The Libri Carolini and Images

[patrick457]

Are you bumping this to bring it to more peoples’ attention? Are you looking for an answer to the arguments made in the Libri Carolini? Are you looking for a translation of it? (You seem to be doing a pretty good job of that, for someone who, like me, doesn’t know Latin.) What exactly do you want us to tell you relative to that particular, um, essay (if that’s the right word for the work)?

The first, I think. I should tell you that you’d better not ask me why I’m bumping this, because I’ve yet no clue meself. I just felt I needed to add a few stuff.

The author of Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (Thomas F. X. Noble), pointed out something very revealing: up until now, most people give more attention to the Iconoclast controversy in the Byzantine Empire, while the Frankish discussions on images (of which the Libri Carolini is one) are more often considered to be the minor side shows to the Byzantine main event. Very often, the matter is often hastily dismissed as simple Carolingian ignorance of the basic issues involved in the Byzantine dispute; the author, however, argues that the issue may be more complex than is often thought.

 

[dmar198]

The first, I think. I should tell you that you’d better not ask me why I’m bumping this, because I’ve yet no clue meself. I just felt I needed to add a few stuff.

The author of Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (Thomas F. X. Noble), pointed out something very revealing: up until now, most people give more attention to the Iconoclast controversy in the Byzantine Empire, while the Frankish discussions on images (of which the Libri Carolini is one) are more often considered to be the minor side shows to the Byzantine main event. Very often, the matter is often hastily dismissed as simple Carolingian ignorance of the basic issues involved in the Byzantine dispute; the author, however, argues that the issue may be more complex than is often thought.

It does seem to really reflect a “middle way” that, to me, is more in line with your typical Protestant’s viewpoint on the subject of images. Most Protestants don’t believe that all religious images should be banned and broken, but they don’t see why Catholic put so much emphasis on them nor why we encourage such high devotion to them. It seems like Protestants would subscribe to the view put forward in the Libri Carolini (at least as far as I was able to gather from your attempted translations): images aren’t really bad, as long as they are used to bring holy subjects to our attention, but venerating an image is going too far (or so they say – or so I think they would say, if this alternative to the main lines of the debate was brought to their attention).

 

[patrick457]

It does seem to really reflect a “middle way” that, to me, is more in line with your typical Protestant’s viewpoint on the subject of images. Most Protestants don’t believe that all religious images should be banned and broken, but they don’t see why Catholic put so much emphasis on them nor why we encourage such high devotion to them. It seems like Protestants would subscribe to the view put forward in the Libri Carolini (at least as far as I was able to gather from your attempted translations): images aren’t really bad, as long as they are used to bring holy subjects to our attention, but venerating an image is going too far (or so they say – or so I think they would say, if this alternative to the main lines of the debate was brought to their attention).

As I mentioned earlier, the author’s long tirade against images is what made John Calvin (mis)use the Libri Carolini as support for - oddly enough - Calvinistic iconoclasm. Still, even though he doesn’t like images very much our author is ultimately still Catholic: he believes in the Eucharist and deems relics of saints to be worthy of veneration.

 

[Celticnovice]

Awesome topic/thread Patrick,

I wonder if the Libri Carolini offers a clue is to why Icons didn’t blossom in the West like they did in the East.

I also never connected the Essence/Energies to Icons like that before.

I’m subscribing to the thread

 

[patrick457]

Awesome topic/thread Patrick,

I wonder if the Libri Carolini offers a clue is to why Icons didn’t blossom in the West like they did in the East.

I also never connected the Essence/Energies to Icons like that before.

I’m subscribing to the thread

Come to think of it, it’s kinda like the Filioque issue - or any other ‘East vs. West’ issue. From the Western perspective, the Eastern explanation is too complicated; from the Eastern POV, the Western approach is too simplistic.

 

[patrick457]

Another excerpt, from the final chapter.

Cum ergo duarum et trium provinciarum praesules in unum conveniunt, si antiquorum canonum institutione muniti aliquid praedicationis aut dogmatis statuunt, quod tamen ab antiquorum Patrum dogmatibus non discrepat, catholicum est, quod faciunt, et fortasse dici potest universale; quoniam, quamvis non sit ab universi orbis praesulibus actum, tamen ab universorum fide et traditione non discrepat. Quod crebro factum in plerisque mundi partibus quibusdam necessitatibus incumbentibus scimus. Multa enim concilia gesta sunt, quorum institutionibus sancta munitur et corroboratur ecclesia.

If the bishops of two or three provinces come together, armed with the body of teaching found in the ancient canons, and establish some point of teaching or dogma which does not diverge from the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, then the point they establish is catholic and can indeed be called universal, for although it was not established by the bishops of the universal world, nevertheless it does not diverge from the universal faith and tradition. We know that this has frequently happened in many parts of the world, as circumstances have required, for many councils have been held through whose actions the holy Church is both defended and strengthened.

There are really two types of argument involved: the vertical and the horizontal. The “vertical” arguments involve authoritative, accepted teaching that reached back through the Church Fathers and to Scripture. Throughout the work, the author constantly refers to the Bible and the Fathers, virtually always to argue that the Franks, and not the Byzantines, are true to the “vertical” tradition. The “horizontal” ones meanwhile meant representation and acceptance by the five ancient patriarchates (Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome). This is where our author significantly alters things: as the above quote shows, he leaves the pentarchs out of the equation. Perhaps he had some “vertical” reservations about Pope Hadrian and Patriarch Tarasius (although the Franks would never dare question the pope to his face, since they valued alliance with Rome on both religious and political matters); perhaps also he had realized that the Muslim conquests would make contact with the other sees difficult if not impossible. In its place he produces a trump card in the form of a new synodal theory: whenever “bishops of two or three provinces…armed with the body of teaching found in the ancient canons” convene together, whatever point they establish is still valid (even though not all bishops around the world are present or even though they have not ratified it), by virtue of their decision being in conformity with the universal faith. Having left pentarchy aside as the measure of “horizontal” legitimacy, the Franks turn to what might be called a “locally horizontal” theory that required a tight bond to the vertical theory.

