TALIA

CHRISTIANA ANALECTA
z6u

Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in

'Winkler
Honor of

edited by
Hans-Jiirgen Feulner, lena Velkovska,and Robert F. Taft, S.J.

:ir
i4',
i:;

l' ir ;

1
I

i
:

P O N T I F I C I OI S T I T U T O O R I E N T L E
PIAZZAS.MAruAMAGGIORE,
7
I_00185
ROMA
2000

.t

ORIENTALIA

CHRISTIANA ANALECTA
260

Q/'
*.'

OFCULTURES
CROSSROAD
Studiesin Liturgy and Patristicsin
Honor of CabrieleWinkler

edited by
Hans-Jrgen Feulner, Elena Velkovska, and Robert F. Taft, S.J.

P O N T I F I C I OI S T I T U T OO R I E N T A L E
?
PIMZAS.MARIAMAGGIORE,
I-OO1B5
ROMA
2000

-l

1a"

,^rd -'

-af

ORIENTALIA

CHRISTIANA ANALECTA

EDITOR
RobertF. Taft, S.J.
ASSISTANTTO THE EDITOR
StefanoParenti
ASSOCIATEEDITOR
EdwardG. Famrgia,S.J.
WITH
The Professorsof the PontificalOrientalInstitute
SECRETARY
Bernardo Armti, S.J.
MANAGING EDITOR
Jaroslaw Dziewicki
All correspondence conceming manuscripts should. be addressed to the Ed.itor;
all other con'espond.enceto the Mano.ging Ed.itor.

@ 2000 Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Roma.

All rights reserved.

ISBN 88-7210-325-8
Acknowledgements: the Editors gratefully acknowledge receiving from the Karlsruhe
Badische Landesbibliothek the rights to reproduce the illustration of the l2ll4th c.
Artiphonale Monasticum, Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, AUG perg. 60, ff. 2', in
Prof. Hansjakob Becker'spaper.

Finito .li sta'1|pare nel 'tese di febbnio 2000 da a

npolitoqrufra 2000 s.a.s. di De MaEisMs R. I' C.
Via Tiento,46 - 00046 Grcuafenata (Rott) - Te|. e Fu 06.9410423
E. n ui I: de n tugis /'is@p elag$. i t

,'!

L. r,'

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations

Letter of Archbishop Khajag BARSAMTN

Introduction. Gabricle Winkler at Sixty. Vita et opera

1l

Hans-Jrgen FEUTNER,
University of Tbingen, List of Publications of
Gabiele Winklcr

3l

Luise ABRAMowsKr,University of Tbingen, Narsai, Ephrrim und.

Kyrill ber lesu Verlnssenheitstuf.Matth. 27,46
Hansjakob BEcKER, University of Mainz, Aspiciens - Aspiciebam.
Tradition und Trandormation des Antiphonale Offi.cii im Mittelalter .,.
Gabriel BERToNIER,
OCSO, St. Joseph's Abbey, Spencer Massachusetts (USA), Foar titurgical Kanons of Elias I I of Jerusalem . . . .
'1
Heinzgerd BRAKMANN,
F.-J.-Dlger-Institut, Bonn,
ranawrl ro
Kupiou. Christi Lichtmess im frhchistlichen Jerusalem . . . . . . .
Sebastian P. BRocK, Oxford University, Toward.sa Typology ol the
Epicleses in the West Syrian Anaphoras .

43

151

173
Armenuhui DRoST-ABGARjAN
and Hermann GoLTz. Universitv of
Halle, Eine armenische bersetzungdes Hymnos Akathistos. Einleitung, Edition, deutsche bersetzungund armenisch-griechisches
Glossar .
193
Hans-Jrgen FEULNER,University of Ttibingen, Zu d.en Editionen
orientalischerAnaphoren . .
z5l
Michael Daniel FNDIKYAN,St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, Ner,"
York, On the Oigins and Early Evolution of the Armenian Office of
Sunrise .
Albert GRHARDS,
University of Bonn , Akklamationen im Euchaistiegebet.Funktion und Gestahim Liturgievergleich

315

Stephen GERo,University of Tbingen, What Werethe Holy Images of

the Iconoclasts?

331

Gregor HANKE,O,S.B,, Benediktinerabtei Plankstetten, Bavarta, Der

Odenkanon des Tagzeitenitus Konstantinopels im Licht der
BeitrdgeH, Schneidersund O. Strunks - eine Relecture . . . , . . . .
Andreas HEINZ, Deutsches Liturgisches Institut and University of
lrier, Sonntq.gsfrmmigkeitin der heutigen Liturgie der SyischMaroniischen Kirche . .
Sebasti JANERAS,
Barcelona, Saint Jean Chrysostomeet la Glande
Entre . .

395

TBLE OF CONTENTS

Maxwell E. JoHNsoN,University of Notre Dame, Indiana (USA), Te

Oigins of the Anaphoral Sanctus and. Epiclesis Revisited.: Th.
Contribution of GabrieleWinkler and lts Implications Franz KoHLScHETN,
University of Bamberg, Konturcn dcr Lituriewksenschaft. Zur Bercksichtigung d.er stlichen Liturgien bei en
Autoren liturgiewissenschaftlicherHandbiicher Franz Xayer Schmid
(1800-1871) und Johann Bqptist Lft (I80j -j 870)
Christoph MARKscHrEs,University of lena, Origenes und die Kormentietung d.espaulinischen Rmerbiefs - einige Bemerkungen
2ur ReTeption von antiken Kommentarlechniken im Christentum
des d.ritten lahrhunderts und. ihrer Vorgeschichte . ,
461
Reinhard MEssNR,University of Innsbruck, Zur Euchaistie in den
Thomasalcten, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Friihgeschichte der euchanstischenEpiklese
Marcel METZGER,University of Strasbourg, pagesfminines d.es Cons t i t u t i o n s a p o s t o l i q u e s. . . . .
515
Stefano PRrNTr,Pontificio Istituto Liturgico Sant,Anselmo, Rome,
M e s e d-. i M e o ( t t o y. . . . . .
Thomas Porr, O.S.B., Abbaye Sainte-Croix, Chevetogne, Belgium,
Rfortne monastique et yolution litulgique. La reforme stoudiie . - . 557
Erich RENHART,University of Graz, Zu einem Gebetseinschubin der
Redaktionder Basiliusanaphora ........
ingercnartnenischen
. 591
Charles RrNoux, O.S.B., Abbaye d'En Calcat, Frar'ce, Le. Gloria in
excelsis Deo de l'glise armnienne
603
SAMIRKhalil Samir, S.J., Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome, L'Encrclopdie liturgique d'Ibn Kabar (t 1324) et son apologie d'usagLs
coptes ..
619
Hans-Joachim ScHULz, University of Wiirzburg, Die Spiepelunp urkirchlicher Taufmystagogieund Taufpraxis ii tot S,S-
Ut
)o to
""
657
Robert F. TAFr, S.J., Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rorne, The pr|pativtoy in the 6/7th c. "Nanation of the Abbots lohn and Soohronius." An Exercisein ComparativeLiturg . . . .
675
Robert W. THoMsoN,Oxford University, Saint Ephrem and an Armenian Homily on the Passion
693
Elena VELKovsKA,University of Sien, I "d.odiciprokcimena" d.elmattutino cattedralebizantino .
7Os
Boghos Levon ZEKTYAN,
University of Venice, L'Armenia tra Bizanzio
e I'Iran dei Sasanidi e momenti delln fondaTione d.ell'id.eolosia
dell'Atnenia cistiana (secc.V-VII). Preliminari per una sintesi . . . . 717

