Question: I noticed that there is no reference to reference but there is pointer to pointer, and also there is no an array of references but an array of pointers.

Could anybody give me any reason?

Answer: 
A reference is an abstraction at the language level. It's an opaque way of aliasing a variable to another. While under the hood, the compiler is likely to work out references using pointers, they are very different things at a higher level. On the other hand, pointers are explicitly used by a programmer to achieve indirection. A pointer variable is a distinct variable from what it's pointed to. A reference should be thought as if it's simply an alias to the original variable, not as if it's yet another variable holding an address. Consequently, an alias for an alias of a variable would simply be an alias to the variable itself. Considering the binding a reference to a variable is a compile-time thing may help understanding the rationale behind this behavior.

With this reasoning, you can argue that since arrays are structures that store values, not variables, it doesn't make sense for them to be able to store aliases of variables. Basically, a reference variable (by which I mean the pointer, if exists, that *may* be used by the compiler to wire up the reference) is invisible to the programmer at the C++ level. If it was possible to declare arrays of references, the compiler probably needed to require constant indexes passed to the arrays to be able to resolve the binding at compile time.
C++ Standard 8.3.2/4:

`There shall be no references to references, no arrays of references, and no pointers to references.`

The reasoning behind this is that a reference doesn't exist in and of itself at run-time. A reference merely is another name for a location. They are immutable.