Introduction

The iconoclastic edict of the Caliph Yazid II (720-724), which was issued in 721, has been usually mentioned and discussed in connection with the iconoclastic policy of the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian or the Syrian (717-741), and with the question whether Yazids edict is to be regarded as a potential stimulus or cause for the similar policy of his contemporary ruler on the shores of the Bosphorus.

In the history of the iconoclastic movement in both countries, in the Christian Empire and in the Moslem Caliphate, a certain analogy and, at the same time, a considerable difference may be pointed out. In the Christian East and West, the opposition to the image veneration in the eighth and ninth centuries was not entirely new and unexpected phenomenon; it had already gone through a long period of evolution. From the beginning of the fourth century onwards the opposition to the excersive veneration of the icons may be signalized in many places; and this opposition has not been limited to the theoretical suggestions and warnings coming from the Councils and bishops not “to adore pictures”, but sometimes it resulted in serious upheavals and riots, during which icons were destroyed. But these iconoclastic incidents had no connection with the central government which took no part in such facts of the violation of the public order. They belonged to private initiative. But, of course, they had been gradually paving the way to those rulers who were affected themselves by iconoclastic tendencies. Such a ruler proved to be Leo III, from the remote south-eastern regions of Asia Minor, which were deeply affected by iconoclastic ideas, “a Syrian by birth”, according to some sources, who “spoke correctly in Arabic and in Roman”, as says an Arab historian.

But we know, however, that, on ascending the imperial throne in 717, Leo was not an open iconoclast. Only in the tenth year of his rule, i.e. in the year 726, did he, according to Theophanes, “begin to speak of the destruction of the holy and all- honored icons.

Only then the iconoclastic movement officially started in Byzantium. Dealing with the rule of Yazid II, we must always remember, that its history has come down to us heavily colored by the anti-mayyad tradition of the Abbasids who regarded Yazid as an incapable, reckless ruler, as an impassionate amateur of sport and music, as well as singing girls, who left the concern of his vast empire to his governors.

Like in Byzantium, his iconoclastic edict was not a new or unexpected phenomenon. Like in Byzantium, the iconoclastic movement in the Moslem Empire had gone though a period of evolution; but the latter, of course, was much shorter then in the Christian Empire, because the Islam itself as religion had made its appearance only about hundred years before Yazid’s time; and in contrast with the Byzantine iconoclasm, the iconoclastic policy in the Caliphate had been, from the beginning proclaimed and regulated by the Caliphs themselves.

Now we know well that the former popular idea that all forms of representations of living beings, both in painting and in sculpture, are forbidden by explicit passages in the Koran has been definitely rejected; now we are aware that such a prohibition comes not from the Koran but from the hadith, i.e. from traditions concerning the actions and sayings of Muhammad, which circulated orally and were collected and written down for the first time in the ninth century of our era, in other words, from an unreliable source. These traditions are uniformly hostile to all representation of living forms.

In this connection, here may be cited a story referring to Muhammad himself, which is told by the Arabian writer Azraki (died A.D. 858), the author of the earliest extant history of Mecca. The story deals with the very well known fact that Muhammad, after his triumphal entry into Mecca, in 630, went inside the Kaabah and smashed, as tradition says, many idols. But according to Azraki, he ordered the pictures in the Kaabah to be also obliterated, saying: “Rub out every picture herein except that under my hand. And he lifted his hand from a picture of Jesus, son of Mary, and his mother, or, as Arnold translates this passage, “from a picture of Mary, Jesus reated on her lap.”

In the process of the religious evolution in the Caliphate, one important fact must be pointed out that no representation of living being’s can be found anywhere in mosques; but in several cases we find such representations in secular buildings like in palaces, and in miniatures. The earliest and best known palace of this sort is Qusayr Amrah (the Little Castle), which was discovered by Alois Musil in 1898, and which was probably built between 712 and 715 by the Caliph Walid I (705- 715). On the walls of this pleasure-house of the Umayyads, there are some frescoes representing the pictures of six other symbolic figures representing Victory, Philosophy, History and Poetry.

Since the Moslem shrines, the mosques, were deprived of any representation of living beings, the Caliphs determined to spread the same rule over the shrines of other religions, in our case, over the Christian churches. The Caliphs did not need apply the similar regulation to the Jewish synagogues, because the Jews, including the Jewish converts, were violent iconoclasts; so that the caliphs, in their anti- christian and, sometimes, in their iconoclastic activities, were influenced and supported by the Jews. It may be not out of place to produce here a few passages

from a rather recent study of J.-B. Frey, who writes that in the fifth and sixth centuries, in Palestine, there was a true campaign against images. According to him, the recent discoveries have established most evidently that, at that period, the representations of living beings which were found in the sculptures and in the mosaics of the Palestinian synagogues were intentionally destroyed; and Frey quotes “the very bright but heavy of consequences words” of St. Bellermine (1542- 1621), from his brief De imaginibus Sanctorum, «Primi Iconomachi sunt Indaci».

Greek Sources

I begin this study with a discussion on the sources referring to the edict of Yazid II and start with the Greek evidence.

The oldest and contemporary source which mentions the Saracen religions superstitions similar to idolatry fails to give any information of the islamic iconoclasm. It is the letter of the patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (715-730) to Thomas of Claudiopolis, in Azia Minor, one of the iconoclastic bishops, written about 724, shortly before the opening of the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, and preserved in the acts of the second council of Nicaea of 787. In this letter, after having accused the Jews, who “not only just now but often reproached us for such things” (i.e. for idolatry in the form of our veneration of images) and calling them “true worshippers of idols”, Germanus says that the Saracens also seem to hit upon something similar, since “they, up to our own days, venerate in the desert an inanimate stone which is called Khobar”.

Here is the earliest mention of the name Khobar in the sence of the Kaaba in Mekka. Later, but in the same eighth century, John of Damascus, in his De haeresibus Liber, gives for the Kaaba different forms. Like the Patriarch Germanus, he reproaches the Saracens with adoring and kissing the stone, which is said to represent the head of Aphrodite. The Lithos angelos in the letter of Patriarch Germanus reminds me of a saying ascribed by a Moslem writer to the second Caliph Omar, who, referring to the black stone, supposedly said: “I know that thou adoret a stone, without power to harm or to help, and had I not seen the Messenger of God kiss thee, I would not kiss thee”. The letter of the Patriarch Germanus, failing to suffer with any information on the iconoclastic edict of Yazid II, shows that, from his own point of view, the real idolaters were Jews and Arabs. In the person of the Patriarch we have a man who was strongly opposed to the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, who, refusing to sign the imperial edict of 730, was deposed, and against whom the iconoclastic council of 754 proclaimed “Anathema to the Patriarch Germanus, the “worshipper of wood”. Since the deposition of this strong opponent of Leo’s policy, took place only in 730, it shows that the iconoclastic policy of Leo before 730 was not too violent nor too intolerant, because during these preceding years the Emperor could tolerate as the head of this church his open adversary. Ostrogorsky and Ladner, who follows him, assert that

Leo III had between 724 and 726 tried by peaceful means to convert his subjects, before enforcing the first iconoclastic measure. The most important Greek source concerning the origin of iconoclasm, which connects it with the Jewish and Arab influences, is the report of the most reverend presbyter John of Jerusalem, representative of the Anatolian bishop, who, at the fifth session on the Second Council of Nicaea, 787, read it. At this session, the Patriarch Tarasius said: “It will now be right for us to hear our brother and beloved lord (kiros) John legate from the Apostolic Throne of the East; for he has with him a writing which will explain how the subversion of images commenced”. The Holy Council said: “We should like much, my lord, to hear about this.”