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

Acta Snctomm (Antverpiae et alibi 1643 ff.)

AASS
Analecta Bollandiana
AB
Eduardus Schwrtz, Acta Conciliorum Oecuftenicorum (Berli
ACO
r914 ff.)
Archiv fur Orientforschung
fo
Archiv fu r Liturgiewissenschaft
ALw
Archives de l'Orient Chrtien
AOC
Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae. Subsidia
BELS
Franois Halkin, Biz'liotheca Hagiographica Gtueca (SH 8a, BruxelBHG
les 1957r):
Auctaium BHG (SH 47, Bruxelles 1969); Noeum auctaium B}IG
BHGAJBHGNA
(SH 65, Bruxelles 1984)
Patjj Peeters, Bibliotheca Hagiogrophica On.erlalis (Bmxelles 1910)
BHO
Bibliotieca Orientalis (Leiden 1943/44ff.)
Bio
Josephus Simonius Assemanus,Bibliotheca Oient(iis Clementi4oBO
Vaticana (Ror'tae l'119,1721,1725, 1728) (rep. Hildesheim 1975)
Frank Edward Brightman, Liturges Eastem and Westet'n, L Eastem
Brightman
Liturgies (Oxf ord | 896)
Bulletin de la Socit d'Archologie Copte
BSAC
Byzantion
Byz
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
BZ
Corpus Christianorum, Series Craeca (Turnhout 1971ff )
ccG
Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout 1953 ff.)
CCL
The Catholic Historicl Review
CHR
Clavis Patrut 1 Gtaecontm,5 vols. ed. M. Geerard, F, Glorie (CorcPc
pus Christianorum, Tumhout 1974 ff.)
Corpus Scriptorum christianomm orientalium (Lor"rvain1903 ff )
csco
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticontm Latinorum (Wien 1866 ff.)
CSEL
corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn 1828-1897)
CSHB
Dictionnaire d'Archologie Chrtienne et de Liturgie
DACL
(Wuburg 1863ROC Henricus Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium... I,
Denzinger,
1864)
Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Gographie Ecclsiastique (Paris
DHGE
1912ff.)
Aleksej . Dmitrievskij, opisaftie Liturgieskich rukopisei chraniaDmitrievskij
Iichsia , bibliotekachptut oslat)nagorostoka, I-II (Kiev 1895, 1901)
III (Petrograd1917)
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DOP
Epheme des Liturgicae
EL
Echos d'Orient
EO
Franciscus Xavenus Funk, Didascala et Constitutiones ApostoloFutk l-ll
rulz I-II (Paderborn 1905,rep. Torino 1964)
Carl Brockelmann, Geschbhte der arabischen Uteratut (weirrl r
GAL
1898)lI (Leiden 1912)
Idem I-Il (Leiden, 1943-1949)
GAL2
1derfl,Supplementbnde I-III (Leiden 1937, 193a, 1942)
GALS
Die gdechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (Leipzig/Berlin 1897ff )
GCS
Jacobus Goar, Exyrot siee Rituale graecotum (Venezia 1730'
Gor
reDr. Grz 1960)
Anton Baumstark, Gescirhte der syrbchen Literatul (Bor.r, 7922)
CSL
Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden-Kln 1952 ff.)
HOr
Henry Bradshaw Society
HBS
Irnikon
lrn
Jahrbuch der sterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschft (1951JOB
68)i Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik (wien 1969 ff.)
Joumal of Semitic Studies
JSSt

JTS
LOC
LO
LQF
JSAS
LThKr-2'3
Mansi
MCH
Metzger I-III
Mus

oc
ocA
och
ocP
OKS
OLP
oLz

os

Pauly-Wissowa
Pedalion
PG
PL
PO
POC
PS
REArm
RByz
REB
RHE
Renaudot, HP
Rhallis-Potlis
RHC
RHE
ROC
RQ
RSBN
RSR
SC
SH
ST
SVNC
SynOr
ThR
ThQ
TU
VC
ZDMG

The Journal of Theological Studies

Eusbe Rnaudot, Ziturgiantm Orientaliutn Collectio, 2 vol. (Frarturr 18472)
Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen
Liturgiegeschichtiche Quellen und Forschungen, deinde Liturgiewissenschaftliche O. u. F. 0957 ff.)
The Journal of the Society for Armetian Studies
Lexikon fta Theologie und Kirche (1930, 1957, 1993)
Johannes Dominicus |i1.ansl,Sacroram Conciliorumiova et auplis_
sina coe.rto (Fenze 1759 ff.)
Monument Cermaniae Historica inde ab anno 500 usoue ad
annum 1500(Hannover 1826ff.)
Marcel Metzger, Izs Cottstitutions Apostoliques, SC 320, 329, 336
(Paris1985,1986.I987)
Le Muson
Oriens Christianus
Orientalia CMstiana Analecta
Orientalia Christiana
Oriertalia Christiana Periodica
OstkircNiche Studien
Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodic
Orientalische Litemturzeituns
L'Orient Syrien
Paulys Realenzyklopdieder klassischenAltertumswissenschft
ndX,rcviror iiraws oi itoi Kai ossor Kclv(iv(v AivaL t9OE5)
Jacobus Paulus Migne, PatrologiaGraeca(pris tSSi_t dOO)
{acobls Paufus Mign e, Patologia latina (paris l84l _1864)
Patrologia Orientalis (pris 1903 ff.)
Proche-Orient Chrrien
Patrologiasyriac, I- l (paris 1897, I9O7, 192?)
Revue de tudes Armniennes
Reallexikon der Byzantinistik
Revue des Etudes Byzantines
Relue d'Histoire Ecclsiastioue
Eusbe Renudot, Historia i'atriarcharum Aletcandinorum Jacobi_
tarutu (Pa\is l7 13\
M4ll
et M. Potlis, 1jwafl1a td)r tEi@ ra) iep,t tcctdral) (t:v
9.^l
'Afivcq,
1852-1859)
Recueil.desHistoriens des Croisades(paris 1g64-1906)
Revue d histoire ecclsiastioue
Revue de l'Orient Chrtien
Rmische Quartalschr-ift
Rivist di Studi Bizantini e Neoelledcr
Recherchesde Science Religieuse
Sources Ch-rriennes(Paris l94t fl)
Subsidia Hagiographica (Bnrxelles 1886ff.)
Studi e Testi (Cirt del Vaticano t9O0 ff.)
Angelo Mai, Scriptorum Vetetum Nc",)aColtectio l0 voll. (Romae
1825-1838)
Jean-Bptiste Chabot, Stnod.icon Otientale ou Recueil des synodes
nestoriens(Pans 1902,
Theologische Rer,rre
Theologische QuartalscMft
Texte und Untersuchuneen
Vigiliae Chrisrianae
Vizantijskj Vremennik
Zeitschrift der deutscher morgenlndischen Gesellschaft

