Context -
Including Empress Theodora and her son Michael III is crucial in demonstrating who was responsible for ending the second Iconoclasm in 843. Including the Virgin Mary and Jesus was important to understanding their role as Icons and how their physical presence was crucial in establishing religious legitimacy throughout the Byzantine empire. The imagery behind the Virgin Mary and Jesus is believed to be a form of the icon originally produced by Saint Luke as many copies of his icons were reproduced and although each copy would have less power, it would have the intent of the original which had its own type of power. Although the icon has no artist signature or date it can be associated with the icon work of St. Luke. This piece is particularly important in understanding the ways in which political and religious authority coexisted, especially as political authorities were responsible for reestablishing the use of icons in the empire. These political authorities also had the same power to get rid of the use of icons if they believed this way was right to do so. Placing the imperial family so close to Mary and Jesus establishes Theodora and Michael III as protectors and defenders of the religion.
Subject -
The subject of this icon is the commemoration of the first feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, on the first Sunday of Lent in 843. This day celebrates the defeat of iconoclasm and the triumph of the use of icons and religious imagery again. In the center of the upper half of the icon is Theotokos Hodegetria, or Virgin Mary holding her baby Jesus. Theotokos has her hand pointed towards Jesus which can be interpreted as her presenting him to the world as the baby’s hand is facing down, generally regarded as a sign of blessing. Mary and Jesus stand much larger than the other figures in the painting, possibly suggesting a connection between Mary and divinity. They stand within a red, curtained booth with two guards, potentially guardian angels by their wings, that blend into the curtains. To the left of Mary is Empress Theodora and her son Michael III. To the right of Hodegetria is Patriarch Methodios - an important figure in ending Iconoclasm - Bishop Theodore, and two monks. The lower register contains a group of saints and monks including, St. Theodosia on the left holding an Icon of Christ. To the right of St. Theodosia is St. Ioannikios then St. Stephanos, also holding an icon of Christ between St. Theodore the Studite, then St. Theodore, St. Theophanes, St. Theophylaktos, and lastly St. Arsakios. The saints appear to be celebrating the Iconoclasm and there are some red inscriptions above the figures but they are pretty faded.
Style -
The icon is a painting done in egg tempera with gold leaf on a wood panel. The wood panel is primed with gesso over linen. The gold backgrounds are typical of Byzantine-style art and often gold backgrounds symbolize connections to heaven. The combination of the use of gold with religious imagery establishes a type of political legitimacy as well as gold has historically always been associated with wealth, specifically wealth of imperial rulers and families. It also reestablishes unity between the empire and religion. The imperial family is depicted in vibrant red cloaks with jewel encrusted crowns. Patriarch Methodios wears bright white clerical attire. The men on the lower level are in mostly muted colors and have incredibly similar facial features and expressions. The figures on the lower level are all of similar height and stature while it varies on the top level. The balance of these figures shows a great deal of order and unity which was understandably important during a time of so much chaos and power struggles. The painting is two dimensional but the two layers of the upper level and the lower level provide a great contrast and even some depth to the painting.
Relation to Class & Readings
In “The Performative Icon”, Pentcheva discusses the importance of recognizing the senses that icons can illicit in viewers. Specifically he notes “the glitter of light emanating from the gold surface visualizes the rays that the ‘animated’ image itself sends off to touch and in a sense capture the viewer. The space between the icon and beholder becomes activated through the exchange of gaze and touch” (Pentcheva 639/640). This concept contributes to the allure of icons and the religious experience that just seeing an icon can provoke. With this being said, it is easier to understand why there was so much controversy surrounding the use of icons as they can have incredible amounts of power in influencing people, possibly shifting allegiance towards religious authority rather than imperial authority. In the chapter “Icons and Iconomachy”, Leslie Brubaker discusses the significance of icons “as an embodiment of a real presence…such collaboration with the image…allowed Byzantines to use icons to represent themselves, and even today the artisanal product most commonly associated with the Byzantines is the icon” (Brubaker 337). This is relevant in discussions of the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy as it was made to commemorate iconoclasm and the importance of representation and engagement in imagery. Charles Barber’s approach to understanding the role of iconography in Byzantine art is a little different in that he argues that “the icon, rather than transforming spectators or acting as the side of their transformation, is not a site of identification through representation, such as Mathews wishes the Pantokrator to be, but a site of desire” (Barber 14). Barber captures an aspect of religion that is often not discussed which is a sense of unfulfilled longing for something that followers want to believe exists. Icons can attempt to resolve this desire to a degree by centering religious icons next to modern figures like empresses and religious authority as done in the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The presence of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire came in two major waves: the First Iconoclasm (726-787), initiated under Emperor Leo III, and the Second Iconoclasm (814-843) where it was resumed by Emperor Leo V. The first iconoclasm was initiated due to several reasons, most notably the rise and influence of Islam. The second Iconoclasm provided a re-veneration for Mary again as the empire returned to sacred image through depicting themselves as among the divine. Iconophiles played a crucial role in retrieving the practices of veneration through restoring access to iconography. We discussed the idea of superstition in class and the thought process behind having superstitions which is incredibly relevant to the importance placed on icons. At its core, a superstition implies that your actions have influence on the result of your beliefs and in turn the way you act on this idea. Kissing an icon can be seen as a type of superstition and provokes complex discourse on determining who has power and authority when people believe they can have innate power acted on through superstitions. The specific function of this icon was to commemorate overcoming the second Iconoclasm and “winning the battle” that was fought against orthodox icons.
