¹ Baynes, Norman, H., “The Icons before Iconodasm,” Harvard Theological Review XLIV (1951), 93–106, esp. 93–95Google Scholar.

² Ed. Diekamp, , Franz, , “Analecta Patristica etc.,” in Orientalia Christiana Analecta CXVII (1938), pp. 127–129Google Scholar (text), pp. 118–120 (commentary). The edition is based on Paris, gr. 1115, ff. 254^▾–255^▾, written A.D. 1276. The ms. is interesting from the paleographical point of view. It contains a collection of dogmatic florilegia. In the colophon the thirteenth century scribe states that it was copied from a codex “found in the old library of the Holy Church of the Older Rome, which codex was itself written in the year 6267” (= 759 A.D.). On this ms. see Melioranski, B. M., Georgii Kiprianin i Ioann Ierusalimlianin etc., in Zapiski istoriko — filologicheskago fakulteta imperatorskago S.-Peterburgskago universiteta LIX (1901), pp. 78ff. and Schermann, , Theodor, , Die Geschichte der dogmatischen Florilegien etc., Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F. XIII (1904), 6–10Google Scholar, with the corrections made by Fr. Diekamp in his review of Schermann’s book (Theologische Revue IV [1905], 445–450) and in Diekamp’s edition of the Doctrina Patrum (Münster i. W., 1907), p. xx. In his review (col. 449) Diekamp cautions us, rightly, against accepting the evidence of the colophon at face value. Yet for the part of the ms. which interests us here only extraordinary circumstances, such as provenance from an outlying region, could account for the fact that a thirteenth century ms. preserves a passage in favor of image worship which had escaped all the iconophile writers during the one hundred and twenty-odd years of the Iconoclastic Controversy. In P.G. CIX 499–516 (= P.G. XCVI 1347–1362) an Invectiva contra Haereticos was edited from this codex, see (Combefis’?) prolusio.

“Hypatius archbishop of Ephesus, from the Miscellaneous Enquiries addressed to Julian bishop of Atramytium, Book One, Chapter Five, concerning the objects in sacred buildings.³

You say that those who set up in the sanctuaries what is revered and worshipped, in the form of paintings and carvings alike, are once again disturbing divine tradition.⁴ And you say that you understand clearly that the Sayings [of the Bible]⁵ prohibit this, that is, they prohibit not only to make [carvings] but even ordain that they be destroyed⁶ once they are coming or have come into existence.

We must examine why the Sayings state this, and at the same time consider for what purpose the sacred objects⁷ are moulded in the way in which they [actually] are. For inasmuch as certain people believed that, as Holy Scripture says, “the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone or the imprint of the art of man,”⁸ and improvised in accordance with their view material gods and “worshipped what he had created, instead of the Creator,”⁹ it is said: “Tear down their altars”¹⁰ and “cut down,”¹¹ and “the carved images of their gods you must burn up,”¹² and “watch your souls well (since you knew no likeness on the day when the Lord spoke to you at Mount Horeb out of the fire), that you do not act perniciously by carving an image for yourselves.”¹³ For no existing thing is like or identical or the same as the good and divine Trinity which transcends all existing things and is the creator and cause of all existing things, for it is said.

³ περὶ τῶν ἐν τoῖς ἁγίoις oἴκoις. The term “church” is not used at all in our fragment. Instead we find everywhere, except in the title, τὰ ἱερὰ, which I translate “sanctuaries.” Are the ἅγιoι oἶκι churches, or sacred buildings of a more general or more specialized character? The term occurs, in the sense of “church building,” in a fragment attributed, perhaps wrongly, to St. Epiphanius, see Ostrogorsky, Georg, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites, Breslau, 1929, pp. 67 ffGoogle Scholar. (frg. III 6, p. 68).

⁴ παρακινεῖν δὲ αὖθις ϕῂς τὴν θείαν παράδoσιν τoὺς ὁμoίως τὰ σεπτὰ καὶ πρoσκυνητὰ γραϕαῖς ἣ γλυϕαῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ἀνατιθέντας. Julian says that this is done “once again” (αὖθις) because it had been done a first time by the pagans.

⁵ Ex. 20:4–5 and similar passages. [In my translation, I have used as basis for the rendering of biblical passages the Chicago translation, but adjusted it where the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew or where Hypatius, who is quoting from memory, differs from the text of the Greek Bible. The biblical passages have been identified by Diekamp.]

⁶ Reading καθαιρεῖν (for καθαίρειν). Cf. Diekamp p. 118 “… die vorhandenen zu zerstören befehle.”

⁷ Here τὰ ίερὰ does not mean “sanctuaries” but “sacred objects.” Cf. note 3.

⁸ Acts 17:29.

⁹ Romans 17:25.

¹⁰ Deut. 7:5.

¹¹ Deut. 7:25.

¹² Deut. 7:25.

¹³ Deut. 4:15–16.

¹⁴ Ps. 70:19 (Sept.).

¹⁵ Ps. 82:2 (Sept.).

