Image economies are vital to religious observance, which is unimaginable without them. The major religions have constantly negotiated practices of worship that assign important roles to imagery of all kinds, from artifactual icons to mental images. No surprise, then, that the concept of iconomy arose in theological contexts, notably in interpretations of the iconoclastic controversies that embroiled the Christian church during the eighth and ninth centuries. In her essay, “The Face of Christ. The Form of the Church,” Marie-José Mondzian (née Baudinet) examines “the iconic representation of Christ's face—the face of God's Son, also known as the Father's Economy.” Not for the first or last time, the Christian church split over the implications of representing the holy figures, dividing itself into iconoclasts versus iconophiles, with deadly consequences for those who lost the upper hand.

She notes that the iconoclasts of that era were rarely opposed to images as such, only those claiming to represent the Father, the Son, and Mary. Their argument from faith was that these beings were ineffable, that representations falsely circumscribed them, pictured them as if they were mortal while inducing worshippers to take this reduced image for the spiritual reality, that is, to treat images as idols, thus abusing clear injunctions against idolatry. Meanwhile, on the secular level, iconoclastic churchmen and the emperors who supported them readily substituted imagery of useful saints and of themselves while maintaining the same overall relationships (i.e., the same general economy) between power and vision.

Inscription versus Circumscription

Nikephoros, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 806 to 815, was a key figure in these debates. Supported as a young scholar by pro-image empress Irene, and appointed as patriarch by emperor Nikephoros I, he was banished by the iconoclastic emperor Leo V for refusing to change his views.