The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of January 9th - January 15th, we are reading approximately the next 21 pages of Byzantium by Judith Herrin.

The sixth week's reading assignment is:

Week Six: January 9th - January 15th (2012)::

Chapter 9: Icons, a New Christian Art Form 98

Chapter 10: Iconoclasm and Icon Veneration 105

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on December 5th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Judith Herrin

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...


Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Chapter Overviews and Summaries

Chapter Nine - Icons, A New Christian Art Form

Chapter Nine discussed icons from the 4th to 5th Century through late antiquity and the pagan portraits which were the forerunners of these icons.

One of the questions asked in this chapter was - "How did icons gain such a dominant place in Byzantium?"

Belief in the power of icons was related to the theory that the icon in some way captured the essence of the holy person depicted, and that through the icon communication with that person could be established.

Icons were created in other media. And because of the personal devotion they engendered, Christian icons were at the centre of a great debate which shook the empire from 730 to 843.

Chapter Ten

Chapter Ten discussed Iconoclasm which literally means "the breaking of icons".

In Byzantium, iconoclasm was inspired by the Second Commandment of the Law of Moses, which states: "Thou shalt make no graven images nor shall thou worship them."

The chapter discusses the reasons why Byzantines who cherished their religious art and icons turned against them and how they turned back; male support of iconoclasm versus female opposition, embodied in Empresses Irene and Theodora, who successfully reversed it.

To understand iconoclasm, it is important to understand the military problems of the early eighth century as well as the conflicting views of Byzantium's rulers.

I truly enjoyed these two chapters, my book is full of underlinings and marginalia.

I understand the use of icons better, how they assist the believer in finding a direct communication with the God or the saints without the need for an intermediary priest or something.

The whole icon vs iconoclast thing smacked somewhat of aspects of the Protestant Reformation and the place of "images" in religion.

But the whole telling lines for me were the last ones in Chapter 10 (page 118) "If the iconoclast emperors saved Byzantium from the Arabs, the iconophile empresses ensured glorious representation of Christian holy people for six hundred years - and much longer outside the empire."

Personally, I think I would have been on the side of the iconophiles as I doubt that icons can be totally removed from a society if they've been useful. That's the practical side of it - but on the personal side they're beautiful and can possibly be a personal image for religious purposes. I understand the distraction part and the criticism of the possibility of idolatry but still -

Becky, interesting post. It is also odd that it became known as more of a female versus male position.

As art, they are certainly beautiful and most folks understand that they are not praying to an inanimate object but to the spiritual entity that it represents. So what is the harm.

Interesting that iconoclasm developed as a parallel to the Arab conquests and was motivated, it seemed, by the concern that the icons were no longer "protecting" their devotees from military loss. So the iconoclasts decided to adopt the strict anti-representational position of Islam as a way of maintaining their military positions against Islam! ("If it works for them, maybe it'll work for us.")

Perhaps the women retained their love of icons because they utilized them more frequently in the domestic sphere, as objects of devotion and largely for spiritual purposes, and not for talismans carried into battle?

Yes, Mary Ellen...excellent, excellent post. Good points all.

I sort of thought that Icons developed because Christianity was imposed from the ruling class down and the common people kept the same religious practices(household gods, special powers, etc) that they had before but just changed the names to be politically correct.

There were iconic pagan practices at the beginning; probably not only the common people were practicing them.

Becky wrote: "I truly enjoyed these two chapters, my book is full of underlinings and marginalia.

I understand the use of icons better, how they assist the believer in finding a direct communication with t..."

Leo VI united the military behind iconclasm, while the Empresses re-united a war-weary homefront by restoring domestic spirituality. I think that using the army and civil authorities to impose religious views created a backlash and made iconophile priests look like martyrs. Icons are not unknown among Protestants. Martin Luther kept a stature of the Virgin Mary in his study throughtout his life. He also recited the Rosary (the first part that is based on Luke's Gospel).