Three Questions -
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
Interactive image
Maeve Sullivan
Created on October 4, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Decisions and Behaviors in the Workplace
View
Tangram Game
View
Process Flow: Corporate Recruitment
View
Weekly Corporate Challenge
View
Wellbeing and Healthy Routines
View
Match the Verbs in Spanish: Present and Past
View
Planets Sorting Game
Explore all templates
Transcript
Context -
Including Empress Theodora and her son Michael III is crucial in demonstrating who was responsible for ending the second Iconoclasm in 843. Including the Virgin Mary and Jesus was important to understanding their role as Icons and how their physical presence was crucial in establishing religious legitimacy throughout the Byzantine empire. The imagery behind the Virgin Mary and Jesus is believed to be a form of the icon originally produced by Saint Luke as many copies of his icons were reproduced and although each copy would have less power, it would have the intent of the original which had its own type of power. Although the icon has no artist signature or date it can be associated with the icon work of St. Luke. This piece is particularly important in understanding the ways in which political and religious authority coexisted, especially as political authorities were responsible for reestablishing the use of icons in the empire. These political authorities also had the same power to get rid of the use of icons if they believed this way was right to do so. Placing the imperial family so close to Mary and Jesus establishes Theodora and Michael III as protectors and defenders of the religion.
Subject -
The subject of this icon is the commemoration of the first feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, on the first Sunday of Lent in 843. This day celebrates the defeat of iconoclasm and the triumph of the use of icons and religious imagery again. In the center of the upper half of the icon is Theotokos Hodegetria, or Virgin Mary holding her baby Jesus. Theotokos has her hand pointed towards Jesus which can be interpreted as her presenting him to the world as the baby’s hand is facing down, generally regarded as a sign of blessing. Mary and Jesus stand much larger than the other figures in the painting, possibly suggesting a connection between Mary and divinity. They stand within a red, curtained booth with two guards, potentially guardian angels by their wings, that blend into the curtains. To the left of Mary is Empress Theodora and her son Michael III. To the right of Hodegetria is Patriarch Methodios - an important figure in ending Iconoclasm - Bishop Theodore, and two monks. The lower register contains a group of saints and monks including, St. Theodosia on the left holding an Icon of Christ. To the right of St. Theodosia is St. Ioannikios then St. Stephanos, also holding an icon of Christ between St. Theodore the Studite, then St. Theodore, St. Theophanes, St. Theophylaktos, and lastly St. Arsakios. The saints appear to be celebrating the Iconoclasm and there are some red inscriptions above the figures but they are pretty faded.
Style -
The icon is a painting done in egg tempera with gold leaf on a wood panel. The wood panel is primed with gesso over linen. The gold backgrounds are typical of Byzantine-style art and often gold backgrounds symbolize connections to heaven. The combination of the use of gold with religious imagery establishes a type of political legitimacy as well as gold has historically always been associated with wealth, specifically wealth of imperial rulers and families. It also reestablishes unity between the empire and religion. The imperial family is depicted in vibrant red cloaks with jewel encrusted crowns. Patriarch Methodios wears bright white clerical attire. The men on the lower level are in mostly muted colors and have incredibly similar facial features and expressions. The figures on the lower level are all of similar height and stature while it varies on the top level. The balance of these figures shows a great deal of order and unity which was understandably important during a time of so much chaos and power struggles. The painting is two dimensional but the two layers of the upper level and the lower level provide a great contrast and even some depth to the painting.
Relation to Class & Readings
In “The Performative Icon”, Pentcheva discusses the importance of recognizing the senses that icons can illicit in viewers. Specifically he notes “the glitter of light emanating from the gold surface visualizes the rays that the ‘animated’ image itself sends off to touch and in a sense capture the viewer. The space between the icon and beholder becomes activated through the exchange of gaze and touch” (Pentcheva 639/640). This concept contributes to the allure of icons and the religious experience that just seeing an icon can provoke. With this being said, it is easier to understand why there was so much controversy surrounding the use of icons as they can have incredible amounts of power in influencing people, possibly shifting allegiance towards religious authority rather than imperial authority. In the chapter “Icons and Iconomachy”, Leslie Brubaker discusses the significance of icons “as an embodiment of a real presence…such collaboration with the image…allowed Byzantines to use icons to represent themselves, and even today the artisanal product most commonly associated with the Byzantines is the icon” (Brubaker 337). This is relevant in discussions of the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy as it was made to commemorate iconoclasm and the importance of representation and engagement in imagery. Charles Barber’s approach to understanding the role of iconography in Byzantine art is a little different in that he argues that “the icon, rather than transforming spectators or acting as the side of their transformation, is not a site of identification through representation, such as Mathews wishes the Pantokrator to be, but a site of desire” (Barber 14). Barber captures an aspect of religion that is often not discussed which is a sense of unfulfilled longing for something that followers want to believe exists. Icons can attempt to resolve this desire to a degree by centering religious icons next to modern figures like empresses and religious authority as done in the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The presence of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire came in two major waves: the First Iconoclasm (726-787), initiated under Emperor Leo III, and the Second Iconoclasm (814-843) where it was resumed by Emperor Leo V. The first iconoclasm was initiated due to several reasons, most notably the rise and influence of Islam. The second Iconoclasm provided a re-veneration for Mary again as the empire returned to sacred image through depicting themselves as among the divine. Iconophiles played a crucial role in retrieving the practices of veneration through restoring access to iconography. We discussed the idea of superstition in class and the thought process behind having superstitions which is incredibly relevant to the importance placed on icons. At its core, a superstition implies that your actions have influence on the result of your beliefs and in turn the way you act on this idea. Kissing an icon can be seen as a type of superstition and provokes complex discourse on determining who has power and authority when people believe they can have innate power acted on through superstitions. The specific function of this icon was to commemorate overcoming the second Iconoclasm and “winning the battle” that was fought against orthodox icons.
Three Questions -
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit