A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm ed. by Mike Humphreys (review)

IF 0.5 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
{"title":"A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm ed. by Mike Humphreys (review)","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/jla.2023.a906785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm ed. by Mike Humphreys Sophie Schweinfurth A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm Edited by Mike Humphreys Brill's Companion to the Christian Tradition, Vol. 99. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021. Pp. xvii + 630. ISBN: 978-9004339903. This sizable volume is a daring venture and is wisely entitled \"A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm.\" Although it assembles many of the most established scholars on the topic, it does not claim to be \"The Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm,\" as the editor of the volume concedes in his preface. The reason for the impossibility of compiling \"The Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm\" lies in the nature of its subject: there are few other topics which have gained more attention and critical debate in early medieval history, church history, and Byzantine Studies than the period of Byzantine iconoclasm. Due to the groundbreaking research of older scholarship, the mainly iconophile sources have been thoroughly deconstructed to their interpolated extent, which has profoundly undermined the narrative of iconoclasm as predominantly violent action against images. Concerning the degree of the extensive examination of iconoclasm, Avril Cameron recognized \"a subject which … has been done to death\" (Cameron 1992). The result is that every scholar who gets involved into the case of iconoclasm is walking on thin ice due to the unreliability of the textual and material evidence. As significant as the deconstruction of the iconophile sources was for the scholarly debate, it creates a dilemma for further research: staying caught in the web of historical revisionism, which is in danger to become redundant, or putting the pieces together to (re)produce a narrative of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which will always be fragmentary (60). It is refreshing that Mike Humphreys' introduction addresses the problem of revisionism (\"a wave of revisionist scholarship,\" 4) in the study of Byzantine Iconoclasm right at the beginning of the volume. This is an elegant acknowledgement that dilemma just described eventually will (or should) not be solved but is part of the subject of the history of iconoclasm itself. Intended to be a companion to address \"both newcomers and specialists\" (vii), the introduction gives an overview of the principal parameters on which the historical construction of Byzantine Iconoclasm is based. After an in-depth outline in the introduction, the volume starts with the period and the role of images before iconoclasm (Part I), following a recent line of research which understands especially the seventh century not only as a time of deep crisis but as a decisive transformation period between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Robin Jensen addresses the fact that for theological texts before the sixth century, the multi-present Christian imagery was a negligible subject, indicating that Christian art in general was not regarded as questionable (141). The complexity and richness of early Christian art [End Page 569] is neither remarked on nor mirrored by contemporary texts (143). Benjamin Anderson, augmenting Peter Brown's influential proposition, emphasizes two closely related phenomena which were restricted to Constantinople and its direct hinterland, preconditioning the concurrent cause of a new \"discourse of images\" (185)—that is, iconoclasm—in the seventh century: the foundation of monasteries by an aristocratic elite and the embellishment of the associated churches with monumental images of Christ visualizing a certain position in recent Christological debates, both eluding control by bishops and emperors. Anderson's conclusions from the monumental evidence are worthy of discussion. The fundamental question of the sources for the understanding of iconoclasm is the main focus of Part II. Mike Humphreys' and Jesse. W. Torgerson's account of the most relevant sources from historiography is an encouraging methodological survey demonstrating that, even in the minefield of the textual evidence from the iconoclastic period, there is a path forward for further insight if we follow \"the traces of selectiveness\" (229)\" of which every text is a document. Similarly, Richard Price's chapter on the theological texts (acts, treatises, hagiography) is less skeptical of the sources in question but tries to show that the impact of iconoclasm varies depending on the genre. The hagiography of the time particularly \"bears witness to the continuing strength of traditional motifs\" (250) rather than being saturated by iconophile thought...","PeriodicalId":16220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Late Antiquity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Late Antiquity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jla.2023.a906785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reviewed by: A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm ed. by Mike Humphreys Sophie Schweinfurth A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm Edited by Mike Humphreys Brill's Companion to the Christian Tradition, Vol. 99. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021. Pp. xvii + 630. ISBN: 978-9004339903. This sizable volume is a daring venture and is wisely entitled "A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm." Although it assembles many of the most established scholars on the topic, it does not claim to be "The Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm," as the editor of the volume concedes in his preface. The reason for the impossibility of compiling "The Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm" lies in the nature of its subject: there are few other topics which have gained more attention and critical debate in early medieval history, church history, and Byzantine Studies than the period of Byzantine iconoclasm. Due to the groundbreaking research of older scholarship, the mainly iconophile sources have been thoroughly deconstructed to their interpolated extent, which has profoundly undermined the narrative of iconoclasm as predominantly violent action against images. Concerning the degree of the extensive examination of iconoclasm, Avril Cameron recognized "a subject which … has been done to death" (Cameron 1992). The result is that every scholar who gets involved into the case of iconoclasm is walking on thin ice due to the unreliability of the textual and material evidence. As significant as the deconstruction of the iconophile sources was for the scholarly debate, it creates a dilemma for further research: staying caught in the web of historical revisionism, which is in danger to become redundant, or putting the pieces together to (re)produce a narrative of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which will always be fragmentary (60). It is refreshing that Mike Humphreys' introduction addresses the problem of revisionism ("a wave of revisionist scholarship," 4) in the study of Byzantine Iconoclasm right at the beginning of the volume. This is an elegant acknowledgement that dilemma just described eventually will (or should) not be solved but is part of the subject of the history of iconoclasm itself. Intended to be a companion to address "both newcomers and specialists" (vii), the introduction gives an overview of the principal parameters on which the historical construction of Byzantine Iconoclasm is based. After an in-depth outline in the introduction, the volume starts with the period and the role of images before iconoclasm (Part I), following a recent line of research which understands especially the seventh century not only as a time of deep crisis but as a decisive transformation period between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Robin Jensen addresses the fact that for theological texts before the sixth century, the multi-present Christian imagery was a negligible subject, indicating that Christian art in general was not regarded as questionable (141). The complexity and richness of early Christian art [End Page 569] is neither remarked on nor mirrored by contemporary texts (143). Benjamin Anderson, augmenting Peter Brown's influential proposition, emphasizes two closely related phenomena which were restricted to Constantinople and its direct hinterland, preconditioning the concurrent cause of a new "discourse of images" (185)—that is, iconoclasm—in the seventh century: the foundation of monasteries by an aristocratic elite and the embellishment of the associated churches with monumental images of Christ visualizing a certain position in recent Christological debates, both eluding control by bishops and emperors. Anderson's conclusions from the monumental evidence are worthy of discussion. The fundamental question of the sources for the understanding of iconoclasm is the main focus of Part II. Mike Humphreys' and Jesse. W. Torgerson's account of the most relevant sources from historiography is an encouraging methodological survey demonstrating that, even in the minefield of the textual evidence from the iconoclastic period, there is a path forward for further insight if we follow "the traces of selectiveness" (229)" of which every text is a document. Similarly, Richard Price's chapter on the theological texts (acts, treatises, hagiography) is less skeptical of the sources in question but tries to show that the impact of iconoclasm varies depending on the genre. The hagiography of the time particularly "bears witness to the continuing strength of traditional motifs" (250) rather than being saturated by iconophile thought...