Combined together, the author thus insinuates that the Greeks have departed from the teachings of the Fathers and therefore, what they did was neither catholic nor universal - ergo, Nicaea II does not carry any ecumenical weight. Incidentally, this argument also legitimizes the later the council of Frankfurt (794). Obviously that synod itself had no real claim to being ecumenical (nor does any Frankish source designates it as such), but under the author’s line of reasoning, the decisions reached at Frankfurt are nevertheless legitimate because the Franks are faithful to Tradition.

 

[patrick457]

Returning back to the subject of art, the author rejects the use of miracles and dreams associated with images as proof of the legitimacy of their veneration. As for signs, he says, he can find no such accounts in the Bible and thus doubts that any stories should be believed. Stories which the Iconophile writers of the East have appealed to in their defense of images, like the legend of King Abgar and the Holy Mandylion or the image of St. Polemon miraculously preventing someone from committing adultery were dismissed as sheer fiction and consigned to the trash bin. (The reason for the rejection of the first is simply because, “it’s not in the Bible.” ) He even quotes Gregory and Augustine on the dangers of signs. (This ties in with the “vertical” argument in the last post: note how he uses both the Bible and the Fathers to legitimize his point.) But he also says that any sign, in so far as it is not diabolical, manifests the power of God. So even if a sign were to have been produced by an image, this is no proof of the power of the image itself and no reason to adore that image or any other one. Our author then poses questions like: since God appeared to Moses in a bush, does that mean we should adore shrubs? The Lord was circumcised with a sharp stone - does that mean we should worship stones? Moses sweetened the bitter waters with a piece of wood; should trees then be adored? Gideon collected moisture in a fleece, so should fleeces be adored?

As for dreams, the author agrees that yes, since God did sometimes communicate through them (something well-attested in Scripture) they could never be wholly approved or disapproved. He does however lays out a standard for evaluating them: for a dream to be of legitimate, divine origin, the information which they convey should be in perfect accord with both the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. (There’s the “vertical” argument again!) So, according to him, if a person had a dream instructing him to worship an image - this is what is at issue in the Nicene passage (which I’ll quote at the next post) that he has in his sights - then one ought immediately to regard that as a dubious, perhaps even demonic, dream. In the course of the discussion, our author pulls a joker from the deck. After having thrashed the Byzantines earlier for adhering to pagan standards (the whole imperial image cult thing, etc.), and after having shown that depictions of scenes from gentile literature do not agree with the Bible, he cites on the unreliability of dreams a passage from the (Pseudo-) Disticha Catonis. Right away, however, he defends himself by saying that if anyone wants to criticize him for quoting a pagan author, he is in fact “following in the footsteps” of Sts. Jerome and Augustine, who often cited gentile authors to make their points. In other words, “I’m just doing what the Fathers have done, so don’t you dare criticize me.”

As far as signs and dreams were concerned, our author was simply skeptical. God could of course use them, but if He did, then the images themselves were irrelevant to the story. That he differed from numerous late antique writers and also from his Byzantine contemporaries on the ontology of images derives from a fundamental point in his theology, which we’ve already encountered earlier: images were purely material and God was purely spiritual.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s a snippet from the fourth session of the Second Council of Nicaea (from here):


St. Plato of Ancyra

Theodore Deacon and Notary reads from “the Epistle of the blessed Nilus to Heliodorus, the Silentiary:”—

“By miracles continually wrought in divers places and at various times, the Lord invites those who have little faith, and those who have none, to steadfast faith; whilst He yet more increases the faith and hope of those who believe already, and manifests His fixed immutable designs. I will, therefore, relate to thee one instance out of many thousands in which our triumphant martyr, Plato, had proved, not in our own country only, but in every other city and district, how readily He grants grace and displays His wonderful might to all who, by him, make requests to God.
“In the mount called Sinai, where Moses received the law from the hand of God, and where many monks, both natives and foreigners dwell, a certain man of Galata with his son, having embraced the monastic life, sojourned some time in that desert, there performing the exercises of ascetic discipline. On a certain day, certain barbarians, heathens in religion, made a sudden irruption on the aforesaid mountain: they seized all the solitaries whom they could readily lay hands upon and carried them away captives, among whom was the son of the old man before-mentioned. Having bound their hands behind their backs, they forced them away from their now empty cells, driving them onwards naked and fasting. And without any shoes to their feet they were made by force and cruel necessity to run over those parched, rugged, inhospitable regions, worn out with a thousand fears. But the old man hidden in a dark cave, overwhelmed with grief on the loss of so pious a son, earnestly besought the Lord Christ, by Plato, the martyr of his own country, that he would in mercy condescend to hear his prayer. The very same petition, the son now in bonds, entreated of God, by the same immaculate martyr—namely, that He would have mercy upon him and would work a miracle his favour. And both the old man in his cave on the mountain, and the son in his captivity were heard. For, behold, on a sudden our martyr Plato himself on horseback, and also having with him another beautiful horse, appeared to the young man as he was watching, who at once recognised his person because he had often seen his likeness in his image. The saint commands him to rise forthwith from the midst of the other prisoners, to take hold of the horse and to mount it. Immediately his chains were broken like a spider’s web; and he, the only one liberated for the sake of his invocation, by the permission of God rose up and mounted the horse, and with great confidence and joy, followed the guidance of the holy martyr. And as quickly and swiftly as if they had wings, the martyr Plato and the young solitary presented themselves at the cell of the old man still praying and weeping. And now that the illustrious martyr had restored to the broken-hearted father his beloved son, he vanished out of their sight.
“So that it is plain that in every place the venerable and illustrious champions of the Church are able to accomplish everything, however wonderful or amazing, in behalf of those who call on God by them. These things have I written to you as being a lover of martyrs, and as one who never can hear too much in memory of these thrice blessed martyrs.”