Stephen Gero

Whct Were the Holy Imoges oI the lconoclcsts?"The holy images ofthe iconoclasts" - prima facie the very notion
seems to be self-contradictory. How could the iconoclasts have holy
images? Were they not, as the etymology of the designation (i.e.
"image-breakers") already shows, rather the destroyers of images?
This is for instance expressly asserted in an early, brief accounr,
which is appended to a heresiological work of John Damascus; the
passage,even if not written by John himself, surely dates from the
reign of Leo IIL Describing the activities of Leo's partisans the author
says."They are called iconoclasts because ... they have given over the
holy and august images to being broken and burned. In a like manner, they either scraped off or obliterated with lime and black paint
the images on walls".r In a somewhat later account (doubtfully attributed to the patriarch Germanus, but at any rate written before the
iconoclastic council of 754),, though the explicit designation "iconoclasl" does not appear, the destructive activity of the heretics is de-

Abbreviatio:rs:
GcIo, BI, vol. I = S- Gero, B)zartire lcotloclasm (lltring the Reigtl of I2o IIl,.Nith Parlicltlar Attentiotl to l1eOental Sottrces(Louvain, 1973).
Gcrr, Bl, vol. 2 = S. Gcro, Byzantine lcotlocktsltt tltting the Reigtl (t Constetltine V,
with Particular Attentiolr 10the Oielltal So&r'ces(Louvain, 1977).
GoIo,"IconoclasticMovemcDt"= S. GeIo, "The ByzntineIconoclasticMovcmcnt: A
Sr:r'vey"irr LiZnc dans la tlologie et l'urt (Lcs tudcs thologiques de Charnbsy,
vol.9, Chanbsy/Gcmcva,
1990),pp.95 11.
Grabar,L'iconoclasne = A. Grabar, L'ictttoclasnte bya.attt1.Ip tlossier archologique,
2nd ed. (Paris, 1984).
Kilzinger, 11crllto = E. Kitzinger, Il culto delle inttnagini. L'arte b:.antn clal cstianesimo clelleoigini all'lcoroclaslla (Florence, 1992).
Thiimmel, Bilderlehre = H.G. Thiimmcl, Die Fngeschchte der ostkirchlichen Bilder
lehrc.Texleuru| Untersuchungenzur Zeit vor dem Bilclerstreit(Berlin, 1992).
Th\immd, Bilderstreil = H.G. Thiimmel, Bldcrlehte utld Bilderstreit. Arbeiten zur Aus
einandersetaungiiber die Ikone und hre Begriin(1ut1gttomehtnlich im 8. utttl 9.
.lahund erl (W lirz.blr g, 1991).
IPG 94,773A8. On this passagesee Cero, BI, vol. l, p. 99 and B. Kotter, Die
Schiften tles Johannesvon Damaskos. IV. Liber tle haeresibus-Opet polemice (P'erl'ir,l
NewYork, 1981),p. 5.
I SeeBl, vol. 1, pp. 97-8. John Wortley, ("Iconoclasm and Lcipsanoclasm: Leo III,
ConstaDtiDe
V and the Relics," By:arrinrsche Farschungen8 (1982) 258 [f) woulcl even
dateil to ca.7E0.

332

STEPHEN GERO

scribed in ample detail: "Those who now preach this doctrine were
not satisfied with removing the images of the saints on panels, but
they also wanted to destroy the corresponding painted decoration of
the most venerable temples. Moreover, they laid hands on the honored and holy figurative table coverings of the holy sanctuaries ... because the pictures of the saints were found depicted on them".3 As a
complement to such eighth-century descriptions, one can register, for
example, a ninth-century account by the patriarch Nicephorus, from
a work of his, written perhaps around 820, describing the depredations of the iconoclastic partisans of Leo V. After asserting that the
iconoclasts denied altogether the venerable tradition of the ancients
(a charge, often repeated, which comes very close to the modem use
of the term "iconoclast" to describe someone who attacks or ridicules
traditional institutions and ways of thinking) Nicephorus continues:
"they leveled to the ground the holy temples, ruined the altars,
burned the holy table coverings in the middle of the marketplace and
broke ... the holy vessels".aFor good measure, we are told by the patriarch, the miscreants even trampled on the cross of Christ and
made short shrift of all the venerable symbols of the Christian faith,
vouched for by the pious emperors and priests of the past.
The foregoing are typical examples of the very one-sided way in
which the Byzantine iconoclasts were represented in the literary tradition of their iconophile opponents; such descriptions are paralleled
in the tendentious depictions, in some instances outright caricatures,
of the iconoclasts in manuscript illustrations of the ninth century and
later, wherein various iconoclasts, in particular John the Grammarian, insult or defaceimages.5
Outright destruction, defacement or forceful removal of ecclesiastical decoration did take place of course, at time surely accompanied
by much violence; it should be noted in this connection, however,
J PG 98, 8OBC.
a Duodecim capitula, ed. A. Ppadopoulos Kerameus, AvdsKra Ispooo),upLlKq
!ro1oo)"oyicq,vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, l89l), p. 458, lines 12 ff = ed. A. Maj,, Spicilegium
Romanum,vol.l0 (Rome, 1844),p. 154,line 2 ab imo - p. 155,line 7.
5 See Crabar, L'iconoclasme, pp. 225 ff and now K. Corrigan, Visual Polemics in
the Ninth-century Psallels (Cambridge, 1992), pp.27 ff, ll4 ff, For no good reason
Fernanda de' Maffei would identify the iconoclastic gthering in the illustration of
Psalm 25 ir the Khludov psalter (Moscow, Hist. Mus. gr. 129D, fol. 23v) s the coutcil
of 754, not as tht of 815, and accordingly the presiding figure in imperial garb as
Constantine V, not as Sybatios-Constantine, the son of Leo V (lcona, pittore e arte al
Concilio Niceno II (Rome, 1974),p. 95).