Herein follows, in an abridged form, the contents of John’s report, which he read from the beforehand written paper.

“I, your unworthy brother and humblest of your all, with to lay before this Holy and Sacred Conncil, with all truth, how, when and where, this vilest and most God- detested heresy of Christianity-detractors and iconoclasts had its rise; and being anxious to use what brevity I could, I have determined to read to you from a written document, that so, at the same time, I might make no mistake or omission in my account.” Then after mentioning the death of the Caliph Suleiman and telling a few words about his successor Omar, John proceeded: “On Omar’s death, Ezid (Eridos, Yazid II, 720-724), a man of a frivolous and weak turn of mind, succeeded him. There lived, at that time, at Tiberias a ringleader of the lawless Jews, a magician and fortuneteller, an instrument of soul-destroying demons, whose name was Tessara Kontapechys, a bitter enemy of the Church of God. On learning of the frivolity of Yazid, he approached him and began to utter prophecies… saying: “You will live long and reign for thirty years if you follow my advice”. That foolish tyrant eagerly wishing to have long life (for he was luxurious and dissolute) answered: “Whatever you say, I am ready to do, and, if I obtain my desire, I will recompense you with highest honours”. And then the magician Jew said: “Give order immediately without and delay or postponement that an encyclical letter be issued throughout your empire to the effect that every representational painting whether on tablets or in wall-mosaics or on sacred vessels and on altar coverings, and all such objects as are found in all Christian churches, be destroyed, and thoroughly abolished and so also all representations of this kind that adorn and embellish the market places in forums in your cities. And moved by satanic wickedness, the false prophet added: “every likeness”, so contriving thereby to reveal his secret hostility against us, i.e: and the diabolical wickedness of the enemy of God concealed cunning that indirectly, along with the destruction of every likeness, the beauty of our sacred paintings should be also thrown down (Migne, P.G.,C, 529). In the Latin version of this text, the Greek adverb […] is translated tacito artificio.

The above cited Mendham translates this passage in such a way: the false prophet with satanic cumning added this “every image”, contriving thereby to display his hatred against us without being suspected (p.296). Hefele, after producing the statement “thou shouldn’t destroy also all the profane images which serve the ornamentation of the cities”, writes: “The Jew added this last point, in order that one could not suspect him, speaking in such a way, of his hatred against the Christians.”C. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 2nd ed. (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1877), 374; in French, trans. by Dom H. Leclerq, Histoire des Conciles, III, 2 (Paris, 1910), 630. According to the two just quoted writers, and particularly according to Hefele, the Jew who had suggested the destruction of images and “any likeness” was very sensitive to the opinion of the Christians about him signalizing that he was not exclusively against the icons which might have been still dear to many Christians, but was against the representations of the living beings in general; knowing that the latter feeling already existed in many regions of the Empire. I am greatly indebted to Professor E. Kitzinger, who called my particular attention to the interpretation of this text and who is inclined to accept the point of view of these writers. The impious tyrant, yielding to his advice, had sent (officials) and most frivolously destroyed the holy icons and all other representations in the whole province under his rule and, thanks to the Jewish magician, thus had ruthlessly robbed the church of God under his sway of all ornaments, before (the) evil came into this land. As the Christians fled lest they should have to overthrow the holy images with their own hands, the emirs who were sent for this purpose pressed into service abominable Jews and wretched Arabs; and they burnt the venerable icons, and either smeared or scraped the ecclesiastical buildings. On hearing this the pseudo-bishop of Nacolia and his followers imitated the lawless Jews and impious Arabs outraging the churches of God. When after doing this, the Caliph Yazid died no more than two and one-half years later, the images were restored to their pristine position and honor. His son Walid, filled with indignation, ordered the magician to be ignominiously put to a parricide’s death as a due reward for his false prophecy. Such was the report read from his beforehand written paper by the presbyter John, representative of the Anatolian bishops.

Another very important statement about the iconoclastic activity of Yazid II was given by the bishop of Messana, who was present at the same council of Nicaea. He said: “I was a boy in Syria, when the Caliph of the Saracens was destroying the icons”. Theophanes, who wrote his Chronicle at the beginning of the ninth century, relates that Yazid issued his iconoclastic edict under the influence of a Jewish magician from Laodicea, who had promised him forty years of the reign if he has destroyed the holy icons in all the Christian churches of his Empire. Yazid decided to do so, but he died in the same year, so that the majority of the population was even unaware of his decision. But the Emperor Leo was informed about this by a

certain Beser, who had been born in Syria as a Christian, but later had apostasized to Mohammedanism and escaped to Constantinople, where Leo became very friendly with him on account of his physical strength and of the same heretical views as he. So, from Theophanes’ testimony we may come to the conclusion, that Yazid issued his edict exclusively under the influence of a Jewish magician. I am inclined to identify with the Tessarakontapechys in John’s report, is not a legendary figure, as Ostrogorky supposes, but a real personality, because Theophanes, in the later parts of his chronicle, mentions him twice, calling him in one place Leo’s companion, apostate and a helper in his madness; and, in the other place, he mentions the patrician Beser whom he qualifies as saracenminded, who in 741, was killed in the war of Constantine V against the usurper Artavasdus. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, in the early part of the ninth century (805- 816), wrote his three Antirrhetici against the most violent iconoclast, the emperor Constantine V Copronymus. In his third Antirrheticus he mentions a Jew from Tiberias who was a very prominent man among his compatriots and whose surname was Tessarakontapechys, took advantage of the weakness of the Saracen chief Yazid and by promising him thirty years of reign, suggested him all the erected images and any image of living beings to be thrown down and destroyed. When this profane edict had been issued, along with other images and statues, were also destroyed the sacred images in the churches of Christ: some of them, they scraped off; some they destroyed by covering them with dust; some along with temples, vases, and vestiments, they burnt down. They forced this profane work to be executed by the enemies of Christ, Jews and Saracens, because Christians, even in spite of compulsion, refused to execute the order. From there the evil of iconoclasm expanded over the Roman Empire. And then Nicephorus proceeds: «And the diabolical wickedness of the enemy of God concealed cunning that indirectly, along with the destruction of every likeness, the beauty of our sacred paintings should be also thrown down». According to Nicephorus, Yazid died two years and six months after the promulgation of the edict. His son Walid ordered the magician to be executed. Then, a little farther, Nicephorus mentions Yazid once more, not by his own name but by the word: «barbarian». We read: «The root of this evil has been planted in the Roman empire, and it reaches the then ruler, who was Leo both by his name and by his disposition. Indulging in debauchery and like that barbarian (i.e. Yazid), he, in his fury against piety, strove to extirpate the holy images from the churches of god” (col.532). In addition to Nicephorus’ three Antirrhetici, there is the very little known Fourth Antirrheticus, the first part of which was published in 1852 by the Cardinal Pitra, under the title Sancti Nicephori Antirrheticus. Liber quastus. Pars prima. Eusebii Caesariensis Confutatio. Long before Pitra’s edition, the noted author of the Imperium Orientale, Anselme Banduri (1670-1743), had seen this fourth Antirrheticus «Adversus Eusebium sectae iconoclasticae principem”, but he failed to have it published. In the third chapter of the Antirrheticus IV, we read the usual story of a Jew from Tiberias who

