time the Caliphate, ruled by Harun-ar-Rashid and Mamun, was experiencing a brilliant period in the development of learning and science. In his desire to outrival the glories of Baghdad, Theophilus built a palace in imitation of Arabian models. On the basis of certain evidence we may conclude that the influence of Baghdad upon the Byzantine Empire was very stimulating.152 But this difficult problem extends beyond the limits of this book. It has been argued frequently that in the field of art the iconoclastic epoch produced only negative results. And it is true that numerous valuable monuments of art were destroyed by the iconoclasts. "Their violence is to be deplored; their vandalism impoverished not only the centuries in which it was exercised, but those in which we ourselves are living."153 But, on the other hand, the iconoclastic epoch brought a new stream of life into Byzantine art by reviving once more Hellenistic models, especially those of Alexandria, and by introducing oriental decoration borrowed from the Arabs, who in their turn had borrowed it from Persia. And though the iconoclasts categorically suppressed religious art with images of Christ, the Virgin, and saints, they were tolerant toward the presentation of the human figure in general, which became more realistic during this period under the influence of Hellenistic models. Genre scenes of everyday life became the favorite subject of artists, and on the whole there was a decided predominance of purely secular art. As an example of this tendency we might point out that in place of the fresco representing the sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantine V Copronymus ordered a portrait of his favorite charioteer. The artistic monuments of the epoch, both religious and secular, have perished almost completely. Some mosaics in the churches of Thessalonica (Salonica) may fall within the limits of this period. A certain group of ivory carvings, especially ivory caskets, may also be attributed to the ninth century. The illuminated manuscripts of the iconoclastic epoch, the illustrations of which were the work of Byzantine monks, testify to the new spirit which had penetrated art. From the point of view of marginal illustrations we 152 See Bury p. 438; but cf. F. Fuchs, Die höheren Schulen, p. 18. find the Chludoff (Chludov) Psalter of especially great interest. This oldest of illuminated psalters has been preserved at Moscow.154 It is greatly to be regretted that we possess so few data for the study of art in the iconoclastic period. Many of the surviving materials are attributed to the iconoclastic epoch only on the basis of probable evidence, and not with full certainty. Here is how Diehl appraises the significance of the iconoclastic epoch for the subsequent Second Golden Age of Byzantine art under the Macedonian dynasty: It was to the time of the iconoclasts that the Second Golden Age owed its essential characteristics. From the iconoclastic epoch proceed the two opposite tendencies which mark the Macedonian era. If at that time there flourished an imperial art inspired by classical tradition and marked by a growing interest in portraiture and real life which imposed its dominant ideas upon religious art, if in opposition to this official and secular art there existed a monastic art more severe, more theological, more wedded to tradition, if from the interaction of the two there issued a long series of masterpieces; it is in the period of iconoclasm that the seeds of this splendid harvest were sown. Not merely for its actual achievements, but for its influence upon the future, does this period deserve particular attention in the history of Byzantine art." 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY For general works see the first chapter. The best work on the epoch A.D. 802-67 is J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I, A.D. 802-67 (London, 1912). Monographs on separate reigns: SCHENK, K. Kaiser Leon III, 1. Teil (Diss. Halle a.S., 1880). "Kaiser Leons III Walten im Innern," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, V (1896), 257-301. LOMBARD, A. Études d'histoire byzantine: Constantin V, empereur des Romains (740–75), avec une préface de Ch. Diehl (Paris, 1902). Φοροπούλου, Ι. Δ. Εἰρήνη ἡ ̓Αθηναία αὐτοκράτειρα Ῥωμαίων, the first part, 769–88 (Leipzig, 1887). 154 Diehl, Manuel d'art byzantin (2d ed., Paris, 1925), I, 379-81; O. M. Dalton, East Christian Art (Oxford, 1925), p. 309. 