W1IATWERETHE HOLY IMAGESOF TIIE ICONOCLASTS?

333

that the iconoclstic council of 754, while forbidding the manufacture and veneralion of images, nowhere sanctions their destruction
and imposes strict safeguards on the removal or alteration of decorated liturgical vessels and fabrics.6 Still the iconoclasts did desewe,
with some justice, this name, bestowed on them by their opponents,
though of course they would not have accepted it themselves - from
their own point of view, not true icons, images of holy persons, were
given over to destruction, but rather objects of reprehensible idolatry
and illegitimate worship.
It stands to reason that the iconophile polemic dwells with a horrid fascination on the direct assault upon hallowed material symbols.
The inspired eloquence and the wealth of detail which depict the acts
of iconoclasm proper and the attendant persecution of the defenders
of image worship are regrettably not matched by anything like equal
attention paid, be it even in malam partem, to those features of worship and theological thinking which the iconoclasts offered as alternatives. Thus the repeated destmction and subsequent restoration, on
imperial command, of the Chalce image is described with much pathetic detail in the sources; that in its stead a plain cross as the symbol of iconoclastic piety came to grace the Chalce gate, most probably already in the eighth century,7and quite certainly in the ninth, is
for the most part passed over in silence, except for some rather indirect allusions.
The portrait of the iconoclasts which is thus presented is an over- whelmingly negative one; their ctivity was ostensibly restricted tolf
the brutal destruction of sacred objects and to the persecution of ahe
orthodox, either because of their inherent wickedness or at best, because of a misguided understanding, under the sinister influence of
Jews and Arabs, of what idolatry really meant. A rejection of iconworship as idolatry, based on biblical texts,Eis indeed a constant and
important iconoclastic theme. It appears already in the earliest
statements attributed to Constantine of Nacolia and other iconoclas-

For details see Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. 87, 96, 107.
7 cero, BI, vol. l, pp. 113 ff and most recently P. Speck, "Td rfl ft.apiopato
nLrivo. IJberlegungen zur ulendekoration der Chalke im achten Jahrhuldert," in B.
Borkopp et al. (eds.), Studizn a t bt?pntinischen Khnstgeschichte. Festschift f r Horst
Halletuleben zum 65- Gebultstag (Ansterdam, 1995), pp. 211 ff.
8 On this subject see the observtios of I.M. Resnick, "Idols and images: early
definitions and controversies," Soboflost 7 (1985) 35 ff.

334

STEPHEN GRO

tic bishops in Asia Minor in the 720's,eand, despiteoccasionalqualification, keeps recurring throughout the whole period. The removal
or, alternatively, the relocation of images was often professedly undertaken to neutralize the temptation of the simpler sort of people to
worship dead, soulless matter. The strictures against idolatry are furthermore frequently connected specifically with the illegitimacy of
anthropomorphic religious art; but, interestingly, at no point is there
a blanket condemnation of all figurative representation, based on the
biblical commands, attdbuted to Byzantine iconoclasts,in conrrasr,
for instance, to those (western) opponents of images, who, according
to Bede,writing in the 730's,did draw such a conclusion.r0The Byzantine iconoclasts'illogically restrictive interpretation of the biblical
prohibitions is in fact noted time and again by iconophile controversialists; it speaksof course impressivelyagainst the thesis of direct
Jewish or Muslim influence.rr
Although the vehement rejection of "idolatry" was undoLrbtedly
important in providing the initial impulse and the continuous inspiration of the iconoclasticmovement,one should realize that it is but
the negativeaspectof iconoclasm,one side of the coin, so to speak.
At least from the 750's onward, if not trom the very beginnings of the
movement, it came to be combined with a positive image doctrine,
based in part on the eucharistic sacrament.There may have been
perceived,frorn early on, an opposition between the eucharistic cult
and the worship of images;that the iconoclastsregardedthe latter as
a distraction from the celebration of the mystery of the eucharist can
be deduced fuom some defensive comments of the patriarch Germanus.r2But it was in the first place the emperor ConstantineV, fol.1
',4.
'
lowed by the gfbishops responsible for drafting the resolutions of
the council of 754, who put forth the doctrine of the eucharist as the

'Sec Gero, BI, vol. 1, pp. 85 ff and D. Stein, "Biblische Excgese und kirchliche
Lel-re im Fr und Wider des byzanlinischen Bilderstreits," in Chr. Dohncn/Th.
Sternberg (eds.), ...ltein Bildnis machen. K,totsttntl TheoLogte
n Gesprch(Wtirzburg,
1987),pp. 69 tf.
1t De tenrplo, ed. D. Hurst, Bedae Venerabilisopeftr, pars II, 2A (CCh, ser. latina,
vol. 119,Tumhout, 1969),p.212, lines l8 ff.
rrOn this mtter see further my remarks in "Iconoclastic Movement", pp.
98-9
nd "Early Contacts between Byzntium amd the Arab Empire: A Review and Some
Reconsiderations" in Tl Fouth Intemational Conlrenceon the History of Bilad alShan,vol.l (Amman, 1987),pp. 128ff.
r2 PG 98. t84AB.

WIIAT WERE THE HOLY IMGS OF THE ICONOCNSTS?

