The aim of the authors is to examine the ‘transfer from Late Roman to Byzantine structures’ during Iconoclasm, as part of the development of the cultural identity of the empire. They ask, ‘How did the Empire move from a situation of crisis in the 660s to a position of “safety” in the 840s?’

Close reading and reinterpretation of problematic textual sources, in conjunction with a survey of artistic material remains, is promised. The use of theoretical models, against which the evidence for state or economic development or artistic production otherwise might be set, is rejected (pp 6–7). Instead, causes, changes and transfer processes (cultural, political, institutional) are to be sought out in the historical record.

The authors contend that Iconoclasm arose following territorial losses and natural disasters as an instrument for the definition of: the role of emperor; the relationship of Church to State and the relation between hierarchy and intercession (pp 5, 117ff and 246). Inherent in the situation were overtones of divine retribution, which heightened the need for access to the divine. First Iconoclasm, under Leo iii (pp 142, 199ff and 206ff) and Constantine v, developed from an informal to an institutional arrangement (pp 156–247). Under Constantine v, ‘Institutional Iconoclasm’ arose, whereby theology of images could enhance imperial power and control. Later Iconophile literature wrongly attributed virulent Iconoclasm to Leo iii (pp 199ff and 206) and misrepresented the degree and severity of monastic persecution that occurred (p 234).

The authors also contend that the Council of Nicaea (787), which refuted a (now lost) Iconoclastic Horus of 754, did not represent the restoration of images, but the establishment of an imperial cult of images. Prior to this there had been images but these served only in an intercessory capacity as part of cults of saints and relics (pp 63, 264ff). By 787, the use of Biblical reference against idolatry, in order to justify First Iconoclasm, was replaced by the imperially approved doctrine that images were inseparable from the sacred power they represented and reflected. Through linguistic or pictorial inductive reasoning, knowledge of the unknowable became possible (pp 41–4, 50ff, 64, 89, 94ff, 137).

The authors point out how theological debates and texts were cited and reinterpreted to suit the necessity of different parties at different times, for example under the regency of Eirene in 780 (pp 248ff). Acceptance of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea was tempered by the fact that by then civil, ecclesiastical and military status, position and access to wealth, were firmly tied to the centralized state grant of imperial titles and incomes (pp 276ff). Second Iconoclasm (813–20), under Leo v, gave recognition to the decisions of the Iconoclastic Council of 754 and rejected those of the Iconophile Council of 787. Second Iconoclasm saw a return to earlier arguments about veneration due only to God, misguided attribution of divine grace to material objects, inappropriate image circumscription and separation of the human and divine natures in the indivisible Trinity (pp 186 and 373ff).

Under the impartial Michael ii (820–9), the authors argue, Iconoclasm was centred in Constantinople and officially Imperial Iconoclasm had already almost run its course (p 386). Michael ii's educated successor, Theophilus (829–42), re-engaged with Iconoclast policy after a treacherous plot against him was foiled and following territorial losses to the Arabs in Sicily and Cappadocia. But this action accompanied his desire for reconnection with the late Roman heritage and his important construction of fortresses and establishment of military districts (pp 404–10). The Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 and the restoration of images were seen by the authors as a ‘non-ecclesiastical’ event; the 787 acts were simply reconfirmed (pp 447ff). After examination of social, fiscal, military and economic structures (Chapters 6–11), the authors conclude Iconoclasm was ‘imperially engendered’ and that reactions to it saw only limited popular, military or ecclesiastical involvement. No major destruction of artistic monuments was involved and neither were patterns of artistic production (domestic or luxury) and their distribution critically adversely affected (Chapter 12).

The publication represents an ambitious attempt to analyse a great number of the sources gathered by the authors in an earlier survey on Iconoclasm (2001). The book offers a dense presentation of historical aspects, to which is allied an assumption of a great degree of prior knowledge of concepts expounded in earlier secondary sources. This contrasts with the sparse and often narrative and non-specialist treatment of much of the artistic material-culture evidence, that in part also suffers from a lack of references to key specialist material-culture publications. Overall, the structure of the book reflects difficulties in the integration of written and material evidence, with almost inevitable over-compartmentalization on the one hand and repetition on the other.

The publication succeeds in its aim to demonstrate the processes of transition from late Roman to Byzantine empire and of recovery between the seventh and the ninth centuries. The presentation and re-interrogation of texts produced during and after Iconoclasm is commendable, and produces convincing points about the reliability of texts and historical reassessment. A discussion of pre-Iconoclastic texts on images allied to examination of sixth- to seventh-century Christian images (especially on textiles) is missing and might challenge the assertion that the cult of images was established only in the eighth century. That said, the presentation of the main lines of theological argument, whilst condensed and non-specialized, is clear and helpful. The historical discussions are valuable, in regard to public perception of rulers and of Imperial and Church ritual in public space, and to shifting power bases in society (if for the lower strata only summarily covered).

Also most useful, if potentially controversial, is the historical analysis of the development of fiscal and military administrative systems, and of state offices and titles. The archaeologically based examination of ceramics usefully establishes points about the existence of diverse trade routes throughout the period of Iconoclasm, and might have been paralleled by reference to specialist published surveys of silks. Although much of the artistic material presented is a repetition of what appeared in the 2001 publication, it serves to indicate that texts alone cannot provide evidence for all aspects of Byzantine identity. Object-based, material-culture evidence that incorporates, yet reaches beyond, traditional historical and art-historical methods of analysis, if not fully exploited in this publication, has much to add.