155 Diehl, op. cit., I, 385-86; Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, p. 16; see also Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 429-34. DIEHL, CH. "L'impératrice Irène," Figures byzantines (4th ed., Paris, 1909), I, 77-109; English translation by H. Bell, Byzantine Portraits (New York, 1927), pp. 73-104. "La bienheureuse Théodora," Figures byzantines (4th ed., Paris, 1909), I, 133-56; English translation by H. Bell, Byzantine Portraits (New York, 1927), pp. 125–47. On iconoclasm: SCHLOSSER, F. CH. Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oströmischen Reiches (Frankfurt, 1812). Out of date. GFRÖRER, A. F. "Der Bildersturm," in his Byzantinische Geschichten (Graz, 1873), II, 460–78. SCHWARZLOSE, KARL. Der Bilderstreit, ein Kampf der Griechischen Kirche um ihre Eigenart und ihre Freiheit (Gotha, 1890). Important. BRÉHIER, LOUIS. La querelle des images, VIII®-IX® siècles (Paris, 1904). Important. ANDREEV, I. Germanus and Tarasius, the Patriarchs of Constantinople: Their Life and Activity in Connection with the History of Iconoclastic Troubles (Sergiev Posad, 1907). In Russian. LECLERCQ, H. "Culte et querelle des images," Cabrol et Leclercq. Dictionnaire d'archéologie et de liturgie, Vol. VII (Paris, 1926), cols. 180–302 (with an excellent bibliography). Political relations: VASILIEV, A. A. Political Relations between Byzantium and the Arabs during the Amorian Dynasty (Petrograd, 1900). Legislative work of the iconoclastic epoch (for general works see the first chapter): VASILIEVSKY, V. G. "The Legislation of the Iconoclasts," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction. Vols. CXCIX, CC (1878). In Russian. For works on the themes, see the fourth chapter. On separate writers: John Damascene, or of Damascus : PERRIER. Jean Damascène: sa vie et ses écrits (Strasbourg, 1863). LANGEN, J. Johannes von Damaskus (Gotha, 1879). LUPTON, J. H. St. John of Damascus (London, 1882). ERMONI, V. Saint Jean Damascène (Paris, 1904). Theodore of Studion: THOMAS, C. Theodor von Studion und sein Zeitalter (Osnabrück, 1892). PREOBRAZHENSKY, V. "The Blessed Theodore of Studion and His Time, 759826" (Moscow, 1896), from the ecclesiastical review, Pastyrsky Sobesednik (1895). In Russian. SCHNEIDER, G. A. Der heilige Theodor von Studion, sein Leben und Werke (Münster i.W., 1900). GARDNER, A. Theodore of Studion, His Life and Times (London, 1905). MARIN, E. Saint Théodore, 759-826 (Paris, 1906), from the series "Les Saints." GROSSU, N. The Blessed Theodore of Studion: His Times, Life, and Works (Kiev, 1907). In Russian. DOBROKLONSKY, A. The Blessed Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of Studion. Part I, His Epoch, Life, and Activities (Odessa, 1913); Part II, His Works (Odessa, 1914). In Russian. Kasia: KRUMBACHER, K. “Kasia,” Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und der histor. Classe der bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, III (1897), 305-70. Photius: JAGER. Histoire de Photius (2d ed., Paris, 1854). Out of date. HERGENRÖTHER, J. Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel: Sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma (Regensburg, 1867–69), Vols. I-III. A monumental work of a Catholic historian. ROSSEYKIN, T. M. The First Rule of Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (Sergiev Posad, 1915). An important work; in Russian. THE EPOCH OF THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY (867-1056) Introduction. The epoch of the Macedonian dynasty falls into two periods, unequal in significance and in length of duration. The first period embraces the time from 867 to 1025, the year of the death of Emperor Basil II; the second, the brief period from 1025 to 1056, when Empress Theodora, the last member of this dynasty, died. The first period was the most brilliant time of the political existence of the Empire, when the struggle in the East and in the North, with the Arabs, Bulgarians, and Russians, in spite of some failures at the end of the ninth and in the early part of the tenth century, was crowned with brilliant success for Byzantine arms by the second half of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh cenEmpire was especially great tury. This triumph of the Byzant ces, and reached its John highest point in the reign of This was the moment of the highest strength and glory ever attained by the Empire. The intensive legislative work of the first period, expressed in the publication of a gigantic code, the Basilics, and a number of famous novels directed against the pernicious growth of large landownership, and the intellectual advance associated with the names of Patriarch Photius and Constantin phry-969 rogenitus add further glory and significance to the first period of the Macedonian dynasty. After the year 1025, when the powerful figure of Basil II dis |