[15]migne，pg 100，1069 ff.
[16]aass，1 april，app.22-32.
[17]ed.a.vasiliev，irai 5（1900），49-86.new edition with french trans.by m.h.fourmy and m.leroy，b 9（1934），112 ff.
[18]aass，25 june，190 ff.
[19]ed.v.vasiljevskij and p.nikitin，mémoires de l’acad.imp.de st.pétersburg，8.serie，7，2（1905）.cf.a.vasiliev，ibid.3，3（1898）。
[20]migne，pg 98，156 ff.
[21]migne，pg 94，1232 ff.
[22]ed.and detailedmentary by melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，p.1 ff.cf.e.kurtz，bz 11（1902），538 ff.
[23]a （migne，pg 96，1348 ff.）belongs to him and another unedited and apparently more important work.cf.melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，99 ff.
[24]migne，pg 95，309 ff.；cf.j.m.hoeck，ocp 17（1951），26 and note 2.
[25]migne，pg 99.
[26]migne，pg 100，169 ff.；pitra，spicilbgium solesmense 1（1852），302 ff.，and 4，233 ff.the main theological work of nicephorus in ms.coisl.93，f.1-158v and in bibl.nat.ms.gr.250，f.173-332is unedited.a detailed ount of its contents is now given by alexander，patr.nicephorus，242-62.
[27]ed.duchesne，roma e l’oriente 3（1912），225 ff.ater version is found in the epist.ad theophilum，migne，pg 95，345 ff.
[28]mansi 12，959 ff.，and 13，1 ff.
[29]reconstructed withmentary by ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 46 ff.and 7 ff.for a much better and fuller edition of the decrees of the iconost synod of 815 cf.p.j.alexander，‘the iconostic council of st.sophia（815）and its definition’，dop 7（1953），58 ff.
[30]pop.
[31]duchesne，liber pontificalis 1，415 ff.
[32]jaffé2180 and 2182;mansi 12，959 ff.re-edited by e.caspar，‘papst gregor 2.und der bilderstreit’，zeitschr.f.kirchengesch.52（1933），72 ff.（this cannot be regarded as a critical edition.）against earlier research（duchesne，liber pontificalis 413，note 45;schwarzlose bilderstreit 113 ff.and others）i have defended their authenticity，apart from errors of trantion and interptions ofter copyists（ostrogorsky，‘querelle des images’，224 ff.）；for further detail cf.e.caspar，op.cit.29 ff.，who considers that there is extensive interption in the first letter.the authenticity of both letters is now also supported by 5.grumel，eo 35（1936），234 ff.；h.menges，die bilderlehre des johannes von damaskus（1938），167;bréhier-aigrain 452;bréhier，vie et mort 79;s.der nersessian，‘une apologie des images du 7e siècle’，b 17（1944-5），64，note 25.cf.f.dolger，bz 33（1933），451f.on the other hand，h.grégoire，b 8（1933），761 ff.，wi射s to return to the position of hartmann，byz.verwaltung 131 ff.（cf.also gesch.italiens im mittlter 2，2，p.118，note 22），who maintains that the second letter is genuine，but the first ater forgery based on the second.j.haller，das papsttum 1（1936），502，considers both letters to be‘pure forgeries’.a.faggiotto，‘su discussa autenticit à delle due lettere di gregorio 2 a leone 3 isaurico’，studi biz.e neoell.5（1939），437 ff.，tries to argue against their authenticity but does not make any new points and even appears to ignore the paper of e.caspar.j.gouird，‘les lettres de grégoire 2 à léon 3 devant critique du xive siècle’，zrvi 8，1（1961），103 ff.，presents an interesting examination of the manuscript tradition of this ex插nge of letters as a preliminary study to a critical edition on which he is engaged.
[33]jaffé2181;migne，pg 98，147 ff.
[34]mg conc.2 suppl.
[35]mg ep.5，1 p.5 ff.
[36]mansi 12，1055 f.；this should bepared with the greek trantion which was used at the council of nicaea and contains very important deviations from the original（cf.myments in sem.kond.6（1933），73 ff.）
[37]ed.j.leunvius，jus graeco-romanum 2（1596），79 ff.（apparently from a vienna ms.）；za插ria von lingenthal，collectio librorum iuris graeco-romani ineditorum（1852）（from various mss.）；a.monferratus，ecloga leonis et constantini（1889）（from an athens ms.）；the text has been reprinted by zepos，jus 2，1 ff.；with french trans.andmentary by c.a.spulber，l’eclogue des isauriens（1929）；with bulgarian trans.andmentary by n.p.goev，ekloga（1932）.e.h.freshfield，a manual of romanw，the ecloga（1926），gives an english trans.andmentary based on the text of monferratus.
the date when the ecloga was promulgated has been much disputed，but it seems certain that it was publi射d in march 726.cf.v.g.vasiljevskij，‘zakonodatelstvo ikonoborcev’（the legition of the iconosts），trudy 4（1930），157 ff.；d.ginis，bz 24（1924），346 ff.；ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’，6 f.；spulber，op.cit.83.goev，op.cit.19 ff.，supports the year 741，using the arguments which had been put forward by biener for 739，and by g.e.heimbach and za插ria for 740（and which had already been refuted by vasiljevskij），but this position is untenable.v.grumel，eo 34（1935），327 ff.，also supports the same date，but this is based on his erroneous chronological calctions（cf.above，p.88，note 1）and does not take ount of the arguments of vasiljevskij and spulber.
[38]agathon diac.，mansi 12，192 de.
[39]cf.the excellent arguments of p.e.schramm‘die anerkennung karls des grossen als kaiser，ein kapitel aus der geschichte der mittlterlichen“staatssymbolik”’，hz 172（1951），452 ff.
