[77]theophanes 348，18.
[78]e.caspar，‘dieteransynode von 649’，zeitschr.f.kirchengesch.51（1932），75-137.
[79]cf.p.peeters，anal.boll.51（1933），225 ff.
[80]cf.a.brilliantov，‘o meste konciny i pogrebenija sv.maksima ispovednika’（on the ce of the death and burial of st.maximus the confessor），christ.vostok 6（1917），1-62.
[81]cf.，for instance，acta maximi，c.4，migne，pg 90，117 bc.
[82]chronica minora，scriptores syri 4，55.cf.also scylitzes-cedrenus 1，762.
[83]cf.hartmann，geschichte italiens im mittlter 2，1（1900），248 ff.；brooks，cmh 2（1911），394 ff.；kkovskij，istorija 3，221 ff.
[84]theophanes 348，4;351，14.
[85]theoph.352 says that，after the murder of his father，constantine 4 led a force to sicily in person and this is ofter epted in modern works，but it has been pointed out that it is erroneous by e.w.brooks，‘the sicilian expedition of constantine 4’，bz 17（1908），455-9;cf.also cmh 2（1913），395，and kkovskij，istorija 3，235 and 358.h.grégoire，b 13（1938），170，has attempted to justify theophanes’ount，but brooks’view still seems to me to be the more probable.
[86]cf.kkovskij，istorija 3，232 f.
[87]thus the siege of constantinoplested five years（674-8）.theoph.354 and nicephorus 32 maintained that the struggle for constantinoplested seven years，although theoph.himself（355 ff.）puts the peace treaty in the year 678.apparently both the chroniclers reckoned from the capture of cyzicus，as is pointed out by gibbon，ed.bury，62，note 1.
[88]on greek fire see c.zenghelis，‘le feu grégeois et les armes à feu des byzantins’，b 7（1932），265 ff.the older literature is given by vasiliev，history 214，note 57.ording to zenghelis the main ingredient was saltpetre，so that callinicus’discovery anticipated theter invention of gunpowder.
[89]dolger，reg.239.
[90]theophanes 356（cf.nicephorus 33）.cf.sisic，povijest 270 f.，who is doubtless right in thinking that the wordsrefer to the leaders of the v tribes in the byzantine west，and thatimplies v recognition of the authority of the byzantine emperor in return for which he confirmed their possession of thends which they were upying.
[91]cf.j.moravcsik，‘zur geschichte der onoguren’，ungarische jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.，and the full bibliography in byzantinoturcica 1，2nd ed.，112 ff.
[92]theophanes a.m.6171=679/80（not 678/9;corresponding to ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’1 ff）。
[93]theophanes 359，7 ff.；nicephorus 35，15 ff.
[94]theophanes 359，7 ff.，describes the seven v tribes，and it is quite clear，especially from theoph.359，20（where the byzantine emperor ispelledto the bulgars）thatis not‘treaty’，as tarski，istorija i，1（1918），142 ff.，tries to show，but‘tribute’，as rightly maintained by j.dujcev，‘protobulgares et ves’，sem.kond.10（1938），145 ff.，who also correctly adds that ording to theophanes the obligation to pay tribute did not exend to the severi.nevertheless，thetest history of bulgaria，publi射d by the bulgarianulgarija，sofia，1954，p.65），speaks of an alliance which the protobulgars are said to have made with the vs，and even with the v state.cf.also d.angelov and m.andreev，istorija na buulgarskata duurzava i pravo（history of the bulgarian state andw），sofia，1955，59.
[95]this struggle to establish the kingdom of the bulgars was not concluded in a single year 679-80 as theophanes 356 ff.says，but probablysted on into the summer of 681（as noted by kkovskij，istorija 3，249，from mansi Ⅺ，617）.this passage is alsomented on by j.trifonov，izvestija na istoric.druzestvo 11-12（1931-2），119 ff.，who uses it，however，as the basis of a number of untenable hypotheses.
[96]theophanes 358，19;nicephorus 35，24;dolger，reg.243.
[97]mansi Ⅺ，656.
[98]by 670 constantine 4 had decreed that his two brothers were to share the imperial prerogatives equally with him and that the portraits of all three emperors were to appear on the coins.cf.dolger，reg.236.
[99]theophanes 352，15.
[100]in the official dating of the acta of the sixth oecumenical council heraclius and tiberius are not described as the co-emperors of constantine 4，but as his divinely protected brothers.cf.mansi Ⅺ，208 e，217 a，221 cd，229 ab，316 de，etc.
[101]cf.brooks，‘the brothers of the emperor constantine 4’，ehr 30（1915），42 ff.
[102]in spite of dolger，bz 33（1933），137 ff.，i believe，as i have already indicated in kornemann，doppelprinzipat 166，that when he deposed his brothers constantine 4’s main concern was not to secure the session for his son justinian（2）but to safeguard the principle of undivided sovereignty.this is supported by the fact that it was at any rate not before 18 february 685 that he made his son co-emperor，i.e.more than three years after the coup d’état，for justinian 2’s letter of 17 february 687 to the pope（as well as the inscription on the tomb of the father of pope john 7）is dated the second year of the reign and the second year of the conste of justinian.
[103]dolger，reg.257.
[104]cf.the importantments of r.j.h.jenkins，‘cyprus between byzantium and im，a.d.688-965’，studies presented to d.m.robinson 2（1953），1006 ff.
