Iconoclasts

[Pavlos]

Ok, I dont know how many others are orthodox (christian) here, but what are your thoughts on Iconoclasm? I know icons were once abundantly used but now only really used in the orthodox worship, what do you guys think? was iconoclasm a "westernized" form of worship? does anyone still feel that the use of icons is "idol" worship? i know the orthodox standpoint, but what are some other views? and do you think iconoclasm was beneficial or destructive to byzantium? i believe it was. thoughts?

[Honorius]

Ok, I dont know how many others are orthodox (christian) here, but what are your thoughts on Iconoclasm? I know icons were once abundantly used but now only really used in the orthodox worship, what do you guys think? was iconoclasm a "westernized" form of worship? does anyone still feel that the use of icons is "idol" worship? i know the orthodox standpoint, but what are some other views? and do you think iconoclasm was beneficial or destructive to byzantium? i believe it was. thoughts?

 

Not from an orthodox christian but from a Roman Catholic, I find the whole iconoclastic period in Byzantine history as futile and disgusting, can you just imagine the works of art destroyed, and they even pulled apart an enormous figure of Christ at the entrance to the Bucoleon called the Chalke...just imagine what it would've been like.

 

As for suggesting iconoclasm was a western form is not exactly correct...if I recall correctly the iconoclast emperors were influenced by islam to an extent I think... anyway I remember that when iconoclasm was trying to be implementeed in the western provinces in the exarchate of Ravenna and stuff that the people simply ignored the Emperors demand and mosaics such as those found at San Vitale were saved etc.

 

i dont find icons as idol worship per see but that aspect can sometimes be seen when people get a bit carried away - Hodgeteria for example

 

I find that whole iconoclastic period as being destructive to a certain degree

[Kosmo]

I'm orthodox Christian by birth and agnostic by choice. Icons are still highly present in orthodox churches and they are still attributed supernatural powers and miracles.

Iconoclasts bore a resemblance with the much later protestants especially Henri the VIII because emperors wanted the riches of the church and to curb it's power. They took some of her lands and gold and disbanded many monasteries especially because they thought monks were useless and many entered monasteries to escape drafting in the army.

Miraculous icons and relics were made up to increase the stature of churches and monasteries and in the process new local saints were created. This I've seen how it's still done some years ago.

Imperial power used a religious reason to curb the power of church and in that they succeeded. Until the end of Byzantium the church remained obedient to the emperors that could change the patriarch and other clergymen at will.

This movement also led to an increase in classical study and non-clerical teaching.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This movement also led to an increase in classical study and non-clerical teaching.

 

What is the evidence that the monasteries promoted education in the classics? Erasmus reported that monks were actively discouraged from learning Greek and that most monks were illiterate. It seems to me that Humanists and free-thinkers (like Gibbon) did far more to promote education in general--and classical education in particular--than did the monks.

[Pavlos]

I agree about it being destructive, but i dont know if i agree that it helped to switch thought from clerical to classical as someone said, ive always heared and read that eastern monks differed from western in that western were often highly educated but also the onlye ones in the society that were highly educated or even just plain educated other than the royalty. a common western scenario would be the lord being educated to some degree, the lay peopl being illiterate, and the monks/preists/bishops being well educated and preaching that they are he only ones who know what god wants and they are the only ones who know the truths. this contrasts eastern orthodox (im using the work orthodox even though that was not until after the great schism becuase i find it easier to think about in those terms) becuase in byzantium there was a far larger group of people that were educated and could write and read. So in my opinion, monks and clergy had less of an influence on how peolple thought in byzantium than in the west. i dont know how accurate the descriptions i have given you of the west are, but i have read that in several books, so im assuming its what was happening. any thoughts?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Ok, I dont know how many others are orthodox (christian) here, but what are your thoughts on Iconoclasm?

Salve, Amici. Here comes some extracts of the

EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD

 

Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.

Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service. If, however, the incumbent of a church wishes to have such church vessels and vestments altered, he must do this only with the assent of the holy Ecumenical patriarch and at the bidding of our pious Emperors. So also no prince or secular official shall rob the churches, as some have done in former times, under the pretext of destroying images. All this we ordain, believing that we speak as doth the Apostle, for we also believe that we have the spirit of Christ; and as our predecessors who believed the same thing spake what they had synodically defined, so we believe and therefore do we speak, and set forth a definition of what has seemed good to us following and in accordance with the definitions of our Fathers...

 

8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (karakthr) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!

(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!

(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and fires falsely represents a union of the two natures, let him be anathema!

(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, let him be anathema!

(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative (sketikh) union of the natures, etc.

(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, let him be anathema!

(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form

of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema!

(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, let him be anathema!

(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!

[Nephele]

What is the evidence that the monasteries promoted education in the classics? Erasmus reported that monks were actively discouraged from learning Greek and that most monks were illiterate. It seems to me that Humanists and free-thinkers (like Gibbon) did far more to promote education in general--and classical education in particular--than did the monks.

 

Which leads me to suspect that it must have been a classicist who came up with the collective phrase: "an abomination of monks".

 

But, seriously, I'd like to know, too: What evidence is there to support the apparently widely held belief that monasteries promoted education in the classics? As a huge fan of Snopes.com, I'm always interested in the debunking of popularly held beliefs -- as well as the evidence which supports such popularly held beliefs.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

But, seriously, I'd like to know, too: What evidence is there to support the apparently widely held belief that monasteries promoted education in the classics? As a huge fan of Snopes.com, I'm always interested in the debunking of popularly held beliefs -- as well as the evidence which supports such popularly held beliefs.

 

-- Nephele

Salve, Lady N. Here come some extracts from the english Wikipedia article on Scriptorium:

 

Of Cassiodorus at Vivarium

The monastery built in the second quarter of the 6th century under the eye of Cassiodorus at Vivarium in southern Italy contained a purpose-built scriptorium, because he was consciously attempting to collect, copy, and preserve texts.

Cassiodorus' description of his monastery contained a purpose-built scriptorium, with self-feeding oil lamps, a sundial, and a water-clock. The scriptorium would also have contained desks for the monks to sit at and copy texts, as well as the necessary ink wells, penknives, and quills. Cassiodorus also established a library where, at the end of the Roman Empire, he attempted to bring Greek learning to Latin readers and preserve texts both sacred and secular for future generations. As its unofficial librarian, Cassiodorus collected as many manuscripts as he could, he also wrote treatises aimed at instructing his monks in the proper uses of texts. In the end, however, the library at Vivarium was dispersed and lost, though it was still active circa 630.

Although not a monastic rule as such, Cassiodorus did write his Institutes as a teaching guide for the monks at Vivarium, the monastery he founded on his family's land in southern Italy. A classically educated Roman convert, Cassiodorus wrote extensively on scribal practices. He cautions over-zealous scribes to check their copies against ancient, trustworthy exemplars and to take care not to change the inspired words of scripture because of grammatical or stylistic concerns. He declared "every work of the Lord written by the scribe is a wound inflicted on Satan", for "by reading the Divine Scripture he wholesomely instructs his own mind and by copying the precepts of the Lord he spreads them far and wide". It is important to note that Cassiodorius did include the classical texts of ancient Rome and Greece in the monastic library. This was probably because of his upbringing, but was, nonetheless, unusual for a monastery of the time. When his monks copied these texts, Cassiodorus encourages them to amend texts for both grammar and style.

 

Of the Benedictines

Cassiodorus's contemporary, Benedict of Nursia, also allowed his monks to read the great works of the pagans in the monastery he founded at Monte Cassino in 529. The creation of a library here initiated the tradition of Benedictine scriptoria, where the copying of texts not only provided materials actually needed in the routines of the community and served as work for hands and minds otherwise idle, but produced a valuable product. Saint Jerome stated that the products of the scriptorium could be a source of revenue for the monastic community, but Benedict cautioned, "If there be skilled workmen in the monastery, let them work at their art in all humility".

