ICONOCLASM
620
ICONOCLASM
duct a dispensary and a school. The Greek and above
all the Armenian schismatics are very numerous.
The town is connected with C'on.-itantinople by a
railroad, and important works of irrigation have been
set on foot in order to cultivate the plain which has
hitherto been very arid. Koniah is one of the holy
cities of Islam. It contains more than 10,000 der-
vishes (Turkish monks) and theological students.
Ha.milton, Researches in Asia Minor, II, 1!0.t: Ramsat, His- torical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1.S90). .332, 377-78; 393-95: Smith, Diet. Greek and Roman Geofj., II, 12; Sarre, Reise in Kleinnsien (Berlin, 1896), 28-100; Te.X!ER, Asie Mi- neure (Paris, 1862), 661-663; Cdtoet, La Turquie d'Asie, I (Paris, 1892), 801-872; Huaht, Konia, la ville des derviches toumeurs (Paris, 1897).
S. V.\ILHE.
Iconoclasm (Ekora/cXairMiSs, "Image-breaking") is the name of the heresy that in the eighth and ninth centuries disturbed the peace of the Eastern Church, caused the last of the many breaches with Rome that prepared the way for the schism of Photius, and was echoed on a smaller scale in the Frankish kingtlom in the West. The story in the East is divided into two separate persecutions of the Catholics, at the end of each of which stands the figure of an image-worship- ping Empress (Irene and Theodora).
I. The Fikst Iconoclast Peusecution. — The origin of the movement against the worship (for the use of this word see I.\i.\ges, Vener.\tion of) of images has Ijecn much discussed. It has been repre- sente<l as an effect of Moslem influence. To Moslems, any kind of picture, statue, or representation of the human form is an abominable idol. It is true that, in a .sen.se, the Khalifa at Damascus began the whole disturbance, and that the Iconoclast emperors were warmly applauded and encouragetl in their campaign by their rivals at Dama.scus. On the other hand it is not likely that the chief cause of the emperor's zeal against pictures was the example of his bitter enemy, the head of the rival religion. A more probable ori- gin will lie found in the opposition to pictures that had exi.sted for some time among Christians. There seems to have been a dislike of lioly pictures, a sus- picion that their use was, or might Ijecome, idolatrous, among certain Christians for many centuries before the Iconoclast persecution began (.see Im.\ges, Vex- ER.\TioN of). The Paulicians as part of their heresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and relics, should be abolished. To honour the Cross was specially repre- hensible, since Christ had not really been crucified. Since the seventh century these heretics had been allowed to have occasional great influence at Con- stantinople, intermittently with suffering very cruel persecution (see P.\1'lici.\ns). But some Catholics, too, shared their dislike of pictures and relics. In the beginning of the eighth century several bishops, Con- stantine of Nacolia in Phrygia, Theodosius of Ephe- sus, Thomas of Claudiopolis, and others are mentioned as having these views. .\ S'estorian bi.shop, Xena>as of Hierapolis, was a conspicuous forerunner of the Iconoclasts (Hardouin, IV, .300). It was when this party got the ear of the Emperor Leo III (the Isaurian, 716-41) that the persecution began.
The first act in the story is a similar persecution in the domain of the Khalifa at Damascus. Yezid I (680-68:5) ami his succes.sors. especially Yezid II (720-24), thinking, like good Mo.slems, that all pic- tures are idols, tried to prevent their use among even their Christian subjects. But this Mo.slem persecu- tion, in itself only one of many such intermittent an- noyances to the Christians of Syria, is unimportant except as the forerunner of the troubles in the empire. Leo the Isaurian was a valiant soldier with an auto- cratic temper. Any movement that excited his sympathy w:is sure to lie enforced sternly and cruelly. He nad already cruelly persecuted the Jews and
Paulicians. He was also suspected of leanings to-
wards Islam. The Khalifa Omar II (717-20) tried to
convert him, without success, except as far as per-
suading him that pictures are idols. The Christian
enemies of images, notably Constantine of Nacolia,
then easily gained his ear. The emperor came to the
conclusion that images were the eliief hindrance to
the conversion of Jews and Moslems, the cause of
superstition, weakness, and division in his empire, and
oppo,sed to the First Commandment. The campaign
against images was part of a general reformation of
the Church and State. Leo Ill's idea was to purify
the Church, centralize it as much as possible under the
Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby strengthen
and centralize the State of the empire. There was
also a strong rationalistic tendency among these
Iconoclast emperors, a reaction against the forms of
Byzantine piety that became more pronounced each
century. This rationalism helps to explain their
hatred of monks. (For Leo Ill's reform of the em-
pire see J. Bury, " History of the Later Koman Em-
pire", London, 1889, bk. VI, ch. ii.) Once per-
suaded, Leo began to enforce his idea ruthlessly.
Constantine of Nacolia came to the capital in the
early part of his reign; at the same time John of
Synnada wrote to the patriarch Ciermanus I (~\a~'.iQ),
warning him that Constantine had made a disturb-
ance among the other bishops of the province by
preaching against the use of holy pictures. Ger-
manus, the first of the heroes of the image-worship-
pers (his letters in Hardouin, 1\ , 2o()-G2), then wrote
a defence of the practice of the Church addressed
to another Iconoclast, Thomas of Claudiopolis (I. c,
245-62). But Constantine and Thomas had the em-
peror on their side. In 726 Leo III pulili.shed an
edict declaring images to be idols, forbidden by Exo-
dus, XX, 4, 5, and commanding all such images in
churches to be destroyetl. At once the soldiers began
to carry out his orilers, whereby disturbances were
provoked throughout the emi^ire. There was a fa-
mous picture of Christ, called \pi(jT>>i dm0uK7)T7(s,
over the gate of the palace at Constantinople. The
destruction of this picture provoked a serious riot
among the people. Germanus, the patriarch, pro-
tested against the edict and appealed to the pope
(729). But the emperor deposed him as a traitor
(730) and had Anastasius (730- ■'i4), formerly syncel-
lus of the patriarchal Court, and a willing instrument
of the Government, appointed in his place. The
most steadfast opponents of the Iconoclasts through-
out this story were the monks. It is true that there
were some who took the side of the emperor, but as a
body Eastern monasticism was steadfastly loyal to
the old custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined
with his Iconoclasm a fierce persecution of monas-
teries, and eventually tried to suppress monasticism
altogether.
The pope at that time was Gregory II (715-31). Even liefore he had receivetl the appeal of Germanus a letter came from the emperor coinnianding him to accept the edict, destroy images at Home, and .sum- mon a general council to forbid their use. Ciregory an.swered. in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already under- stand it. He describes the lawful use of, and rever- ence paid to, pictures by Christians. He blames the emperor's interference in ecclesiastical matters and his persecution of image-worshippers. \ council is not wanteil; all Leo has to do is to stop disturliing the peace of the Church. .As for Leo's threat that he will come to Rome, break the statue of St. Peter (appar- ently the famous bronze statue in St. Peter's), and take the pope prisoner, Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now alihorrent to all Christians was Constans's persecution of Mar-
