[64]on the authenticity of gregory 2’s letters to leo 3 see above under sources，p.151 f.whatever conclusions are reached with regard to the texts in question，the fact remains that letters were ex插nged and with negative results.
[65]in his useful book gesch.des papsttums 2（1933），e.caspar grossly distorts the figure of gregory 2 whom he represents as a national revolutionary.
[66]cf.h.menges，die bilderlehre des hl.johannes von damaskus，münster 1938.
[67]cf.schwarzlose，bilderstreit 187 ff.，and my study，‘soedinenie voprosa o sv.ikonach s christologiceskoj dogmatikoj’（the holy icons and their connection with christological doctrine），sem.kond.1（1927），35 ff.
[68]cf.the two letters of pope za插rias（mg.ep.3 nr.57 and 58）which cite artabasdus and his son nicephorus as emperors.on the chronology of artabasdus’usurpation see ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’18.
[69]theophanes 422，
[70]theophanes 429;nicephorus 66.
[71]cf.tarski，istorija 1，1，208 ff.
[72]nicephorus 69，1 puts the number of the v settlers at 208，000.this cannot simply be discarded as an exaggeration，as p.插ranis wi射s to do（‘the vic element in asia minor’，b 18（1948），77 f.）.on the other hand，neither is it necessary to increase it，as pancenko does，arguing that this figure stands only for warriors，and does not include the whole mass of the migrants with their women and children（‘pamjatnik vjan v vifinii’（evidence of the vs in bithynia），izv.russk.archeol.inst.v konstantinopole 8（1903），35）.numerical exaggerations tend to be in round figures，but the closer exactness of nicephorus’figure looks as though he most probably obtained it from official sources.
[73]a.lombard，constantin v，empereur des romains 47，puts the battle of anchialus in 762，tarski，istorija 1，1，214，and runciman，bulg.empire 38 in 763.thistter date is no doubt correct，not so much for the reasons put forward by runciman（tarski does not state the grounds for his view），as simply because theophanes’information（433，5）that the battle took ce in indiction 1 and that 30 june was a thursday is inplete ord;lombard relies on the world year 6254 as given by theophanes，but in this part of his chronicle there is the usual and，so to speak，normal discrepancy between the calction of the year and the indiction.
[74]v.grumel，‘l’annexion de l’illyricum oriental，de skie et de cbre au patriarcat de constantinople’，recherches de science religieuse 40（1952），191 ff.，has shown that this step was not taken，as was previously thought，in the fourth decade of the eighth century under leo 3，but two decadester，after the copse of byzantine power in italy under constantine v.the earlier date is deended by m.v.anastos，‘the transfer of illyricum，cbria and sicily to the jurisdiotion of the patriar插te of constantinople in 732-3’，silloge bizantina in onore di s.g.mrcoti rome，1957，14 ff.
[75]cf.the nouthesia of george of cyprus，ed.melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，p.x ff.
[76]collected together in ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 8 ff.
[77]ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 8，fragment 2，。
[78]cf.ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 24 ff.；martin，iconostic controversy 42;bréhier-aigrain 467.
[79]cf.h.grégoire，‘mahomet et le monophysisme’，ménges diehl 1（1930），109 ff.
[80]mansi 13，257 e-260 ab.
[81]grabar，empereur.cf.idem，‘les fresques des escaliers à sainte-sophie de kiev et l’iconographie impériale byzantine’，sem.kond.7（1935），103 ff.
[82]theophanes 438.
[83]this is not to imply that the struggle against monasticism was the real goal of the iconost movement and that‘iconomachy’was in reality‘monachomachy’，as was maintained by andreev，german i tarasij，and has since been frequently repeated.the opposition to monasticism was a by-product of iconosm which first became noticeable in the sixties of the eighth century.practically nothing is known about anti-monastic measures under leo 3，or even in the first half of constantine v’s reign，although it is obvious that the predominantly monastic and thoroughly iconodule sources on which we rely would certainly have made the most of any such measures had there been even the slightest hint of anything of this kind.cf.also the criticisms of this theory by m.j.sjuzjumov，‘problemy ikonoborceskogo dvizenija v vizantii’（problems of the iconost movement in byzantium），ucenye zapiski sverdlovskogo gos.ped.inst.4（1948），78 ff.
[84]theophanes 445，3.
[85]theophanes 449，15.
[86]theophanes 453，10.
[87]theophanes 449，。
[88]theophanes 450，27.
[89]theophanes 458，.the participation of the popce of constantinople in the election of their spiritual pastor，even though purely formal，is also recorded for the period immediately preceding the iconost controversy.ording to theophanes 384，germanus was called to the patriar插l throne 。
[90]on the date see grumel，reg.355.
[91]mansi 12，1031.
[92]on the authorship of tarasius cf.andreev，german i tarasij，142 ff.
[93]zepos，jus 1，45，（see also ibid.49）.cf.bury，constitution 23 f.
[94]theophanes 475;theodore stud.，ep.1，6：migne，pg 99，929 ff.cf.bury，eastern rom.empire 3 and 212.