suggested «the king of the Arabs» (i.e. Yazid II) to embark on the iconoclastic policy; but in the latter story a new, probably, legendary detail occurs, that the Jew approached the Caliph at the time when he was critically ill, so that, among other promises, the Jew promised him the complete restoration of his health. Since this text is not easily available, I wish to give it here in original Greek and in its English version. The latter runs as follows: “(Iconoclasm) has been born for the first time from a certain Jew by religion, a wicked man and sorcerer, who was greatly enraged against the faith of the Christians. According to some good authorities, he had lived at Tiberias, being there prominent among his compatriots. He comes to the king of the Arabs, who was then critically ill, promising him the relief from his illness, if he destroys all the statues and images among his subjects, a happy and prosperous life in the wonderful conditions. As it has been said in the previous writings on this subject in more detail, this error had made its appearance indeed from Jews and Saracens; from them, by the will on God, the evil falling upon the Christians has set in. Georgius Monachus is excudingly severe towards the Jews and their part in the issue on Yazid’s edict. He writes: «When Yazid was the ruler of the empire of the Arabs, two iconoclast youths from the Jews, - and they always are arrogant in regard to our Lord Jesus Christ, being proud of juggleries and buffooneries, being devoted to diabolic divinations, pretending to the astrological knowledge, - they come to the imperial court of the Arabs, present themselves before the above said Yazid, promise him a life of long prosperity and many years, if he has consented to destroy the adornment of the Christians, to wipe out from the church confines the images of the God-Man our Saviour Jesus Christ and the Mother of God who had given birth to him. And this man fond of his life and living as swine’s life accepted the suggestion of these deceivers and shook violently all the churches of the East in the whole of his empire. But the wretched man was deceived, for a year has not yet past when the divine wrath has befallen him; and his son who received his empire wished to kill them as false phrophets. Then they terrified returned into the Isaurian border country. The usual story of a certain Jew from Laodicea who urged Yazid, «the then ruler of the Syrian land”, to start destruction of the holy icons, is told also in the “Life of the Constantinopolitan Martyrs”, whose memory is celebrated on the ninth of August. In the Life of St. Stephen, martyr under Constantine V, there is no mention of Yazid, although, in the text itself. Stephen, among other peoples, the Greeks and the Jews, makes also the Syrians, i.e. the Arabs, responsible for the origin of iconoclasm.

In the seventeenth century Combafis printed the text of «The Letter to the Emperor Theophilus concerning the Holy and Venerable Images», which has long been proved spurious and apocryphal. In 1864 was published and in 1912-1913 republished the original and authentic text of the Letter, which is exactly dated in April 836, under the title «The Letter of the Three Oriental Orthodox (Melkite)

Patriarchs to the Emperor Theophilus». The difference between these two texts, as for as it concerns our study, is that the spurious text gives a story of the edict of Yazid which is almost on exact copy of the abuse text of Georgius Monachus, and the original text fails to mention the story at all. Therefore for our study the story which is found in the spurious text is to be dismissed as an interpolation reproducing the text of Georgius Monachus. Cedrenus tells about several Jews from Laodicea, in Phonici, who came to the ruler of the Arabs Yazid and promised him forty years of reign, if he destroys the icons in all the Christian churches of his realm. The foolish Yazid decided to issue such an edict. But by the grace of Christ and by the prayers of the Mother of God and all the Saints, he soon died having no time to send his decree through his empire; a year has not past when the divine wrath has befallen him. His son wished to kill them as false prophets. On learning this, they returned into the Isaurian region. Zonares seems to abbreviate the story of Georgius Monachus. During the reign of Yazid, two Jewish magicians, pretending to know the future through their astrological knowledge, came to him and promised a long reign if he throws out the images of Christ and his Mother from the churches. The barbarian did not delay and destroyed the holy icons in his empire. But the divine wrath has befallen him very soon. A year has not past after the issue of the edict, when he died; his successor wished to kill the false prophets. But they succeeded in escaping to Isaurian.

Latin Sources

The Latin sources are devoid of interest for our study, because they exactly reproduce their respective Greek sources in Latin.

Anastasius Bibliothecarius who lived in the ninth century, in his Chronographia Tripertita, reproduces in Latin exactly the Greek text of Theophanes, which has been discussed above. The same text of Theophanes has been reproduced in Latin by another writer, Landulfus Sagax. This historian about whom we know nothing but his name, lived during the time of the Byzantine emperors, Basil II (976-1025) and Constantine VIII (976-1028), and, according to the latest editor of his Historia Romana, wrote before the year 1025, when Basil II died. Prior to the new edition, the work of Landulfus Sagax had been usually known as Historia Miscella and had been always connected with the work of the historian Paulus Diaconus. But one Latin text referring to Yazid’s edict although failing to supply us with any new material, deserves special attention. As we know, there was a certain repercussion of the iconoclastic troubles in the West, in the Frankish Kingdom. The Frankish bishops and Charlemagne rejected the Second Council of Nicaea. But this rejection did not mean that they openly sided with the iconoclasts, because, at the same time, they equally rejected the iconoclastic council of 754. They had holy images and wanted to keep them; but they thought that the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea had gone too far encouraging what would be real idolatry. In the time of

Charlemagne, the Synod of Frankfurt, in 794, condemned the Second Council of Nicaea. Some troubles continued after Charlemagne’s death, and, under Louis the Pious, in November 825, at Paris, the Synod was held which followed the decisions of the Synod of Frankfurt. At this Synod the bishops tried to find a middle way but decidedly leaning towards iconoclasm: they said that pictures might be tolerated only as ornaments.For this study, the Synod at Paris is interesting, because, when the question arose, «whence for the first time the destruction of images had originated in the Oriental churches” (inde primum exorta sit in ecclesiis Orientalium imaginum destructis), to answer this question, in the Libellus Synodeis Parisiensis was included, in an abridged form, the report of the presbyter John, which he had read at the fifth session of the Council of Nicaea, and in which the names of the Caliphs Suleiman (Seleman), Omar (Humarus), and Yazid (Ezidus) have been mentioned.Here is the text of the fourteenth chapter of the Acto of the Synod of Paris: Tyrannus quidam fuit Seleman nominee, Aggarenus genere. Quv defuncto successit Humarus in regno, cui iterum succerrit Ezidus vir valda levis et insipiens. Kujus enim temporibus eret quidam in Beriade maleficus ac divinus, Sarantapicus nomine, praeceptor iniquorum Hebraeorum et inimicus Dei Ecclesiae, qui ut comperit levitatem Ezidi protosymboli, accessit ad eum, coepitque illi quaedam divinare ac praedicere. Illi autem ex hoc acceptabilis factus, ac non multi postei/dicere caepit: Benignitati tuae exponere volo, unde, me si audieris, addatur tibi longitude vitae et perseveres in hoc Principatu an nos triginta, si quidem impleveris sermones meos. Ille vers insipiens Tyrannus obscuratus mente desiderii longeval vitae: Quidquid mihi, inquit, praeceperis paratus ad perficiendum existo et, si consecutus fuero, quod pollicitus es, maximus tibi honores retribuam. Maleficus vero et divinus ait ad lum: Jube mox generalum scribere epistolam, quatenus omnis imaginaria pictura deleatur in omnibus Christianorum ecclesiis sive in parietibus sive in vasis sacris et in vestibus altarium, et non solum haec, sed quae in civitatum plateis sunt adornatae. Quod audiens perfidus ille tyrannus praecepit omni praefecturae in cunctis lucis Ecclesiarum imagines et ceteras similitudines abolere et ita exornavit ecclesias Dei. Abhinc enim caeperunt corruptores imaginum inveniri, sed ipre tyrannus anno altero mortuus est, et imagines in pristinum statum restitutae cum honore et cetera.

