Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–850: A History

This is an extremely important work, and there is no doubt that it will continue to be cited, and likely criticized, for many years to come. At almost one thousand pages, this book could easily be two volumes, and is in fact written in such a way that it would almost be more amenable in two volumes except for the fact that the two halves to this book are essential to each other. The book is roughly divided into two. The "narrative analysis" runs for about the first 450 pages, although it passes very quickly due to the large (but necessary) number of plates. It sets up the context and takes the reader through the history of iconoclasm while keeping a very firm hold on the wider context. However, one should realize that this is not just a retelling of the main events of iconoclasm. This is an academic book, and although one could certainly get the story from reading it, if one just wants to understand the major events then Ostrogorsky or Haldon's own general history book would be a good choice. In no way can the book be faulted for this, as the $150 price tag should scare off all but the most dedicated. The chapter on Leo III is a good expansion of Haldon's 1977 article in Byzantinoslavica and makes some very important notes on the reliability of Theophanes. The history section runs to the "Triumph of Orthodoxy" as confirmed by the synod of 815 under Theodora. A small quibble has to be raised on that subject, for while the sources generally seem to support it, the explanation of the end of iconoclasm is a bit sudden. The case is made that iconoclasm was brought to an end by Theodora and her brothers is not given much page space. However, that is only a minor complaint. The early chapters are filled with references (and quite good pictures of) archaeological and artistic source material, and it blends into the analytical narrative quite well. Although it may appear that the literary sources are not given the criticism and introduction that they may deserve, but that was done in Brubaker and Haldon's Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (C. 680-850): The Sources: An Annotated Survey (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs). It is no fault of this book that the earlier volume is no longer available at a reasonable price, so shame on Ashgate.The second half of the book is a series of thematic but interconnected essays on various aspects of eighth and ninth-century Byzantine history. This part of the book feels like an expansion of Haldon's Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture in which the economy, patterns of settlement, social relations, and the administration are treated. It is very complete, very conclusive, and will no doubt replace Mark Whittow's The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025 as the standard work on the transformation of the late Roman to the Byzantine world, albeit the length and depth will reserve this work for the hands of the initiated. These chapters are incredibly important for understanding the transformations that took place during the era of iconoclasm, although I will only mention one of the points that the authors raise in this review. The origins of the themata have been a contentious issue in Byzantine Studies since the nineteenth century, and with decades of experience on this topic behind him, Haldon finally puts the question of origins to rest.This may be the most important work in the field of Byzantine Studies in the past several years, and it will no doubt continue to remain an important work for decades to come. It challenges almost every common assumption propagated since the time of Norwich, and due to the books breadth and the authors' mastery of the sources, it will simply be inexcusable for anyone publishing on this period to not have engaged with the points that this book puts forth.

One of the greatest books on Byzantium. It contains an in-depth analysis of the Iconoclast phenomena, and is full of intersting and original conclusions.

This scholarly tome tackles one of the central questions of Byzantine scholarship, the who and why of iconoclasm. The authors accept no easy answers and research issues and personalities exhaustively.

This is a hard book to like. I enjoy large amounts of detail, but there comes a point beyond which the mind just cannot keep track. It is also a brilliantly reasoned book that argues strongly for some very serious changes in the way that iconoclasm is viewed. Actually, they argue repeatedly that iconoclast (image-destroyer) is a misnomer, and it should really be called the iconomache (icon-conflict) era. In fact, in the first chapter and the introduction it feels like they state this every time they use the term. It gets redundant fast.The argument of this book is that iconoclasm has been extremely misrepresented by our sources. The iconophiles (icon-lovers) won the war, which means that we don't have an iconoclast version of this history. The true history is in fact much different from that recorded. The authors argue that iconoclasm wasn't begun because of the worship of icons, but the opposite. Icons were rarely worshiped before the 680s. Which means that the iconophile's claim that the iconoclasts were destroying their ancient traditions is pretty much the opposite of what occurred. The iconoclasts were seeking to prevent (not eliminate) the new and extreme devotion to religious icons (as opposed to relics) which was developing. By the time the conflict ended the tales of iconoclasts removing icons had gained such credence that people believed it, even though several of the icons supposedly removed (including the one on the Chalke gate at the beginning of the troubles) appear never to have existed. Tales and propaganda from later writers and emperors (and empresses) became known as fact after creating the myths of hordes of evil icon-destroyers tearing down old Roman traditions.The books treat the period in a roughly chronological manner. It begins with Leo III, the first iconoclast emperor. Their opinion of him is that not only didn't he order the systematic destruction of icons, but his 'opposition' to icons was merely an encouragement of the worship of the cross. His conflicts with the pope (in which he mentioned icons) was more focused on economic matters than religious ones. He may have disapproved of the excesses of icon worship (including proskenesis and pleading with them for divine intervention), but he didn't have a policy of destroying them. He may have removed some from places where they were designed to receive devotion, but they would simply be placed in less obvious areas. The actual destruction of icons would not happen until his son's reign, and even then it was exaggerated since directing worship at icons was fairly new. The most interesting interpretation is that his 'destruction' of icons was actually the promotion of the cross as a symbol of Christian worship and Imperial power. This was interpreted retrospectively as an attempt to destroy the power of icons since his hanging of crosses was intentionally misinterpreted as replacing icons with crosses.This narrative analysis takes up the first 450 pages of the book. The ideas are great but the approach is hard to read. They introduce author after author who says the same thing, analyze them, and then move on to the next one. That's all they do. Useful sure, but difficult. Certainly not pleasure reading. The remaining chapters read like Haldon's previous book Byzantium in the Seventh Century, of which this is a sequel of sorts. The topics covered include the changes in urban life, the court, political methods of power, the economy, and representations of the past. These parts really do continue on from where he left off in that book. To be honest, I think he covered most of the information here already since, for the most part, all that is known about the changes is that they occurred in the time between the sources from the early 7th Century and the resumption of sources in the early 9th. Most of the changes he details here have already happened during the last one. This is however, an easier part of the book to read since it doesn't consist of endlessly repeating lists of information.I'd recommend this book be read by anyone who needs in-depth background to this period, or who has already read the sources (available in their companion book Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (c. 680-850): The Sources: An Annotated Survey). It is too long, in-depth, and complicated for anyone else. I could follow what they were saying, but what it came to in the end was 'he said this about iconoclasm' followed by 'and this other guy said this about iconoclasm', etc. etc. They lay out every piece of evidence and go into it in detail, even when all the sources are confirming the same thing. What this book is isn't a history, it's a commentary on these sources. Which makes this a valuable book for the period. This book builds a perfect foundation for studying this era. There will undoubtedly be many books in future which base themselves firmly on this one (including what looks like a shorter version of this argument by one of the authors called Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm). Unless you have a pressing reason to do so, I'd wait for one of them.