Religion, Politics, and Iconoclasm

The new stress on religious learning in the seventh century complemented both the autocratic imperial ideal and the powers of the bishops. While in theory imperial and church powers were separate, in practice they were interdependent. The emperor exercised considerable power over the church: he influenced the appointment of the chief religious official, the patriarch of Constantinople; he called church councils to determine dogma; and he regularly used bishops as local governors.

Bishops and their clergy, whose seats were in the cities, formed a rich and powerful upper class. They distributed food to the needy, sat as judges, functioned as tax collectors, and built military fortifications. They owed their appointment to metropolitans (bishops who headed an entire province), who in turn were appointed by the patriarchs (bishops with authority over whole regions). Monasteries were theoretically under the limited control of the local bishop, but in practice they were enormously powerful institutions that often defied the authority of bishops and even emperors.

Laypeople, clergy, and monks alike looked to relics and holy images to help them worship. Relics were the material remains of the saints: their bodies and body parts, even clothes and dust from their tombs. Holy images—of Christ, Mary (his mother), and the saints—gave people a visual focus for their worship.

As a series of setbacks rocked the Byzantine Empire—plagues, earthquakes, and wars against invading Slavs and Bulgars—the images became more important than the relics in Byzantine worship. By the late seventh century, the images were understood to be more than just representations of holy people. They took on the character of icons, manifesting in physical form the holy person depicted and concentrating all his or her holiness in one particular image. Monks, above all, centered their worship on icons and encouraged others to do so.

Soon there was a backlash against such intense devotion to icons. Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (r. 717–741) made that backlash official. In 726, as Islamic armies swallowed up Byzantine territory and after a volcano erupted in the middle of the Aegean Sea, Leo denounced icons. The year 726 marks the beginning of iconoclasm (“icon breaking”) in Byzantine history. It lasted until 787, and a modified ban was imposed between 815 and 843. (See “Contrasting Views: Icons: Idols or Aids to Worship.”).

Legend has it that in 726 Leo tore down the great image of Christ that used to be at the portal of the imperial palace. Certainly he erected a cross there, and in 730 he demanded that both the pope at Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople remove sacred images. He and his successors had good political reasons to oppose icons. Icons diluted loyalties because they created intermediaries between worshippers and God that undermined the emperor’s exclusive place in the divine and temporal order. In addition, the emphasis on icons in monastic communities made the monks potential threats to imperial power; the emperors hoped to use this issue to weaken the monasteries. Finally, the emperors opposed icons because the army did so. Byzantine soldiers, unnerved by Arab triumphs, attributed their misfortunes to icons, which disregarded the biblical command against graven (carved) images. They compared their defeats to Muslim successes and noted that Islam prohibited all visual images of the divine. The Byzantine emperors, who needed to keep the loyalty of their troops, adopted their soldiers’ position on icons. They saw it as a renewal of pagan idolatry.

Iconoclasm had an enormous impact on Byzantium. The devout had to destroy their personal icons or worship them in secret. Iconoclasts (who were especially numerous at Constantinople itself) whitewashed the walls of churches, erasing all the images. They smashed portable icons. Artists largely ceased depicting the human form, and artistic production in general dwindled during this time. The power and prestige of the monasteries, which were associated with icons, diminished. As the tide of battle turned in favor of the Byzantines, imperial supporters and soldiers credited iconoclasm for their victories.