Syriac Sources

If we turn to the oriental evidence, we find that the Syriac sources are interesting for our question because they indicate that the execution of the edict was entrusted to the brother of the Caliph, an Arab general, Maslamas, who had laid unsuccessful siege to Constantinople in 717; and because they emphasize that Leo III opened his iconoclastic policy following Yazid’s example. In the ninth century, the so called Cheonidi Pseudo Dionysius tells that in the year according to the Seleucid era 1035 (723-724), Yazid ordered all the images to be torn, in all the places where they could be found, either in the temples, or in the churches, or in the (private) houses.

Therefore he sent the workers to destroy the images everywhere where they were found. Then the anonymous Chronicon ad annum Domini 819 pertineus records that Yazid ordered that all images and likenesses in his dominious of bronze and of wood and of stone and of pigments should be destroyed. In the twelfth century, Michael the Syrian writes about Yazid’s decree in two places, evidently referring to the two different sources. In the first passage he says that “Yazid, king of the Arabs, commanded to tear and put to pieces the paintings and status of everything that lives and moves, from temples and buildings, from walls, from wood, from stone; the images which were found in the books were lacerated.” A little farther, after the above record dealing exclusively with the Caliph, Michael reproduces another text where he speaks about the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, and connects it with the decree of Yazid. He says: “At that time, the emperor of the Romans, Leo, also commanded, following the example of the kings of the Arabs, images from the walls to be torn; and he destroyed the images which were in the churches and in the houses, those of the saints as well as of the emperors and others. For this reason, there was a revolution in the empire of the Romans, and many protests of the Romans arose against the emperor”. In the thirteenth century, the Syrian Jacobite Catholicos, Gregory Abu’l-Faraj, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, also writes that Yazid commanded, and the images of every living being were obliterated from the temples, and from walls and wooden panels, and from stones and from books. And Leo, king of the Romans, also acted in this manner. A new detail we lean from the anonymous chronicle known as Chronicon anonymum ad cunum Christi 1234 pertineus, which carries events from the creation down to 1234 A.D. We read in the Chronicle: “In the following year (102 H=720-71), Maslames, at the order of his brother, the king (Yazid), commanded that all the images should be destroyed, either in temples, or on walls, or in the (private) houses, as well as in books. As wherever was found a statue or an image, on a stone or a piece of wood, or an ebony, they broke it». From this chronicle we learn that Maslamas was commissioned to carry into effect the edict.

Arab Sources

The Arab Moslem writes who recorded the edict of Yazid II lived in the tenth and in the fifteenth centuries and wrote in Egypt.

The historian Muhammad ibn-Yusuf al-Kindi, who flourished under the short-lived dynasty of the Ikhshidids (935-969) and died at al-Fustat in 961, wrote: “Yazid, son of Abd-al-Malik, wrote in A.H. 104 L.D. (722-723) commanding the statues to be broken; and all of them were broken; and the likenesses were obliterated. Among them, was broken a statue in the bath of Zabban-ibn-Abd-al-Aziz…”

Then, from the tenth century, we must turn to the fifteenth. The most eminent historian under the Mamluk dynasty (1250-1517), the last dynasty in Egypt before the conquest of this country by the Ottoman Turks in 1517, was Taqi-al-Din

Ahmad al-Maqrizi (1364-1442). In his foundamental work «Al-Khitat» (meaning «the quarters of a town») or «A Historical and Topographical Description of Egypt», al-Maqrizi writes: «Then churches were destroyed; crosses were broken; likenenesses were obliterated. All statues were destroyed – and they were many – in the year A.H. 104 (722-723). At that time, the Caliph was Yazid, son of Abd-al- Malik. And after Hisham-ibn-Abd-al-Malik had become Caliph, he wrote to Egypt that the Christians might follow their customs, and that they should not be disturbed since then».

The other Egyptian historian, of Mamluk origin himself, Abu-l-Mahasin ibn- Tagribardi (1411-1469), wrote a history of Egypt from the Arab conquest down to 1453. He devotes three lines of his text to the edict of Yazid. We read: «Then came to the governor of Egypt a letter from the Caliph Yazid-ibn-Abd-al-Malik-ibn- Marwan (commanding) statues and pictures to be destroyed. All the statues, at his time, were broken, and the pictures in the houses of Misr and of other places were obliterated».

After we have discussed the information about Yazid’s edict given by the us above said Arab historians, it is rather unexpected to read a statement that no Arab author mentions the edict. For this study is of very great interest the work of the Egyptian Copt, Severus ibn-al-Muqaffa, who was a contemporary of the Alexandrian Patriarch Philotheos (979-1003) and wrote in Arabic a history of the Alexandrian Patriarchs from St.Marcus on. He was the first among the Coptic Christians who has introduced the Arabic language into the church literature.

In his work we have not a mere statement of the edict of Yazid II as it is in the above Moslem chronicles. As a Christian, Severus describes the iconoclastic and other antichristian events which took place in Egypt with fierce indignation and deep hatred against the violators and offenders of the Christian faith in general. Severus’ records are of great importance, because they reveal that the religious life within Egypt, under the Moslem dominion had been full of troubles and trials, before the edict of Yazid; so that the latter may be regarded as the conclusive point of the proceeding troublesome period which had come to close after Yazid’s death, in 724, when his successor Hisham (724-743) revoked the edict. Several records from Severus’ history may be interesting for this study. The first record refers to the end of the seventh century, to the time of the Caliph Abd-al-Malik (685-705), and to the time of the Patriarch Isaac, A.D. 686-689. The governor of Egypt (the Emir) «commanded to destroy all the crosses which were in the land of Egypt, even the crosses of gold and silver. And the Christians in the land of Egypt were troubled. Moreover, he wrote certain inscriptions and placed them on the doors of the churches at Misr and in the delta, saying in them: «Muhammad is the great the Apostle of God, and Jesus also is the Apostle of God. But verily God is not begotten and does not beget».

The second record which I wish to produce here, refers to the time of the patriarchate of Alexander II, A.D. 705-730, which covers the time of Yazid II, A.D. 720-724; but since his name is not mentioned, the story probably belongs to the preceding years.

Here is the story: «On the Saturday of Light (i.e. the Saturday before Easter) al- Asbagh (the ruler of Egypt) entered into the monastery of Hulwan, and looked at the picture which was adorned according to the rule. And there was a picture of our Pure Lady Mary and of the Lord Christ in her lap; so when he looked at it and considered, he said to the bishops and to several people who were with him: «Who is represented in this picture?” They answered: «This is Mary, the mother of Christ». Then he was moved with hatred against her, and filled his mouth with saliva, and spat in her face, saying: «If I find an opportunity, I will root out the Christians from this land. Who is Christ that you workship him as a God?» The story ends with a miserable death of Asbagh.