335

true image of Christ;t3 this, apart from the polemical accent, was of
course in itself no theological novelty.raThe immediate source seems
to have been Eusebius of Caesarea,who in his famous letter to the
empress Constantia expounded the eucharistic image doctrine as parr
of his sustained argument against the making of material images of
Christ.r5
According to the iconoclasts it is in the consecrated eucharistic
elements that one can see the image of Christ. The eucharistic bread
is the eirv of the body of Christ, it depicts His flesh, it is the 16zroof
His body. Through sacerdotal consecration the eucharistic elements
are transferred from the domain of the hand-made, r 1rpofiotnrov,to
that made without hands, t dlerporoirpov; this formulation, probably
original to Constantine V, is surely directed against the widespread
veneration of miraculously produced images of Christ. In the refinement and elaboration of this doctrine in t]rrehoros of 754 the connection with the idolatry theme is made explicit - the eucharist is the
"unlying image" of Christ's body, transferred through the sacerdotal
prayer from the sphere ofthe profane, rd rorvv, to that of the holy, r
dyrov.This is by divine intent an image 'ot fashioned in the form of
a man", so that idolatry may not even by stealth be introduced. This
exposition of the eucharistic image doctrine is coupled with polemic
against the pseudonymous images of the iconophiles; these have nerther the sanction of biblical and patristic tradition nor - and this
seemsto be the crucial point - have they been consecrated bv means
of a holy prayer to effect the passagefrom the sphere of the profane
to that of the holy; instead, the ftoros concludes, the so-called icons
13For details see Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. 45 ff, l0l ff.
14See S. Gero, "The Eucharistic Doctrine
of the Byzntine Iconoclasts and lts
Sources," BZ 68 (1975) 4 ff; M. Gesteira carz. La Eucar-istia, dimagen de Cristo?
Ante el 12.o Centenario del Concilio 2.o de Nicea," Revista espafrolade teotogte 4j
(1987).281 ff, esp. 292 ff; J.N. Prs, "La cne est-elle la Vrai icne du Chrisr? (Aux
origines du dogme eucharistique)," Eladas thologiques et rcligieuses 63 (1988) 529 ff.
For a study of the issues involved plced in a broader "history of ideas', context see S.
Michalski, "Bild, Spiegelbild, Figura, Representtio. Ikonittsbegriffe im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bilderfrage und Abendmahlskontroverse," AHC 20 (1988) 458 ff, esp.
463 11.
ls See S. Gero, "The Tme Image of
Christ Eusebius'Irtter
to Constanti Reconsidered," JTS, n.s. 32(1981), p. 467t Chr. Schnborn, Die Chstus-Ikone (Schaffhausen, 1984), pp. 67 ff; Ch. Murray, "Le pmblme de l'iconophobie et les premiers
sicles chrtiens," in F. Bcespflug / N. Lossky (eds.), Nr'cle 11, 7gZ-1987. Do ze sicles
d.'imagesreligieuses (Paris, 1987), pp. 44 ff. Cf. S. Gero, "Aggiornamento bibliografico,,
ir Kitzinger , Il cuho, p. lO9.

336

STEPHEN GERO

remain common and worthless, just as the painter made them. Here
we are confronted with the iconoclasts' mature criteria for discerning
a true holy image - it is validated by the authority of tradition, it is
of a non-anthropomorphic character, and it is properly consecrated,
in order to effect the descent and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the eucharistic image, though not explicitly mentioned in the extant fragments of the second iconoclastic council in
8i5, did in all likehood retain currency throughout the whole period
and the formula "eirv (or runo) of His body" as applied to the
eucharist seems to have gained the status of an iconoclastic shibboleth;r6 thus Theodore of Studios cites the iconoclastic statement that
Christ can be represented - but only in accordance with the words
"Do this in remembrance of me"; such an image is true and such a
depiction is sacred.rT
The eucharistic icon, despite all the safeguards, is of course still
an outwardly material image; as a complement to it a purely spiritual
doctrine, the so-called "ethical theory of images"tE is also at times
proffered. Rather than depicting the bodily traits of Christ or the
saints "in lifeless and speechlessicons" one should attempt to imitate
their conduct and thus form living images of their virtues. Normally,
the means of emulation is the perusal of ecclesiastically approved
writings; at times there seems to be a more direct, almost mystical
dimension to the formtion of the image of Christ in the soul,
through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.'e The language used
here (pprp<,rot,
ytaopo)is very similar to that employed in connection with the eucharistic image, and is frequently conjoined with an
appeal to direct biblical polemic gainst material idolatry.
An austere spirituality does characterize at least one strand of
iconoclastic thought, and this at times manifests itself in a distste
for ecclesiastical decoration altogether. Thus some iconoclasts adduced a passage from John Chrysostom which questions the very
utility of the adornment of walls and vestments;20the appropriateness
t On this point see E. Morini, "Ancora sulla Vita di s. Giorgio di Amastride. Note
su un recente contributo," Studi e icerche sull'oiente cisti(mo 2 (1979) 143 ff, esp.
t47.
r7 Pc 99, 940A.
13See M.V. Anastos, "The Ethicl Theory of lmages Formulated by the Iconoclasts
in 754 and 814," DOP 8 (1954)151 ffand Gero,Bl, vol.2, pp. 106ff.
r eP c 9 9 , 3 3 6 8 .
20Te*t .'o. 27 in Thmmet, Bilderlehre(p.293).

WHAT WER TH HOLY IMCES OF TH ICONOCLASTS?

337

of the passagein this context is refuted at great length by Nicephorus.

