ICONOCLASM
622
ICONOCLASM
campaign. The decrees were published in the Forum
on 27 August, 754. After this the destruction of pic-
tures went on with renewed zeal. All the bishops of
the empire were required to sign the .4cts of the synod
and to swear to do away with icons in their dioceses.
The Paulicians were now treated well, while image-
worshippers and monks were fiercely persecuted. In-
stead of paintings of saints the churches were decorated
with pictures of flower-s, fruit, and birds, so that the
people said that they looked like grocers' stores and
bird shops. A monk Peter was scourged to death on
16 May, 761; the Abbot of Monagria, John, who re-
fused to trample on an icon, was tied up in a sack and
thrown into the sea on 7 June, 761 ; in 767 Andrew, a
Cretan monk, was flogged and lacerated till he died
(see the ActaSS., 8 Oct.; Roman Martyrology for 17
Oct.; and Nilles, "Kalendarium manuale", 2nd ed.,
Innsbruck, 1906, p. 30.3); in November of the same
year a great number of monks were tortured to death
m various ways (Martyrology, 28 Nov.; Nilles, op.
cit., p. 336). The emperor tried to abolish monasti-
cism (always the centre of the defence of images) ;
monasteries were turned into barracks; the monastic
habit was forbidden; the patriarch Constantine II
was made to swear in the ambo of his church that,
although formerly a monk, he had now joined the
secular clergy. Kelics were dug up and thrown into
the sea, the invocation of saints was forbidden. In
766 the emperor fell foul of his patriarch, had him
scourged and beheaded and replaced by Nicetas I
(766-SO), who was, naturally, also an obedient serv-
ant of the Iconoclast Government. Meanwhile, the
countries which the emperor's power did not reach
kept the old custom and broke communion with the
Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bish-
ops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch,
and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of the
holy icons in commimion with Rome. The Emperor
Constantine V tlied in 77.5. His son Leo IV (775-80),
although he did not repeal the Iconoclast laws, was
much milder in enforcing them. He allowed the ex-
iled monks to come back, tolerated at least the inter-
cession of saints, and tried to reconcile all parties.
When the patriarch Nicetas I died in 780 he was suc-
ceeded by Paul IV (780-84), a Cypriote monk, who
carried on a half-hearted Iconoclast policy only
through fear of the Government. But Leo IV's
wife Irene was always a steadfast image-worshipper.
Even during her husband's life she concealed holy
icons in her rooms. At the end of his reign Leo had a
burst of fiercer Iconoclasm. He punished the courtiers
who had replaced images in their apartments and was
about to banish the empress when he died, 8 Septem-
ber, 780. At once a complete reaction set in.
II. The Seventh General Council (Second of Nicea, 787). — The Empress Irene was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-97), who was nine years old when his father died. She immediately set about undoing the work of the Iconoclast emperors. Pic- tures and relics were restored to the churches; mon- asteries were re-openefl. I'oar of the army, now fanatically Iconoclast, kept her for a time from re- pealing the laws; but she only waited for an oppor- tunity to do so and to restore the broken communion with Rome and the other patriarchates. The Patri- arch of Constantinople, Paul IV, resigned, and retired to a monastery, giving openly as his reason repents ance for his former concessions to the Iconoclast Government. He was succeeiled by a pronounced image-worshipper, Tarasius (784-806, "Vita Tarasii", ed. Heikel. 1889). Tarasius and the empress now opened negotiations with Rome. They sent an em- bas.sy to Pope Adrian I (772-95) acknowledging the primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to .send legates, to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 7.54 (Mansi, XII, pp. 984-86; Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte ", 2nd ed.. Ill,
446-47). The pope answered by two letters, one for
the empress and one for the patriarch. In the.se he
repeats the arguments for the worship of images,
agrees to the proposed council, insists on the author-
ity of the Holy See, and demands the restitution of
the property confiscated by Leo III. He blames the
sudden elevation of Tarasius (who from being a lay-
man had suddenly become patriarch), and rejects his
title of (Ecumenical Patriarch, but he praises his or-
thodoxy and zeal for the holy images. Finally, he
commits all these matters to the judgment of his
legates (Jaff^, "Reg.", 2448 and 2449; Hefele, 1. c,
448-452). These legates were an archpriest Peter
and the abbot Peter of St. Saba near Rome. The
other three patriarchs were unable to answer, they did
not even receive Tarasius's letters, because of the dis-
turbance at that time in the Moslem state. But two
monks, Thomas, abbot of an Egyptian monastery,
and John Syncellus of Antioch, appeared with letters
from their communities explaining the state of things
and showing that the patriarchs had always remained
faithful to the images. These two seem to have acted
in some sort as legates for Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem.
Tarasius opened the synod in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople, in August, 786; liut it was at once dispersed by the Iconoclast soldiers. The empress disbanded those troops and replaced them by others; it was arranged that the synod should meet at Nicsea in Bithynia, the place of the first general coun- cil. The bishops met here in the summer of 787, about 300 in number. The council lasted from 24 Septemlier to 23 October. The Roman legates were present; they signed the Acts first and always had the first place in the list of members (Mansi, XII, 993; XIII, 366, 379, etc.), but Tarasius conducted the proceedings, appar- ently because the legates could not speak Greek. In the first three sessions Tarasius gave an account of the events that had led up to the Council, the papal and other letters were read out, and many repentant Icon- oclast bishops were reconciled. The fathers accepted the pope's letters as true formula- of the Catholic Faith. Tarasius, when he read the letters, left out the passages about the restitution of the confiscated papal property, the reproaches against his own sudden ele- vation, and use of the title Oecumenical Patriarch, and modified (but not essentially) the assertions of the primacy (Mansi, XII, 1077-10S4). The fourth session established the reasons for which the use of holy images is lawful, quoting from the Old Testament pas- sages about images in the temple (Ex., xxv, 18-22; Num., vii, 89; Ezech., xH, 18-19; Hebr., ix, 5), and also citing a great number of the Fathers. Euthymius of Sanies at the end of the session read a profession of faith in this sense. In the fifth session Tarasius ex- plained that Iconoclasm came from Jews, Saracens, and heretics; some Iconoclast misquotations were exposed, their books burnt, and an icon set up in the hall in the midst of the fathers. The sixth session was occupied with the Iconoclast synod of 754 ; its claim to be a general council was denied, because neither the pope nor the three other patriarchs had had a share in It. The decree of that synod (see above) was refuted clause by clause. The seventh session drew up the svmbol (Spos) of the council, in which, after repeating the Nicene Creed and renewing the condemnation of all manner of former heretics, from -Brians to Mono- thelites, the fathers make their definition. Images are to receive veneration {irpoaKvyr)<ris), not adoration (Xorpefa); the honour paid to them is only relative ((TxeTiKTj), for the .sake of their prototype (for the text of this, the essential definition of the council, see Images, Veneration of). Anathemas are pro- nounced against the Iconoclast leaders; Germanus, John Damascene, anfl tieorgc of Cyprus are prai.sed. In opposition to the formula of the Iconoclast synod the fathers declare: " The Trinity has made these three
