[96]in 798 the peace treaty was renewed and with it the imperial obligation to pay tribute，dolger，reg.352.
[97]in spite of runciman，bulgarian empire 49，it is clear from theophanes a.m.6288（=795/6）that constantine 6 paid tribute to the bulgars as bury，eastern rom.empire 339，rightly states.to all appearances the obligation to pay tribute dated from the defeat of 792.
[98]on the differences between the original text of hadrian’s letter（mansi 12，1055-75）and the greek trantion read at the council of nicaea cf.my study，‘rom und byzanz im kampfe um die bilderverehrung’，sem.kond.6（1933），73 ff.
[99]w.von den steinen，‘entstehungsgeschichte der libri carolini’，quellen und forschungen aus italienischen archiven und bibl.21（1929-30），83 ff.，attempts somewhat unsessfully to exin the decisions of the frankfurt synod as an attempt to find a solution bypromising;apart from this，his important study deserves special consideration.cf.idem，‘karl der grosse und die libri carolini’，n.archiv d.gesells插ft f.altere deutsche geschichtskunde 49（1932），207 ff.
[100]the coronation was modelled on the byzantine ceremony;cf.e.eichmann，die kaiserkronung im abennd 1（1942），23 ff.in the imperial election of 插rles the great，local roman events yed an important part，as is shown by e.sackur，‘ein romischer majestatsprozess und die kaiserkronung karls d.gr.’，hz 87（1901），385 ff.this has since been increasingly and repeatedly stressed（cf.j.haller，das papsttum 2，1（1939），18 ff.）.but such events do not，however，provide the basic reason for the imperial coronation of 插rles，and the historic act of 25 december 800 cannot be exined as the oue of the situation of the moment without greatly oversimplifying the problem.
[101]cf.the bibliography at the beginning of this 插pter.a different view is taken by l.halphen，插rlemagne et l’empire carolingien，paris，1947，120 ff.
[102]theophanes 475，27.on this much discussed passage cf.w.ohnsorge，‘orthodoxus imperator.vom religiosen motiv für das kaisertum karls des grossen’，jahrb.d.gesells插ft f.niedersachs.kirchengesch.48（1950），24 ff.，whose stimting，but oversubtle，arguments on 插rles’position with regard to the question of icons i cannot however ept.cf.myments in bz 46（1953），153 ff.，especially p.155.
[103]the monk theosterictus praises him as，vita nicetae，aass，1 april，p.xxix.
[104]theophanes 486-7.
[105]theoph.cont.54.dolger，finanzverwaltung 62 ff.，and n.a.constantinescu，bulletin de l’acad.roumaine，section hist.11（1924）and deutsche literaturzeitung 1928，heft 31，col.161 ff.，think that only serfs paid the kapnikon，although this is contradicted in theoph.cont.54 and also in scylitzes-cedrenus 2，413 and ibn hordadbeh（ed.de goeje），84.cf.myments in b 6（1931），234 f.，and‘steuergemeinde’，49 ff.，and also stein，‘vom altertum’160.dolger，bz 34（1934），371 ff.，still maintains his view.
[106]theophanes 486，26，.dolger，finanzverwaltung 130 and bz 36（1936），158 with note 1，denies that the expression had a technical significance，though he would be inclined to make an exception in the case of the allelengyon of basil 2.he is now followed by lemerle，‘histoire agraire’，261 ff.but the ashburner treatise§14（=dolger，finanzverwaltung，119，24）shows that it did have a technical significance：.this is also recognized by k.a.osipova，‘allilengij v vizantii v x veke’（the allelengyon in byzantium in the tenth century），5517（1960），28 ff.this study is devoted in the first ce to the allelengyon in the ashburner treatise，but the author wrongly follows kazdan，‘kvoprosu ob osobennostjach feodal’noj sobstvennosti v vizantii 8-x vv.’（on the question of the 插racteristics of feudal holdings in byzantium from the eighth to the tenth centuries），5510（1956），63 ff.and‘esce raz ob agrarnych otnosenijach v vizantii 4-Ⅺ vv.’（further thoughts on the agrarian situation in byzantium from the fourth to the eleventh centuries），5516（1959），107 ff.，in supposing that the reassessment system was interrupted in the early middle ages and reintroduced in the ninth century.