迈克·汉弗莱斯主编的《拜占庭反偶像主义》(书评)
由迈克·汉弗莱斯(Mike Humphreys)编辑的《拜占庭破坏偶像主义的同伴》,由迈克·汉弗莱斯(Mike Humphreys)编辑,布里尔(Brill)的《基督教传统的同伴》,卷99。莱顿/波士顿:布里尔,2021年。Pp. xvii + 630ISBN: 978 - 9004339903。这本相当大的书是一次大胆的冒险,它被明智地命名为“拜占庭圣像破坏主义的伴侣”。尽管它汇集了许多在这个主题上最知名的学者,但它并没有声称是“拜占庭圣像破坏的伴侣”,正如该卷的编辑在前言中承认的那样。不可能编纂《拜占庭破坏圣像》的原因在于其主题的性质:在早期中世纪历史、教会历史和拜占庭研究中,很少有其他主题比拜占庭破坏圣像时期获得更多的关注和批判性辩论。由于旧学术的开创性研究,主要的亲像来源已经被彻底解构到其插入的程度,这深刻地破坏了偶像破坏的叙述,主要是针对图像的暴力行为。关于对反偶像主义的广泛审查的程度,艾薇儿·卡梅隆承认“一个…已经被做得要死的主题”(卡梅隆1992)。其结果是,由于文本证据和物证的不可靠性,每一个卷入破像事件的学者都如履薄冰。尽管对亲像者资料的解构对学术辩论具有重要意义,但它为进一步的研究创造了一个困境:继续陷入历史修正主义的网络中,这有变得多余的危险,或者把碎片放在一起(重新)产生拜占庭反偶像主义的叙述,这将永远是碎片化的(60)。令人耳目一新的是,迈克·汉弗莱斯(Mike Humphreys)的引言在卷的开头就谈到了拜占庭圣像破坏主义(Byzantine Iconoclasm)研究中的修正主义问题(“一波修正主义学术”)。这是一种优雅的承认,即刚才所描述的困境最终将(或不应该)得到解决,而是圣像破坏本身的历史主题的一部分。作为“新手和专家”(vii)的伙伴,引言概述了拜占庭圣像破坏主义的历史建构所依据的主要参数。在引言中进行了深入的概述之后,该卷从偶像破坏运动之前的时期和图像的作用开始(第一部分),遵循最近的研究路线,特别是七世纪不仅是一个深刻的危机时期,而且是古代晚期和中世纪早期之间的决定性转变时期。Robin Jensen指出,在六世纪之前的神学文本中,多重存在的基督教图像是一个可以忽略不计的主题,这表明基督教艺术总体上不被认为是有问题的(141)。早期基督教艺术的复杂性和丰富性既没有被当代文献所评论,也没有被反映出来。本杰明·安德森(Benjamin Anderson)强化了彼得·布朗(Peter Brown)颇具影响力的观点,强调了两种密切相关的现象,这两种现象仅限于君士坦丁堡及其直接腹地,为7世纪出现的一种新的“图像话语”(discourse of images, 185)——也就是反圣像主义——提供了先决条件:由贵族精英建立的修道院,以及用基督的纪念性形象装饰相关教堂,这些形象在最近的基督论辩论中具有一定的地位,既逃避了主教和皇帝的控制。安德森从大量证据中得出的结论值得讨论。理解圣像破坏的来源这一基本问题是第二部分的重点。迈克·汉弗莱斯和杰西。托格森(W. Torgerson)对史学中最相关的来源的描述是一项令人鼓舞的方法论调查,它表明,即使在反偶像时期文本证据的雷区,如果我们遵循“选择性的痕迹”(229),“其中每个文本都是一个文件”,也有一条进一步深入了解的道路。同样,理查德·普赖斯(Richard Price)关于神学文本(使徒行传、论文、圣徒传记)的章节对有问题的来源不那么怀疑,但试图表明,偶像破坏的影响因流派而异。当时的圣徒传记尤其“见证了传统主题的持续力量”(250),而不是被偶像崇拜思想所渗透……
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Late Antiquity
Journal of Late Antiquity HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
18
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信