</br>
[16]aass，1 april，app.22-32.
[17]ed.a.vasiliev，irai 5（1900），49-86.new edition with french trans.by m.h.fourmy and m.leroy，b 9（1934），112 ff.
[18]aass，25 june，190 ff.
[19]ed.v.vasiljevskij and p.nikitin，mémoires de l’acad.imp.de st.pétersburg，8.serie，7，2（1905）.cf.a.vasiliev，ibid.3，3（1898）。
[20]migne，pg 98，156 ff.
[21]migne，pg 94，1232 ff.
[22]ed.and detailedmentary by melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，p.1 ff.cf.e.kurtz，bz 11（1902），538 ff.
[23]a （migne，pg 96，1348 ff.）belongs to him and another unedited and apparently more important work.cf.melioranskij，georgij kiprjanin，99 ff.
[24]migne，pg 95，309 ff.；cf.j.m.hoeck，ocp 17（1951），26 and note 2.
[25]migne，pg 99.
[26]migne，pg 100，169 ff.；pitra，spicilbgium solesmense 1（1852），302 ff.，and 4，233 ff.the main theological work of nicephorus in ms.coisl.93，f.1-158v and in bibl.nat.ms.gr.250，f.173-332is unedited.a detailed ount of its contents is now given by alexander，patr.nicephorus，242-62.
[27]ed.duchesne，roma e l’oriente 3（1912），225 ff.ater version is found in the epist.ad theophilum，migne，pg 95，345 ff.
[28]mansi 12，959 ff.，and 13，1 ff.
[29]reconstructed withmentary by ostrogorsky，bilderstreit 46 ff.and 7 ff.for a much better and fuller edition of the decrees of the iconost synod of 815 cf.p.j.alexander，‘the iconostic council of st.sophia（815）and its definition’，dop 7（1953），58 ff.
[30]pop.
[31]duchesne，liber pontificalis 1，415 ff.
[32]jaffé2180 and 2182;mansi 12，959 ff.re-edited by e.caspar，‘papst gregor 2.und der bilderstreit’，zeitschr.f.kirchengesch.52（1933），72 ff.（this cannot be regarded as a critical edition.）against earlier research（duchesne，liber pontificalis 413，note 45;schwarzlose bilderstreit 113 ff.and others）i have defended their authenticity，apart from errors of trantion and interptions ofter copyists（ostrogorsky，‘querelle des images’，224 ff.）；for further detail cf.e.caspar，op.cit.29 ff.，who considers that there is extensive interption in the first letter.the authenticity of both letters is now also supported by 5.grumel，eo 35（1936），234 ff.；h.menges，die bilderlehre des johannes von damaskus（1938），167;bréhier-aigrain 452;bréhier，vie et mort 79;s.der nersessian，‘une apologie des images du 7e siècle’，b 17（1944-5），64，note 25.cf.f.dolger，bz 33（1933），451f.on the other hand，h.grégoire，b 8（1933），761 ff.，wi射s to return to the position of hartmann，byz.verwaltung 131 ff.（cf.also gesch.italiens im mittlter 2，2，p.118，note 22），who maintains that the second letter is genuine，but the first ater forgery based on the second.j.haller，das papsttum 1（1936），502，considers both letters to be‘pure forgeries’.a.faggiotto，‘su discussa autenticit à delle due lettere di gregorio 2 a leone 3 isaurico’，studi biz.e neoell.5（1939），437 ff.，tries to argue against their authenticity but does not make any new points and even appears to ignore the paper of e.caspar.j.gouird，‘les lettres de grégoire 2 à léon 3 devant critique du xive siècle’，zrvi 8，1（1961），103 ff.，presents an interesting examination of the manuscript tradition of this ex插nge of letters as a preliminary study to a critical edition on which he is engaged.
[33]jaffé2181;migne，pg 98，147 ff.
[34]mg conc.2 suppl.
[35]mg ep.5，1 p.5 ff.
[36]mansi 12，1055 f.；this should bepared with the greek trantion which was used at the council of nicaea and contains very important deviations from the original（cf.myments in sem.kond.6（1933），73 ff.）
[37]ed.j.leunvius，jus graeco-romanum 2（1596），79 ff.（apparently from a vienna ms.）；za插ria von lingenthal，collectio librorum iuris graeco-romani ineditorum（1852）（from various mss.）；a.monferratus，ecloga leonis et constantini（1889）（from an athens ms.）；the text has been reprinted by zepos，jus 2，1 ff.；with french trans.andmentary by c.a.spulber，l’eclogue des isauriens（1929）；with bulgarian trans.andmentary by n.p.goev，ekloga（1932）.e.h.freshfield，a manual of romanw，the ecloga（1926），gives an english trans.andmentary based on the text of monferratus.
the date when the ecloga was promulgated has been much disputed，but it seems certain that it was publi射d in march 726.cf.v.g.vasiljevskij，‘zakonodatelstvo ikonoborcev’（the legition of the iconosts），trudy 4（1930），157 ff.；d.ginis，bz 24（1924），346 ff.；ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’，6 f.；spulber，op.cit.83.goev，op.cit.19 ff.，supports the year 741，using the arguments which had been put forward by biener for 739，and by g.e.heimbach and za插ria for 740（and which had already been refuted by vasiljevskij），but this position is untenable.v.grumel，eo 34（1935），327 ff.，also supports the same date，but this is based on his erroneous chronological calctions（cf.above，p.88，note 1）and does not take ount of the arguments of vasiljevskij and spulber.
[38]agathon diac.，mansi 12，192 de.
[39]cf.the excellent arguments of p.e.schramm‘die anerkennung karls des grossen als kaiser，ein kapitel aus der geschichte der mittlterlichen“staatssymbolik”’，hz 172（1951），452 ff.
</br>