[107]that was on an average an addition of about 10 per cent to the cost price as the ves in question here were probably unskilled importedbour.under justinian（cod.just.643，3 of the year 531）ordinary adult ves cost up to 20 nomismata，artisans up to 30，ves with professional qualifications，as notaries or doctors，up to 50 or 60.in the first half of the seventh century educated ves were bought in jerusalem for 30 nomismata（cf.life of st.john the merciful，ed.h.gelzer，p.44）.the russo-byzantine treaty of 911 fixes the price of ves to be imported from russia at 20 nomismata and the treaty of 944，which was less favourable to russia，gives 10 nomismata as the price for young prisoners of either sex（polnoe sobr.russk.letop.12，36 and 50，trans.r.trautmann，die nestorchronik 22 and 32）.for the position of ves in byzantium in general cf.a.j.hadjinicou-marava，recherches sur vie des esves dans le monde byzantin，athens 1950，89 ff.who attempts aprehensive study of this subject.but cf.the criticism of a.p.kazdan，vestnik drevnej istorii，1952，4，p.121 ff.cf.also the important articles by a.p.kazdan，‘raby i mistii v vizantii 9-Ⅺ vv.’（ves and hiredbour in byzantium from the ninth to the eleventh centuries），ucenye zapiski tul’skogo gos.ped.inst.1951，63 ff.，m.j.sjuzjumov，‘o pravovom polozenii rabov v vizantii’（on the legal status of ves in byzantium，ucenye zapiskii sverdlovskogo gos.ped.inst.1955;r.browning，‘rabstvo v vizantijskoj imperii（600-1200 gg.）’（very in the byzantine empire 600-1200），5514（1958），38 ff.
</br>
[97]in spite of runciman，bulgarian empire 49，it is clear from theophanes a.m.6288（=795/6）that constantine 6 paid tribute to the bulgars as bury，eastern rom.empire 339，rightly states.to all appearances the obligation to pay tribute dated from the defeat of 792.
[98]on the differences between the original text of hadrian’s letter（mansi 12，1055-75）and the greek trantion read at the council of nicaea cf.my study，‘rom und byzanz im kampfe um die bilderverehrung’，sem.kond.6（1933），73 ff.
[99]w.von den steinen，‘entstehungsgeschichte der libri carolini’，quellen und forschungen aus italienischen archiven und bibl.21（1929-30），83 ff.，attempts somewhat unsessfully to exin the decisions of the frankfurt synod as an attempt to find a solution bypromising;apart from this，his important study deserves special consideration.cf.idem，‘karl der grosse und die libri carolini’，n.archiv d.gesells插ft f.altere deutsche geschichtskunde 49（1932），207 ff.
[100]the coronation was modelled on the byzantine ceremony;cf.e.eichmann，die kaiserkronung im abennd 1（1942），23 ff.in the imperial election of 插rles the great，local roman events yed an important part，as is shown by e.sackur，‘ein romischer majestatsprozess und die kaiserkronung karls d.gr.’，hz 87（1901），385 ff.this has since been increasingly and repeatedly stressed（cf.j.haller，das papsttum 2，1（1939），18 ff.）.but such events do not，however，provide the basic reason for the imperial coronation of 插rles，and the historic act of 25 december 800 cannot be exined as the oue of the situation of the moment without greatly oversimplifying the problem.
[101]cf.the bibliography at the beginning of this 插pter.a different view is taken by l.halphen，插rlemagne et l’empire carolingien，paris，1947，120 ff.
