The eighth century and iconoclasm

Nevertheless, the first half of the eighth century saw the reassertion of imperial

military strength, the stabilization of the frontier along the Taurus and Anti-Taurus

range, and the consolidation of the new fiscal and military administrative arrangements

which had evolved out of the crisis of the 640s and after, generally referred

to collectively, if not entirely accurately, as the theme system. In 741 Leo III and

Constantine V issued a brief codification of Roman law, the Ecloga (selection),

based on a combination of Justinianic law with Old Testament morality, reflecting

the ideological perceptions and assumptions of the times. Under Leo, however,

there was also an increasing alienation between Constantinople and Rome, chiefly

over matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and imperial taxation policy in Italy, but

also over an ideological clash embodied in the imperial adoption of what came

later to be called iconoclasm. The origins of the debate are no longer clear, but

the issue of whether or not Christians were right to employ and pay respect to

images of Christ or the Virgin had gradually come to the fore in the later years of

the seventh century, and some churchmen felt strongly that it was inappropriate.

Traditionally, and partly influenced by later iconophile propaganda, it has been

assumed that the sources describing the mass persecution, harassment, and death

of many iconophiles, as well as the destruction of icons themselves, were moreor-

less accurate accounts. In fact, it seems that much of the story is invention

and exaggeration. Leo III seems to have been a fairly mild critic of the use of

images; Constantine V, while theologically more involved, only adopted a strongly

iconoclastic policy after the first eight or so years of his reign; and neither seems

to have destroyed images. The iconoclasts were concerned that images be removed

from those positions in churches, for example, where they could be the object of

mistaken veneration (Herrin 1987:307-43; Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming).

Whatever the truth of the matter, there is no doubt that it is in the reign of

Leo III, a competent general and statesman, that the beginnings of a recovery in

the empire's fortunes can be dated. His son, Constantine V, one of the Byzantine

Empire's most successful generals and a popular hero in his own lifetime, was to

use this to re-establish the East Roman Empire as a major power in the eastern

Mediterranean/Balkan region.

Constantine V succeeded to the throne in 741, and almost immediately faced a

rebellion from his brother-in-law Artabasdos, one of Leo's closest allies and friends,

who may have understood that he would also share in the imperial power upon

Leo's death. Although initially deprived of Constantinople and cut off in Asia

Minor, Constantine was able, after a campaign of some eighteen months, to defeat

Artabasdos and regain his throne. There is no evidence that he set about enforcing

his father's iconoclastic policies at this time, contrary to later iconophile assertions;

but after an attack of plague had struck Constantinople in the late 740s he appears

to have taken the issue up more vocally, calling public meetings to discuss the issue

and, in 754, convening a synod at which his theological position was clarified and

the arguments against the devotion shown to images were elaborated. This synod,

the Council of Hiereia, named after the imperial palace on the Bosporos at which