The holy council said: “It is evident that it was from previous acquaintance with the martyr’s image that the young man knew the saint when he appeared for his deliverance.”

Theodore bishop of Myra: “I myself have experienced something not unlike the history just now related; for when I was suffering under the injurious treatment of some of our great men, my archdeacon, a religious man and one that fears God, said to me—‘I have seen the Patriarch in a vision, who said, Let the Metropolitan come up to us, and all his affairs shall be arranged to his satisfaction.’ On which I asked him again—‘In what form or appearance did the Patriarch manifest himself to you.’ And he answered, ‘That his face was ruddy and his hair like that of an old man.’ ‘I replied, this is not the description of the Patriarch, but answers well to the image of St. Nicholas.’ ‘But was the person whom you saw exactly such as you have described him?’ And he answered: ‘Yes: the man whom I saw speaking to me was exactly such as I have described.’ Then I knew that it was St. Nicholas who had appeared to him from the likeness of his description to the image of the saint. Confiding, therefore, in his words, I went up immediately to the royal and God-preserved city, and there all my business relative to my bishopric was settled just as I would have it.”

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/i/icon-st-catharine1.jpg​

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/media/images/i/icon-st-catharine1.jpg[/INDENT]

 

[patrick457]

Incidentally that book gives a quote from the Libri Carolini (3.26) in its footnotes.

Cum in eadem vanitatis lectione, quam illi septimae synodi nuncupatione censeri aestuant, pene omnia somniorum imaginationibus et fantasticis quibusdam obumbrationibus similia sint, et pene nihil sit ibi, quod non aut somnii vanitatem aut alterius cuiusdam deleramenti hebitudinem redoleat, cunctaque interiori palato degustata insapidum insulsumque quendam saporem referant, speciali tamen deleramento Theodorus, Mirensis episcopus, somnia archidiaconi sui ibidem legitur retulisse, ut errorem, quem nec divinarum Scripturarum auctoritatibus nec ullis sanctorum patrum doctrinis vel exemplis valuit fulcire, saltim somniorum delusionibus valeret adstruere nec inmerito ad tam frivolum tamque vaecors stabiliendum negotium dignum et pene par exhibens adminiculum. …] Ad rem ergo dubiam et quae in quaestionem venit roborandam non somniorum ludificatrix vanitas, non apochriforum acervissima procacitas, non levium et inutilium verborum falsitas, sed divinorum librorum sive catholicorum patrum authentica est requirenda auctoritas. …] Unde modis omnibus repraehendendum putavimus, quod praefatus episcopus, cui divinae legis armis contra somniatores vel ceteras nenias confligendum erat, somnia archidiaconi sui ad rem inutilem roborandam in synodo retulit. Haec enim parvipendenda non solum in divinae legis oraculis, sed et in ipsis gentilium reperitur litteris. Ait enim philosophus Cato: Somnia ne cures; nam mens humana haec optat. Cum vigilas, speras, per somnum cernis idipsum.

In that farrago of vanities which is given out by some as the seventh council, where all was fantastical and dreamy, with a yet more special absurdity, Theodore bishop of Myra must needs bring forward the dreams of his archdeacon, that so their error, which could find no support from the Scripture or from the teaching and example of any of the Fathers, might not lack the delusive aid of dreams: and that for so absurd, so frivolous a practice, a support equal in vanity and absurdity should be supplied. …] Now, to confirm doubtful points we ought to have, not the sportive vanity of dreams, not the impertinence of apocryphal tales, not the falsity and vanity of unprofitable discussions, but the sure authority of the sacred books or of the catholic Fathers. …] Wherefore the bishop aforesaid ought by all means to be censured, who ought to have contended against dreamers and such trifled with the arms of the divine law, because, instead of this, he must needs bring forward the dreams of the archdeacon to establish so useless a practice. Not only do we find these things set at nought in the oracles of the divine law, but even in the writings of the gentiles; for thus speaks Cato the Philosopher—

“Care not for dreams; for that which the mind desires
Awake it hopes for, but in dreams perceives.”​

 

[patrick457]

As you can see, that was a very truncated quote. Here’s the full version (only in Latin, sorry, so it’s probably not going to make much sense except for those who know the language):

Cum in eadem vanitatis lectione, quam illi septimae synodi nuncupatione censeri aestuant, pene omnia somniorum imaginationibus et fantasticis quibusdam obumbrationibus similia sint, et pene nihil sit ibi, quod non aut somnii vanitatem aut alterius cuiusdam deleramenti hebitudinem redoleat, cunctaque interiori palato degustata insapidum insulsumque quendam saporem referant, speciali tamen deleramento Theodorus, Mirensis episcopus, somnia archidiaconi sui ibidem legitur retulisse, ut errorem, quem nec divinarum Scripturarum auctoritatibus nec ullis sanctorum patrum doctrinis vel exemplis valuit fulcire, saltim somniorum delusionibus valeret adstruere nec inmerito ad tam frivolum tamque vaecors stabiliendum negotium dignum et pene par exhibens adminiculum. Quamquam igitur somniorum usus nec in totum sit adprobandus, quia plerumque daemonum fallaciis exhibetur, nec in totum (name removed by moderator)robandus, quia interdum per eum quaedam mysteria revelantur, ad adstruendas tamen res dubias et ea quae in contentionem veniunt adfirmanda numquam idoneus invenitur. Quis enim umquam somnio suo rem dubiam valeat adfirmare, cum, utrum ita, ut se vidisse profatur, viderit, nullius testis testimonio valet adprobare.

