And an Iconoclast in a Pear Tree

Hello, bonjour, all

Before I get started I would like to clarify I DID NOT call Bryony and Emily rude things in Ancient Greek- if only because I don't know the vocab yet!

I wasn't sure what to write about this week, I wanted to do something Christmassy as it's my last post before Xmas- but was stuck for what to say! I considered writing something about Augustus- the roman emperor for the FIRST Christmas, but alas all I know about him is from I, Claudius (a good book and better show, I recommend it!) which may not be the best source.

So keeping with a religious theme, I thought I could talk about iconoclasm. I know Emily studied this regarding the puritans in the (17th? 18th?) century, but I'm going to push back well beyond that to the 600s, where the whole issue began.

So, some clarification rachael, what the hell are you on about?

Iconoclasm is a centuries long debate that has existed between the Catholic and Orthodox Church (later as Emily would explain, the Protestant as well, but they don't turn up for another 900 years to what I'm looking at so let's just pretend they don't exist right now) regarding the nature of images in religion. Orthodox priests argue that by praying to an image of a saint or Christ, it is the same as praying to the saint of Christ themselves.  Catholics dispute this- saying praying to an image is heresy (or something along those lines)

What kicked this all off then?

To understand the catalyst for iconoclasm we have to go back to 626, when the Persians and Avars attacked Constantinople. While the roots of the conflict go back far beyond that- it's probably the best starting point. I'll explain the awesome story of how the Byzantines exploded the Avar fleet another day, but the myth that surrounded Constantinople's victory was that Patriarch Sergius paraded a cloth used by Christ around the city walls, and it's holy power destroyed the attacking armies. Its a great story (also not true) but it also serves as one of the first examples of a relic being powerful because of its inert holiness. Over the next few decades, as rapid Islamic conquests weakened the empire and ignited a new religious fervour in the people, relics became much more important to the Christian world, eventually becoming objects of worship. Of course, there are only so many pieces of cloth used by saints, and finger bones to go round, so people unable to acquire a real relic (well, probably fake but real as far as they were concerned) began to focus their worship on an image of Christ or a saint instead. People began to use these images as an intermediary to Christ, which sort of breaks a few commandments, and therefore didn't go down well with everyone.

So who were the iconoclasts and iconophiles?

Iconoclasts hated the use of images as a way or worship. While they had no issue with holy figures being represented in art, they resented the idea of people praying TO an image, rather than straight to God. Meanwhile, iconophiles supported the use of images as an intermediary. It's also important to remember a vast amount of the ancient population was illiterate, so the only way they could really access holy teachings was through these icons. Consequently, there were a lot more iconophiles than iconoclasts.

How did the Pope come into this?

Brief structure of the ancient church- in rome you had a pope, in several other cities (including Constantinople) the leading Christian figures were patriarchs. Now, these WEREN'T the same as the pope, but that is maybe the easier way to think of them right now.  So the pope was an iconoclast- but the Byzantine patriarchs were iconophiles. Therefore, through the western world succeeding popes continued to fuel developments in religion in keeping with their version of Christianity, driving further splits down the centre of the ancient church.

And then they got petty, right?

Exactly. They got REALLY petty. It became a competition to see who could convert more people to their brand of the religion, and when the Byzantines won by converting the king of Bulgaria, the pope was angry. Suddenly a new piece of church doctrine, Filioque appeared in Rome, and without going in to much detail about what it meant- it seriously angered the Byzantines. For the next 200 years the two factions tolerated each other, but in 1054 the inevitable split occurred. The first major division in the Christian church would be followed by several more over the next few centuries.

So Rachael, other than a vague religious overtone how do you intend to relate this post to Christmas?

Ah ha, now there you have me. What's interesting to note, is that due to the division in the church, while many catholic countries adopted the gregorian calendar after it was created by pope Gregory in 1582, orthodox churches continued to use Julius Caesar's Julian calendar. The consequence? While both churches celebrated Christmas on the 25th December, no one agreed when this was, and the date was several days apart. This continued until 1923, when the Greeks adopted the gregorian calendar.

So... Merry Christmas! That's all I have to say for now. I'll be back next Saturday- on the account I get time to write something! :-)

Xxx