¹⁶ This is a difficult and important sentence: ἀλλὰ τoύτων oὕτως ἐχóντων ϕής προσκυνητὰς ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ἐῶμεν εἶναι γραϕάς, ἐπὶ ξύλoυ δὲ καὶ λίθoυ πoλλάκις oἱ τὰ τῆς γλυϕῆς ἀπαγoρεύoντες oὐδὲ τoῦτo ἀπλημμελὲς ἐῶμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ θυραῖς. Diekamp, p. 118 comments: “Das… Fragment… handelt… von den heiligen Gemälden und Skulpturen in den Gotteshäusern. Der Bischof Julian hatte das Bedenken, das Anbringen solcher Bildwerke [I suppose Diekamp means: of sacred paintings and sculptures] in den Kirchen sei gegen die Überlieferung und gegen die heilige Schrift…. Höchstens auf den Türvorhängen will er Malereien zulassen, nicht auf Holz oder Stein, auch keine Skulpturen.” According to Baynes, p. 94, Julian “will allow representations (γραϕάς) in the churches but none on wood or stone and no sculpture. These γραϕαί may be on the door-curtains (ἐπὶ θυραῖς: I suppose this is how the words must be translated), but no more is permissible.” But clearly Julian distinguished paintings (γραϕαί) from carvings (τὰ τῆς γλυϕῆς). He does not prohibit the paintings, although his approval seems somewhat grudging (ἐῶμεν); he merely objects to those who set up “what is revered and worshipped in the form of paintings and carvings equally” (above note 4). The ἐπὶ θυραῖς must therefore refer to sculptural decoration of the doors, not to door-curtains. The oὐδὲ τoῦτo I take to mean that Julian permits paintings, but he will not in addition approve of carved works.

¹⁷ The ms. reads ὀϕείλη καὶ ἡ ἱερὰ κεϕαλή. Diekamp proposes ὦ θεῖα καὶ ἱερὰ κεϕαλή which seems unnecessarily violent. I suggest: ὦ ϕίλη καὶ ἱερὰ κεϕαλή.

¹⁸ The text is corrupt. The ms. reads: τὴν ἄρρητoν δὲ καὶ ἀπερίληπτoν εἰς ἡμᾶς τoῦ Θεoῦ ϕιλανθρωπίαν καὶ τoὺς ἰερoὺς τῶν ἁγίων εἰκóνας ἐν γράμμασι μὲν ἡμεῖς ἱερoῖς ἀνευϕημεῖσθαι διατυπoῦμεν κτλ. Diekamp emends τoὺς ἱερoύς into τὰς ἱερὰς. Professor Kantorowicz calls my attention to the use of εἰκών in the sense of “example” or “pattern.” In fact, Liddell and Scott, verbo εἰκών, refers to [Timaeus Locrus] De Anima Mundi et Naturae, ed. C. F. Hermann, ₉₉D where the demiurge creates mortal beings ἴν᾽ ἦ τέλεoς πoτὶ τὰν εἰκóνα παντελῶς ἀπειργασμένoς (sc. ὁ κóσμoς) and where εἰκών is used in the sense of “archetype” or “pattern.” Baynes (p. 94) takes the γράμματα ἱερά to be “sacred representations.” But Hypatius uses γραϕαί in the sense of “paintings” and γρὰμμα in the sense of “writing.”

¹⁹ A difficult phrase: καὶ αὐτὰς πoλλάκις καὶ ἐν πoλλoῖς τὰς θείας παλαιάς τε καὶ νέας διατάξεις εὑρóντες τoῖς ἀσθενέσι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας αὐτῶν συγκατακλινoμένας. (I have translated the last word in the light of κατακλίνεται p. 128:19 = Diekamp.) Yet the sense is clear from the illustrations which follow in the text.

²⁰ Exodus 25:18. Should we write τoρευτὰς (for τoρνευτὰς)?

²¹ Matthew 2:9.

²² Exodus 34:13; Leviticus 1—7. The ms. reads: τòν δὲ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπάγει μὲν θυσιῶν εἰδώλν, ἐνδίδωσι δὲ ταύτας τῶ θεῶ θύειν. I see no reason to emend, with Diekamp, ταύτας to ταῦτα. It refers to θυσιῶν.

²³ Jeremiah 51:17 (Sept.).

²⁴ συνεξελληνίζoυσα τῆ ϕωνῆ. There is, of course, here the ambiguity of the word “Hellen” which means “Greek” as well as “pagan.”

²⁵ Job 9:9; 38:31.

²⁶ Ps. 146:4 (Sept.).

²⁷ ὤς τινων καὶ ἀπò τoύτων ἐπὶ τὴν νoητὴν εὐπρέπειαν χειραγωγoυμένων καὶ ἀπò τoῦ κατὰ τὰ ἱερὰ πoλλoῦ ϕωτòς ἐπὶ τò νoητòν καὶ ἄϋλoν ϕῶς. I have discussed the meaning of the last sentence at some length with Professor Kantorowicz. It represents, as it were, the application of what precedes. Just as Scripture had made certain concessions to the uneducated, so the clergy (“we”) has permitted the adornment of the Churches with all kinds of beautiful objects.

