Editing Theophilos (emperor) (section)

===Intensification of iconoclastic policies===
[[File:MadridSkylitzesTheophilosLazarosFol49v.jpg|thumb|Theophilos argues with the [[Iconodulism|iconophile]] monk Lazarus.]]
The capture of [[Palermo]] by the [[Arabs]], Theophilos' defeat in [[Cappadocia]] in 831 and the discovery of a treasonous plot by [[iconodules]] in [[Constantinople]] likely  pressured the Emperor into enacting an iconoclastic policy that was more severe than that of his father, which Theophilos had maintained from the beginning of his reign. He was supported by [[John VII of Constantinople|John the Grammarian]], patriarchal ''[[synkellos]]'' (secretary) of Patriarch [[Antony I of Constantinople]]. ''[[Theophanes Continuatus]]'' reports that Theophilos forbade the painting of religious images and removed existing images, replacing them with secular images (e.g., of birds and animals), on similar grounds expressed in the ''Acts'' of the [[Council of Constantinople (815)|Council of Constantinople]] of 815. In 833, he persecuted iconodules who were not in communion with the Patriarch by ordering the seizing of the property of those who helped or sheltered them.{{sfn|Brubaker|Haldon|2011|pp=392–394}} However, the letter of [[Michael II]] to [[Carolingian Emperor]] [[Louis the Pious]] establishes that images that were not readily accessible and suspended high up in churches were permitted and commonplace. 

Along with his severe iconoclastic policy, Theophilos persecuted numerous individuals for political and religious reasons, in a targeted and methodical way, however it does appear that he was more politically than religiously motivated overall. [[Euthymius of Sardis]] and [[Joseph the Confessor]] were arrested and beaten for distributing or writing pamphlets foretelling the death of the Emperor. Euthymius was elderly and died from his injuries, Joseph was imprisoned and their associate [[Theophilos of Ephesos]] was forced into hiding. The pamphlets were considered defamatory and thus treasonous. [[Nicetas the Patrician]], distant relative of Empress [[Irene of Athens|Irene]] and former ''[[strategos|stratēgos]]'' of [[Sicily]], was banished for refusing to take communion with the Patriarch in 830. The [[Palestinian]] monks [[Theodorus and Theophanes]] were said to be so defiant that verses describing their crimes were branded on their foreheads. Iconodule monks were forbidden access Much of the persecution of iconodules was in effect punishment for challenging imperial authority rather than iconodulia as such. The abbot [[Methodios I of Constantinople|Methodios]] was publicly and provocatively opposed to the imperial policy, and was imprisoned and beaten for his disobedience. However perhaps through his connections to the imperial household or his alleged prophetic powers that may have awed Theophilos, Methodios became an associate of the Emperor. Tenth-century sources report that Theophilos' own wife, [[Theodora (wife of Theophilos)|Theodora]] and her mother maintained iconodulia, however there is no contemporary evidence of this.{{sfn|Brubaker|Haldon|2011|pp=393–399}}{{sfn|Auzépy|2008|pp=289–290}}

The majority of the clergy did not revolt against imperial policy, including [[Joannicius the Great]], who was criticised  for his compliance by [[Theodore the Stoudite]], and [[Ignatios of Constantinople|Ignatios]], later [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|Patriarch of Constantinople]]. Neither did Theophilos oppose all monasteries, although he used some to confine iconodule clerics, as did Emperor [[Leo V the Armenian]].{{sfn|Brubaker|Haldon|2011|p=396}}

Due to the unanimous iconodule sympathies of contemporary sources, it is difficult to determine the existence and extent of a popular iconoclast or iconodule tradition. It is likely that the changes in imperial policy in 787 and 815 only affected a small number of individuals and did not alter the religious practices of the whole population to a great degree. Theophilos' enforcement of iconoclasm may have served as an opportunistic means of asserting imperial authority, rather than a purely theological endeavour, but there is no reason to doubt that he was sincere in his iconoclastic convictions.{{sfn|Brubaker|Haldon|2011|pp=3400–403, 791}}