advocating that nothing created by human hands should serve as an object of adoration (nequid manufactum adorari posset), reprimanded him at the same time for the destruction of the images, saying that he had taken away all chance for historical education from people who are ignorant of letters and "who could at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books."65 In another letter to the same bishop the Pope wrote, "In that thou forbadest them to be adored, we altogether praise thee; but we blame thee for having broken them. . . . To adore a picture is one thing (picturam adorare), but to learn through the story of the picture what is to be adored, is another." We see, then, that in the opinion of Gregory the Great and many others images served as a means of popular education.

The iconoclastic tendencies of the eastern provinces were somewhat influenced by the Jews, whose faith forbade image-worship, and who at times attacked any form of such worship with great violence. A similar influence began to be exerted from the second half of the seventh century by the Muslims who, guided by the words of the Koran, "The images are an abomination of the work of Satan" (v, 92), viewed icon-worship as a form of idolatry. The authenticity of the story, frequently cited by many historians, that the Arabian Caliph Yazid II issued a decree in his state, three years before Leo's edict, by which he prescribed the destruction of images in the churches of his Christian subjects is questioned by some historians, although they have little basis for their doubt." In any event, Muhammedan influence upon the eastern provinces should be taken into consideration in any study of the anti-image movement. One chronicler refers even to Emperor Leo as "the Saracenminded" (σapakηvóдpwv), 68 although in reality there is very little (σαρακηνόφρων), basis for claiming that he was directly influenced by Islam. Finally, one of the widely known Eastern medieval sects, the Paulicians, who

65 Gregorii Magni, Epistolae, IX, 105; Migne, Patr. Lat., 77, col. 105; ed. Hartmann, IX, 208 (Mon. Germ. Hist. Epist., II, 195); English trans. in the Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (1898), XIII, 23.

ee S. Gregorii, M. Ep., XI, 13; Migne, 77, col. 1128; ed. Hartmann, VI, 10 (M. G. H. Epist., II, 270); English trans., ibid., XIII, 54.

67 See, for instance, C. Becker, Islamstudien (1924), I, 446 (he asserts that the edict of Yazid was issued).

68 Theophanes (ed. De Boor, p. 405).

lived in the eastern-central part of Asia Minor, was also strongly opposed to image-worship. Briefly speaking, in the eastern Byzantine provinces of Asia Minor there had grown up by the time of Leo III a strong iconoclastic movement. One of the Russian church historians, A. P. Lebedev, writes with regard to this movement: "It may be positively asserted that the number of iconoclasts before the iconoclastic period [in the eighth century] was large, and that they were a force of which the church itself had ample reasons to be afraid." "69 One of the main centers of the iconoclastic movement was Phrygia, one of the central provinces in Asia Minor.

Meanwhile image-worship had spread very widely and grown very strong. Images of Jesus Christ, the Holy Virgin, and various saints, as well as pictures of scenes from the Old and New Testaments, were used in profusion for decorating Christian temples. The images placed in various churches of this period were either mosaics, frescoes, or carvings in ivory, wood, or bronze-in other words, there were both painted images and statue images, while many small pictures were reproduced in illuminated manuscripts (miniatures). Particularly great was the reverence for the so-called "icons not made by human hands," which, in the belief of the faithful, were supposed to possess miraculous powers. Images found their way into family life, for icons were sometimes chosen as godfathers for children, and embroidered images of saints decorated the parade dress of the Byzantine aristocracy. We know, for example, that the toga of one of the senators bore embroidered pictures representing the history of the entire life of Jesus Christ.

The image-worshipers sometimes took the adoration of pictures too literally, adoring, not the person or the idea represented by the image, but the image itself or the material of which it was made. This fact was a great temptation for many of the faithful, to whom this adoration of inanimate objects appealed because of its kinship with pagan practices. "In the capital," according to N. P. Kondakov, "there was at the same time a characteristic increase in the number of monasteries, monastic communes, and convents of all kinds which multiplied very rapidly and reached incredible propor

60 A. Lebedev, Ecumenical Councils of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries (3d ed., St. Petersburg, 1904), p. 142 (in Russian).

tions by the end of the eighth century (perhaps, more correctly, toward the eighth century.)" In the opinion of I. D. Andreev, the number of Byzantine monks in the iconoclastic period may be estimated at 100,000 without any exaggeration. "Remembering," says this scholar, "that in Russia of today [this is written in 1907], with its 120,000,000 population spread over a vast territory, there are only about 40,000 monks and nuns, it is easy to imagine how dense must have been the net of monasteries covering the comparatively small territory of the Byzantine Empire."71

And while, on the one hand, the worship of ordinary and miraculous icons and relics confused many people who had grown up under the prevailing influences of the period, the excessive development of monachism and the rapid growth of monasteries, on the other hand, clashed with the secular interests of the Byzantine state. In view of the fact that large numbers of healthy young men embraced the spiritual life, the Empire was losing necessary forces from its army, agriculture, industry, etc. Monachism and the monasteries frequently served as a refuge for those who wished to escape governmental duties; hence many of the monks were not men who had been prompted to retire from worldly affairs by a sincere desire to follow higher ideals. Furthermore, the large landed property and estates which belonged to the monasteries were exempted from government tax, causing thus perceptible loss to the treasury. We should, then, distinguish two aspects in the ecclesiastical life of the eighth century, namely, the religious and the secular.