Ad rem ergo dubiam et quae in quaestionem venit roborandam non somniorum ludificatrix vanitas, non apochriforum acervissima procacitas, non levium et inutilium verborum falsitas, sed divinorum librorum sive catholicorum patrum authentica est requirenda auctoritas. Nam sicut res profuturae et mysteriorum archanis comptae, cum per somnia innuuntur, per angelos revelantur, ita e contrario, dum res noxiae et omni utilitate carentes per somnia demonstrantur, a daemonibus demonstrari creduntur. Unde si somnium, quod ille in synodo retulit, ad imaginum adorationem stabiliendam ab angelo archidiacono eius demonstratum est, imagines adorare proficuum est; et si imagines adorare proficuum est, ceteras res sensu carentes adorare proficuum est. Est autem rese sensu carentes adorare noxium. Non igitur archidiacono eius somnium, quod retulit ad imaginum adorationem stabiliendam, ab angelo demonstratum est. Liquido namque patet id ei, cum ab angelo demonstratum non sit, ab incentore spiritu, qui semper vanitatibus et rebus noxiis instat, inlatum fuisse. Quod ut lucidius pateat, rationabili argumento firmandum est. Quoniam, si incentor spiritus id ei minime intulit, angelus procul dubio intulisse credendus est; et si angelus intulisse credendus est consensum rebus cohibitis angeli exhibent. Non autem angeli rebus prohibitis vel noxiis seu divinis monitis obnitentibus consensum exhibent. Spiritus igitur incentor id ei intulisse credendus est. Cum ergo probatum sit id ei ab angelo sancto minime fuisse exhibitum, eo quod cum spiritus in sui conditoris laude continua permanentes et peccato prorsus carentes res (name removed by moderator)uras et delictis obnoxias penitus abnuant, restat, ut aut delusione nequissimi spiritus id sibi fateatur exhibitum aut se prorsus testetur fuisse mentitum, quod utrumque servis Dei non convenit. Nam et spiritibus inmundis catholico cuique resistendum est dicente apostolo: Resistite diabolo, et fugiet a vobis; (James 4:7) et mendacium spernendum est dicente Scriptura: Noli velle mentiri omne mendacium, assiduitas enim illius non bona. (Sirach 7:14) Probandi interea iuxta apostoli sententiam spiritus sunt, an ex Deo sint, et iuxta Veritatis vocem a fructibus suis cognoscuntur.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Unde ex fructu suo, quo imaginum adorationem affectat id somnium fulcire, evidentissime depraehenditur ille spiritus, qui id intulit, ex Deo non esse. Sed ne forte nostris solummodo argumentationibus hoc videamur edicere, recurramus ad divinas Scripturas! Interrogemus legislatorem! Dicat, utrum somnia penitus recipienda sint? Dicat, qualiter nobis erga somniatores agendum est! Dic, oro, sancte Moyses, dic mitissime virorum, dic vir nobilis et archanorum Dei strenue inspector, dic vir clementissime et ineffabilis Dei fidelissime interpraes, qui legem in monte peccatis contrariam et vitiis inimicam accipiens glorificata facie vultum intollerabilem peccatori populo adduxisti ae ut sicut lex, quam deferebas, peccatis contraria erat, ita nimirum vultus tuus spectantibus terribilis esset ae dic, vir inclite, qui typum veri Redemptoris gerens mediator inter Deum et homines extitisti! Da praeceptum, utrum quaelibet somnia credenda sint? Fare, utrum quibuslibet inlusionibus consensus exhibendus sit! Si surrexerit in medio tui prophetes aut somniator, qui somnium vidisse se dicat, et praedixerit signum aliquod atque portentum, et evenerit, quod loquutus est, et dixerit tibi: Veni, et sequamur deos alienos, quos ignoras, non adtendas verba prophetae illius aut somniatoris, quia temptat vos Dominus Deus vester, ut palam faciat, utrum diligatis eum ex toto corde vestro an non. (Deuteronomy 13:1-4) Ecce legislatoris auctoritate perdocemur, quod verba somniatorum, quamquam effectum habeant, non adtendantur. Dicat nunc Sapientia quid de somniis sentiat! Ait enim: Ubi multa sunt somnia, plurimae vanitates et sermones innumeri. Tu vero Deum time. (Ecclesiastes 5:6) Nam et Aegyptios somnia perturbasse creduntur dicente Scriptura: Somnia enim, quae illos turbaverunt, haec significabant, ne inscii essent, quare mala paterentur. (Wisdom 18:19) Manifestum est enim divinae legis auctoritatibus somnia et auguria vana esse et quanto quis ea amplius timuerit, tanto cor eius amplius falli.

Unde modis omnibus repraehendendum putavimus, quod praefatus episcopus, cui divinae legis armis contra somniatores vel ceteras nenias confligendum erat, somnia archidiaconi sui ad rem inutilem roborandam in synodo retulit. Haec enim parvipendenda non solum in divinae legis oraculis, sed et in ipsis gentilium reperitur litteris. Ait enim philosophus Cato: Somnia ne cures; nam mens humana haec optat. Cum vigilas, speras, per somnum cernis idipsum. Nam si quis forte nobis succensere nitatur, eo quod gentilium verba nostro inseruimus operi, legat primum libros beatissimorum atque eruditissimorum virorum Hieronimi sive Augustini et mox, ut in illorum opusculis non solum philosophorum, sed etiam poetarum gentilium quaedam verba repererit, nos magistros et auctores, quorum vestigia sequimur, habere cognoscet, cum quibus nec culpari abnuimus nec repraehendi erubescimus.

 

[patrick457]

I think some people may have already noticed that there is something quite odd in this discussion. The Iconophile writers of the East (like St. John of Damascus), who had gone to great lengths to carefully distinguish latreia and doulia or proskynesis from each other, but our author never seems to draw a hard line between adoratio and adoratio. This is often chalked up to a faulty Latin translation of the acts of Nicaea II (which apparently somewhat confusingly rendered both terms as adoratio), but at the same time there did not really seem to have been a hard-fast distinction between veneratio and adoratio in the Latin of the time.