Then, according to Caetani, in the year A.H. 95=September 26, 713, - September 15, 714, new troubles within the Egyptian church occurred. As Severus writes: «A wicked edict was issued that the coloured pillars and the marble which were in the churches should be taken away, and they were all carried off. And the Father Patriarch (i.e. Alexander II) was sad for the sake of his church». Later, according to Caetani, in the year A.H. 99=August 14, 717 – August 2, 718, the Caliph Omar

IIhad set the churches and bishops free from taxes, so that «the Christians were in security and prosperity and so were the churches». But after that, continues Severus, Omar «began to do evil, for he wrote a letter charged with sadness to Egypt, in which were written the following vows: «Omar commands saying. «Those who wish to remain as they are, and in their own country, must follow the religion of Muhammad as I do; but let those who do not wish to do so, go forth from my dominions. And the Christians were oppressed by the governors and the local authorities and by the Muslims in every place, the old and the young, the rich and the poor among them; and Omar commanded that the poll-tax should be taken from all men who would not become Muslims.

Then in another record which belongs also to the time of the Patriarch Alexander II, but which deals with the reign of Yazid II, Severus does not limit himself to the fact of the issue or the edict only; but he tries also to sketch a picture of Yazid’s general administration which was very harmful to the Christians and unjust. Severus relates: «Then Yazid reigned after him, but we have no wish to relate nor describe what happened in his days, on account of the miseries and trials; for he walked in the path of Satan, and deviated from path of God. As soon as he undertook the government, he restored the taxes which Omar had relieved the churches and bishops for one year; and he required great sums of money from the people, so that everyone was distressed in his dominions. And he was not satisfied

with this only, but he even issued orders that the crosses should be broken in every place, and the pictures which were in the churches should be wiped out. For he commanded this, but the Lord Christ destroyed him for this reason, and took his soul, after he had endured before his death many sufferings. He reigned two years and four months. And after him reigned Hisham, his brother, who was a God- fearing man according to the rule of Islam and loved all men; and he became the deliverer of the orthodox».

The last record, which I wish to produce, belongs to the later times of the patriarchate of Michael I, A.D. 744-768. It completes the picture of certain uneasiness and animosity in the relations between Christians and Moslems under the Arab domination in Egypt, even after the repeal of Yazid’s edict. His time, the iconoclastic episode of rather legendary character, takes place in Alexandria. Severus narrates: «And on a certain day the governor of Alexandria desired to launch the ships of fleet on the sea. And there was a congregation of the orthodox in the church of our Lady Mary, of about ten thousand persons. And a young man of the Moslems saw, painted on the wall, a picture of the Lord Christ upon the Cross, while a soldier with a spear was piercing his side. So he said to the Christians, tempting them: «What is this man upon the cross?» They answered: «This is the sign of our God Christ, who died upon the Cross for the salvation of the world». Thereupon that young man took a rod, and mounted to the upper gallery, and pierced the picture in the other side, namely the left, mocking and blaspheming at the Christian’s words, «The story ends with his miraculous punishment, which led him to the confession of the Christian faith; he departed to a monastery and was baptized there». I have delayed on the Severus’ History longer than I perhaps should. But, in my opinion, this work of the Coptic writer has not been adequately employed nor thoroughly explored for the history of iconoclasm.

Armenian Sources

The Armenian sources are not devoid of interest for our study. First of all, here is to be discussed the historical work of the vardapet Ghevond entitled «A History of the Wats and conquests of the Arabs in Armenia». The author who lived in the second half of the eighth century and at the outset of the ninth is almost a contemporary source. He relates: «After the death of Omar, Yazid II (in the text Yezdegerd) ascended the throne and reigned six years. This man of cruel character and guided by fanaticism, signalized his accession by a deplorable persecution of Christians. At his orders which have been impregnated with a sort of diabolic frenzy, they broke and destroyed the pictures representing the veridical incarnation of our Lord and Saviour and the images of His disciples, as well as the crosses erected in certain places, in order that the faithful be able to venerate before the Holy consubstantial Trinity. Still more excited by fanaticism, he attempted to attack the unshakable rock (Christ and His Church), and being unable to subjugate

it, he himself was broken against it. Reaching the top of his frenzy, he declared war on herbivorons and impure pores and exterminated a great number of them in the entire area of his dominions. This was the frenzy of the Satan which drew him into this work of extermination. A suffocating illness which has been produced by Satan’s frenzy, miserably destroyed him: a worthy chastisement inflicted upon his crimes by our Lord».This piously written story of Ghevond confirms once more the fact itself of the edict without supplying us with any new material. But another text from the same source allows us to state almost with certainty that the iconoclastic movement under Yazid II was very severe. Describing the Arab campaign upon Constantinople in 717-719 which was conducted by Yazid’s brother, Maslames, Ghevond lets the latter make a rather long speech to Leo III. I wish to produce here one passage from it which pictures the ambitions and aggressive character of the Arab general. He supposedly said: «Know that if thou refusest to become subject to our power, I declare to thee that I have commited myself by oath not to return to my native country before having broken thy empire, pulled down the fortifications of this capital in which thou puttest all your thrust, before having made out of the place of thy cult, the basilica of Saint Sophia, a bathhouse for my troops, and broken the wood of the cross which thou adorest upon thy head». If we take into consideration the information found in the above- discussed Syriac Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, that the same Maslamas, Yazid’s brother, was latter entrusted to carry into effect the edict, we may conclude that the man who had threatened to make out of Saint Sophia a bathhouse for his troops and to break the cross upon Leo’s head, should have been a violent executor of Yazid’s edict; and we know, according to the arabo-coptic chronicle of Severus ibn al-Muqaffa, that the iconoclastic persecution in Egypt was unusually severe.An historian of the eleventh century, Stephew Asoghig of Taron (Daron), reproduces, in a very abridged form, the text of Ghevond, including his erroneous six years of Yazid’s rule. In his turn, an historian of the thirteenth century, Vardan (Vartan), resumes in one phrase the brick story of Asoghig.

Russian Sources

The Russian sources, i.e. the Chronography of the redaction of the year 1512, and the Chronography of West-Russian redaction, which was compiled approximately at the beginning of the second half of the sixteenth century, deal with the iconoclastic activities of Leo III. But mentioning the campaign of the Arab general Maslames, whom they call Masiaman, against Constantinople, they fail to tell the iconoclastic episode of Yazid II.

Secondary Works

If we turn to the secondary sources referring to the edict of Yazid II, we see that the historians who deal with his edict, with a very few exceptions, consider it as a firmly established historical fact. They are at variance as to the problem of its

connection with the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, as well as to the question whether this decree was carried into effect in the dominions of the caliph or not, and whether the author of the decree was Yazid II or Omar II or Yazid I.

At the very end of the sixteenth century and at the beginning of seventeenth, the Cardinal Baronius, using the chronicle of Theophanes and the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, thought that the edict of Yazid II seems not to have been executed.

