2. Chapter IV.
4. Müller, Lexicon (1952), 1507, glosses Orr€ni/r|aai> here as 'scripta scil(icet) priora redintegrare.'
5. Ammianus 31.6.2; Not. Dig., Oriens 11.32, cf. A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964), 834-836.
6. App. 9. The hypothesis that Constantius was in Constantinople at the time of the Council of Serdica was advanced by Klein, Constantius (1977), 74 n. 179, though he dated the council to 342/3.
7. CSEL 65.55.21-24,134 No. 19; Socrates, HE 2.20.23, cf. Feder, Studien II (1910), 32/3.
8. CSEL 65.137 Nos. 41,42. Also Apol. c. Ar. 48.2 Nos. 54, 61. The evidence relating to the name and see of both Arius and Asterius is not altogether straightforward. (1) The Hilarían version of the western synodical letter of 343 has 'Ario scilicet ex Palestina <ac> Stefano de Arabia' (CSEL 65.121.1/2), where the other three versions, including that quoted by Athanasius, have Macarius of Palestine and Asterius of Arabia. (In Apol. c. Ar. 46.3, Opitz prints the name Arius against the consensus of the manuscripts, which unanimously offer Macarius.) (2) Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 18.3, states that Arius' see was Petra (anö ITeTpwv t% TlaXaiOTÍun?). (3) One of the bishops who attended the Council of Alexandria in 362 was Asterius, 'the bishop of Petra in Arabia' (Tomus ad Antiochenos 10.1: Tarpon/ Trjç ' Apaßias). There are two possible solutions to the apparent conflict of evidence. Feder, Studien II (1910), 39/40, damned TléTpwi/ in Apol. c. Ar. 18.3 as an intrusive and mistaken gloss: he held that Asterius was bishop of Petra in 343 and returned to his see under Julian. The alternative is to accept the manuscript reading in Apol. c. Ar. 18.3 and to deduce that Arius was bishop of Petra (which belonged to the province of Palaestina until 357/8, then to Palaestina Tertia), that the Asterius of 343 held some other see, possibly Bostra, and that the Asterius of 362 was the successor of Arius.
11. CSEL 65.135 No. 25. Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 48.2 No. 31, has Diodorus' name but not his see.
13. CSEL 65.110 = Apol. c. Ar. 43.2, cf. Feder, Studien II (1910), 121. Opitz 120.22 obeiiscs dTT€0au€^ and asserts that decessit in the original Latin of the letter preserved by Hilary means 'entzog er sich durch die Flucht,* which Theodoretus, HE 2.8.13, correctly renders dvearri, which in turn becomes surrexit in the Latin retroversion in Cod. Ver. LX (58), fols. 81v-88v.
16. PLRE 1.268: otherwise totally unknown.
18. So Opitz on 192.9: 'Athan(asius) wird 346 auf seiner Reise nach Antiochien dort vorbeigekommen sein.'
19. Chapter X.
23. CTh 11.22.1, cf. 'Praetorian Prefects, 337-361/ ZPE 94 (1992), 249-260, at 254.
24. Chapter X.
Was this article helpful?