Edited June 10, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Northern Neil]

Not from an orthodox christian but from a Roman Catholic, I find the whole iconoclastic period in Byzantine history as futile and disgusting, can you just imagine the works of art destroyed, and they even pulled apart an enormous figure of Christ at the entrance to the Bucoleon called the Chalke...just imagine what it would've been like.

I agree utterly with Honorius' points here - but from the point of view of an atheist. During the period 650 - 900 one sees a constant shrinkage of Byzantine territory, with a corresponding haemmorhage in its treasury. I cannot help but think this damage was caused partially by this useless and pointless conflict. It remains a constant mystery to me why such useless yet damaging conflicts about minor religious differences have occurred throughout history - and continue to do so.

[Kosmo]

This movement also led to an increase in classical study and non-clerical teaching.

 

What is the evidence that the monasteries promoted education in the classics?

 

I did not say they did. The Iconoclastic movement reduced the power of the church and her role in education. This and the traditions of learning in the Greek world were the clergy never got a monopoly over learning made it possible that Constantinople had after 1000 (but maybe even before) some layman teaching classic philosophy with a leader that received subsidies from the emperor as a high ranking official. That was very different from the West were learning was always connected with the church.

 

Byzantine bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs were usually well versed in classics. They comment classic writers, sometimes even in religious books and make their sermons using rhetoric. All educated Byzantines received lessons of both classics and religious matters.

 

As was pointed above monasteries played a major role in classical studies in the West as proved by the examples above and others like Bobbio or St. Gall.

[Pavlos]

Not from an orthodox christian but from a Roman Catholic, I find the whole iconoclastic period in Byzantine history as futile and disgusting, can you just imagine the works of art destroyed, and they even pulled apart an enormous figure of Christ at the entrance to the Bucoleon called the Chalke...just imagine what it would've been like.

I agree utterly with Honorius' points here - but from the point of view of an atheist. During the period 650 - 900 one sees a constant shrinkage of Byzantine territory, with a corresponding haemmorhage in its treasury. I cannot help but think this damage was caused partially by this useless and pointless conflict. It remains a constant mystery to me why such useless yet damaging conflicts about minor religious differences have occurred throughout history - and continue to do so.

 

Well, I see what your saying, and to be honest I thought the exact same way (im not an atheist far from it actually) but I never understood how stupid little differences caused so many problems. On the Icon issue, many people of the time thought that icons were idol worship, and I can see where they are comming from. I recently read into it, however, and found out what we orthodox truly believe about icons. we dont worship the wood or the paint or the image on the icon. we dont even worship the person IN the icon. (exept if it its jesus or god), we use icons as a form of rememberance of the lives of those depicted and we decorate our churches and homes with the icons to remind us of the lives of the saints, and to remind us to pray. the images we use are of the byzantine style (no renaissance images that are realistic portrayals of people) which depict a loose interpretation of the imahge of the person not a realistic representation. there is a great explanation of icons in the book "The Mountain of Silence" and "The Orthodox Church". In chapter 6 of "The Mountain Of Silence", Fr. Maximo compares icons with photos you take with a camera. he explains that when you take a picture of a loved one, and you hold the picture to be dear to you, it is not worshiping the person in it. if for example your mother or your wife dies and you have her picture with you and you kiss the picture before you go to sleep or anything like that your still not worshiping the person. the same with icons. we see icons as spiritual "pictures" of saints or jesus or god, that remind us of their lives. there is much more to say on this subject but i think i have covered the main points, i guess the reason for iconoclasm was in fact lack of understanding on the part of the iconoclasts. any thoughts on this?

