A Hidden Agenda of Imperial Appropriation and Power Play? Iconological Considerations Concerning Apse Images and Their Role in the Iconoclast Controversy

Q4 Social Sciences Millennium DIPr Pub Date : 2021-10-08 DOI:10.1515/mill-2021-0008
P. Niewöhner
{"title":"A Hidden Agenda of Imperial Appropriation and Power Play? Iconological Considerations Concerning Apse Images and Their Role in the Iconoclast Controversy","authors":"P. Niewöhner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2021-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract According to the written sources, the Iconoclast controversy was all about the veneration of icons. It started in the late seventh century, after most iconodule provinces had been lost to Byzantine rule, and lasted until the turn of the millennium or so, when icon veneration became generally established in the remaining parts of the Byzantine Empire. However, as far as material evidence and actual images are concerned, the Iconoclast controversy centred on apse images and other, equally large and monumental representations, none of which were ever venerated. Prior to Iconoclasm, such images had not been customary at Constantinople, where the early Christian tradition had been largely aniconic and focused on the symbol of the cross. Thus, the introduction of monumental Christian imagery to Constantinople appears to have been a major aspect of the Iconoclast controversy. This paper asks why and finds that the images in question, whilst not for veneration and therefore not essential to the theological debate, stood out for imperial propaganda. They led to close visual integration of the emperor and the church that had previously been kept apart, because aniconic traditions used to limit imperial presence inside Constantinopolitan church buildings. It seems, then, that the Iconoclast controversy, although conducted in religious terms, was partly driven by a hidden agenda of imperial appropriation and power play.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Millennium DIPr","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2021-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract According to the written sources, the Iconoclast controversy was all about the veneration of icons. It started in the late seventh century, after most iconodule provinces had been lost to Byzantine rule, and lasted until the turn of the millennium or so, when icon veneration became generally established in the remaining parts of the Byzantine Empire. However, as far as material evidence and actual images are concerned, the Iconoclast controversy centred on apse images and other, equally large and monumental representations, none of which were ever venerated. Prior to Iconoclasm, such images had not been customary at Constantinople, where the early Christian tradition had been largely aniconic and focused on the symbol of the cross. Thus, the introduction of monumental Christian imagery to Constantinople appears to have been a major aspect of the Iconoclast controversy. This paper asks why and finds that the images in question, whilst not for veneration and therefore not essential to the theological debate, stood out for imperial propaganda. They led to close visual integration of the emperor and the church that had previously been kept apart, because aniconic traditions used to limit imperial presence inside Constantinopolitan church buildings. It seems, then, that the Iconoclast controversy, although conducted in religious terms, was partly driven by a hidden agenda of imperial appropriation and power play.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
帝国拨款和权力游戏的隐藏议程?关于后殿图像的圣像学考虑及其在反圣像争议中的作用
根据文献资料,圣像破坏者的争论主要是关于对圣像的崇拜。它开始于七世纪晚期,在大多数圣像行省被拜占庭统治之后,一直持续到世纪之交左右,那时圣像崇拜在拜占庭帝国的其余部分普遍建立起来。然而,就物质证据和实际图像而言,打破圣像的争议集中在后殿图像和其他同样巨大的纪念性表现上,这些图像都没有受到尊敬。在圣像破坏运动之前,这样的图像在君士坦丁堡并不常见,那里早期的基督教传统在很大程度上是无标志的,并且集中在十字架的象征上。因此,将不朽的基督教图像引入君士坦丁堡似乎是反圣像争论的一个主要方面。这篇论文询问了为什么,并发现这些有问题的图像,虽然不是为了崇拜,因此不是神学辩论的必要条件,但却在帝国宣传中脱颖而出。它们使皇帝和教堂在视觉上紧密地结合在一起,而在此之前,皇帝和教堂是分开的,因为标志性的传统限制了皇帝在君士坦丁堡教堂建筑中的存在。这样看来,这场反圣像的争论,虽然是在宗教方面进行的,但在一定程度上是由帝国挪用和权力游戏的隐藏议程所驱动的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Millennium DIPr
Millennium DIPr Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Pollen, brooches, solidi and Restgermanen, or today’s Poland in the Migration Period Pollen, brooches, solidi and Restgermanen, or today’s Poland in the Migration Period Phaedrus und Martial: Zur Interaktion von Versfabel und Epigrammatik Prokop, ein glaubwürdiger Berichterstatter? Der Gotenkrieg im Ager Gallicus und im Picenum und seine Auswirkungen auf die Region Towards a History of Syriac Rhetoric in Late Antiquity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1