* have been preserved, still we beg our author to reflect, that the opinion which considers it true is far older than the eleventh century. Michael, a Greek monk, mentions, in plain words, in his biography of St. Theodorus Stadita, whose pupil he was, the image painted by the apostle Luke. We will by no means decide, whether this is sufficient to prove the truth of that opinion, but so much we may conclude from it with safety, that this opinion could not have originated from confounding him with the Florentine painter Lucas, since these pictures are mentioned by authors of the seventh and eighth century; also Johannes Damascenus, who lived in the eighth century, mentions several times the evangelist Luke as a painter. A passage of a similar tenor in Theodorus Anagnostes‡ an author of the sixth century, might here be cited, but would be of less weight, since some learned persons considered the text corrupted, and others, interpolated, in the year 1320, when a copyist collected the works of this man. Another surmise respecting the supposed paintings of Luke is, that Simon Metaphrastes was the inventor of the fable, and that Nicephorus Callistus gave it currency, but this suggestion is far from having even the appearance of certainty, since it is not even ascertained in what century that Simon lived. Whatever the origin of these fables and stories may be, they certainly were the cause that the guild of the painters have chosen the evangelist Luke for their patron. We must not lose sight of the destruction of monuments, both Heathen and Christian, occasioned by the extension of the Mahomedan religion and the conquests connected with it. The Mussulmen had conquered many countries and towns in Asia, also the island of Rhodes (660.) There they found the famous Colossus in bronze, which had been two hundred and twenty years (bef. Chr.) overthrown by an earthquake; Maavia, Sultan of Egypt and Persia, ordered this Colossus to be broken in pieces, and sent it off on nine hundred camels, and under the care of a Jewish mer Sirmond. Opera vol. v. p. 44. "Lucas vero, qui sacrum composuit evangelium, quum Domini pinxisset imaginem pulcherrimam et pluris faciendam posteris reliquit." + Ioh. Damasceni opera omnia. Paris, 1712, fol. p. 618. "Vidisti et sanctum evangel. ac Apost, Lucam; nonne is pretiosam intemeratissimae semperque virginis Mariae imaginem pinxit et ad Theophilum misit?" p. 631. Enimvero divinus Lucas Apost. et Evangel. divinam ac venerabilem castissimae dei matris Mariæ Hierosolymis adhuc in carne viventis, et in sancta Sion morantis imaginem temperatis coloribus in tabella expressit." Collectan. Lib.i. (S. Bibl. P. P. t. xxvi. p. 83, ed. Lugdun) Pulcheriae Eudoeia imaginem matris Christi, quam Lucas Apostolus pinxerat Hierosolymis, misit. chant.* At the commencement of the eighth century, (711) the Saracens took possession of almost the whole of Spain, and carried over from Africa fifty thousand families to secure their conquest. On these occasions, they destroyed all Christian works of art which were objects of reverence, demolished their churches, &c. Under the reign of Pope Leo IV. they even appeared before Rome. About the year 724 they vented their fury upon the sacred images in Gallia Narbonensis, by the order of Kalif Iezid ben Abdaimalek, who is supposed to have been induced to it by a Jew, Sarentaposci.t Also, in the Christian East, religion commenced to interrupt the tranquillity which the arts had, until then, enjoyed; Constantinople became especially the centre of religious parties and disputes. Already, under Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., an order issued (427) against the pourtraving of Christ either in marble or painting. In the year 660, according to some 692, the council quinisextum was held at Trullo, where it was decided in the eighty-second canon, that no lamb shall henceforth be formed upon the cross, but Christ in human shape. From this began the use of crucifixes; at that time they were formed, dressed with a royal crown upon their heads, for the ancient Christians never represented Christ with a crown of thorns; also, in all of them, the body was fastened on the cross with four nails. Buonarotti|| maintains, that the custom of pourtraying crucifixes with three nails, originates from the time of Cimabue; we, for our part, consider it older, having seen such Diptycha, which were certainly composed previous to the age of that painter. In the year 713, Emperor Philippus Bandanes issued a law against sacred images, and in the same year pope Constantine