I wish say a few words on perhaps the oldest monograph on iconoclasm. The author of this work was a French church historian of the seventeenth century, Louis Maimbourg (1610-1680), who in 1626 entered the Society of Jesus, but for his defence of «the Liberties of the Gallican Church» against the Apostolic See, was later expelled from the Society and died in 1680. According to Maimbourg, Leo III was acting directly under the influence of Yazid’s edict. «Leo was not shocked by the fatal example of Yazid II, who had pitifully perished some time after having started the same thing». After giving a description of Yazid’s personal dissolute life, according to the Arab historian al-Makin (in a Latin translation), the author following the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea and Theophanes, narrates that «one of the Jewish chiefs, who was the Head (Prince) of their synagogue at Tiberias, which is called Saranta pechys, a great importer and magician, thought that he, taking advantage of his weakness, would be able to get from him the same that other Jews had tried to get from Yazid I, some time earlier, but without success». The Jews succeeded in their task, and «the miserable Prince took immediately decision, and in order not to loose his opportunity, like the other Yazid – as he thought – had lost his own by procrastination, he immediately sent Jews and Muhammadans who joyfully executed the order of breaking all statues and effacing all the painted icons; but he was punished before long…As soon as Leo had known Yazid’s order, this impious one undertook the same thing in his own church with such rage and fury, as if he himself were Saracen…The Saracens abhor the images like the Jews do». Some later, the writers taking Yazid’s decree for a historical fact limit themselves to produce the story told by Theophanes and by the Priest John recorded in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, for instance, Leheau. Most of the historians emphasize the fact the first official iconoclastic act had come from the East, from the Arab caliphate. Some state that Yazid’s decree became a suggestion to Leo for opening his own iconoclastic policy. Some historians thought that the policy of Leo is to be explained by his desire to become reconciled with the most dangerous enemy of his empire the Arabs, who abhorred the veneration of images. There are some who are inclined to believe that the story told by Theophanes and recorded in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea are nothing but fiction and lie. Apart stands A.Gfroerer, who regards Yazid’s decree as «the veiled war declaration against the Byzantine Empire». Leclerq, positively affirms that the edict was issued not by Yazid II, but

by his predecessor Omar II (717-720), who, under the influence of a fanatical party, violently persecuted images and all artistic manifestations. In 1902, J.Wellhausen, without any serious ground, expressed «serious doubts (schwere Bedanke) against the existence of the diabolical decree of the caliph (Yazid II), that it is said to have been known only to the very few». F. Uspensky, mentioning Yazid’s edict, wrote: «Yazid himself, issuing his act or his message to Leo, was acting also under the suggestions of the Jews of Laodicea. This tradition of the participation of the Moslems and Jews in the question of iconoclasm will be considered and verified by us on due time». As far as I know, Uspensky has not fulfilled his intention. I do not understand well his words about Yazid’s «act or message to Leo». K. Schenk and the greek historian of our own day C. Amantos, fail to see any connection between the edict of Yazid II and that of Leo III. In 1923, J. Pargoire wrote that neither the influence of Islam nor the intervention of some Jews suffice to explain iconoclasm”. In 1938, J. Crowfoot wrote that «the fruits of Yazid’s decree have been found in many places in Palestine, Transjordan and Egypt. In Gerasa (in Transjordan) the order was executed with the most punctilious discrimination. Inscriptions, decorative patterns, and pictures of building were spared, but all representations of living creatures were ruthlessly destroyed. The sorry way in which the mutilations, including mosaics, were repaired and patched up after the iconoclastic outbreak in Yazid’s reign, shows the wretched plight of the Christians, though it proves also that the community survived and still used the churches». The archaeological J.E. Quibell attributed to the fame of Yazid II […] the mutilation of the paintings and sculptures found during his excavations, in 1900-1910, at the Monastery of Apa Jeremias at Sakkara in Egypt.

The Year of the Edict

As to the time of the issue of the edict, the sources are at variance. Yazid died, at the age of 35-38 years, on January 27, 724 A.D. (Shaban 25, 105 A.H.), after about four years of the rule. In his report at the Council of 787, John of Jerusalem stated that Yazid died two and a half years after the issue of the edict. It is not to be forgotten that his report is the earliest document indicating the time of the edict which had been compiled evidently before the year of the Council, perhaps in 764, as B. Melioransky infers. Then, John himself, as the former syncellus of the Patriarch of Antioch, had come from Syria, in other words, from the territory of the caliphate, and reported concerning the fact, which had taken place in his own region, not too many years previously, so that his indication must have been correct. The same two and one half years are indicated by the Patriarch Nicephorus, in the early part of the ninth century. Following the statements of these two writers and taking into consideration the exact date of Yazid’s death, January 27. 724, the date of the edict should be July, A.D. 721. For the further confirmation of this date, we may refer to the Egyptian historian of the end of the

tenth century. Severus ibn-al-Muqaffa, who writes, as we have seen above, that the edict was issued, as soon as Yazid undertook the government. The later Syria source known as Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, which we have mentioned above, going back to an earlier evidence, sets the edict in the 102 A.H., i.e. July 12, 720 – June 30, 721. Georgius Monachus as well as Cedrenus and Zonaras, who both followed him, say that Yazid died when a year has not passed after the issue of the edict, i.e. in 723. The Arab sources, al-Kindi and al-Maqrizi, also attribute the edict to the year 722/723 (104 A.H.= June 12, 722 – June 9, 723). Theophanes defines the year of Yazid’s edict by five chronological computations. According to him, the edict was issued in the year 6215 from the creation of the world. Since he uses here the so-called Alexandrian era, which start in 5492 B.C., the year for the issue of the edict should be 723. Then, Theophanes says that it was issued in the seventh year of the Emperor Leo

III(717-741), i.e. in 724; in the fourth year of Yazid (720-724), i.e. in 724; in the ninth year of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Germanus (715-730), i.e. in 724; and in the eighteenth year of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, John or John V (707-745), i.e. in 724. Since Yazid II died on January 27, 724, all the data of Theophanes should mean that the edict was issued in 723, at the end of his rule. The Syrian chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre attributes the issue of the edict to the year 1035, according to the Seleucid era, which starts on the First of October, 312 B.C., i.e. to the year 723 A.D. The decisive source for the exact fixation of the year of Yazid’s edict is the report, which was read at the Council of 787 by John of Jerusalem, who lived in the same eighth century, in the territory of the Caliphate, where the edict had been promulgated. As we have pointed out above, the time of two and one half years which, according to the report, elapsed from the moment of the issue of the edict to Yazid’s death, on January 27, 724, supply us, for the time of the edict, with the month of July, 721 A.D. This year is the exact date of the issue of the decree, which is confirmed by the Patriarch Nicephorus, by Severus ibn-al-Muqaffa, and by the late Syriac chronicle. Almost immediately on his accession, Yazid promulgated the edict, which was carried out into effect violently. The information of those sources, which state that his edict has hardly been known among the population, and that he had no time enough to see his decree executed, should be dismissed.

The Iconoclasm Of Omar II

We have signalized above, that Leclerc affirmed that the iconoclastic edict had been issued not by Yazid II but by his predecessor Omar II (717-720). In such a […], Leclerq’s statement is, of course, incorrect, because Yazid’s edict is a very firmly established fact. But, on the other hand, the religious policy of his predecessor and cousin, Omar II, had also had an iconoclastic character, so that the religious policy of Yazid II may be considered as a continuation of the policy of his predecessor.

