Study Notes on Leo III and Iconoclasm

Author: J. Atkinson
Source: Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, October 1973, No. 41, pp. 51-62
Publication by Berghahn Books
JSTOR URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41801907

Theodosius becomes emperor reluctantly in 715, followed by Leo III’s ascension in 717 amid a looming Muslim threat.
Initial discussions on correcting icon abuses are noted, with decisive actions occurring in 726 following a volcanic eruption near Santorini.

In 726, Leo III reportedly proscribes icons of saints, martyrs, and angels, leading some scholars to label it as the first iconoclastic decree.
No concrete date is tied to this proscription, yet it precedes the aggressive measures taken against icons documented by Theophanes.
An examination of sources indicates that Leo publicly asserted his stance on icons prior to initiating police actions against them (726-727).

First use of force documented in 726/727 involves the removal of the icon of Christ Antiphonetes from the Chalke Gate in Constantinople, noted for its miraculous reputation.
Pope Gregory describes a scene of fervent women attacking imperial officers in defense of the icon, leading to violent reprisals against the crowd.
A crisis emerges as rebels from the Helladic theme challenge Leo’s authority under a rival, Cosmas, culminating in their defeat near Constantinople in April, likely in 727.

Leo endeavors to persuade Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory II, with documented interactions.
Gregory’s correspondence reflects his mounting animosity towards Leo, leading to a confrontation resulting in Germanus’s deposition in 730.

Leo’s arguments against icons are rooted in biblical injunctions against idolatry, noting the absence of justification from previous ecumenical councils.
He emphasizes that human-made objects should not receive veneration and critiques the exaggerated reverence towards relics and icons.
Interestingly, despite his reforms, early historians also depict Leo as superstitious, suggesting that the eruption influenced his iconoclasm belief.

Scholars are divided regarding the theological underpinnings of iconoclasm; many debates focus on Christological interpretations.
Iconoclasts operated under the belief of lessened significance in artistic representations, consistent with Old Testament accounts condemning graven images.

Artistic expressions persisted, with secular art thriving and religious iconography yielding to naturalistic representations in Byzantine churches.
Leo sought merely to curtail excessive icon reverence without abolishing art, a departure from complete eradication of visual representations seen in Islamic iconoclasm.

Iconoclasm existed against a backdrop of Muslim expansion, with palpable tensions reflected in increased conflicts with Byzantium.
Notable interactions, such as under Yazid II (720-724), who attempted to ban icons within the Muslim empire, are documented.
Allegations arise that Jewish influences were significant in shaping iconoclastic narratives within the Byzantine context.

Early critiques of icon worship in Christian doctrine have been traced back to longstanding opposition within Jewish theology pertaining to graven images.
The narrative suggests various interactions between Byzantine leaders and Jewish advisors, reflecting patterns of anti-Semitism.

Iconoclasm also served a political dimension, further alienating various factions within the Byzantine Empire and solidifying divisive sentiments.
The Pope interrupted tribute flows from Italy due to rising tensions, and Leo’s fiscal policies spurred resentment among Byzantine provinces.
After Leo’s death, divisions deepen, as rivalries surface between different military factions concerning support for iconoclasm versus orthodoxy.

Leo’s reign signifies a critical junction in Byzantine history, ultimately widening the division between Eastern and Western Christianity as iconoclasm exacerbated existing fractures in the imperial structure.
The eventual coronation of Charlemagne in 800 reflects the culmination of these disputes, underscoring the decline of Byzantine influence in the West that irreversible follows the split due to iconoclasm.