils and theory of images are chosen wisely and make the author reliable. I can trust the consistency of the author’s account of the truth. He doesn’t omit details and his interpretation is aligned with the primary sources. However, I do not think that he is credible because although he seemed neutral in the beginning he provided more information on the iconophiles and he tended to side with their view of the essential need for icons.
that used Aristotelian logic to demonstrate that an icon has the likeness of a holy figure yet it is different in essence.
The author states a view that visual representation can present the things it shows in a manner that is akin to the relics themselves. He focuses on matter and memory and he uses specific examples by providing texts such as when Leontios of Neapolis replies: “The command that forbade Israel to make any graven thing, neither image nor likeness of things in heaven or of things that are on the earth, is terrible; and yet he commanded Moses to make graven figures of cherubim, and he showed Ezekiel the temple of full of images and likenesses of graven figures, of lions, palm trees, and men” (pg. 17). The Jews say, “But these likenesses were not worshipped as gods, they were only intended as reminders” (pg.17). Thus, Christians were able to use the Jews response to justify icons because they were not worshiped as gods but were essential reminders of what God did. Charles successfully states what the iconophiles must do which is to distance Christians from the charge of idolizing or worshipping material things made by hand while maintaining a value for the icons medium of knowledge. “Thus, O Man, when Christians embrace crosses and icons, they do not bring reverence to the wood or the stones, to the gold or the perishable icon, or to the container or the relics, but through these offer glory, greeting, and reverence to God, the creator of them and all things” (pg.18). He transitions from matter to memory such as when he provides an example of the figure of the cross being venerated for the sake of Christ who was crucified on it. It is a memory of what Jesus did which gives it value, but if the wood is separated to two sticks, it is worthless and should be burned. The author provides both the iconoclasts and iconophiles views and arguments. He provides sources in the forms of texts and then he explains it in a simpler way that can be understood and he goes even further by proving that his interpretation is correct by providing more texts.
The author then transitions from the matter and memory of the icon to the term of the icon and the issue of idols. He stated that the veneration of images and objects could be traced for more than a hundred years prior to the onset of iconoclasm (pg. 39). He builds his argument by interpreting the iconoclast’s use of the term idolatry to identify a turn in the view of icons. Leviticus 26: 1 says “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God”. The concern during the iconoclasm period was the validity of the visual description of theological matters in an icon. The definition of idolatry and what is consists of affected the acceptance of icons in the Byzantine Empire. Charles Barber then provides an iconophiles point of view that if idolatry were present in the church prior to the council, then the fathers who attended it would have brought it to light and addressed it. Since it was previously mentioned that icons were present in earlier times then the claim is strong. Furthermore, icons for iconophiles was a way of understanding the depth of the humility of the Word of God (through His incarnation), His passion and saving death, and of His redemption. The author also includes paintings such as the Adoration of the crucified Christ (a fresco on the triumphal arch in Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome). Charles continuously points out limits on each side and what iconoclasts or iconophiles must assert to counterattack statements. The iconophiles had a difficult task of responding to the fact that an idol of dead matter couldn’t be considered an adequate likeness of a creature that has lived and (according to iconoclasts) an icon was partial and false because it only focused on the visible material of the creature and not on the invisible deity.
The author now transitions to personally arguing that Christology alone is an insufficient language for the complete defense of the icon as a medium of conveying Christian subjects. The reason for this is that Christology couldn’t provide an answer to how the icon truthfully shows the things it claims to describe. Idolatry was refuted because Christ had “overthrown” idols and opened divinity to visibility through His incarnation. “When the one who is bodiless and formless, immeasurable and boundless in his own nature, existing in the form of God, takes the form of a servant in substance and in stature and is found in a body of flesh, then you may draw his image and show it to anyone wishing the visual contemplation of it” (pg.70). Thus, Charles demonstrates that when one of the Trinity becomes flesh then the divine representation of Christ becomes possible.
After, the author looks into the investigation of how art may or may not show the Christian God.
The focus is now on the possibility of visual knowledge through the use of icons. The iconoclastic cases are examined in depth, instead of such a heavy emphasis on the iconophiles. He shows how they were able to build an alternate model for Christian representation out of existing traditions within Christian thought. The term figure and sign are used in looking at the accepted representation: the cross. The cross became the exclusive icon of the Christian faith and the use of it to represent the Godhead was widely accepted. Any other icon was against tradition and a dishonor to Christ. “The Lord does not tolerate that Christ be depicted as a form voiceless and bereft of breath in earthy matter, which is condemned by the scriptures” (pg. 92). This leads to the debate that while the figure of the cross is accepted, honored, and venerated, the icon of Christ is more deserving of honor and veneration because it is the figure of the sanctifying …show more content…
body.
