Irene

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Does anyone know how Irene of Athens became a saint? I'm quite shocked to hear that someone who had her son blinded as an adult in his former birth-chamber, and whose lust for power led to Charlemagne being crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope - ultimately contributing to the Great Schism - should have been canonised for her admittedly staunch defense of the holy icons alone. Was there no repentance at the end of her life over the heinous deeds, plots, intrigues and omissions of her reign? Or am I getting wrong information about the holy Empress Irene?

Forgive me if my ignorance offends, but if you know an Orthodox life of St Irene the Empress online, I would be very interested to read it. Here is one from a non-Orthodox source: Irene of Athens (http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/writers/display_story.html?name=IreneofAthens).

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is quite a bit of confusion & inaccuracy in the article that the link leads to. Just to mention two: there is a major theological mistake when describing how we regard icons- the article claims that, "the icons should not be venerated but worshipped." According to the 7th Ecumenical Council however it is the other way around- we venerate the icon and the worship passes to the prototype.

There are also many historical inaccuracies in this article. From the beginning there is the claim that Irene being on the throne was illegal. This is not so. She was regent for her son Constantine since he was not of age to rule once her husband Leo IV died. She was then regent & then co-ruler with her son Constantine when he came of age to also rule.

If we wonder why she is considered a saint of the Church it must be first of all due to her role in defending the veneration of icons at a time when this was exceedingly dangerous. Indeed in one incident when her chamberlains smuggled icons into the palace for her, her husband the Emperor had the chamberlains whipped & paraded through the streets and one died from his wounds. Over this incident Leo no longer would live his wife. To this also of course must be added her convoking the 7th Ecumenical Council of 787. We must keep in mind how dangerous it was to have done all of this- in a way it was being a true confessor of the Faith.

As often occurs in the political world opposition to Irene centred around her son and his friends- issues to do with the veneration of icons and also issues of power inextricably were involved. In any case Constantine (or his friends) plotted against his mother and her friends then tried to seize him. Irene sought for a peaceful resolution but before this could occur her co-conspirators captured Constantine and blinded him. He died from his wounds and thus Irene was left as the first woman ever to rule by herself over the Roman Empire.

If anyone wishes to read a balanced and very thorough history of the Byzantine Empire there is A History of the Byzantine State & Society by Warren Treadgold.

Apart from this it can be said that at times Emperors and Empresses could use real ruthlessness in their rule. Most times apparent ruthlessness was actually the attempt to maintain stability or just to survive in a political world where you could be thankful if a political decision resulted only in your removal from the throne and not the removal of an ear, being sent to the far reaches of Armenia, having every male family member murdered or losing your life. In some ways Byzantine government was more vulnerable to political pressure than is our democratic world & once this became part of the political culture it seemed that very few could escape its effects no matter how good their intentions.

If you study the history of almost any monarchy you will find a strange paradox covered up by our modern myths about our own culture. Monarchy was far more vulnerable to outside pressure than is our own democracy. But yet there was an overall social stability from monarchical rule (compared to the alternative) lasting until modern times.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you Fr Raphael for responding to my query regarding St Irene. From what you write I gather that it was not St Irene who ordered that her son should be blinded, but her co-conspirators. How do we know whether this is actually what happened? To my suspicious mind this seems a crucial point of significance regarding her moral character. And a related question is whether the fact of being a confessor of the faith in dangerous times is alone enough to sanctify the rest of one's life, even if one is an unrepentant sinner. After all, one may carry Christianity as a banner, a flag or a label, rather than as the Truth of Love which blesses one's whole existence and behaviour. In that case, should one be sainted just for being narrow-minded or fanatical? I don't think so. I don´t even think that, in such a case, it is really Christianity we are talking about. However, I may be missing something here. It is not that I wish to deny the huge significance of St Irene's acts in reestablishing the holy icons and convening the 7th ecumenical council; I am just wondering: can these acts in themselves constitute the criteria for holiness and canonisation? What about the rest of her life?

Forgive me Fr if I sound judgemental of St Irene, who is anyway a historical figure. I trust that if the Church canonised her, it did so for a good reason. I 'm also aware that Christianity should not be what I want it to be, but what it is.

Thank you for the book reference. Is the more famous Byzantium trilogy by Steven Runciman a good (and most importantly for me at this stage, sympathetic) introduction to Byzantine history?

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron wrote:


From what you write I gather that it was not St Irene who ordered that her son should be blinded, but her co-conspirators. How do we know whether this is actually what happened? To my suspicious mind this seems a crucial point of significance regarding her moral character.

It is very difficult to know anything for certain just through historical study. But at least if the historian is fair-minded and sober, interpreting available evidence in a critical yet balanced way, then there is a degree of trust that we can put in what he/she writes. There is also the overall context of character which is very important for the historian in a way is a combined detective/psychologist; ie the evidence must be intrepreted in light of the overall character of the person being written about. Here works of history can completely stand or fall for much depends on initial assessment of character & then placing what the character does into a consistent interpretive framework. But as this is very tricky work even when trying to understand people standing right before us, so much more is it a challenge about those who lived centuries ago who for us live only through manuscripts or books. Even though we are just in the territory of history here and not the Church's perception of things I think it is still important for someone even within the Church to know what history is and its proper method. After all we do in the Church have Church histories like that of Eusebius. We also rely to some extent on academic history. But in any case this is just a long-winded way of explaining why I think we should have a general trust in Treadgold from which this description of Irene came. And the explanation of Irene's actions in regards to the death of her son seem consistent with her actual character & other actions.

Another point that is partly a historical one and partly how the Church operates- how those such as Irene are described in the Church comes down to us mostly through oral account & memory. In other words the fact that she was canonised & venerated as a saint was based on how she was remembered and then by how this memory was passed down through the Church. Again this is a matter of trust.
I think this gets to the heart of your question about why the Church canonised Irene. Here it is important to understand that the Church does not ask blind trust of us. On the contrary we should try to enter into the spirit of why the Church canonised this person. But I think this understanding is achieved through sympathy & prayer. A highly critical spirit knocks the feet out of the ability to understand through the eyes of the Church. Again I think we can see how this is so just by recognising how we assess those standing right in from of us. There are two completely contradictory ways we can see the person standing before us- one through critical fallen eyes; the other through Church eyes. To abandon the first & adopt the second way of seeing people is not to fall into some naive delusion but rather to truly see for the first time. But this is an act of faith & trust.

As for sympathetic and sober histories of Byzantium. Yes there is Sir Steven Runciman. As we said there is also the large volume of Warren Treadgold. Also J.M. Hussey- The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire is decent.

In Christ- Fr Raphael