In 8th-9th century Latin, adoratio did not necessarily refer just to the adoration reserved for God. For instance, the Annales regni Francorum describes the “adoration” of Charlemagne following his imperial acclamation in 800. (Et post laudes ab apostolico more antiquorum principum adoratus est atque ablato patricii nomine imperator et augustus est appellatus. “And after the lauds, he was adored by the Pope in the manner of the ancient princes, and, discarding the title of ‘Patrician’, he was henceforth known as Emperor and Augustus.”) Even Pope Hadrian, when citing the Lateran Council of 769 and its condemnation of Iconoclasm, was not too scrupulous in distinguishing between the two terms and used them interchangeably in the context of veneration of images (Venerari et adorari sacras imagines in eorum concilio censuerunt “they stated that sacred images are to be venerated and adored;” Adorari atque venerari sacras imagines statuerunt “they established that sacred images are to be adored and also venerated”).

As for our author, he argues that God alone is “adored” (adorandus) and “worshipped” (colendus), while the saints are but venerandi, who must be paid nothing more than the veneration which is their due (opportuna veneratio). However, he himself sometimes also understands adoratio as an act of respect given to men through gestures like bowing and kissing, although even these are acts employed only as a salutationis causa, and out of a sense of love or humility.

As we’ve said earlier, the issue was not so much any distinction between latreia and proskynesis, but to the objects of adoratio or veneratio. The real objection of the Franks, as presented in the Libri Carolini, was that the proper objects of adoratio/veneratio are living beings like God and man, or even the remains of holy men of past ages, whereas images could not be given such honor. You could not even give images the adoratio given to men because they are lifeless and made by human ands.

Solus igitur Deus colendus, solus adorandus, solus glorificandus est ae de quo per prophetam dicitur: Exaltatum est nomen eius solius. Cuius etiam sanctis, qui triumphato diabolo cum eo regnant sive quia viriliter certauerunt, ut ad nos incolomis status ecclesiae perveniret, sive quia eandem ecclesiam assiduis suffragiis et intercessionibus adiuvare noscuntur, veneratio exhibenda est. Imagines vero omni sui cultura et adoratione seclusa, utrum in basilicis propter memoriam rerum gestarum et ornamentum sint an etiam non sint, nullum fidei catholicae adferre poterunt praeiudicium, quippe cum ad peragenda nostrae salutis mysteria nullum penitus officium habere noscantur.

God therefore alone is to be worshipped (colendus), he alone to be adored (adorandus), he alone to be glorified (glorificandus). Of him the prophet says, “His name alone is excellent,” (Psalm 148:18) Reverence (veneratio) is likewise due to the saints, who, having overcome the devil, now reign with Christ, because they manfully laboured and suffered, in order that the church should come down to our times, and because they are able to assist the still struggling church with their prayers. But images can only be placed in churches without injury to the faith when adoration (adoratione) and worship (cultura) of every kind are forbidden, and when they are employed either simply as ornaments in the basilicas, or as memorials of their deeds; or they may be absent altogether without injury to the Catholic faith, seeing that they can take no part in the mysteries of our salvation.

• 2.21

 

[patrick457]

During Charlemagne’s reign there was no attempt to reduce the importance of relics; instead, there were attempts were made to bring their veneration under central control and to use them to bolster his general program of political, social and religious consolidation. The role of saints in every aspect of daily life was of course large in both Eastern and Western Churches; however, there was a profound distinction between the place of relics in the West and icons in the East.

One historian, Andre Grabar, suggested that in the East the cultus of relics developed prior to that of images. He theorized that in Byzantium, a transition from a cultus of physical remains to a cultus of physical representation occurred, whereas in the West this development never progressed beyond the level of image-reliquary (reliquaries in human shape; cf. the reliquary of St. Faith or this reliquary of St. Martin of Tours.) More recently another historian, Ernst Kitzinger, disagreed with this view, suggesting that the cultus of images did not develop from the veneration of relics, but is the result of a conscious policy of the Byzantine emperors who expanded the official cult of the emperor’s image to include a cultus of the images of Christ and the saints.

In any case, in 801 and again in 813, the canon Item placuit of the Fifth Council of Carthage (400) requiring that all altars without relics be destroyed was enacted in the Frankish Empire, resulting of course in a huge demand for them. The transfer and the placement of relics to altars became highly-solemn, important affairs: Charlemagne used these as a tool to to focus the faith of only superficially Christianized peoples like the Saxons and the Avars. He also encouraged expansion of relics’ legal and social signficance by making the practice of using them for oath taking normative for all oaths. The ecclesiastical practice of swearing on a relic was already established by this time (the Merovingian kings swore by the cloak - the cappa - of St. Martin of Tours or on some other relic; in 794, bishop Peter of Verdun’s swearing “only in the presence of God” due to the absence of any relics or gospel book was considered remarkable): Charles turned it into law in 803, requiring that all oaths be sworn in a church or on relics. Heretofore the Germanic peoples were accustomed to take oaths on any object: one’s own beard, a ring, or a chair of a leader. Charlemagne’s throne in his chapel at Aachen represents a synthesis of Germanic and Christian ideas: it contained a niche for the insertion of relics, so technically swearing on his throne is valid. The formula “May God and the saint whose relics these are judge me” became prescribed, in fact becoming the standard oath of Charles’ successors (it was used by Charles the Bald in 853 and Louis II in 860).

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/aachen-cathedral-photos/slides/IMG_8297.JPG

(Trivia: relics of the True Cross were favored in the East, while relics of saints were favored in the West.)

We should add that it was in the Carolingian period and afterwards that hagiographical works concerning the posthumous veneration of relics began to sprout. Monks compiled collections of miracles performed at the shrines of such saints as Benedict of Nursia at the monastery of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire and Richarius at Saint-Riquier. The enthusiasm for relics was not just confined to those saints traditionally enshrined in France. Many relics were obtained from different areas, sometimes even through apparently questionable means: numerous translation accounts survive that document these journeys. These translations are dubbed by Charlemagne’s courtier and scholar Einhard as furta sacra “holy theft:” their ‘transfer’ was given an air of legitimacy by suggesting that the relics were carried off to a new home under the inspiration and guidance of the saints themselves. In which case, this ‘theft’ could not even be a sinful act: theft of the saints’ relics against their wills was deemed to be inconceivable. In other words: if the saint did not want his/her relics to be moved away, no power in the earth could ever force them, ergo these transfers must be in perfect accordance with the will of God and the saint in question.