The iconoclastic emperors, born in the East, were well acquainted with the religious views prevalent in the eastern provinces; they grew up with these views and were closely identified with them. Upon ascending the Byzantine throne they brought their views to the capital and placed them at the basis of their church policy. These emperors were neither infidels nor rationalists, as used to be maintained. On the contrary, they were men of a sincere and convinced faith, and desired to purge religion of those errors which permeated it and diverted it from its true original course. From

70 N. Kondakov, Iconography of the Holy Virgin (Petrograd, 1915), II, 3 (in Russian).

71 I. Andreev, Germanus and Tarasius, Patriarchs of Constantinople (Sergiev Posad, 1907), p. 79 (in Russian).

their point of view, image-worship and the adoration of relics were both survivals of paganism which had to be abolished at all costs in order to restore the Christian faith to its original pure form. "I am emperor and priest," wrote Leo III to Pope Gregory II.72 With this claim as a point of departure, Leo III considered it his legal right to make his own religious views compulsory for all his subjects. This attitude cannot be viewed as an innovation. It was the accepted caesaropapistic view of the Byzantine emperors particularly prevalent in the time of Justinian the Great, who had considered himself the sole authority in spiritual as well as in temporal matters. Leo III, too, was a convinced representative of the idea of Caesaropapism.

The first nine years of Leo's reign, devoted to repelling external enemies and to establishing the security of the throne, were not marked by any measures with regard to images. The ecclesiastical activity of the Emperor during this period was expressed only in his demand that the Jews and the eastern sect of Montanists be baptized.

Only in the tenth year of his rule, i.e., in the year 726, the Emperor, according to the chronicler, Theophanes, "began to speak of the destruction of the holy and all-honoured icons."73 The majority of contemporary scholars believe that the first edict against images was promulgated precisely in the year 726, or perhaps 725. Unfortunately, the text of this decree is unknown to us.74 Soon after the proclamation of the edict Leo ordered the destruction of the much venerated statue of Christ situated above one of the doors of the Chalke, as the magnificent entrance to the imperial palace was called. The destruction of this icon aroused a riot, in which the

12 Gregorii II, Epistola, XIII: ad Leonem Isaurum imperatorem. Migne, Patr. Lat., 89, col. 521 (imperator sum et sacerdos). The problem of whether the letters of Gregory II to Leo III are spurious (see L. Guérard, "Les Lettres de Grégoire II a Léon L'Isaurien," Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, X (1890), 44-60) or genuine (see, for example, H. Mann, The Lives of the Popes [2d ed., 1925], I, 498-502), is not very important for our purpose. In any case the letter was written or fabricated on very good material. See Bury, Appendix 14 to the fifth volume of his edition of Gibbon. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, III (2), 659-64. Cabrol, Dict. d'archéologie, VII (1), 248.

73 Theophanes (ed. De Boor, p. 404).

14 Of recent publications, see, for example, Diehl, in the Cambridge Medieval History (1923), IV, 9; Leclercq, in the Dict. d'archéologie chrétienne (1926), VII (1), cols. 24041; Th. I. Uspensky, op. cit. (1927), II, 25 ff.

main participants were women. The imperial officer delegated to destroy the image was killed, but his murder was avenged by the Emperor by the severe punishment of the defenders of the statue. These victims were the first martyrs of icon-worship.

Leo's hostility toward image-worship aroused a very strong opposition. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus, and Gregory II, the Pope of Rome, were strongly opposed to the policy of the Emperor. In Greece and on the islands of the Aegean Sea a revolt broke out in defense of images, but it was quickly suppressed by Leo's army. Such strong reaction on the part of the population made it impossible of Leo to undertake further decisive measures.

Finally, in the year 730, the Emperor convoked a sort of council where another edict against sacred images was promulgated. It is highly probable that this council did not deal with any new edict, but restored the decree of the year 725 or 726.75 Germanus, who refused to sign this decree, was deposed and forced to retire to his estate, where he spent the last years of his life in peaceful surroundings. The patriarchal chair was filled by Anastasius, who willingly signed the edict. Thus, the decree against images was now issued not only on behalf of the Emperor, but also in the name of the church, since it was sanctioned by the signature of the Patriarch. The latter fact was of great value to Leo.

Concerning the period which followed the proclamation of this edict, namely, the last eleven years of Leo's reign, sources are silent with regard to the persecution of images. Apparently there were no instances of ill treatment. In any event, systematic persecution of images in the reign of Leo III is out of the question. At the most, it might be supposed that there were a few isolated instances of open image destruction. According to one scholar, "In the time of Leo III there was rather a preparation to persecute images and their worshipers than actual persecution."7"

The assertion that the image-breaking movement of the eighth century began, not by the destruction of images, but by hanging them higher up, so as to remove them from the adoration of the faithful, must be disregarded, for the majority of images in Byzan

75 See Leclercq, col. 248 (he refers the second edict to the year 729).

7 I. Andreev, Germanus and Tarasius, p. 71 (in Russian).