[95]dolger，reg.340.
</br>
[65]in his useful book gesch.des papsttums 2（1933），e.caspar grossly distorts the figure of gregory 2 whom he represents as a national revolutionary.
[66]cf.h.menges，die bilderlehre des hl.johannes von damaskus，münster 1938.
[67]cf.schwarzlose，bilderstreit 187 ff.，and my study，‘soedinenie voprosa o sv.ikonach s christologiceskoj dogmatikoj’（the holy icons and their connection with christological doctrine），sem.kond.1（1927），35 ff.
[68]cf.the two letters of pope za插rias（mg.ep.3 nr.57 and 58）which cite artabasdus and his son nicephorus as emperors.on the chronology of artabasdus’usurpation see ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’18.
[69]theophanes 422，
[70]theophanes 429;nicephorus 66.
[71]cf.tarski，istorija 1，1，208 ff.
[72]nicephorus 69，1 puts the number of the v settlers at 208，000.this cannot simply be discarded as an exaggeration，as p.插ranis wi射s to do（‘the vic element in asia minor’，b 18（1948），77 f.）.on the other hand，neither is it necessary to increase it，as pancenko does，arguing that this figure stands only for warriors，and does not include the whole mass of the migrants with their women and children（‘pamjatnik vjan v vifinii’（evidence of the vs in bithynia），izv.russk.archeol.inst.v konstantinopole 8（1903），35）.numerical exaggerations tend to be in round figures，but the closer exactness of nicephorus’figure looks as though he most probably obtained it from official sources.
[73]a.lombard，constantin v，empereur des romains 47，puts the battle of anchialus in 762，tarski，istorija 1，1，214，and runciman，bulg.empire 38 in 763.thistter date is no doubt correct，not so much for the reasons put forward by runciman（tarski does not state the grounds for his view），as simply because theophanes’information（433，5）that the battle took ce in indiction 1 and that 30 june was a thursday is inplete ord;lombard relies on the world year 6254 as given by theophanes，but in this part of his chronicle there is the usual and，so to speak，normal discrepancy between the calction of the year and the indiction.
[74]v.grumel，‘l’annexion de l’illyricum oriental，de skie et de cbre au patriarcat de constantinople’，recherches de science religieuse 40（1952），191 ff.，has shown that this step was not taken，as was previously thought，in the fourth decade of the eighth century under leo 3，but two decadester，after the copse of byzantine power in italy under constantine v.the earlier date is deended by m.v.anastos，‘the transfer of illyricum，cbria and sicily to the jurisdiotion of the patriar插te of constantinople in 732-3’，silloge bizantina in onore di s.g.mrcoti rome，1957，14 ff.
[75]cf.the nouthesia of george of cyprus，ed.melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，p.x ff.
[76]collected together in ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 8 ff.
[77]ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 8，fragment 2，。
[78]cf.ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 24 ff.；martin，iconostic controversy 42;bréhier-aigrain 467.
[79]cf.h.grégoire，‘mahomet et le monophysisme’，ménges diehl 1（1930），109 ff.
[80]mansi 13，257 e-260 ab.
[81]grabar，empereur.cf.idem，‘les fresques des escaliers à sainte-sophie de kiev et l’iconographie impériale byzantine’，sem.kond.7（1935），103 ff.
[82]theophanes 438.
[83]this is not to imply that the struggle against monasticism was the real goal of the iconost movement and that‘iconomachy’was in reality‘monachomachy’，as was maintained by andreev，german i tarasij，and has since been frequently repeated.the opposition to monasticism was a by-product of iconosm which first became noticeable in the sixties of the eighth century.practically nothing is known about anti-monastic measures under leo 3，or even in the first half of constantine v’s reign，although it is obvious that the predominantly monastic and thoroughly iconodule sources on which we rely would certainly have made the most of any such measures had there been even the slightest hint of anything of this kind.cf.also the criticisms of this theory by m.j.sjuzjumov，‘problemy ikonoborceskogo dvizenija v vizantii’（problems of the iconost movement in byzantium），ucenye zapiski sverdlovskogo gos.ped.inst.4（1948），78 ff.
[84]theophanes 445，3.
[85]theophanes 449，15.
[86]theophanes 453，10.
[87]theophanes 449，。
[88]theophanes 450，27.
[89]theophanes 458，.the participation of the popce of constantinople in the election of their spiritual pastor，even though purely formal，is also recorded for the period immediately preceding the iconost controversy.ording to theophanes 384，germanus was called to the patriar插l throne 。
[90]on the date see grumel，reg.355.
[91]mansi 12，1031.
[92]on the authorship of tarasius cf.andreev，german i tarasij，142 ff.
[93]zepos，jus 1，45，（see also ibid.49）.cf.bury，constitution 23 f.
[94]theophanes 475;theodore stud.，ep.1，6：migne，pg 99，929 ff.cf.bury，eastern rom.empire 3 and 212.
[95]dolger，reg.340.
</br>