레오 3세의 성상파괴 -파괴의 정도와 범위- (LeoⅢ's Iconoclasm: Extent and Range of Destruction)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국서양중세사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 서양중세사연구 / 28호 / 79 ~ 100페이지
· 저자명 : 이경구

초록

The acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 declared that the cult of images was a part of the Byzantine Orthodox while iconoclasm was condemned as behaviors deviated from the Byzantine religious tradition. Thereafter most of the literatures that had supported the theories of iconoclasts was thoroughly destroyed and only the writings recorded in accordance with viewpoints of champions of iconoclastic controversy survived.
Later scholars had no choice but to study the subjects related to iconoclasm on the basis of the literatures that chiefly reflected the position of iconophiles and iconoclasts consequently came to be regarded as very evil and heretic people who denied the tradition of Byzantine Orthodox. Especially LeoⅢ who first took the measures of removing the holy images from the Byzantine churches has been regarded as the forerunner and leader of Byzantine iconoclasm by most of scholars. They criticized unfavorably Emperor Leo as a destroyer who eliminated holy images and a persecutor who inflicted severe punishment on many people hostile to his religious policy throughout his whole reign after he officially issued an imperial edict for the destruction of the holy images in 726.
But these understandings of LeoⅢ were wrong because they were based on the distorted views of Byzantine iconodules and on the biased interpretations of later scholars. It was not true that Leo issued an official edict of iconoclasm in 726. Evidences on the imperial edict are never found in any writings of representative iconodules such as Theophanes or Nicephorus. And so-called "the Event of Chalké Gate" which has been known as the starting point of iconoclasm was not true but only an event forged by the icondules to emphasize the destructive behavior of Leo.
It may be accepted that Leo took some significant measures to prohibit the use of the sacred images in the churches of Constantinople, but it did not mean that he destroyed holy images in whole Empire extensively and thoroughly. The measures of prohibiting images was partial and the extent of iconoclasm was also limited to the city of Constantinople. Therefore Leo was at least not such a cruel destroyer as iconodules had blamed.
It was natural that rebellions against iconoclasm of Leo did not break out throughout the empire because iconoclasm did not take place in the whole empire. Of course there were various disputes on the dogmas of images between clergy but the extent of confusion was not so much serious as it split people of the empire into several factions. The interpretations that regional soldiers of Hellas and Italy made rebellions against Emperor Leo on account of their discontents with iconoclasm were far from the truth. The substantial cause of the rebellions was not because of religious reasons but because of the problems of heavy taxes which were imposed on people of the regions by the emperor. Persecution to the opposers to the imperial religious policy was naturally not severe because extent of opposition was not so much serious as it brought down political disorder on the whole empire.

영어초록

The acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 declared that the cult of images was a part of the Byzantine Orthodox while iconoclasm was condemned as behaviors deviated from the Byzantine religious tradition. Thereafter most of the literatures that had supported the theories of iconoclasts was thoroughly destroyed and only the writings recorded in accordance with viewpoints of champions of iconoclastic controversy survived.
Later scholars had no choice but to study the subjects related to iconoclasm on the basis of the literatures that chiefly reflected the position of iconophiles and iconoclasts consequently came to be regarded as very evil and heretic people who denied the tradition of Byzantine Orthodox. Especially LeoⅢ who first took the measures of removing the holy images from the Byzantine churches has been regarded as the forerunner and leader of Byzantine iconoclasm by most of scholars. They criticized unfavorably Emperor Leo as a destroyer who eliminated holy images and a persecutor who inflicted severe punishment on many people hostile to his religious policy throughout his whole reign after he officially issued an imperial edict for the destruction of the holy images in 726.
But these understandings of LeoⅢ were wrong because they were based on the distorted views of Byzantine iconodules and on the biased interpretations of later scholars. It was not true that Leo issued an official edict of iconoclasm in 726. Evidences on the imperial edict are never found in any writings of representative iconodules such as Theophanes or Nicephorus. And so-called "the Event of Chalké Gate" which has been known as the starting point of iconoclasm was not true but only an event forged by the icondules to emphasize the destructive behavior of Leo.
It may be accepted that Leo took some significant measures to prohibit the use of the sacred images in the churches of Constantinople, but it did not mean that he destroyed holy images in whole Empire extensively and thoroughly. The measures of prohibiting images was partial and the extent of iconoclasm was also limited to the city of Constantinople. Therefore Leo was at least not such a cruel destroyer as iconodules had blamed.
It was natural that rebellions against iconoclasm of Leo did not break out throughout the empire because iconoclasm did not take place in the whole empire. Of course there were various disputes on the dogmas of images between clergy but the extent of confusion was not so much serious as it split people of the empire into several factions. The interpretations that regional soldiers of Hellas and Italy made rebellions against Emperor Leo on account of their discontents with iconoclasm were far from the truth. The substantial cause of the rebellions was not because of religious reasons but because of the problems of heavy taxes which were imposed on people of the regions by the emperor. Persecution to the opposers to the imperial religious policy was naturally not severe because extent of opposition was not so much serious as it brought down political disorder on the whole empire.

참고자료

· 없음