Generally speaking, relics moved around either due to a legitimate transaction or because someone had stolen them. However, not every claims of ‘holy theft’ are authentic: while we would expect that the official tradition may try to cover up the dishonest elements of the deed and claim that the relic was acquired by gift, there are in fact cases where the account of the supposed ‘theft’ of the relic masked a perfectly regular acquisition, purchase, or simply an invention (in both the medieval and modern senses of the term). In fact, stolen relics were believed to be more valuable and authentic than ones that had been gained legitimately.

 

[patrick457]

I think some people may have already noticed that there is something quite odd in this discussion. The Iconophile writers of the East (like St. John of Damascus), who had gone to great lengths to carefully distinguish latreia and doulia or proskynesis from each other, but our author never seems to draw a hard line between adoratio and adoratio.

I meant veneratio.

You could not even give images the adoratio given to men because they are lifeless and made by human ands.

Human “hands.”

A little summary: the Franks had earlier (around 791-2) sent Pope Hadrian a now-lost document detailing their objections to Nicaea II known as Capitulare contra synodum; Hadrian’s point-by-point refutation of Frankish criticism is known as the Hadrianum. Far from simply accepting the pope’s answer, however, Charlemagne ordered a more detailed examination of the Roman and Byzantine arguments. The result of this task is our Libri Carolini.

 

[patrick457]

In the meantime, a few other snippets (taken from A Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages by Ian Levy, pp. 175-77). First off, from book 1, chapter 2:

Veritas semper intemerata et inviolata perseverans unius modi est, istae vero pro veoluntate artificis plura se demonstrant agere, cum nihil agant. Nam cum videntur homines esse,cum non sint, pugnare, cum non pugnent, loqui, cum non loquantur, audire, cum non audiant, cernere, cum non cernant, innuere, cum non innuant, palpare, cum non palpent, et cetera huiuscemodi, constat eas figmenta artificum esse, non eam veritatem, de qua dictum est: Et veritas liberabit vos. Imagines namque eas sine sensu et ratione esse verum est, homines autem eas esse falsum est. Quas et si quis secundum aequivocorum rationem homines dici posse adfirmet, ut Augustinus fuit summus philosophus, et Augustinus legendus est, et Augustinus pictus in ecclesia stat, et Augustinus illo loco sepultus est, animadvertat haec omnia, quamquam ab uno fonte, id est Augustino, processerint, hunc solum fuisse verum Augustinum, de quo dictum est summus philosophus, cetera vero aliud esse codicem, aliud imaginem, aliud corpus sepultum. Inter hominem autem pictum et verum hoc principaliter interest, quod unus illorum est verus, alter falsus, nec uspiam nisi in nominis societate iunguntur. Nam cum hic verus sit, qui hac definitione definiri potest, ut dicatur animalis, rationalis, mortalis, risus sensusque capax, necessario ille falsus habendus est, qui horum nihil habet, et si ille, qui his omnibus caret, falsus non est, nec ille verus est, qui his omnibus regulis subiacet.

Truth preserving always pure and undefiled is one. Images, however, by the will of the artist seem to do many things, while they do nothing. For, since they seem to be men when they are not, to fight when they do not fight, to speak when they do not speak, to hear when they do not hear, to see when they do not see, to beckon when they do not beckon, to touch when they do not touch and other things like this, it is clear that they are artist’s fictions and not that truth of which it is said: “And the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32) That they are images without sense and reason is true; that they are men, however, is false. And if someone affirms that images according to a logical trick can be called men, as, for example, “Augustine was a very great philosopher,” and, “Augustine ought to be read,” and “a painted Augustine stands in the church,” and “Augustine is buried there,” let him realize, that although all these things come from one source, that is from Augustine, he alone is the true Augustine who is called “a very great philosopher.” Of the others, however, one is a book, one is an image, one is a buried corpse. The principal difference between a true and a painted man is that one is true and the other is false, and they have nothing in common except the name. For since he is true of whom it can be said that he is an animal, rational, mortal, capable of laughter and pain, then one must necessarily consider him false who has none of these attributes, and if he who lacks all these things is not false then neither is he who possesses all of them true…

 

[patrick457]

From book 3, chapter 23:

Nonne divinis Scripturis contraire noscuntur, cum abissum figuram hominis fingunt habere et limpharum inundationem affatim fundere? Nonne divinis Scripturis eos contraire haud dubium est, cum tellurem in figura humana modo aridam sterilemve, modo fructibus affluentem depingunt? Nonne divinis Scripturis eos contraire manifestum est, cum flumineos amnes in figuris hominum ait situlis aquas fundere, aut alios in alios confluere depingunt? Nonne, cum solem et lunam et cetera caeli ornamenta figuras hominum et capita radiis succincta habere fingunt, sanctis Scripturis modis omnibus contraeunt? Nonne cum duodecim ventis singulis singulas formas pro qualitate virium adtribuunt aut mensibus singulis pro qualitate temporum, quid unusquisque deferat, quibusdam nudas, quibusdam seminudas, quibusdam etiam indutas diversis vestibus figuras dant, aut dum quattuor tempora anni singula diversis figuris, depingunt, aut floribus vernans ut ver, aut aestibus exustam vel etiam segetibus onustam ut aestatem, aut vindemiae labris vel botris oneratum ut autumnum, aut modo frigoribus algidam, modo ignibus se calefacientem, modo animantibus pabula praebentem, modo nimiis frigoribus marcidas volucres capientem ut hiemem, Scripturis divinis, in quibus haec ita minime continentur, contraire noscuntur? Quomodo ergo a pictoribus, qui poetarum vanissimas fabulas plerumque sequuntur, sanctis Scripturis minime contraitur? Finguntur enim per eos interdum res in veritate gestae in alias atque alias incredibiles nenias; finguntur etiam, quae nec factae sunt nec fieri poterant, sed aut mistice a philosophis intelliguntur aut inaniter a gentilibus venerantur aut veraciter a catholicis respuuntur. Quae omnia quamquam in gentilium habeantur litteris, a divinis tamen prorsus sunt aliena Scripturis. …]
Et quid est dicere: Non contraeunt pictores Scripturis? quasi non aliqua a pictoribus possint depingi, quae sacris litteris credantur refragari. In sacris etenim litteris nihil vitiosum, nihil inconveniens, nihil (name removed by moderator)urum, nihil falsum nisi forte id, quod perversos quosque dixisse vel fecisse sancta Scriptura commemorat, penitus invenitur; in picturis autem plura falsa, plura vitiosa, plura inconsequentia, plura inconvenientia et, ut singula taceam, pene omnia sive possibilia sive (name removed by moderator)ossibilia ab eruditis pictoribus depinguntur. Quibus documentis Iohannes presbiter et legatus Orientalium in hac quoque parte sicut et in ceteris delerasse convincitur. Quod autem idem presbiter ait pictores quicquid Scriptura loquitur demonstrare, quam sit falsum quamque inutile, prudens lector advertat. Numquidnam cuncta divinae legis praecepta, quae a Domino per Moysen data sunt, ut est illud: Audi Israhel, Dominus, Deus tuus, Deus unus est, et cetera huiuscemodi, in quibus nihil sonant, quae pingi possint, a pictoribus demonstrantur? Numquidnam omnia verba prophetarum, in quibus doctrinae, exhortationes, redargutiones, contemplationes, minae vel cetera his similia continentur, in quibus crebro invenitur: Haec dicit Dominus aut Iuravit Dominus aut his similia, quae ab scriptoribus potius quam a pictoribus exarantur, pictura secundum eius vanitatem demonstrare valet? Numquidnam verba ipsius Domini et apostolorum singula a pictoribus possunt demonstrari? Pictores igitur rerum gestarum historias ad memoriam reducere quodammodo valent, res autem, quae sensibus tantummodo percipiuntur et verbis proferuntur, non a pictoribus, sed ab scriptoribus conpraehendi et aliorum relatibus demonstrari valent,

 

[patrick457]

And when somebody says: “Images are not contrary to Holy Scripture,” while many things are being painted by painters about which Scripture says nothing and which can be shown to be completely false not only by learned but also by unlearned men, must one not grant, that what he says is not only extremely ridiculous but downright false? Does he not know that it is contrary to Scripture to fashion the sea as a man pouring forth a large stream of water? And is it not certainly contrary to Scripture if the earth is depicted in human form, either as arid and sterile or as overflowing with fruits? And is it not obvious that it is contrary to Scripture if one depicts rivers and streams and their confluence as men pouring water out of urns? And if the sun and the moon and the other adornments of the sky are depicted in human form, their heads crowned with rays, does not all of this run quite contrary to Holy Scripture? And if one credits each of the twelve winds with a different shape according to its strength or give a different appearance to each of the months according to the time of the year, so that some appear naked, others half naked, others clad in various garments, or if one depicts the four seasons as four different figures—either verdant with flowers as spring, or scorched by the heat and loaded with grain as summer, or bent under the load of wine vats and grapes as autumn, or now freezing in the cold, now warming himself at a fire, or feeding animals or catching birds, which are exhausted by the cold, as winter—does one not recognize that these things are contrary to Scripture, which does not contain any of them?
How is it, then, that Scripture is not contradicted by painters, who frequently follow the vain fables of the poets? They fashion sometimes events which have actually happened, but also incredible inanities on other occasions. What neither has happened nor can ever happen they depict: what is understood mystically by the philosophers, venerated superstitiously by the pagans, and rejected rightfully by the Catholics. And although all these things are contained in pagan literature they are nevertheless utterly alien to Scripture….

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Wien%2C_ÖNB%2C_Cod.387%2C_90v.jpg/405px-Wien%2C%C3%96NB%2C_Cod._387%2C_90v.jpg

And what does it mean when one says: “Painters do not contradict Scripture,” if not that they cannot paint anything that would seem opposed to Holy Scripture? In Holy Scripture, however, nothing vicious, nothing unsuitable, nothing impure, and nothing false can be found, except where Scripture records what the wicked said and did. But in painting, much that is false, wicked, foolish and unsuitable can be found, and to pass over particular examples, almost everything either possible or impossible has been depicted by learned painters. By establishing these facts we have exposed the babbling of John the priest and Eastern legate on this subject, as on others. Let the prudent readers take note of how false and inane is this declaration of the same priest: “Whatever Scripture treats, painters can represent.” For how can all the commands of Divine Law, given by God through Moses, like that, “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God,” and other things of this sort, in which there is nothing that can be painted, be represented by painters? For is painting in its vanity able to represent all the words of the prophets in which doctrines, exhortations, arguments, considerations, warnings or other like things are contained? In them one often finds, “Thus says the Lord,” or “God commanded,” or things similar to these which may be expressed by writers rather than painters. For which single word of the Lord and the apostles can be represented by painters? Painters therefore have a certain ability to remind one of things that have happened. Such things, however, as are understood by reason and expressed in words can be expressed not by painters but by writers through verbal discourse.