According to the iconoclasts' version of the fifth-century patristic testimonium, from the letter of Nilus to Olympiodorus, only the plain
cross should be depicted in the sanctuary and the rest of the church
should be whitewashed.2r The iconoclasts also adduced a staremenr
of Epiphanius, according to which no church decoration other than
the plain cross is permitted.r2 But it is however quite clear that for the
most part the iconoclastic policy tolerated or even encouraged abundant zoomorphic and floral decoration as adiaphora; in particular the
possibility that 1j*(he object of idolatry for the faithful could be a
...-theriomorphia representation by itself was no longer envisaged.ri The
iconoclasts were apparently unwilling to engagein a debate about the
symbolic depiction of the Savior as agnus Del versus a realistrc, anthropomorphic one, as posed in the f:famous
eighty-second canon
of the council in Trullo;2athe text was dismissed by them either as
being an enactment of all too recent vintagezsor, alternatively, as one
of heretical provenience.26
This brings us to the subject of the cross as a sacred symbol for
the iconoclasts. A cross replaced the Chalce Christ image, which was
removed by imperial command, already at the outset, in the early
eighth century.2?There is abundant and reliable archaeolosical evi2r Text no. 43 in Thtmmel, Bilderlehre (pp.
3l}-ll); seenow also for the text, as it
circulated in the early ninth century, J.M. Featherstone (ed,.),Nicephot patiarcha.e
Constantinopolitani Refutatio et Eversio Delinitionis synodalis Aanl 8jS ( CCh, ser.
graeca, vol. 33, Tumhout, 1997\, p. 248,line 2l - p. 250, line 7. Thmmel opts for the
authenticity and p ority of the iconoclastic version (see his ,,Neilos von Ankyra ber
die Bilder" BZ 71 (1978) 10ff and Bilderlehte, pp.78lO by contrast Alan Cameron, in
a contribution overlooked by Thtmmel, claims to have discovered in an eighthcentury compilation an iconophile fiagment fiom another work by Nilus, under the
alias "AnclTianus" ("A Quotatio fTom S. Nilus of Anc5,rain an Iconodule Tract?,,JTS,
n.s. 27 (1976\ 128 ff; cf. the same author's "The Authenticity of the Letters of St Nilus
of Ancyra," GRBS 17 (1976) 189 fO. This lasr marter ii still sub judice; cf. Av.
Cameron / J, Hetrill., Coftstantinople in the Earlt Eighth Century: The patustaseis
Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden, 1984),p. 184.
22Epistula ad Iheodosium, textrro.37 ir,'Ihtimmel,
Bild.erlehre(p. 301, lines 36 ff).
23For the discussion of a text from
Theodore of Studios to this effect see Gero. BI.
v o l . 2 . 1 1 6 .n o t e 1 7 .
24Text no. 79 1 Thnrr,mel, Bildertehre(p.374);
G. Nedungatt / J.M. Featherstone
(ed.s.),The Council in TflUo Resited (Fiome, 1995),p. 162, line 20 - p. 164,line5.
,5pc 99,380D.
26For details see Gero, "Iconoclastic
Movement", p. 103, note 50.
27See above, note 7. I find Marie-France uzpy's
attempt to dismiss the evtdential value of the whole dossier of eighth- artd ninth-century texts pertaining to this key

338

srEpHEN
GERo

dence for the cross as monumental church decoration in the iconoclastic period:28for instance the extant mosaic cross in the bema of
the church of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople, which should be dated
after the earthquake of 740;2ethe original cross in Hagia Sophia in
Thessalonica, still recognizable behind the present (eleventh-century?) image of the Virgin;30the second, "cruciform" stage in the apse
decoration in the church of the Dormition in Nicaea.3r Literary evrdence provides welcome confirmation of this point. The previouslynoted iconoclastic version of the Nilus text sanctioning a single cross
as ecclesiastical decoration was arguably regarded as having a prescriptive force;32thus according to a recently-published, previously
unknown early hagiographical text Constantine V replaced the rmage
of the Virgin in the apse of the Chalkoprateia church with a plain
cross.33Iconophile polemic admitted, however reluctantly, that the
iconoclasts held the sign of the cross in respect, though with the
qualification that the heretics did not hesitate to destrov the cross

eve[t ("La destruction de I'icne du Chrisr de la Chalc par Lon III: propagande ou
ralil? Byz 60 ( ! 990)445 m quitc unconvincing.
28See in general R. Cormack, "The Arts
during the Age of Iconoclasm.. in A.
Bryer / J. Hejn, lconoclasra (Birmingham, 197?),pp. 35 ff.
29 See W.S. George, The Church
of Saiftt Eirene at Constantinople (London, l9t2),
pp. 48 ff and U. Peschlow, Die fterzenkirchein Istambul. lIfttersuchunlen zur Architekp. 22.
ftil (Tiibingen, 197'1).
30For detils see M. K alliga, Die Hagio
Sophia ton Thessalonike(Wrzburg, 1935),
pp. 59 ff; R. Cormack, "The Apse Mosaics of S. Sophia at Thessaloniki,', eX,tiovr{q
Xprmrcvrxi Apxoro),oltxg'Eroirg, ser.4, vol. 10 (1980-81)112 ff, esp. 117; O.
Demus, 'Zur Datierung der Apsismosaiken der Hagia Sophi in Thessalonike,,,in O.
Feld / U. Peschlow,Studien zur sptitantiken und byzantinischenl<ur1stFr;edrtchWilhelm
Deichnanh Eewidfter, pt. 2 (Bonn, 1986), pp. 181 ff.
3r See Kitzinger, 1l cuho, pp. 137 11^d p.A. Under.wood,"The
Evidence ot Resto,
rations in the Sanctuary Mosaics of the Dormition at Nicaea," DOp 13 (1959) 235 ff.
The cross replaced a standing Virgin with the Child, which may even date, as several
recent studies confirm, from the early eighth century; see Ch. Barber, "The Koimesis
Church, Nicaea. The limits of representation on the eve of Iconoclasm," JB 41
( 1991)45-6.
32lncidentally, there is evidence for
curious advocacy, in a ninth-century East
Syrin miueu, of like strict "rationing" of cruciform church decoration, which was
arguably influenced by this type of Byzantine iconoclastic thinking; for details see S.
Gero, "The Legend of the Monk Bahr, the Cult of the Cross and Iconoclasm,', in la
Syie de By.ance I'Islam, VIP - VIIIe siles (Damascus, 1992), pp. 47 ff, esp. pp. 56-7.
33BHG t075e; ed. W. Lackner, "Ein byzantinisches
Marienmirlel,,, Buqwrv{ill,
2 (1985) 851, lines 27 ff;see also Gero, "Iconoclastic Movement", p. 100, note 15.

WI{AT WERE THE HOLY IMAGS OF fiIE

ICONOCLSTS?

