Historical objectivity required corrections here, but the corrections soon turned into the opposite extreme. The sympathies of German Protestant historians and Oriental historians, such as Paparrigopoulo (History of the Hellenic People), are inclined to fully justify the iconoclastic emperors as mere progressive reformers. Our professor Ternovsky compares this assessment with the assessment in our history of Peter the Great's reforms. How difficult, he says, it would be to formulate an objective assessment of Peter's reforms if all historical sources were destroyed, except for the accusatory words of Stefan Yavorsky.

Orthodox chroniclers depict the matter in such a way that these emperors persecuted icons in their vandal rudeness and destroyed education and schools. But this must be accepted with an amendment. Even if the iconoclasts burned books hostile to them and closed Orthodox schools, they simultaneously encouraged other literature and supported other schools.

But the correctness of this feature of the "barbarism" of the iconoclasts must be understood more subtly. Byzantine enlightenment and intellectual culture had declined considerably since the time of Justinian the Great (527-565). The former subtle problems of dogmatics became beyond the strength of most theological minds. New generations could only grasp at a question more accessible to simplistic thinking. The emperors of the seventh century came from barbarian Isauria and Armenia. They were sometimes at the height of the enlightenment of their time, but the tone of their speculations was barbarously rationalistic. They touched upon a question that was generally understandable to the masses and brought the matter to bloody persecutions. This is their mistake and unpopularity in history.

In general, imperial iconoclasm now looms in history as a trend analogous to the spirit of the Renaissance. Such was the revolt of the worldly spirit against the clerical spirit of the Middle Ages. In the same spirit, the secular spirit of the German Kulturkampf rebelled against clericalism, and in Bismarck's time, the laic fanaticism of the French Third Republic, which was separating from the Catholic Church. This is a spirit akin to both our Russian liberal and radical "enlightenment," which has already assumed the barbarous immensity of Bolshevik despotism.

The iconoclastic sovereigns found that for the good of the state it was necessary to divert both manpower and money from monasticism and the church and direct everything to the state treasury and the army, to sweep "clericalism" out of the state. And indeed, pathological extremes were noticed in the concrete life of the state. Under Justinian II, Abba Theodotus was appointed Minister of Finance in 695. He proved cruel and unjust in collecting taxes, for which in 696 he was killed by the mob. Under Empress Anastasia II in 715, the deacon of the St. Sophia Church John, who was also killed by soldiers, was appointed commander-in-chief of the armies. Two monks in 696 were the main conspirators in the overthrow of Justinian II.

The iconoclastic emperors fought against monasteries and monks no less than against icons, preaching the secularization not only of monastic estates, but also of their entire life, culture, and literature. Monasteries not only absorbed the human material needed for the army, but also possessed great material values in the form of estates. At the same time, the iconoclastic emperors became doubly embittered against icons protected by monks, and in fact, they exterminated monasticism itself. In other words, the idea of abolishing icons in itself might not have flared up into such a stubborn struggle of the secular authorities, for icons in themselves were not so connected with material interests.

Inspired by secular state interests against the monastic style of popular piety, the emperors were carried away by the new "laic" spirit for that time. They scolded the monks "dressed in darkness, remembering nothing."

Instead of the darkness of asceticism and repentant weeping, the emperors emphatically recommended a secular lifestyle, carousing and cupids. And people of the former ritual piety were declared politically unreliable. The word "ά άγιος" was thrown out of the imperial title. In subsequent times, Peter the Great enthusiastically welcomed, repeated and carried to the extreme this blasphemous joie de vivre.

In general, the state interest in the Orthodox kingdoms more than once clashed with church life in this sense and turned into a struggle with the so-called "clericalism." Of course, each time in the style of his era. For example, even the pious Ivan the Terrible used to say: "Nowhere will you find the kingdom, if you are not ruined by the priests." "When the Greek emperors," said Peter the Great, "having abandoned their title, began to be hypocrites, and especially their wives, then some rogues approached them and asked them to build monasteries in the cities. Thus, on one canal from the Black Sea to Constantinople there were no less than 300 monasteries, and from this, when the Turks approached Tsaregrad, they could have found less than 6 thousand soldiers."

Начало иконоборчества при Льве Исавре (717-741 гг.)

Лев был родом исавриец. По семье собственно сириец-семит (συρογενης). Πодина его — Германикия (Мараш) на границе Киликии и Сирии. По должности он был "восточным главнокомандующим", т.е. военным губернатором двух провинций Фригии. Он вырос и привык там к понятиям иконоборческим, общепринятым, как среди возникшего в Армении павликианства, так и у наполнявших Фригию монтанистов и новатиан. Лев узурпаторски отнял власть у слабого Феодосия III и сразу оправдал себя спасением Константинополя от грозной осады арабов. Спасительное для империи дело Льва Исавра было выдающимся историческим подвигом. Византия находилась в положении аналогичном последующему грозному моменту перед 1453 г. Если бы Лев не победил сарацин, то уже с 717 г. Константинополь был бы под арабской мусульманской властью, на 700 лет раньше власти турок. С Запада славяне теснили греков. Болгары были уже в Эносе, а арабы обложили Константинополь кругом. Таким образом Византийская империя свелась к одной столице. Лев одолел арабов. После года осады (с августа 717 по август 718 г.) арабы отступили, потеряв до 150 тысяч, и только с жалкими пятью судами вернулись в Сирию. Однако вскоре оправились и опять отобрали у греков Армению, Каппадокию и Вифинию. Но Лев окончательно разбил их во Фригии под Акроиносом. Это произошло уже в 740 г. Эта победа была не случайной. Ее добился Лев путем полной реорганизации старой армии, соединенной с экономическими реформами. Военные нужды побудили Льва быть и религиозным реформатором. В этом аналогия с реформами Петра Великого.

Лев поднял дисциплину в армии. Он издал Кодекс законов (так называемый Эклога, Εκλογη) θ специальный "Земледельческий закон — Νομος Γεωργικος". Οоследний — в защиту свободы земледельцев против кабалы. Вопреки 78-му правилу Трулльского собора Лев издал либеральный закон о смешанных браках, лишь бы обе стороны были христианами.

Прошло десять лет от начала правления Льва, пока он решился выступить против икон. Он достаточно осмотрелся и нашел себе опору в части иерархии. Не случайно, что сравнительно скоро, в 754 г., почти весь византийский епископат соборно в числе 338 высказался против икон. Особого насилия в этом случае не было. Епископы могли думать, что эта мера возвысит духовность народного благочестия и избавит иерархию от борьбы с бытовыми крайностями. Позднее (около 825 г.) император Михаил Травль жаловался, что византийцы берут иконы в восприемники своих детей при крещении. Другие не берут в уста святого Тела прежде, чем не положат его на святые иконы. Священники соскабливают краски с икон и примешивают их к святой Крови. Иные предпочитают служить литургии по домам на святых иконах вместо церковных престолов.