held a council at Rome in favour of them. Hereupon followed in the East (723) a synod, which is called after the place in Phrygia, where it was held, Synodus Nicoliana provincialis. In this period is to be properly classed the iconoclastic disburbances which separated the Eastern from the Western Church, and in a great part of the East, resulted in the total destruction of the sacred monuments, both of painting and sculpture. Leo, the Isaurian, in the year 726, proclaimed Fea. to Winkleman's work, t. ii. This + S. Concil Nicaen. ii. act. 5. Assermann. Bibliot. Orient. t. ii. p. 105. one corrects a false passage in the acts of the council, and agrees in the assertion of Baronius, who fixes this adventure in the year 724. Ex. cod. Justin. Imp. lib. i. tit. 8. § Mansi Collect. Concil, t. xi. p. 922. Osservazioni sopra alcuni frammenti di vasi antichi di vetro ornati di figure. See also Gori Sacr. Dypt. t. iii. an edict against images,* to which he was persuaded by Constantine, the bishop of Nacolia; partly also by the Jews, or by his intercourse with the Mahomedans, who constantly reproached the Christians with their idolatry. Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, was opposed to that edict, but in vain ; pope Gregory II. also interfered by letters, both to the emperor and Germanus, but his efforts were fruitless. The spirit of disunion, which was once aroused, could no more be calmed; and induced in the East, as well as in Italy, many violent scenes. Leo held (730) a council at Constantinople, by which he deposed Germanus from his episcopacy, and installed in his place Anastasius Iconomachus. His son and successor, Constantine VI. with the surname Caballynus Capronymus issued (741) an edict against images; even the Mosaics were destroyed and whitened. In the year 754, another edict appeared, in which a synod against images was convened at Constantinople, called by many, falsely, the seventh Oecumenic. On the other hand, at Jerusalem, (764) was held a council against the breakers of images. In the same year was proposed a marriage between Leo, the son of the emperor, and Godegasila, the daughter of Pepin, king of France, whereupon the emperor moved, that the disputes concerning the images should be left to the decision of the Gallic bishops; in consequence of which was held (766) the council at Gentilia. However the tranquillity obtained by these means did not last long, for Leo IV. towards the end of his reign, persecuted anew the images; in the year 775, appeared an edict from his brothers, both of whom were invested with the dignity of Cæsars, against the sacred images, which was (780) followed by a law from the emperor himself of a similar tenor. He was succeeded on the throne by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, under the guardianship of his mother Irene, under whose reign the worship of images was tolerated; nay, a council, called the seventh Oecumenic, was held (787) by order of Irene, against the breakers of * Leonis III. Isaurici Imp. Edictum de imaginibus tollendis publicatum Constantinop. an. dom. 726. + Gregorii Dialogi II. Papae Romani de sacris imaginibus ad Leonem Isaurem Imp. in the Annal. Eccles. of Baronius, t. ix. p. 78. See also Leverini Binii concilia generalia, t. iii. p. 175, where are found the letters to Germanus. Baronius fixes these letters in the year 726, Muratori in his Annal. d' 'Ital. t. vi. p. 120, in the year 729, and Pagi, in 730. Constant. vi. Caballini Imp. Aug. Edictum de tollendis imaginibus, A. 741. § M. Haiminsteld. Imp. decreta, &c. p. 23. Johan. Damasc. Opp. t. i. p. 306. Spanheim in bis Hist. Imag. has written a defence of this Synod. chant. At the commencement of the eighth century, (711) the Saracens took possession of almost the whole of Spain, and carried over from Africa fifty thousand families to secure their conquest. On these occasions, they destroyed all Christian works of art which were objects of reverence, demolished their churches, &c. Under the reign of Pope Leo IV. they even appeared before Rome. About the year 724 they vented their fury upon the sacred images in Gallia Narbonensis, by the order of Kalif Iezid ben Abdaimalek, who is supposed to have been induced to it by a Jew, Sarenta posci.