Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680-850: A History (review)

This is the most important book on Byzantium to appear in my lifetime. The authors admirably fulfill their stated intention to discuss political recovery and institutional reshaping, the final stages in the evolution of eastern Orthodox dogma, the emergence of a new political and social elite, the transformation of urban life as well as urban-rural relations, and the generation of a new "medieval" perspective on the past. The crucial significance of the iconoclast era, which nestles within, but is not fully contiguous with, what historians usually call the "Mid-Byzantine Period," has always been recognized. But with the appearance of this book, its history will never be the same. The book contains an astonishingly thorough synthesis of the scholarship, a scrupulously fair presentation of historiographical contention, and a number of original arguments.

The book's first five chapters present a historical survey of the period, with questions of iconoclasm, image breaking, at the heart of the discussion. In the traditional telling, iconoclasm was introduced by Emperor Leo III in 726 and dominated Byzantine history until the middle of the ninth century. The next six chapters are thematic, treating social, economic, political, and institutional history, sparing no critical topic. The final chapter asks what iconoclasm was actually all about. The book is dense and detailed, although nicely written. It is likely to be consulted more often than read cover to cover.

The product of a felicitous collaboration between an art historian and a historian of society and institutions, this volume is truly interdisciplinary. The authors read and interpret the written sources fully and carefully, according special attention to matters of genre and audience. But they also use visual and material evidence—mosaics, frescoes, and images on coins; architecture; cloth and metal work. In key sections of Chapters 6 to 11, the authors deploy numismatic evidence and arguments. Sigillography plays an important role in several chapters. The Byzantines have left behind thousands of lead seals that bear names, dates, and titles. Everywhere they use archaeology, drawing always on the latest research.

Among the book's larger arguments is, first, that iconoclasm itself was never a mass movement. It was a tool of imperial politics, as was the triumph of the iconophiles. Second, the normative iconophile interpretation of iconoclasm that emerged in the ninth century can no longer stand. Its central arguments were tendentious, to be sure, but also authentic ways of telling the story the way in which they believed it had to be told. The authors are less "iconoclastic" about the sources than Speck was—and not all readers will accept all their criticisms—but they destroy the iconophile narrative once and for all.¹ Third, seventh-century Byzantium practiced "crisis management," whereas eighth- and ninth-century Byzantium engaged in substantive and successful reform. Fourth, the authors drive the last nail into the coffin of Ostrogorski's argument that the "theme system"—Byzantium's fundamental institutional structure—emerged with Herakleios (610-640) and took shape by the middle of the eighth century.² In fact, it was introduced by Nikephoros I (802-811) and assumed final form during the 830s.

In the end, iconoclasm was about representation and about Byzantine responses to Islam. The shift in the way that sacred images were either embraced or rejected came at the turn of the eighth century as Byzantium faced the massive crisis caused by the Arabs and Islam. It was the total situation, and not aniconic Islam—a crucial point—that spawned the controversy. Why was God punishing his people? Living holy men and relics provided access to the divine but they were not infinitely reproducible. Images painted by humans were, but they raised questions about the relationship between the image and the person represented. The critical issue was a shift from physical presence to representation. Contention about visual representation soon turned into a battle about the representation of history, religion, and culture.