Book Description

"The period encompassed by this volume of translations opens with a major crisis over the status of the icon and its veneration. Charles Barber and David Jenkins (I.1.1 in this volume) present three extensive texts related to this crisis, which began when Leo of Chalcedon objected to the imperial appropriation of materials bearing sacred images, such as the doors of the Chalkoprateia church in Constantinople. As his arguments against this act unfolded in the period from 1082- to 1095, Leo developed a theory of the image that argued for a formal, as opposed to a material, presence of Christ in his icons. Given this presence of Christ's character, Leo argued that an icon should not be destroyed and that this portrayal deserved adoration. A full account of this argument is presented in Leo's letter to his nephew Nicholas of Adrianoupolis. This letter, which perhaps dates to 1093 or 1094, shows how Leo builds his case upon a reading of the ninth-century iconophile writings of Theodore of Stoudios and other authorities, which Leo reads as offering support for a hypostatic presence in the image mediated by the visible character of the subject. A key response to Leo of Chalcedon's arguments is offered by Eustratios of Nicaea. His Syllogistic Demonstration builds upon the logical model of ninth-century iconophile thought to show that the icon only has a formal relation to the subject depicted in that object. It is a response that is notable for its precise accounts of the limits of depiction, which becomes the description of the outline, form, and dimension of the outward and sensible traits of the appearance of a person. This allows him to argue that the material and sensible icon cannot receive adoration: Christ as God is adored; Christ as God cannot be depicted; therefore, the depicted, as depicted, is not adored. So that in no way can we speak of the adoration of a manufactured icon, or of adoration in an icon"--