† Also, in the Christian East, religion commenced to interrupt the tranquillity which the arts had, until then, enjoyed; Constantinople became especially the centre of religious parties and disputes. Already, under Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., an order issued (427) against the pourtraying of Christ either in marble or painting. In the year 660, according to some 692, the council quinisextum was held at Trullo, where it was decided in the eighty-second canon, that no lamb shall henceforth be formed upon the cross, but Christ in human shape. From this began the use of crucifixes; at that time they were formed, dressed with a royal crown upon their heads, for the ancient Christians never represented Christ with a crown of thorns; also, in all of them, the body was fastened on the cross with four nails. Buonarotti|| maintains, that the custom of pourtraying crucifixes with three nails, originates from the time of Cimabue; we, for our part, consider it older, having seen such Diptycha, which were certainly composed previous to the age of that painter. In the year 713, Emperor Philippus Bandanes issued a law against sacred images, and in the same year pope Constantine held a council at Rome in favour of them. Hereupon followed in the East (723) a synod, which is called after the place in Phrygia, where it was held, Synodus Nicoliana provincialis. In this period is to be properly classed the iconoclastic disburbances which separated the Eastern from the Western Church, and in a great part of the East, resulted in the total destruction of the sacred monuments, both of painting and sculpture. Leo, the Isaurian, in the year 726, proclaimed Fea. to Winkleman's work, t. ii. + S. Concil Nicaen. ii. act. 5. Assermann. Bibliot. Orient. t. ii. p. 105. This one corrects a false passage in the acts of the council, and agrees in the assertion of Baronius, who fixes this adventure in the year 724. Ex. cod. Justin. Imp. lib. i. tit. 8. § Mansi Collect. Coacil, t. xi. p. 922. Osservazioni sopra alcuni frammenti di vasi antichi di vetro ornati di figure. See also Gori Sacr. Dypt. t. iii. an edict against images,* to which he was persuaded by Constantine, the bishop of Nacolia; partly also by the Jews, or by his intercourse with the Mahomedans, who constantly reproached the Christians with their idolatry. Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, was opposed to that edict, but in vain ; pope Gregory II. also interfered by letters, both to the emperor and Germanus, but his efforts were fruitless. The spirit of disunion, which was once aroused, could no more be calmed ; and induced in the East, as well as in Italy, many violent scenes. Leo held (730) a council at Constantinople, by which he deposed Germanus from his episcopacy, and installed in his place Anastasius Iconomachus. His son and successor, Constantine VI. with the surname Caballynus Capronymus issued (741) an edict against images; even the Mosaics were destroyed and whitened. In the year 754, another edict appeared, in which a synod against images was convened at Constantinople, called by many, falsely, the seventh Oecumenic. On the other hand, at Jerusalem, (764) was held a council against the breakers of images. In the same year was proposed a marriage between Leo, the son of the emperor, and Godegasila, the daughter of Pepin, king of France, whereupon the emperor moved, that the disputes concerning the images should be left to the decision of the Gallic bishops; in consequence of which was held (766) the council at Gentilia. However the tranquillity obtained by these means did not last long, for Leo IV. towards the end of his reign, persecuted anew the images; in the year 775, appeared an edict from his brothers, both of whom were invested with the dignity of Cæsars, against the sacred images, which was (780) followed by a law from the emperor himself of a similar tenor. He was succeeded on the throne by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, under the guardianship of his mother Irene, under whose reign the worship of images was tolerated; nay, a council, called the seventh Oecumenic, was held (787) by order of Irene, against the breakers of * Leonis III. Isaurici Imp. Edictum de imaginibus tollendis publicatum Constantinop. an. dom. 726. + Gregorii Dialogi II. Papae Romani de sacris imaginibus ad Leonem Isaurem Imp. in the Annal. Eccles. of Baronius, t. ix. p. 78. See also Leverini Binii concilia generalia, t. iii. p. 175, where are found the letters to Germanus. Baronius fixes these letters in the year 726, Muratori in his Annal. d' 'Ital. t. vi. p. 120, in the year 729, and Pagi, in 730. Constant. vi. Caballini Imp. Aug. Edictum de tollendis imaginibus, A. 741. ý M. Haiminsteld. Imp. decreta, &c. p. 23. Johan. Damasc. Opp. t. i. p. 306. Spanheim in his Hist. Imag. has written a defence of this Synod. |