Editing Constantine V (section)

=== Constantine's support of iconoclasm ===
[[File:48-manasses-chronicle.jpg|thumb|Soldiers deface or demolish an iconodule church on the orders of Constantine V (left), ''[[Manasses Chronicle]]'', 14th-century Bulgarian manuscript]]
[[File:Leo IV and Constantine VI.png|thumb|right|Constantine V (left) and his son and co-emperor Leo IV (right)|upright=0.9]]
{{Further|Byzantine iconoclasm}}
Like his father Leo III, Constantine supported [[iconoclasm]], which was a theological movement that rejected the veneration of religious images and sought to destroy those in existence. Iconoclasm was later definitively classed as [[heresy|heretical]]. Constantine's avowed enemies in what was a bitter and long-lived religious dispute were the [[iconodules]], who defended the veneration of images. Iconodule writers applied to Constantine the derogatory epithet {{tlit|grc|Kopronymos}} ('dung-named', from {{tlit|grc|kopros}}, meaning '[[faeces]]' or 'animal dung', and {{tlit|grc|onoma}} 'name'). Using this obscene name, they spread the rumour that as an infant he had defiled his own baptism by defaecating in the font, or on the imperial purple cloth with which he was swaddled.<ref>Bury, p. 9</ref>

Constantine questioned the legitimacy of any representation of God or Christ. The [[Church Father]] [[John of Damascus]] made use of the term 'uncircumscribable' in relation to the depiction of God. Constantine, relying on the linguistic connection between 'uncircumscribed' and 'incapable of being depicted', argued that the uncircumscribable cannot be legitimately depicted in an image. As Christian theology holds that [[Homoousion|Christ is God]], he also cannot be represented in an image.<ref>Barnard, p. 13</ref> The Emperor was personally active in the theological debate; evidence exists for him composing thirteen treatises, two of which survive in fragmentary form.<ref>Ostrogorsky, p. 171</ref> He also presented his religious views at meetings organised throughout the empire, sending representatives to argue his case.<ref>Brubaker and Haldon, p. 182</ref> In February 754, Constantine convened a [[Council of Hieria|council at Hieria]], which was attended entirely by iconoclast bishops. The council agreed with Constantine's religious policy on images, declaring them [[anathema]], and it secured the election of a new iconoclast patriarch. However, it refused to endorse all of Constantine's policies, which were influenced by the more extremist iconoclasts and were possibly critical of the veneration of [[Mary, mother of Jesus]], and of the [[saint]]s. The council confirmed the status of Mary as ''[[Theotokos]]'' ({{lang|grc|Θεοτόκος}}), or 'Mother of God', upheld the use of the terms "saint" and "holy" as legitimate, and condemned the desecration, burning, or looting of churches in the quest to suppress icon veneration.<ref>Ostrogorsky, pp. 171–173</ref><ref>Pelikan, pp. 111–112</ref><ref>Loos, p. 32</ref>

The Council of Hieria was followed by a campaign to remove images from the walls of churches and to purge the court and bureaucracy of iconodules, however, the accounts of these events were written much later than they actually occurred, and by often vehemently anti-iconoclast sources, therefore their reliability is questionable.<ref>Brubaker and Haldon, pp. 156, 241</ref> Since monasteries tended to be strongholds of iconophile sentiment and contributed little or nothing towards the secular needs of the state, Constantine specifically targeted these communities. He also expropriated monastic property for the benefit of the state or the army. These acts of repression against the monks were largely led by the Emperor's general [[Michael Lachanodrakon]], who threatened resistant monks with blinding and exile. Constantine organised numerous pairs of monks and nuns to be paraded in the hippodrome, publicly ridiculing their vows of chastity.<ref>Brubaker and Haldon, p. 241</ref> According to [[Theophanes the Confessor]], the iconodule abbot [[Stephen the Younger]], was beaten to death by a mob at the behest of the authorities. However even his {{circa|808–809}} [[hagiography]], the ''Life of St. Stephen the Younger'', connects his execution more to treason against the Emperor, and indeed his punishments reflect those typically associated with an enemy of the state. Stephen was said to have trampled on a coin depicting the Emperor in order to provoke imperial retaliation and reveal the iconoclast hypocrisy of denying the force of sacred portraits but not of imperial portraits on coins.<ref>Brubaker and Haldon, pp. 236–237</ref> As a result of persecution, many monks fled to southern Italy and [[Sicily]].<ref>Ostrogorsky, pp. 173–175</ref> The implacable resistance of iconodule monks and their supporters led to their propaganda reaching those close to the Emperor. On becoming aware of an iconodule-influenced conspiracy directed at himself, Constantine reacted uncompromisingly; in 765, eighteen high dignitaries charged with treason were paraded in the hippodrome, then variously executed, blinded or exiled. Patriarch [[Constantine II of Constantinople]] was implicated and deposed from office, and the following year he was tortured and beheaded.<ref>Bury, p. 14</ref>

According to later iconodule sources, for example Patriarch [[Nikephoros I of Constantinople]]'s ''Second Antirrheticus'' and treatise ''Against Constantinus Caballinus'', Constantine's iconoclasm had gone as far as to brand prayers to Mary and saints as heretical, or at least highly questionable.<ref>Krausmüller, p. 26</ref> However, the extent of coherent official campaigns to forcibly destroy or cover up religious images or the existence of widespread government-sanctioned destruction of relics has been questioned by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence, for example, that Constantine formally banned the cult of saints. Pre-iconoclastic religious images did survive, and various existing accounts record that icons were preserved by being hidden. In general, the culture of pictorial religious representation appears to have survived the iconoclast period largely intact. The extent and severity of iconoclastic destruction of images and relics was exaggerated in later iconodule writings.<ref>Brubaker and Haldon, pp. 208–211</ref><ref>Zuckerman pp. 203–204</ref>

Scholars generally take the anathemas in the Council of Hieria condemning the one who "does not ask for [the prayers of Mary and the saints] as having the freedom to intercede on behalf of the world according to the tradition of the church", as proof that Constantine never rejected the intercession of Mary and the saints, since they consider it inconceivable for an emperor to contradict the decisions of a council he convened. Moreover, the positive evidence that he rejected intercession is regarded as unreliable due to the iconodule motivation of its authors.<ref>Krausmüller, pp. 26–27</ref> Dissenting scholars point to the wealth of evidence, not only from Patriarch Nikephoros but from Theophanes and Patriarch [[Methodios I of Constantinople]] ({{circa|788|lk=no}}{{snd}}847), who in his ''Life of Theophanes'' defends the intercession of saints, perpetuating a centuries-long controversy regarding the doctrine of [[Christian mortalism|soul-sleep]], which if true would mean dead saints are incapable of intercession. They allege that it is conceivable that, although the moderate iconoclast party won at Hieria, which still affirmed the intercession of the saints, the radical iconoclasts who denied it briefly triumphed afterwards, with Constantine publicly interfering with religious practice by removing intercessory prayers to saints from church hymns and hagiographies, as described by the iconodule primary sources.<ref>Krausmüller, pp. 47–48</ref>

Iconodules considered Constantine's death a divine punishment. In the 9th century, following the ultimate triumph of the iconodules, Constantine's remains were removed from the imperial sepulchre in the [[Church of the Holy Apostles]].<ref>Ostrogorsky, p. 175</ref>