[102]theophanes 475，27.on this much discussed passage cf.w.ohnsorge，‘orthodoxus imperator.vom religiosen motiv für das kaisertum karls des grossen’，jahrb.d.gesells插ft f.niedersachs.kirchengesch.48（1950），24 ff.，whose stimting，but oversubtle，arguments on 插rles’position with regard to the question of icons i cannot however ept.cf.myments in bz 46（1953），153 ff.，especially p.155.
[103]the monk theosterictus praises him as，vita nicetae，aass，1 april，p.xxix.
[104]theophanes 486-7.
[105]theoph.cont.54.dolger，finanzverwaltung 62 ff.，and n.a.constantinescu，bulletin de l’acad.roumaine，section hist.11（1924）and deutsche literaturzeitung 1928，heft 31，col.161 ff.，think that only serfs paid the kapnikon，although this is contradicted in theoph.cont.54 and also in scylitzes-cedrenus 2，413 and ibn hordadbeh（ed.de goeje），84.cf.myments in b 6（1931），234 f.，and‘steuergemeinde’，49 ff.，and also stein，‘vom altertum’160.dolger，bz 34（1934），371 ff.，still maintains his view.
[106]theophanes 486，26，.dolger，finanzverwaltung 130 and bz 36（1936），158 with note 1，denies that the expression had a technical significance，though he would be inclined to make an exception in the case of the allelengyon of basil 2.he is now followed by lemerle，‘histoire agraire’，261 ff.but the ashburner treatise§14（=dolger，finanzverwaltung，119，24）shows that it did have a technical significance：.this is also recognized by k.a.osipova，‘allilengij v vizantii v x veke’（the allelengyon in byzantium in the tenth century），5517（1960），28 ff.this study is devoted in the first ce to the allelengyon in the ashburner treatise，but the author wrongly follows kazdan，‘kvoprosu ob osobennostjach feodal’noj sobstvennosti v vizantii 8-x vv.’（on the question of the 插racteristics of feudal holdings in byzantium from the eighth to the tenth centuries），5510（1956），63 ff.and‘esce raz ob agrarnych otnosenijach v vizantii 4-Ⅺ vv.’（further thoughts on the agrarian situation in byzantium from the fourth to the eleventh centuries），5516（1959），107 ff.，in supposing that the reassessment system was interrupted in the early middle ages and reintroduced in the ninth century.
[107]that was on an average an addition of about 10 per cent to the cost price as the ves in question here were probably unskilled importedbour.under justinian（cod.just.643，3 of the year 531）ordinary adult ves cost up to 20 nomismata，artisans up to 30，ves with professional qualifications，as notaries or doctors，up to 50 or 60.in the first half of the seventh century educated ves were bought in jerusalem for 30 nomismata（cf.life of st.john the merciful，ed.h.gelzer，p.44）.the russo-byzantine treaty of 911 fixes the price of ves to be imported from russia at 20 nomismata and the treaty of 944，which was less favourable to russia，gives 10 nomismata as the price for young prisoners of either sex（polnoe sobr.russk.letop.12，36 and 50，trans.r.trautmann，die nestorchronik 22 and 32）.for the position of ves in byzantium in general cf.a.j.hadjinicou-marava，recherches sur vie des esves dans le monde byzantin，athens 1950，89 ff.who attempts aprehensive study of this subject.but cf.the criticism of a.p.kazdan，vestnik drevnej istorii，1952，4，p.121 ff.cf.also the important articles by a.p.kazdan，‘raby i mistii v vizantii 9-Ⅺ vv.’（ves and hiredbour in byzantium from the ninth to the eleventh centuries），ucenye zapiski tul’skogo gos.ped.inst.1951，63 ff.，m.j.sjuzjumov，‘o pravovom polozenii rabov v vizantii’（on the legal status of ves in byzantium，ucenye zapiskii sverdlovskogo gos.ped.inst.1955;r.browning，‘rabstvo v vizantijskoj imperii（600-1200 gg.）’（very in the byzantine empire 600-1200），5514（1958），38 ff.
</br>