 

[Celticnovice]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Madrid,_Biblioteca_Nacional,_Cod._3307.gif

And when somebody says: “Images are not contrary to Holy Scripture,” while many things are being painted by painters about which Scripture says nothing and which can be shown to be completely false not only by learned but also by unlearned men, must one not grant, that what he says is not only extremely ridiculous but downright false? Does he not know that it is contrary to Scripture to fashion the sea as a man pouring forth a large stream of water? And is it not certainly contrary to Scripture if the earth is depicted in human form, either as arid and sterile or as overflowing with fruits? And is it not obvious that it is contrary to Scripture if one depicts rivers and streams and their confluence as men pouring water out of urns? And if the sun and the moon and the other adornments of the sky are depicted in human form, their heads crowned with rays, does not all of this run quite contrary to Holy Scripture? And if one credits each of the twelve winds with a different shape according to its strength or give a different appearance to each of the months according to the time of the year, so that some appear naked, others half naked, others clad in various garments, or if one depicts the four seasons as four different figures—either verdant with flowers as spring, or scorched by the heat and loaded with grain as summer, or bent under the load of wine vats and grapes as autumn, or now freezing in the cold, now warming himself at a fire, or feeding animals or catching birds, which are exhausted by the cold, as winter—does one not recognize that these things are contrary to Scripture, which does not contain any of them?
How is it, then, that Scripture is not contradicted by painters, who frequently follow the vain fables of the poets? They fashion sometimes events which have actually happened, but also incredible inanities on other occasions. What neither has happened nor can ever happen they depict: what is understood mystically by the philosophers, venerated superstitiously by the pagans, and rejected rightfully by the Catholics. And although all these things are contained in pagan literature they are nevertheless utterly alien to Scripture….

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Wien%2C_ÖNB%2C_Cod.387%2C_90v.jpg/405px-Wien%2C%C3%96NB%2C_Cod._387%2C_90v.jpg

And what does it mean when one says: “Painters do not contradict Scripture,” if not that they cannot paint anything that would seem opposed to Holy Scripture? In Holy Scripture, however, nothing vicious, nothing unsuitable, nothing impure, and nothing false can be found, except where Scripture records what the wicked said and did. But in painting, much that is false, wicked, foolish and unsuitable can be found, and to pass over particular examples, almost everything either possible or impossible has been depicted by learned painters. By establishing these facts we have exposed the babbling of John the priest and Eastern legate on this subject, as on others. Let the prudent readers take note of how false and inane is this declaration of the same priest: “Whatever Scripture treats, painters can represent.” For how can all the commands of Divine Law, given by God through Moses, like that, “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God,” and other things of this sort, in which there is nothing that can be painted, be represented by painters? For is painting in its vanity able to represent all the words of the prophets in which doctrines, exhortations, arguments, considerations, warnings or other like things are contained? In them one often finds, “Thus says the Lord,” or “God commanded,” or things similar to these which may be expressed by writers rather than painters. For which single word of the Lord and the apostles can be represented by painters? Painters therefore have a certain ability to remind one of things that have happened. Such things, however, as are understood by reason and expressed in words can be expressed not by painters but by writers through verbal discourse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Moses_Receives_the_Law_(detail).jpg/320px-Moses_Receives_the_Law_(detail).jpg

Patrick,

Who is “John the Priest” that the author is referring to?

 

[patrick457]

Patrick,

Who is “John the Priest” that the author is referring to?

He was a presbyter and “legate of the East” during Nicaea II, who did talk frequently as a spokesman for the Iconodule position. What the author is attacking here is an instance from the fourth session where a citation from bishop Asterius of Amasea where he describes a painting of the martyrdom of St. Euphemia of Chalcedon was read, or more specifically, the discussion after that.

The illustrious princes said: “It is evident that the art of the painter is religious, and not such as some calumniously vituperate it to be; for the father himself affirms that the painter acted piously.”

Constantine bishop of Constantia: “Moreover, also he styles it a sacred offering. By Gregory [of Nyssa] images are called venerable; by Chrysostom, holy; and by the father now cited [Asterius], sacred. Who shall henceforth dare to contravene these testimonies?”

Theodore bishop of Myra: “On hearing these testimonies of the teaching of the holy fathers, we have been cut to the heart and do bitterly mourn over the years now gone by; but, nevertheless, we thank God that by this teaching of the holy fathers we have come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Theodosius bishop of Ammorium: “Most holy and God-honoured Lord, we and all this holy council having heard the doctrines of our holy fathers concerning holy images do believe and confess, and do call them holy and sacred, and let him who does not agree with us be anathema.”

The holy council said: “Let him be anathema.”

Nicholas bishop of Dyrrhachium: “The skilful painter can always by his art make that which he represents it to be as it were present with you, even as he did who made this picture of the martyr Euphemia; wherefore, in this respect also, the father praises the art of painting.”

Constantine bishop of Constantia Salamis]: “Yes; especially when he says, ‘Formerly I praised the picture of the Colchian princess until I met with that of the martyr.”

The holy council said: “Which, when he saw, he was pricked to the heart.”

Basil bishop of Ancyra: “The father now cited had the same feelings as the most holy bishop Gregory [of Nyssa], for both shed tears on the sight of images.”

Tarasius [patriarch of Constantinople]: “The father, in the conclusion of the discourse, commands and gives fullest license to all who are willing to represent the conflicts of the martyrs: for, says he, ‘But now it remains for you, if you would have this picture more fully presented to you, to go and see it for yourselves, lest we should have fallen short of its merits in our description.’”

John legate of the East: “It seems that pictures have more power than words, which, no doubt, is ordered by Providence for the sake of unlearned men.”

Constantine bishop of Constantia: “If holy images could work such compunction, even on holy men, how much more ought they to affect us?”

Theodore bishop of Myra: “After all we have heard from the holy Fathers, we can object nothing.”

John legate of the East: “Painters do not contradict the Scriptures; for what Scripture says this they represent, so that they may be looked upon as actually confirmatory of that which has been written.”

Theodosius bishop of Ammorium: “The divine Apostle teaches us, saying, ‘Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning’ (Romans 15:4). Now, holy and venerable images, whether on canvas, on wood, or in mosaics, were also written and are for our instruction, emulation, and pattern, that we may exhibit the same example and zeal towards God: so that He may account us worthy of a place amongst them and a portion with them, and may make us fellow-heirs of His kingdom.”

Theodore bishop of Catana: “The blessed and God-bearing doctor Asterius, as a shining star, has enlightened all our hearts; wherefore, we are convinced that the holy Catholic Church has not gone beyond the rule of right in receiving holy images, but has acted therein strict accordance with the doctrine of our holy Fathers.”

 

[patrick457]

Any comments or questions?