So in other words; the Protestants had icons themselves and accommodated their own needs. It is always a mess when rulers use religious views as the enforcers.

I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-image Calvinists and Anabaptists. Luther was considered almost Catholic by comparison. He didn't really want to leave the church but ... (there was this woman?) (heh - no, I don't believe that).

This is a bit off the subject of the book. - sorry -

True. Political motives can color any religious movement. Though Luther preferred the German equivalent of 'evangelical' to describe his movement, the negative term 'Protestant' stuck, which too often became the self image of people who started out as 'reformers'.The reformers wanted to return to the 7 Ecumenical Councils described by Herrin.

Interesting post Scott.

Becky wrote: "I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-image Calvinists and Anabaptists. Luther was considered almost Catholic by comparison. He didn't really want to leave the church but ... (there was..."

Becky,
It is an example of how the Protestants used some Byzantine ideas.
The woman that you speak of left her cloister after reading Luther's writings against convents. She has been quoted as saying that she wanted to marry this Luther fellow. She was secretted away to a town where Luther was matching up escaped nuns with husbands or other guardians. But this Kati did not like any of the men that he he recommended, so Luther made a note that he may have to marry her himself.
In the Eastern church, priests can marry. For the most part, only Bishops and monks are celibate.

This is scandalous (lol).

LOL! The things my Norwegian Lutheran grandmother never told me. (heh)

Exactly. (smile)

Bentley wrote: "So in other words; the Protestants had icons themselves and accommodated their own needs. It is always a mess when rulers use religious views as the enforcers."

Should the US flag be considered an icon?

I don't see the connection Patricrk (it is not religious).

The Empire State Building is also considered a national icon like the Lincoln Memorial.

I might add that folks and organizations seem to like their icons and nobody is praying to them thinking that they can intercede in one's life. For example, I don't think of praying to a flag or the Empire State Building. There is no harm in pageantry and symbols.

I also might add that others may feel differently.

Interesting thought about the flag as icon. Icons are representations that connect one, through the act of contemplative gazing, with a transcendent reality. (This is what I understand from Herrin.) In a sense, the flag has a parallel purpose, at least in the US, where we "pledge allegiance" to it and where there are flags everywhere, connecting us with something bigger than ourselves: the nation, or its ideals, or something like that.

I really do not have a problem with any object being an icon: flag, building, etc. if we are not worshipping it. It is simply symbolism.

But then has the meaning of "icon" changed? I think it used to be used for a work of art that was used as an avenue of communication with a saint - to pray with, for use in worship. Now the word icon seems to be used simply as a symbol - a peace sign, a flag, Sometimes it's used in reference to a person - Steve Jobs, icon of the digital age.

I know all three meanings are still viable but I wouldn't compare saluting the flag as a symbol of our country to praying for 3 hours in front of an icon of Mary the Mother of God.

I think the iconoclasts were opposed to, and maybe fearful of, the apparent deification of the icon itself rather than veneration of the saint or deity (never God himself) behind it.

A religious icon with artistic value is certainly a symbol, but it's a really specialized kind of symbol - not just a semiotic signifier. I don't think of the cross as an icon, but it's certainly a symbol.

Re the book - I don't think that the iconoclasts of Byzantium were opposed to all the symbols of power and wealth around them. Just the specifically religious ones used for devotional purposes.

Becky, I cannot agree with you more.

The discussion about the U.S. flag as an icon reminds me of the idea of American Civil Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American...

Whether religious, political, or otherwise there seem to be ideologies and rituals to hold people together, and separate "us" from "them."

Thanks for going through the various definitions of icons, Becky. I thought I might be the only one getting confused.

The other part of it that I'm unsure about is the form of the icon, specifically the religious icons discussed in these chapters. For some reason I got the impression that icons were mostly two-dimensional picture-type works of art. But then people are carrying icons around, which sounds more like small-statue type art. So, does it matter if it is 2 or 3 dimensional? Is there a clear line between an icon and a relic?