The eighth century and iconoclasm

Nevertheless, the first half of the eighth century saw the reassertion of imperial

military strength, the stabilization of the frontier along the Taurus and Anti-Taurus

range, and the consolidation of the new fiscal and military administrative arrangements

which had evolved out of the crisis of the 640s and after, generally referred

to collectively, if not entirely accurately, as the theme system. In 741 Leo III and

Constantine V issued a brief codification of Roman law, the Ecloga (selection),

based on a combination of Justinianic law with Old Testament morality, reflecting

the ideological perceptions and assumptions of the times. Under Leo, however,

there was also an increasing alienation between Constantinople and Rome, chiefly

over matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and imperial taxation policy in Italy, but

also over an ideological clash embodied in the imperial adoption of what came

later to be called iconoclasm. The origins of the debate are no longer clear, but

the issue of whether or not Christians were right to employ and pay respect to

images of Christ or the Virgin had gradually come to the fore in the later years of

the seventh century, and some churchmen felt strongly that it was inappropriate.

Traditionally, and partly influenced by later iconophile propaganda, it has been

assumed that the sources describing the mass persecution, harassment, and death

of many iconophiles, as well as the destruction of icons themselves, were moreor-

less accurate accounts. In fact, it seems that much of the story is invention

and exaggeration. Leo III seems to have been a fairly mild critic of the use of

images; Constantine V, while theologically more involved, only adopted a strongly

iconoclastic policy after the first eight or so years of his reign; and neither seems

to have destroyed images. The iconoclasts were concerned that images be removed

from those positions in churches, for example, where they could be the object of

mistaken veneration (Herrin 1987:307-43; Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming).

Whatever the truth of the matter, there is no doubt that it is in the reign of

Leo III, a competent general and statesman, that the beginnings of a recovery in

the empire's fortunes can be dated. His son, Constantine V, one of the Byzantine

Empire's most successful generals and a popular hero in his own lifetime, was to

use this to re-establish the East Roman Empire as a major power in the eastern

Mediterranean/Balkan region.

Constantine V succeeded to the throne in 741, and almost immediately faced a

rebellion from his brother-in-law Artabasdos, one of Leo's closest allies and friends,

who may have understood that he would also share in the imperial power upon

Leo's death. Although initially deprived of Constantinople and cut off in Asia

Minor, Constantine was able, after a campaign of some eighteen months, to defeat

Artabasdos and regain his throne. There is no evidence that he set about enforcing

his father's iconoclastic policies at this time, contrary to later iconophile assertions;

but after an attack of plague had struck Constantinople in the late 740s he appears

to have taken the issue up more vocally, calling public meetings to discuss the issue

and, in 754, convening a synod at which his theological position was clarified and

the arguments against the devotion shown to images were elaborated. This synod,

the Council of Hiereia, named after the imperial palace on the Bosporos at which

it met, was claimed as the seventh general (ecumenical) council of the Church,

although this claim was rejected by the council of 787 at which devotion to and

public display of images was re-established.

But although Constantine's reputation has been largely determined by his iconoclasm,

his importance lies as much in his other achievements: provincial military

and administrative changes, the establishment of a small elite imperial field army,

the so-called tagmata (the regiments) at Constantinople, changes in the fiscal system,

and the establishment of a substantial balance in the imperial treasury. He

seems to have been a careful financial manager of state resources; and he employed

the resources at his disposal in a series of well-planned military expeditions both

against the empire's northern foes, the Bulgars, and in the east. Indeed, his frequent

campaigns into the heartland of Bulgarian territory came near to destroying

the Bulgar khanate entirely, although the Bulgars offered a tenacious and fierce

resistance. In the east he campaigned against a number of key Arab fortresses, reestablishing

military parity between the Roman and Islamic armies, and thus providing

the stability economically and politically to permit the devastated provinces

to recover from the century and a half of warfare to which they had been subjected

(Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987: 295).

Constantine's reputation for later generations was entirely associated with his

iconoclasm. According to the iconophile tradition, Constantine was fanatical in his

hatred of images and monks, and the histories are replete with tales of his persecution

and torture of individuals and whole groups of his subjects who opposed his

policies. He is accused of burning monasteries as well as images, of turning churches

into stables, and similar sacrilegious acts. Yet a careful examination of the evidence

suggests that much of this results from propaganda and later misunderstanding.

Indeed, the destruction of icons and a generalized persecution of monks is nowhere

clearly evidenced in the sources. Neither is there any evidence that the bulk of the

population was particularly committed to one point of view or the other. Keen

proponents of both views there certainly were, although most were involved either

in the state or Church hierarchy at one level or another. A small but very vocal

monastic opposition only appears in the reigns of Eirene and Constantine VI. Be

that as it may, there is no doubt that iconoclasm was a convenient vehicle for the

politics of the empress Eirene, and it is clear that it was only from the time of the

council of 787 that a formal theology of images, so important for later Orthodox

doctrine, was first elaborated (Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987).

Constantine V died in 775 while on campaign and was succeeded by his son, Leo

IV (775-80), who continued his father's policies but did not reign long enough to

leave any substantial impact. Upon his death in 780, his empress Eirene became

ruler as regent for the young Constantine VI. During her reign, the seventh ecumenical

council was convoked and image devotion was restored, with most of

the iconoclast clergy accepting the change. But although Eirene seems to have

been a reasonably able administrator, the circumstances of her reign, both with

her son and after his death in 797 (the result of her own plotting), meant that

her rule was not well regarded by many contemporaries. Resurgent Bulgar power

produced several military defeats, while the able Caliph Harun ar-Rashid inflicted

several defeats along the eastern front. Her major achievement was to begin the

recovery of the Peloponnese and central Greece, the interior of which had been out

of effective imperial control for more than a century. Conversion to Christianity,

the establishment of a Church administration, and the setting up of a military

provincial organization went hand in hand in this process, and was to result by

the middle of the ninth century in the complete recovery and reincorporation of

these regions into the empire (Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987).

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16