339

when it appeared as cruciform decoration associated in some wavs

with icons.34
Does the cross fall specifically into the category of sacred rmages,
according to the iconoclasts? Exceptionally, we should be in a favorable situation to find an answer, since, in addition to a number of
brief allusions, several iconoclastic poems in praise of the cross are
extant; these are in part accompanied by rival verses and a prose
commentary from the pen of Theodore of Studios.3sThe technical
questions of the occasion of composition, dating and authorship of
these texts must be left aside now; those aspects of the material
which are here discussed are equally applicable to the eighth and the
ninth century situation. The cross in the iconoclastic poems .is regarded both as what one would call today a purely religious symbol
and as the "political" emblem of Byzantine imperial victory over the
enemy.36(In this period the triumph of the cross was in particular,
though not exclusively, an anti-Muslim theme; according to several
Armenian sources, tl-re emperor Leo III tumed back the tide of the
Muslim besiegers of Constantinople by bearing the cross into battle
as his victorious standard).37The depiction of the cross is referred to
either as tr-lnoof the cross or as dmo tout court. (The terminology of
rnoqis, as we have seen, also used to describe the eucharistic image;
but no direct connection is made, in the iconoclastic poems or elsewhere, between the image of the cross and the eucharist per se).38
According to the iconoclastic poems and kindred texts, the cross is
a holy object, it can and should be venerated. The depiction of the
3aNicephorus, Adr.,ersuslcotamachos, ed. J.B. pitra,
Spicilegiurn Solesmeftse, vol.
(Paris,
4
1858),p.280,lires 5 ff.
3sFor details see Gero, BI, vol. 1, pp. 113 ff.
36See J. Moorhead, "Iconoclasm, the Cross and the Imperial
Imge," Byz 55
(1985) 165 ff nd K.C. Inneme, "Some Notes on Icons and Relics," irr Byzantifte East,
Iatin West. Art-Histoical Studes in Honor of K rt Weitzftann (prirceton, 1995), pp.
519 ff. On the central role of the cross in imperil ceremodal more generally see
Th]'l-mrrLel,Bildersteit, pp. 182 ff.
37BI. vol. 1, pp. 37 tr,13111. See now also dte irteresting,
but, to my mind, all too
speculative suggesrionsofy'M. van Esbroeck on the subject of Io III and the rmenians ("Le discours du Citlolicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques documents armniens
annexes au Quinisexte," in Nedungatt / Fe atherstote, Coutoil in Trullo, pp, 3Sj trL
38Pace J.D. Breckenridge's earlier suggestion that a tertium
comparationis could
be the common cmciform eucharistic bread stamp ("The Iconoclasts' Image of
Chiist," Gesla 1l (1973) 6); see further Gero, BI, vol. 2, p. 102, note 160 and now K.
Parry, Depicting the Word- Btzantiw lcohophilc Thought of the Eighth aid. Ninth CenIrnes (Leiden, 1996),pp. 178 ff.

340

STEPHEN GERO

cross is set in conscious opposition to illegitimate anthropomorphic

images; it is assertedthat the depiction of the cross only is sanctioned
by divine law. The cross in question is identified with its prororype,
the True Cross, in a direcl and unsophisticated fashion; we should
worship the cross because of the One who was crucified upon it. The
identity of form suffices; neither, it was generally agreed, a consecration nor the provision with an inscription, a title, is regarded as necessary.3eIn short, the cross is a sacred and authentic symbol, though
in no text is it called "icon of Christ" or suchlike. To my mind it is
unlikely that the cross in church decoration would have been accepted by the iconoclasts without further ado as kind of bstract
equivalent to the image of Christ; admittedly in some aniconic rural
churches, in Asia Minor, the cross in a medaillon is apparently employed as a sort of primitive "shorthand" for Christ and the four
evangelists,and even for Old Testament ptriarchs.aoThe representation of the plain cross is a holy symbol, has a numinous quality absent from the basically neutral zoomorphic and floral decoration,ar
but it was not regarded as being commensurable with the eucharistic
icon, the only true image of Christ.
39Theodore of Studios, PC 99, 361A-D.
On this point see further S. Gero, ,.John
the Crammarian, the Last Iconoclastic patriarch of Constantinople, The Man and the
Legend," Bu(owrvrt, Nordisk tidsknft fr bysanrinologi 3-4 (t9ji-75) 27-8 ard Thtmtr)el, Bildetstreit, p. 150.
40See J. LafontaiDe-Dosogne,"Pour
une problmatique de la peinture d,glise
.
byzantine l'poque iconoclaste," DOP 4l (1987) 329 ff and D.I. pallas, ,,Une note sur
la dcoration de la chapelle de Haghios Basileios de Sinasos,,,Byz 48 (1978) 219 ff.
The decortion of this last church has been most recently dated to the second half of
the ninth century (N, Teteriatnikov, "The Frescoes of the Chapel of St. Basil in
Cappadocia: Their Date and Context Reconsidered.,"Cahiers atchotogiques40 (lgg2\
99 ff): but one, admittedly problematic, inscription accompanying the triumphant
cross does, according to the most likely reading, reflect iconoclastic sentiments (for
details see N. Thierry, "Mentalit et formulation iconoclastesen Atatolie," Joumal des
savants, 1976, awil-juin, p. 90). See further eadem, ,,Le culte de la croix dans l,empire
byzantin du VIIe sicle au Xe dns ses rapports avec la guerre contre l,infidle. Nouveaux tmoignages archologiques," Rivkta di studi bizantini e sla?i 1 (1981) 205 ff
and "L'iconoclasme en Cappadocie d'aprs les sources archologiques. Origines et
modalits," ii Rtyonfieme grec. Homfiages Charles Delvoye (Bn_rssels,19g2), pp.
389 ff.
4l For a cautious evalution of the prima
facie seductive hlpothesis of the iconoclastic origin of Middle Byzantine aniconic church decoration found in CaDDaoocla
and several islands (in particular Naxos) see D.I. pallas, ..Les dcoration anicniques
des glises dans les les de I'archipel," in O. Feld / U. peschlow (eds.) Stud/en zut
splantiken und byTantinischenltunst Friedich wilhelm Dechmann gewid.met,pt, 2
(Bonn, 1986),pp. 171ff.

WHAT WER THE HOLY IMAGES OFTHE ICONOCLASTS?

341,

The question of the imperial images, in the penumbra between the

sacred and the secular, should of course be also addressed. Unfortunately there are no authenticated contemporary imperial portraits
extant from the iconoclastic period, apart from those on coins. Now,
the legitimacy of the veneration of the imperial image was not called
into question by either of the parties and any disrespect shown ro rt
was punished severely.a2The mtter was nonetheless charged with
tension; iconophile controversialists, throwing the charge of idolatry
back in the teeth of their opponents, compare the iconoclastic emperors, Constantine V in particular, to Nebuchadnezzar.a3The assimilation to biblical evildoers of this stripe is carried to n extreme in a
very curious text, the Apocalypse of Leo of Constantinople where the
transgression of Constantine V is described as his setting up in the
palace his own image, to be worshipped as that of an earthly god,
alongside those of Christ and the Virginlaa Now, though the evidence
on this point is scarce and ambiguous,asit is likely that images of the
iconoclastic emperors were installed in churches, though hardly as a
kind of central cult image, as some iconophile sources would imply.
One can think of mosaic depictions of an offertory procession such as
that of Justinian and Theodora in San Vitale, or the one of Constantine VI and Irene in the church of the Virgin of Pege.a6Further it is
quite possible that the theme of the imperial triumph directly connected with the cross was also depicted, perhaps along the lines of
images of Constantine the Great and Helena with the True Cross, the
iconography of which can arguably be traced back to seventh-century
models. Another alternative (for which there is in fact abundant evidence from the minor arts) is the plain cross, with a medaillon portrait of the emperor placed at the intersection.a?More problematic, to
a2E.g. Nlcephorus, Adversuslconomachos, ed. Pitra, p.