In the next section of the book, the author transitions to the form and the likeness between the icon and the holy figure. According to Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, the truth is shown in the likeness (pg.108). The cult of icons is defended by arguing the necessity of icons as evidence of the fullness of the Incarnation. The author examines three causes (efficient cause, material cause, and formal cause) for the origin of the work of art. This is when Aristotelian logic changes the discourse of the icon to the point that artists are elevated in standard and seen as a tool working in service of a higher inspiration. The artifact (archetype) mentioned in the beginning of the book is touched on again. The author demonstrates that the archetype is the cause that derives the resemblance (pg.110). Patriarch Nikephoros in his rich passage First Refutation says that an icon is a likeness of an archetype and a representation of things existing and being. The fundamental supposition is that an icon differs from the thing it shows both in terms of essence and subject (pg.111). The formal cause is that a true icon remains dependent upon the existence of the thing shown. Icon and archetype are connected by form and not by nature. Also, the author links back to a previous chapter to remind the reader that the iconoclasts criticized artifacts as an object made yet iconophiles argued that the concern of the artist was in the art alone, and the content was prior to the artist and not intervened by him or her. Furthermore, the origin of the work of art is God and not the artist. Charles Barber also provides an excerpt in which paintings cannot divide that which it represents because painting is distinct from what it represents. This is a response that the icon shows just the human part of Christ and not the divine part. The artist can only paint the physical aspects that are seen but the icon doesn’t seek to limit God’s power and it doesn’t claim to include the invisible and divine aspects of Christ.
The word and the image portion of the book are on the last complex iconoclast criticism. The criticism was that an icon does not have words so then is it even worth having and can it share any Christian knowledge? In other words, can an icon stand alone as a medium of such knowledge or does it require words to be intelligent? Theodore of Stoudios in First Refutation stated that words can give rise to disputes and doubts while images are direct and immediate (pg. 129). Moreover, the vision is more prompt to knowledge than hearing. “For surely, whenever the thing seen is touched and caressed by the outpouring and emanation of the optical rays, the form of the thing seen is sent on to the mind, letting it be translated from there to the memory for the accumulation of a knowledge that is without any error” (pg. 136).
In sum, in the beginning of the book, the author stated that the purpose was to understand iconoclasm (the iconoclasts and iconophiles reasoning for the acceptance or condemnation of icons).
The status of the work of art was questioned to that of theology. The iconophiles needed to successfully confront various issues in regard to the icon such as the question of its truthfulness in visual representation. This required Aristotelian concepts and the analysis of the term likeness. In the introduction, the author questioned if icons were truthful and in the conclusion two statements answered it. First, it’s truthful in relation to the person within its borders. Second, it’s truthful in terms of its own conditions as a medium that shows without representing (pg. 139). An icon is complete in itself yet partial in relation to the one represented therein. John of Damascus spoke of participation and commentated Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit by saying, “it is the same with material things which by themselves are not to be venerated, but if the one depicted is full of grace, they [the material things] become participants in grace in proportion to faith” (pg.121). Holiness is not present in icons by nature but can be thought of as being present because the holy persons participate in grace and honor. The icon is worthy by the person represented and it benefits viewers by providing a good and holy model to strive to be like. Overall, the author brought up the point that an icon
is a site in which one can find the precise and clear eyewitness of deeds and persons. It’s an eyewitness of events that does in fact make it valid and a necessary medium for Christian knowledge.
The sources used by the author are on the aspects of iconoclastic controversy, art historical discussions, on brief accounts on the onset of iconoclasm by various individuals, and even on the cult of images in the era before iconoclasm. He used all of these sources and provided them so that others could inform the reader by someone other than the author. The multitude of primary sources and second literature such as iconoclastic councils and theory of images are chosen wisely and make the author reliable. I can trust the consistency of the author’s account of the truth. He doesn’t omit details and his interpretation is aligned with the primary sources. However, I do not think that he is credible because although he seemed neutral in the beginning he provided more information on the iconophiles and he tended to side with their view of the essential need for icons.