The Umayyad dynasty (661-750), to which these two caliphs belonged, although claiming to stand on the foundation of Islam, carried on rather its own religions policy; so that the Moslem theologians, who had no influence in Damascus, the capital of the caliphate, accused the Umayyad regime even of impiety. As says Wellhausen, the Umayyads «had to be constantly on the alert to keep down the opposition which rose up against them in the name on Allah and the religion». But Omar II was an exception. Being entirely under the influence of the theologians, who, according to one scholar, regarded him as their own, whom they «raized upon the shield» as their champion, he has enjoyed a reputation for piety and asceticism being a sort of the Umayyad saint. Even the historians of the Abbasid period, who following the new trend of the triumphant dynasty, run down the fallen dynasty on every possible occasion, make exception in Omar’s case and praise him highly. His tomb was left undisturbed when those of the other Umayyads were desecrated after the victory of the Abbasids. Most of our sources on the rule of Omar II signalize his anti-christian policy, including iconoclastic tendensions.

His antichristian policy is testified by Arabian, Greek, Syrian and Armenian sources. The most interesting passage belongs to the Arab jurisconsult, Abu-Yusuf, who lived in the eighth century A.D. (731-798) and was the author of the book on land-tax (kharadj), which he opened with a lengthy exhortatory preface addressed to the famous Abbasid Caliph Harum-al-Rashid (786-813). According to Abu- Yusuf, Omar ibn-Abd-al-Aziz (i.e. Omar II) wrote to one of his governors: “Do not let any cross be exhibited without breaking it and destroying; not any Jew or Christian make use of the (usual) saddle but employ the pack-saddle; not any woman of their religion may employ the padded saddle, but only the pack-saddle. Announce the formal prohibition on this subject and forbid thy attendants to violate them”. In this important text, which apparently reproduces a formal order of the Caliph, the Christians were not allowed to exibit crosses; the other restrictions regarded both Christians and Jews.

Turning to other sources, we see that, according to Theophanes, Omar forced the Christians to apostasize; and those who had apostasized he excluded from taxation, and those who had not consented to do so, he killed; there were many martyres, and no witness of a Christian against a Saracen was accepted.

This text may be compared with the evidence of the Arabian writers, who state that Omar II re-established the old principle of his earlier name namesake, Omar I, that a Moslem whether Arab or non-Arab embrasing Islam (mawla) need pay no tribute whatsoever. The Syrian historian, Michael the Syrian, gives the same story but in more detail; in addition, he tries to explain why Omar began to mistreat the Christians. He had for this two reasons: first, because he wished to confirm the laws of the Moslems, and, secondly, because of Constantinople of which the Arabs could not take possession and before which a great number of them had perished.

Omar ordered the Christians to be oppressed by every way in order to force them to become Moslems.

Gregory Abu-Faruj (Bar-Hebraeus), following Michael the Syrian, enumerates all sorts of persecutions of the Christians by Omar II but is failing to mention any iconoclastic act.

Then in the version of the letter of Omar II to Leo III, which has been preserved in the History of the Armenian writer Ghevond, we find the testimony that Omar II was acting not only against the cross but also against the icons. In his letter, among other things, he asked Leo: «Why do you adore the bones of the Apostles and Prophets, and also pictures and the cross, which anciently served according to the law as an instrument of torture?» Theophanes mentions this letter saying: «Omar sent a dogmatic epistle to the Emperor Leo thinking that he might persuade him to accept Islam».

An Arab writer of the thirteenth century, Ibn-al-Jawzi (died 125 A.D.), in his monograph on Omar II entitled «The Merits (Manaqib) of Omar ibn-Abd al-Aziz», tells a story of this pious Umayyad, who, finding a picture in a bathroom, had it rubbed out, adding, «If I could only find out who made it, I would have him well beaten». But this story, as some say, may have no connection with iconoclasm, and it has been suggested that this painting was most probably pornographic, as was often the case in bathrooms (hammams) and that this was the real cause of Omar’s anger. But taking into consideration the general trend of his religious policy, I think that this fact cannot be overlooked, when we deal with Omar’s iconoclastic tendencies.

As enemy of excessive luxury and adherent to simplicity, Omar found that the famous mosque of Damas was too rich in mosaics, so that, according to the Arab geographer of the tenth century, al-Muqadassi, he «it is said, wished to demolish the Mosque and made use of its materials in the public works of the Moslems; but he was persuaded to abandon the design».

This story has been recorded in other writings. I wish to delay a little here on an Arabian historian of the twelfth century, Ibn-Asakir (died in 1176), who sketched in eighty volumes the biographies of distinguished men connected with his native town, Damascus. He gives some more information on the above tradition. We read: «Omar-ibn-Abd-al-Aziz (i.e. Omar II) said: «I see that too much wealth was illegally expended (for the construction of this mosque); I shall remedy this abuse as far as I am able to do so, and shall enter this wealth into the (public) treasury. I have determined to tear off the mosaics and the marble, and to put instead bricks. I shall take out the chairs and put instead ropes. I shall take out the precious clothes, sell them and enter (their price) into the treasury». Informed about his intention, the inhabitants of Damascus went to see the сaliph, at the monastery of St.Simeon, in the district of Hims (Emesa), and were admitted to his presence. Then follows a

rather lengthy, interesting conversation between Omar and a certain inhabitant of Damascus, as well as the arrival of the ambassadors of the Byzantine Emperor, who admired the beauty of the mosque. Finally Omar gave up his plan and left the mosque intact.

Another Arabian historian of the fourteenth century, Muhammad-ibn-Shaker, who died in 1363 (A.H. 764), has incorporated Ibn-Asakir’s record, almost in its entirety, in his work, Uyun-al-Tawarikh (The Sources of Histories). As far as I know, his work has not yet been published in the original; but on the basis of manuscript material, the above story has been long ago known in a French version. There is a record that, in 717-718, Omar ordered that all the Christian emplores in Egypt should be replaced by the Moslems.

In the spring of 1937, in Tranjordan, in the village of Ma'in, south-west of Madaba, an interesting mosaic was discovered. It belonged to a church which has almost entirely disappeared. The mosaic which has survived in a state of considerable deterioration is surrounded with a broad «topographic» border, which represents the most important cities of the three provinces of Palestine and of the province of Arabia. At the entrance of the church, there is a Greek inscription. The ensemble of these remains belongs probably to the end of the fifth century A.D. or to the sixth. The inscription which consists of five lines is badly damaged. But R. de Vaux, by rather successful restoration of the text, based on the date which has survived in the inscription and is given according to the era of Bosra, 614, corresponding the year 719/720 of our era, comes to the ingenious conjecture, that in this year the church was repaired after the desolation made by the Moslem iconoclasts. P. de Vaux connects these iconoclasts who destroyed all representations of living creatures in this church with the iconoclastic policy of Omar II. The restoration is dated in the year 720, when the caliph died (February, 720), and when the change of the ruler might have given some hope for certain relief.