275, lines 34-6,

a3So e. g. Nicephorus, Antiftheticus I,PG lOO,276C.
44 R. Maisano (ed.), L'apocalkse apocifa di lzone
di Constaninopoli (Naples,
1975),p. 72, lines 14-16;p.73,lines 4-6; p. 77, lines 14,15.
asSeeGero,BI, vol. 2, p. 11?.
aThe mosaic is known only from a description in a later (lOth-cent.?)
anonynrous
collection of miracles (De sacrk aedibus dcque miraculis Deiparae ad Fontem (BHG
1072),preserved in one mnuscript (yatic. gr.822); texti Acta SanctotL|rl Novembi'
tomus III (Brussels, 1910), p. 880, line l0 ab imo ff).
a1 J. Der, "Das Kaiserbild im Kieuz. Ein Beitrag zur politischen
Theologie des
frtiheren Mittelalters," SchweizerBeitrtigezur AllEemeinenGeschichte 13 (1955) 48 ff,
esp. pp. 65 ff. There is in particular a gold-leaf cross fTom Benevento with the coin
portrait of Leo III extant (p. 79 and plte IX, 6). See also Kl. Wessel, "Der ntichrist

STEPHEN GERO

my mind, is the assertion sometimes made in modern scholarly literature,4sthat purely secular scenes involving the emperor, in particular hippodrome races, were commissioned for churches; a wellknown text from the Vita Stephani Junlons, routinely adduced in this
context,aeonly attests the iconoclasts' preference or care for such representations but does not necessarily refer to ecclesiastical ornament
proper. Two late, twelfth-century chronicles say that Constantine V
substituted hippodrome and hunting scenes for the holy images in
churches,sobut this rests, I think on the incorrect interpretation of
the earlier material foom the Vita Stephani- In any case the imperial
portraits by themselves did not belong to the category of consecrated
holy images.5'
As their formulation of the eucharistic image doctrine shows, the
iconoclasts had a very keen sense of the radical distinction between
the sacred and the profane. They had in pafticular precise conception of churches as holy places, and, as Nicephorus reports, they articulated the reason for this sanctity in the following way: churches
are holy because of the sacrifices which are performed there (a reference of course to the eucharistic liturgy) and, perhaps even more
significantly, because of the prayers and invocations pronounced at
the time of their foundation.s2It is thus entirely appropriatethat, for
instance, the inscriptions in the bema arch surrounding the monumental apse cross in Hagia Eirene should emphasize the sanctity of
the house of God so erected, using biblical quotations, which have a
clear affinity to the liturgical formulas for the dedication of
churches.sl
m Kreuz. Ein Beitrag zur Polemik Humberts von Silva Candida," in Eikon uncl Logos. Beitrgezur Erforschung by4antinischerK hurtrad.itionen, vol. 2 (Halle, 1981), p.
329. The combination of cross ard imperial effigy is of course standard in the nu,
mismalic iconography of this and the immediately preceding periods (see M. Restle,
Kunst und byaantitlische Mnzpriigung ron Justinian I. bi-szum Biaerstreit (Athes,
1964),pp. 101 ft).
aBIn particular Grabar, L'iconoclasme,p. 181. Cf. Gero, BI, vol. 2, pp. I 11 ft
4e PG 100, lll3A = ed. M.,Fr. Auzpy, I4 vte d'Etienne le Jeune par
Etienne b
Dincre(Aldershot,1997),p. l21,lines 16 ff.
s0 Constantine Manasses,Compendium chronicum, PG 127, 383A; Michael Glycas,
Annales,PG 158,528CD.Seealso Gero,BI, vol.2, p. 117.
sr Thus it hardly occsions surprise thaT the holos of the iconoclastic council
of
754 does not mention images of the emperors.
52PG 1o0,4'17c.
-'
See George, Srirt Eireae, pp. 50 t.

WI{AT WERE THE HOLY IIVTAGESOF TIIE ICONOChSTS?

343

The central ritual act of consecration necessary for creating the

holy space of the church is also the hallmark of the one legitimate
and holy image of Christ, the eucharist. The idea of a consecration
acclmplished through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is also in the
background of the "ethical theory of images", the making of living,
spiritual images through the emulation of the virtues of the saints. A
formal consecration is not regarded as being necessaryfor the cross,
since it is in a way inherently identical with the original; of course the
cross and the eucharist share the quality of being non-anthropomorphic, non-idolatrous material sacred objects, the counterpoise to the
unconsecrated, counterfeit images of the iconophiles.5a
The resulh of the foregoing survey can be summed up in the following fashion. As the pendant to their rejection of what they perceived to be a demonically-inspired and - for church and empire utterly harmful latter-day upsurge of idolatry in the guise of the illicit
worship of anthropomorphic images, the iconoclasts presented the
consecrated eucharistic element{ as constituting the only true and
venerable image of Christ. This-r)vasfurther combined, on the one
hand, with the notion of the exclusively spiritual and ethical "iconic"
imitation of the virtues of the saints, and, on the other hand, with the
unassailable cult ofthe plain cross, which was not only the symbol of
the Savior par excellence, but also of the divine sanction for the person and deeds of the triumphant orthodox Christian emperor - an
ideological construct, which, in its sincere concern for correc! worship, in its rigid, yet shrewdly selective traditionalism, and even in its
unresolved contradictions, is typically and profoundly Byzantine.
Orientalisches Seminar
Eberhard-Karls-Universitt Tbinsen
Mnzgasse 30
D-72070 Tbingen, Germany

Stephen Gero

54In this context it should be recalled that the ritual consecration

of icons was introduced at a much later period; for details see J.G. Passarelli, "Sulla preghiera di
benedizione delle iconi," in Collectaneabtzantina (OCA, vol. 204, Rome, 1977),pp. 239
ff. For some "popular" accourts, presewed only in S)riac and Arabic, but ultimately
of Byzantine iconoclastic proverience, which are directed against the alleged antiquity and wonder-working powers of irdividual images see S. cero, "The Resurgence
of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Ninth Century, according to a Syriac Source," Specalum 5l (1976) 2-3 ad p. 4, note 3l; cf. Sydney H. criffith, "Eutychius of Alexandria
o the Emperor Theophilus and Iconoclasm in Byzantium: A Tenth-Century Moment
in Christian Apologetics in Arabic," Byz 52 (1982) 154 tr.