L'histoire des iconoclastes (review)

The iconoclastic era (730–843) is one of conviction, passion, ideology, and "faith propaganda." As an "iconoclast" Auzépy could not have remained unaffected. The single thread that ties all her studies is her ideological conviction that the Isaurians and the iconoclasts were "the victims of a shouting historical injustice" (p. v). Thus a harvest of nineteen articles and a book chapter put into a single collection constitutes an ultimate effort at reinstating the Isaurian emperors and their fellow iconoclasts and at reshaping the face of the "grands perdants de l'histoire du viii^e siècle" (p. 314) from the distortions of the iconophile sources. The brief Avant-propos makes a quick reference to the "dark ages," a period that Jonathan Shepard, editor of the Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (2008), has titled "State of Emergency," which Auzépy used in 2005 to write a masterful chapter on the iconoclastic period. This chapter ("État d'urgence") now composes the introductory chapter of the collection.

The thematic arrangement of the articles revolves around three axes: 1. "The Foundations of Orthodoxy:The Council of Nicaea II and the Patriarchate of Constantinople," 2. "The Reconstruction of the Past," and 3. "The Isaurians: A History en creux." In the first section, the author is attempting to track the iconophile urge to write the history of their opponents. To them, the iconoclasts were not even Christians but Jews or Saracens; not human but beasts, lions, and dragons. Most of the section's six articles reference the Acts of Nicaea II (787), with one article citing the Adversus Constantinum Caballinum. The articles in the second section refer to the institutionalization of the "history of the iconoclasts" and the consequences of such a distorted "history." An analysis of the Vita Stephani the Young shows, according to Auzépy, a saint who died not because of his veneration of icons but because of his participation in a plot against the emperor. Thus, this is a hagiological work aiming at transforming a political person into a martyr in defense of the icons. The destruction of the icon of Christ at the Chalke gate that this writing presents as the causal event that brought about the eruption of iconoclasm is, again according to Auzépy, a later invention of the early-ninth century as it contains elements from the reign of empress Irene (797–802). Auzépy also challenges the attachment of John of Damascus to Mar Sabas as an invention of Sabaitic hagiography on the premise that the Damascene was a monk not of the Judean lavra of Mar Sabbas but of the Monastery of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. The third section contains articles in which Auzépy, taking greater risks, has sought to touch the faint footprints of the iconoclasts. In her opinion, iconoclasm configured the imperial response to the threat that the New Israel may be wiped out for insulting God by its idolatrous practices. Here, the relations between the Isaurians and the Carolingians gain distinction. The vacuum posed by Byzantine sources is filled by Western ones from the Carolingian and the papal court. The vitality of the Isaurian foreign policy is evident here, which served as a model for the Carolingians. The Libri Carolini, where the theologians of Charles the Great refuted the theology of the icons of Nicaea II, reveals a close relationship between Carolingians and Isaurians. In her work to restore the history and the image of the iconoclasts Auzépy uses the lives of saints who were considered iconoclasts. Through them, a sanctity expressed in the world through good deeds emerges, different from the monastic model of sanctity that is based on spiritual exercise and the miraculous. Another aspect of the iconoclasts was their opposition to the veneration of holy relics.

As she has immersed herself into what she calls the pleasant opportunities for imagination offered by...