On the basis of the above data, we come to the inescapable conclusion that, in his religious policy, under the influence of the Moslem theologians of his time, Omar

IImust be recognized as an anti-Christian and iconoclastic ruler. But the historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are not very explicit in their judgment on this side of Omar’s rule. A. Mueller, in 1885, remarked that the idea of the equality between the Moslems and the non-Arabs embracing Islam, the Neo-Moslems (mawali-clients), was offensive (anstoessig) to him. In 1890, Goldziher wrote that Omar tried to bring the calm work of the theologians of the first century A.H. into practice, and called his religious policy a transient (fluechtige) episode in the religious policy of the Umayyad dynasty. De Goeje, in 1900, after mentioning

Omar’s religious policy, stated that he probably introduced no innovation, but wished to re-establish the religious prescriptions, which have been neglected. The historians of our own day are more categorical. In 1924, Aigrain said that the

opposition of Omar II to the icons is not doubtful; and Frey, in 1934, explained Omar’s iconoclastic activities by Jewish influence.

From all the data quoted above, it is not easy to find any serious ground for the opinion of those historians who represent Omar II as a ruler favorably inclined towards the Christians. I suppose that they were under the influence of the Armenian writers, or whom I wish to say a few words. They mention with great satisfaction the fact that Omar ordered some Armenian captives to be returned to their own country, and connect the change of his attitude towards Christians in their favour with the reply of Leo III to his letter, which produced on him a very happy effect. But in this respect, their records are sometimes full of striking exaggeration. For instance, Ardzruni, after calling Omar more magnanimous than any other caliph, tells that, after reading Leo’s letter, «he rejected many fables of the Koran, denied the lies which have been refuted in the imperial letter, and from that time onward became very benevolent towards all Christian peoples». Following Ardzruni, Kirakos writes that, under the influence of Leo’s letter, Omar was ashamed, improved abuses and manifested benevolence to the Christians, particularly to the Armenians.

In contrast to these statements, John Catholicas says that, under the rule of Omar, an Armenian prince, Vahan, was cruelly tortured and entered martyr’s death for the name of Jesus Christ.

Taking into consideration all these data, I am rather surprised to find the scholars who praise Omar’s tolerance and benevolence to the Christians. I give here a few examples from the writings of the twentieth century. In 1902, J. Wellhausen was rather moderate in the appreciation of Omar’s religious policy, saying:

«Theophanes’ account is a mixture of truth and falsehood. It is true that Omar II was a zealous Moslem and that the Christians had cause to know it. But he did not force them to conversion on pain of death, for then he would have been infringing the existing law, and that he did not do, being a good Moslem. With regard to the Christians he kept absolutely within the bounds of justice even though it might seen otherwise to them. He protected them in the possession of their old churches, which was assured to them by the terms of their capitulation, and only did not allow them to build new ones».

In 1903, E. Filler, who wrote in Latin a special study on the “History” of Ghevond, stated that, according to the latter, Omar was a great benefactor to the Christians, and that Theophanes’ account is not trustworthy at all (nulla fides habenda est). K. Zettersteen writes that «as a devout Moslem he was gracious to the members of other creeds in so far as this was possible without breaking the principles of Islam. Christians, Jews, and fire-worshippers were allowed to retain their synagogues, churches, and temples but not to built any new ones». In 1939, C. Brockelmann said that «Omar II conciliated the Christians wherever possible; in compensation

for the Church of St John in Damascus which had been absorbed by Walid, he ceded them the Church of St Thomas in the Ghutah, although ever since the conquest it had served as a mosque, in violation of the terms of capitulation».

Yazid I

There are some scholars who attribute the edict not to Yazid II but to Yazid I (680- 683), or who, in their discussing on this subject, failing to distinguish clearly the participation of both Yazids in the iconoclastic movement, result in considerable confusion. Finlay and Bury, who evidently followed Finlay, attribute the edict to Yazid I; but Bury, writing, a little farther, about Leo III and Yazid’s decree, fails to clarify whom of these two Yazids he meant, although, from the context, here Yazid

IIshould have been meant. A certain confusion in regard to the two Yazids as iconoclasts occurs also in the work of Hergenroether on Photius. A rather striking confusion we find in the study of lorga of the origin of iconoclasm. He opens his discussion with a very strange statement that «a Jewish intrigue suggested the caliph Yazid I, whose role as persecutor of Christianity in all its forms is well known, destruction of images». And for confirmation of this statement, he cites all the Greek sources which refer to Yazid II. At first sight, one may see here nothing but a mere misprint, Yazid I for Yazid II. But it is not the case. He writes that, after Yazid’s death, his son Valid (Walid) chastised the intriguing Jews. First of all, the caliph Walid I (705-715) was not Yazid’s son. In addition, a little farther, lorga gives the name of Yazid II, with the correct year 723, and produces the text of the Armenian historian Ghevond who describes his iconoclastic destructions.

Once for all, the name of Yazid I must be eliminated from the list of the iconoclastic caliphs. On the contrary, he is known to have been very favorable to the Christians, and his affability towards those who approached him, and particularly towards the Christians, has been signalized in the special works on his reign.

The Monetary Reform of Abd-al-Malik

As we have tried to show above, the decree of Yazid II was not an isolated and unexpected fact. It must be regarded as the continuation and, to a certain extent, the consummation of the preceding period marked by the anti-Christian and iconoclastic activities of his predecessor Omar II. The latter, in his turn, was not an innovator either as far as his policy is concerned. In order to understand better the continuity of this process, we must go back to the caliphate of Abd-al-Malik-ibn- Marwan, who ruled from A.D. 685 to 705.

The twenty years reign of this famous Umayyad, the so-called «Father of Kings», is of particular interest for our study.

Under his rule and that of his successor al-Walid I (705-715), the empire reached the zenith of its expansion, power and brilliancy. But the rule of Abd-al-Malik left also a deep impress in the internal reorganization of the vast realm. It was the era of the nationalization and arabicization of the country, when the Arab language began to have been employed as the official language on all government documents.

Then the figure of the Byzantine Emperor was adapted, on the obverse of the coin, to the standing facing figure of the caliph, with hand on sword, which substituted the former staff with a cross on it in the hand of the emperors; and, on the reverse, the cross standing on four steps altered into a column with a ball on its top. The coins bore Arab inscriptions. The name of the represented caliph is sometimes given, sometimes not. There are coins bearing the name of Abd-al-Malik.

In the middle of his twenty years rule (the exact year is unknown), following the policy of the nationalization and arabicization of his empire, Abd-al-Malik established a new type of coinage, in which the effigy of the caliph was replaced by more Arab inscriptions. The new coins were struck in the name of Allah and bore various pious inscriptions, particularly sayings from the Koran. This purely islamic coinage was instituted for the whole of the empire, so that all sorts of previous coins should have been replaced and made invalid.

In this respect, the Byzantine chronicler, Theophanes, gives an interesting information. After an unsuccessful war with the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II, Abd-al-Malik, who had been compelled to purchase peace by the payment of a tribute paid it in the new coins; and Justinian refused to receive this new unknown coinage.

In Western Europe, however, the Islamic gold dinar without images known there as mancus was largely used beginning with the eighth century and became the standard coin for business transactions, particularly in Medieval England.

The Arab-Sassanian coins passed through the similar change.

Conclusion

It seems to me that we may connect Yazid’s edict and the iconoclastic policy of his predecessor with the famous reform of coinage by Abd-al-Malik, which put an end to the representation of the human figures on the coins. And this innovation, originally regarding the coins, has been soon applied to other objects bearing the representations of living beings, including the icons.