²⁸ καίτoιγέ τισι τῶν τὴν ὑψηλoτέραν ζωὴν ϕιλοσοϕάντων καὶ ἐν παντὶ τóπῳ τὴν ἐν πνεύματι λατρείαν θεῷ πρoσάγειν ἓδoξε καὶ ναoὺς εἶναι θεoῦ τὰς ὀσίας ψυχάς. This is a reference to the famous argument, repeated by many theologians since the days of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, that the only true image of Christ is the virtuous (just, pious, etc.) soul. I intend to deal with it in a larger context. For the moment I merely refer to the stimulating article by Florovsky, George, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Church History XIX (1950) 3–22, esp. p. 17 f.

²⁹ ϕησιν εἰρηκέναι τὰ λóγια. Should we emend into ϕασιν, i.e. those τινες “who have pondered about the higher life”?

³⁰ I Tim. 2:8.

³¹ Psalms 102:22 (Sept.).

³² Isaiah 66:I.

³³ Isaiah 66:I.

³⁴ Acts 7:49.

³⁵ Acts 17:24.

³⁶ Isaiah 66:2.

³⁷ John 14:23.

³⁸ I Cor. 3:16.

³⁹ There may be some doubt whether Hypatius authorizes the worship (not only the use) of religious sculpture. Yet when he anticipates the objection of “some who have pondered about the higher life,” he makes them proponents of “spiritual worship.” The target of their protest, therefore, are all other (non-spiritual) kinds of worship.

⁴⁰ I know of only one earlier text: certain craftsmen in fifth century Rome seem to have attributed an apotropaic effect to images of Symeon the Older Stylite (+459/60), and the historian who reports this feature may share this feeling (Theodoret, hist. rel. 25. PG 82, 1473 A, cf. Holl, Karl, “Der Anteil der Styliten am Aufkommen der Bilderverehrung,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte II, Tübingen, 1928, 390). Yet this case is quite different from that at Atramytium: (1) the Roman images of Symeon are set up in craftshops not in churches; and (2) no ritual act of worship (prostration) is reported. Basil’s letter 360 (PG 32, 1100B) is probably spurious; cf. Elliger, Walter, Die Stellung der alten Christen zu den Bildern etc., in Studien über christliche Denkmäler XX (1930) p. 61. Bréhier, Louis, La Querelle des Images, Paris, 1904, p. 7f. cites no other approval of image worship prior to the seventh century.

⁴¹ Holl, loc. cit., 388: “Angesichts der Schärfe, mit der das Christentum sich ursprünglich gegen die Idole und ihre Verehrung wendete, bleibt es immer überraschend, wie ungehindert und fast unbeachtet sich später der heidnische Brauch in der Kirche selbst festsetzen konnte. Nur gegen den ersten noch harmlosen Schritt in dieser Richtung, gegen die aufkommende Sitte, Bilder in den Kirchen auzubringen, hat sich im 4. Jahrhundert ein gewisser Protest erhoben. Der schlimmere, zweite Schritt, die Herübernahme der heidnischen Auffassung und Verehrung des Bildes, ist ohne solchen Widerspruch erfolgt…. Syrien und Kleinasien sind, sofern nicht alles trügt, in unserem Fall die Länder gewesen, wo der Gang der Dinge sich entschied.”

⁴² Paulus Silentiarius, Description of the Temple of Holy Wisdom, verses 668ff., ed. Friedländer, Paul, Leipzig and Berlin, 1912, p. 246f. and 287–289. The poem dates of the year 563. The columns, it seems, were not part of a regular iconostasis, but the prominent position of the icons, on a part of the church which clearly was the forerunner of the later iconostases, recommended them to the special attention of the congregation.

⁴³ Gregorius Magnus, Epistolae, XI, 10, ed. Hartmann, L. M., in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolarum Tomus II (Berlin, 1899) pp. 269ffGoogle Scholar. The letter dates from October 600. For comment, see Koch, Hugo, Die altchristliche Bilderfrage, in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments XXVII (1917), p. 77ffGoogle Scholar. (where other texts from the same author about religious images are cited). It is difficult to say whether Serenus had “broken” sculptures or paintings, but the former is perhaps more likely.

⁴⁴ Loc. cit.: Et quidem quia eas adorari vetuisses, omnino laudavimus; fregisse vero reprehendimus.

⁴⁵ Loc. cit.: Aliud est enim picturam adorare, aliud per picturae historia, quid sit adorandum, addiscere. Nam quod legentibus scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat pictura cernentibus, quia in ipsa ignorantes vident quod sequi debeant, in ipsa legunt qui litteras nesciunt; unde praecipue gentibus pro lectione pictura est.

⁴⁶ Holl, loc. cit., p. 389: “Erst in zweiter Linie ist die Theologie an diesem Prozess [i.e. the development of image worship] beteiligt. Sie hat nicht geschoben, aber — was vielleicht ebenso wichtig war — das Gefühl für das, was vorging, abgeschwächt und das sich behauptende Heidentum mit ihren Prinzipien gedeckt.”