In this brief Preface, I would first like to sketch what this Companion aims to be, and what it does not. In the first instance, it is “A” not “The” Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm. By this I mean more than the usual modesty topos common to academic work. The subject is truly vast, as is the literature surrounding it. Therefore, to produce something useful to both newcomers and specialists the decision was taken to focus on what were deemed the essential topics, and to cover those in depth. One result of this is that there are fewer, but longer and more detailed, chapters than might have otherwise been the case. Another was to be highly focused on Byzantine iconoclasm, that is the controversy over religious figural imagery in Byzantium during the 8th and 9th centuries. Inevitably, many important topics could (and perhaps should) receive much greater attention than they do here. It is hoped, however, that this detailed focus better serves this volume’s twin goals: to act as an introduction to a complex and contested subject, and as a spur for further research by newcomer and specialist alike.

Secondly, I would like to add a quick note about names, terms, and capitalization. Transliterating Greek names and terms into the Latin alphabet is a notoriously tricky problem with several valid solutions. Overall, as editor I allowed each contributor to follow their own style so long as it was clear who or what was being referred to. So, for instance, the famous iconophile Theodore can be called “Theodore the Stoudite” or “Theodore Studites”, and the iconophile writer and patriarch can be called Nikephoros or Nicephorus. A greater attempt at consistency has been tried for when it comes to capitalization. On the whole, lower case is preferred for most terms, for example “iconoclast” or “iconoclasm”. However, for the sake of clarity, when a period of time is being referred to capitals are employed. For instance, the period running from the reintroduction of some form of prohibition on icon veneration in 815 to the restoration of icons in 843 is referred to as “Second Iconoclasm”. This is solely meant as an aid to the reader. It is not meant to minimize the importance of “iconoclasts” or the level of destruction that occurred. Nor is it intended to imply the controversy was so important that it should be used to frame time. Finally, “orthodoxy” is used to refer to the idea of correct belief, while “Orthodoxy” refers to the branch of Christianity that is commonly described as such, though given the time period in question and the topic it is often hard to decide which is more appropriate.

Finally, but most importantly, I would like to pay several acknowledgements. This is a big book, and it would not have been possible without the labour of many. First, as editor I could not have desired a more diligent and thoughtful cohort of contributors, and I give them my personal thanks. The series editor Christopher Bellitto has had the wisdom and patience of a saint, offering much appreciated advice and support throughout the very long process. The team at Brill headed by Ivo Romein have been excellent. The detailed and highly encouraging work by the peer reviewers made this Companion a distinctly better volume. Our copy editor Angela Jianu had the unenviable task of bringing greater order to this vast, international, multidisciplinary project, and I thank her for her efforts. Of course, any errors that remain are ours alone. Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my wife Beth. Despite the final year and a bit of this book coinciding with both a global pandemic and the birth of Lily, our first child, you have kept me sane and able to continue working towards completion. For that and for so much more you have my eternal thanks.

Mike Humphreys