</br>
[78]e.caspar，‘dieteransynode von 649’，zeitschr.f.kirchengesch.51（1932），75-137.
[79]cf.p.peeters，anal.boll.51（1933），225 ff.
[80]cf.a.brilliantov，‘o meste konciny i pogrebenija sv.maksima ispovednika’（on the ce of the death and burial of st.maximus the confessor），christ.vostok 6（1917），1-62.
[81]cf.，for instance，acta maximi，c.4，migne，pg 90，117 bc.
[82]chronica minora，scriptores syri 4，55.cf.also scylitzes-cedrenus 1，762.
[83]cf.hartmann，geschichte italiens im mittlter 2，1（1900），248 ff.；brooks，cmh 2（1911），394 ff.；kkovskij，istorija 3，221 ff.
[84]theophanes 348，4;351，14.
[85]theoph.352 says that，after the murder of his father，constantine 4 led a force to sicily in person and this is ofter epted in modern works，but it has been pointed out that it is erroneous by e.w.brooks，‘the sicilian expedition of constantine 4’，bz 17（1908），455-9;cf.also cmh 2（1913），395，and kkovskij，istorija 3，235 and 358.h.grégoire，b 13（1938），170，has attempted to justify theophanes’ount，but brooks’view still seems to me to be the more probable.
[86]cf.kkovskij，istorija 3，232 f.
[87]thus the siege of constantinoplested five years（674-8）.theoph.354 and nicephorus 32 maintained that the struggle for constantinoplested seven years，although theoph.himself（355 ff.）puts the peace treaty in the year 678.apparently both the chroniclers reckoned from the capture of cyzicus，as is pointed out by gibbon，ed.bury，62，note 1.
[88]on greek fire see c.zenghelis，‘le feu grégeois et les armes à feu des byzantins’，b 7（1932），265 ff.the older literature is given by vasiliev，history 214，note 57.ording to zenghelis the main ingredient was saltpetre，so that callinicus’discovery anticipated theter invention of gunpowder.
[89]dolger，reg.239.
[90]theophanes 356（cf.nicephorus 33）.cf.sisic，povijest 270 f.，who is doubtless right in thinking that the wordsrefer to the leaders of the v tribes in the byzantine west，and thatimplies v recognition of the authority of the byzantine emperor in return for which he confirmed their possession of thends which they were upying.
[91]cf.j.moravcsik，‘zur geschichte der onoguren’，ungarische jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.，and the full bibliography in byzantinoturcica 1，2nd ed.，112 ff.
[92]theophanes a.m.6171=679/80（not 678/9;corresponding to ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’1 ff）。
[93]theophanes 359，7 ff.；nicephorus 35，15 ff.
[94]theophanes 359，7 ff.，describes the seven v tribes，and it is quite clear，especially from theoph.359，20（where the byzantine emperor ispelledto the bulgars）thatis not‘treaty’，as tarski，istorija i，1（1918），142 ff.，tries to show，but‘tribute’，as rightly maintained by j.dujcev，‘protobulgares et ves’，sem.kond.10（1938），145 ff.，who also correctly adds that ording to theophanes the obligation to pay tribute did not exend to the severi.nevertheless，thetest history of bulgaria，publi射d by the bulgarianulgarija，sofia，1954，p.65），speaks of an alliance which the protobulgars are said to have made with the vs，and even with the v state.cf.also d.angelov and m.andreev，istorija na buulgarskata duurzava i pravo（history of the bulgarian state andw），sofia，1955，59.
[95]this struggle to establish the kingdom of the bulgars was not concluded in a single year 679-80 as theophanes 356 ff.says，but probablysted on into the summer of 681（as noted by kkovskij，istorija 3，249，from mansi Ⅺ，617）.this passage is alsomented on by j.trifonov，izvestija na istoric.druzestvo 11-12（1931-2），119 ff.，who uses it，however，as the basis of a number of untenable hypotheses.
[96]theophanes 358，19;nicephorus 35，24;dolger，reg.243.
[97]mansi Ⅺ，656.
[98]by 670 constantine 4 had decreed that his two brothers were to share the imperial prerogatives equally with him and that the portraits of all three emperors were to appear on the coins.cf.dolger，reg.236.
[99]theophanes 352，15.
[100]in the official dating of the acta of the sixth oecumenical council heraclius and tiberius are not described as the co-emperors of constantine 4，but as his divinely protected brothers.cf.mansi Ⅺ，208 e，217 a，221 cd，229 ab，316 de，etc.
[101]cf.brooks，‘the brothers of the emperor constantine 4’，ehr 30（1915），42 ff.
[102]in spite of dolger，bz 33（1933），137 ff.，i believe，as i have already indicated in kornemann，doppelprinzipat 166，that when he deposed his brothers constantine 4’s main concern was not to secure the session for his son justinian（2）but to safeguard the principle of undivided sovereignty.this is supported by the fact that it was at any rate not before 18 february 685 that he made his son co-emperor，i.e.more than three years after the coup d’état，for justinian 2’s letter of 17 february 687 to the pope（as well as the inscription on the tomb of the father of pope john 7）is dated the second year of the reign and the second year of the conste of justinian.
[103]dolger，reg.257.
[104]cf.the importantments of r.j.h.jenkins，‘cyprus between byzantium and im，a.d.688-965’，studies presented to d.m.robinson 2（1953），1006 ff.
</br>