Why Were Byzantine Icons Destroyed? The Iconoclasm Controversy Explained
Byzantine icons were destroyed during the iconoclasm controversy of 726-843, when emperors argued that image veneration was idolatry, before the practice was restored.
Byzantine icons were destroyed during the iconoclasm controversy, a major religious and political conflict that convulsed the Byzantine Empire from 726 to 843. The emperors of the iconoclast period argued that the veneration of icons - painted or mosaic images of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints - was a form of idolatry forbidden by the Old Testament. The iconoclasts destroyed vast quantities of religious art, persecuted monks and nuns, and confiscated monastic property. The controversy was finally resolved in 843, when the empress Theodora restored the veneration of images in the so-called “Triumph of Orthodoxy.”
The religious background
The use of images in Christian worship had developed gradually during the first centuries of the Church. The earliest Christian art was largely symbolic, but figural images - paintings and mosaics of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints - became common in churches from the fourth century onward, especially after the conversion of Constantine. By the sixth century, icons - portable images painted on wooden panels - had become a major feature of Byzantine religious life, and their veneration was supported by a sophisticated theological tradition.
The theological defense of icons was developed by writers such as John of Damascus, a monk of the eighth century who worked in the Umayyad Caliphate. In his three apologies against the iconoclasts, John argued that the honor paid to an image passes through it to its prototype, just as the honor paid to the imperial image passes through it to the emperor. To reject icons, he argued, was to reject thereality of the Incarnation, since the Christian claim that God had become visible in Christ implied that matter could be a vehicle of divine grace. John also argued that the Old Testament prohibition of images was a specific command to the Israelites, who were prone to idolatry, and that it did not apply to Christians, who worshiped the invisible God through visible things.
The iconoclast position was developed by a different set of theologians, often working in the imperial court. The iconoclasts argued that the veneration of images was a form of idolatry, that the Old Testament prohibition of images was universal, and that the use of images was a pagan practice that had corrupted the Christian church. The most influential of the iconoclast theologians was Constantine V, who convened a council at Hieria in 754 that condemned the veneration of images. The council was attended only by bishops favorable to the emperor, and its decisions were later repudiated by the iconodules.
The first phase of iconoclasm
The first phase of iconoclasm began in 726, when Emperor Leo III issued an edict against the veneration of images. The edict was not the result of a sudden decision, but of a long process of imperial and ecclesiastical concern. Leo III had come to power in 717, having rescued Constantinople from an Arab siege, and he was determined to strengthen the Empire against its external enemies. He may have believed that the veneration of images was a form of superstition that weakened the Empire’s resolve, and he may also have been influenced by the strict monotheism of Islam and Judaism, both of which were critical of Christian image use.
The edict of 726 was followed by a campaign of icon destruction, especially in the public spaces of Constantinople. Soldiers were sent to remove icons from churches and public buildings, and they were met with fierce resistance from monks and nuns. The most famous incident of resistance occurred in 730, when a group of iconodule women, led by the empress Irene, attacked the imperial troops and killed a number of soldiers. The empress was eventually deposed and exiled, and the iconoclast policy continued.
The iconoclast emperors also used the controversy as a pretext for confiscating monastic property and for persecuting monks and nuns. Constantine V, the son of Leo III, was particularly severe. He convened the Council of Hieria in 754, which declared the veneration of images to be a heresy and which condemned the famous defenders of icons, including John of Damascus and the monk Stephen the Younger. Constantine V also forced monks and nuns to marry, confiscated monastic property, and even attempted to abolish the monastic life altogether.
The second phase of iconoclasm
The first phase of iconoclasm ended with the death of Leo IV in 780, and the accession of his son Constantine VI under the regency of the empress Irene. Irene was a fervent iconodule, and she worked to reverse the iconoclast policy. In 787, she convened the Second Council of Nicaea, which was attended by 350 bishops and which restored the veneration of images. The council was an ecumenical council - the seventh recognized by both the Eastern and Western churches - and it was one of the most important events in the history of Christian theology.
The Second Council of Nicaea was accepted by the papacy, and it was regarded as the definitive statement of the Christian position on images. Yet it was deeply unpopular with the iconoclast faction in the Byzantine Empire, and the council’s decisions were not enforced throughout the Empire. In 813, a new iconoclast emperor, Leo V, came to power, and he initiated the second phase of iconoclasm. The second phase was even more severe than the first, and it lasted until 843, when the iconodule empress Theodora finally restored the veneration of images.
The destruction of icons
The destruction of icons during the iconoclasm controversy was enormous. The iconoclasts removed icons from churches, monasteries, and public buildings; they whitewashed mosaics and frescoes; and they burned icons in public displays. The destruction was not total - many icons were hidden, exported, or moved to regions beyond imperial control - but the loss to Byzantine art was incalculable. The surviving works of the early Byzantine period, especially those in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai and in churches in Italy that were outside the iconoclasts’ reach, give a glimpse of the richness of the tradition that was destroyed.
The destruction of icons was not, however, a pure act of vandalism. The iconoclasts had theological reasons for what they did. They believed that the veneration of images was a form of idolatry, and they believed that the destruction of icons was a way of restoring the purity of Christian worship. They also believed that the veneration of images was a holdover from paganism, and they believed that the destruction of icons was a way of Christianizing the Byzantine Empire. The destruction of icons was therefore a complex act, with both religious and political dimensions.
The legacy of iconoclasm
The restoration of icon veneration in 843, known as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” was a major event in the history of the Eastern Church. The iconodule bishops returned from exile, the iconoclast bishops were deposed, and the veneration of images was once again made the official policy of the Empire. The first Sunday of Lent, which became known as the “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” was set aside to commemorate the event, and it remains an important feast in the Eastern Christian calendar to this day.
The iconoclasm controversy also had important consequences for Byzantine art. The destruction of icons during the two phases of iconoclasm was enormous, and many of the greatest works of early Byzantine art were lost. The art of the post-iconoclastic period, exemplified by the mosaics of Hagia Sophia, the churches of Hosios David, and the illuminated manuscripts of the Macedonian Renaissance, was shaped by the need to create new images that would not be subject to the iconoclast critique. The icon of the post-iconoclastic period was given a sacramental status that it retains to this day, and it became one of the most distinctive features of Eastern Christian worship.
The iconoclasm controversy was also a major factor in the growing estrangement between Eastern and Western Christianity. The popes of the eighth century had firmly supported the iconodules, and they had been horrified by the iconoclast policy. The alliance between the papacy and the Carolingians, which culminated in the coronation of Charlemagne in 800, was in part a response to the iconoclast controversy. The iconoclasm controversy did not directly cause the great schism of 1054, but it was one of the factors that made the schism possible.