[Northern Neil]

I recently read into it, however, and found out what we orthodox truly believe about icons. we dont worship the wood or the paint or the image on the icon. we dont even worship the person IN the icon. (exept if it its jesus or god), we use icons as a form of rememberance of the lives of those depicted and we decorate our churches and homes with the icons to remind us of the lives of the saints, and to remind us to pray...

 

we see icons as spiritual "pictures" of saints or jesus or god, that remind us of their lives. there is much more to say on this subject but i think i have covered the main points, i guess the reason for iconoclasm was in fact lack of understanding on the part of the iconoclasts. any thoughts on this?

It is precisely this lack of understanding I find so exasperating. These beautiful pictures were destroyed because people of one religious viewpoint made assumptions which were wrong, and decided that people of a different viewpoint were not allowed to exercise their spirituality in their own preferred way.

 

Earlier, classical statues 'naughty bits' and noses were hacked off, because Christians thought them immoral. Books were burnt by the Church in the middle ages, and a Sultan in egypt used the scrolls in the Library at Alexandria as firewood because ' If they contain information not in the Koran, they are blasphemous... if they contain information which is in the Koran, they are superfluous' - or something like that. Despite my lack of faith, I recognise that religion has produced much which I find interesting or beautiful. Its a shame it also destroys so much of it - the Bamiyan Buddhas being the most recent iconoclasm I can think of.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Of Cassiodorus at Vivarium

The monastery built in the second quarter of the 6th century under the eye of Cassiodorus at Vivarium in southern Italy contained a purpose-built scriptorium, because he was consciously attempting to collect, copy, and preserve texts.

 

It's very nice evidence that the monks were copying something, but what is the evidence that they were copying -- let alone teaching -- classical philosophy, literature, poetry, letters, and so forth? Nothing in the existence of the scriptorium suggests that these classical works were being copied. Indeed, very often we find such horrors as monks ERASING classical works to create copies of hymnals and psalms (e.g., see HERE). Indeed, modern researchers are today uncovering lost works of antiquity -- including lost works of Archimedes and commentaries on Aristotle -- by using multispectral imaging to scan medieval prayer books for invisible traces of the ancient ink washed away by Christian monks.

 

So, far from these scriptoria being preservers of antiquity, they were very often its leading destroyers.

[ASCLEPIADES]

It's very nice evidence that the monks were copying something, but what is the evidence that they were copying -- let alone teaching -- classical philosophy, literature, poetry, letters, and so forth? Nothing in the existence of the scriptorium suggests that these classical works were being copied.

 

Salve, MPC. Re-checking my last post:

Cassiodorus also established a library where, at the end of the Roman Empire, he attempted to bring Greek learning to Latin readers and preserve texts both sacred and secular for future generations.quote]

en.wikipideia posted some bibliography on their own; ref. 13 seems pivotal for their argumentation.

 

Specific examples may be found on Cassiodorus' own works: ie, INSTITUTIONES MUSICAE.

 

And of course, talking about Benedictine monks, Venrable Bede's HISTORIAM ECCLESIASTICAM GENTIS ANGLORUM is a must.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This evidence doesn't really support the claim either. First, we've been talking about the monasteries in the era of the iconoclasts (c. 750 AD), and Cassiodorus practiced nearly two hundred years prior. Second, the only classical text known as being familiar to Cassiodorus was the Latin Josephus, and there is no evidence that Cassiodorus promoted its being copied. Third, Cassiodorus' school was set up in opposition to the secular schools of the East, and almost all the texts mentioned by Cassiodorus were those of the early Christians (e.g., Augustine--and if spreading Augustine was the chief purpose of these monasteries, I suddenly have a newfound respect for the Vikings!).

 

Is this really the best evidence that the monasteries promoted the spread of classical texts? If so, I'm inclined to believe Erasmus' characterization of monks as largely illiterate con-men. Certainly the direct evidence of monks destroying the works of Archimedes is consistent with this characterization.