DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0232
206 V. PHRYGIAN CITIES OF THE LOWER MAEANDER.
in a list of bishopries, because they were included in the same
bishoprics with other cities. In proportion as this is made probable,
the dependence of Hierocles on an ecclesiastical authority is also
made probable.
(i) The union of Sala and Tralla in a single bishopric was already
suggested in Hist. Geogr. p. 122 *.
(2) Blaundos and Mesotimolos are united in Notitia XIII. The
other Notitiae mention them side by side except the Nova Taetiea which
gives Blaundos and omits Mesotimolos, and X which gives Mesotimolos
and omits Blaundos.
(3) Stratonikaia is omitted by VIII and De Boor's Notitia (the two
earliest forms we possess for Lydia), also by XIII. In X the proper
text is, as I think, 6 ^rparoviKfias ijtol KaXavbov i'Jtoi [Na]Kepaaeu)v (where
Parthey makes a new bishopric.....7/roi Kepaaicnv). The close proximity
of all three is established, and the Notitiae regularly put Stratonikaia and
Nakrasa (Kerasa Hist. Geogr. p. 126) side by side. It is, however, certain
that in the fifth century Stratonikaia and Nakrasa had separate bishops.
(4) Daldis is omitted by VIII. It is placed next Hierocaesareia in all
Notitiae except XXIII which gives it between Apollonis and Attaleia.
The situation has been discussed in Ch. V § 11. A union with Apollonos-
Hieron is suggested there; but in the fifth century certainly they were
separate.
(5) Hyrkanoi and Mostenoi were certainly close beside one another and
closely connected with each other [Hist. Geogr. p. 124). They are both
mentioned in all Notitiae, side by side ; but there can be no doubt that in
the fifth century they were separate bishoprics.
The theory which I have suggested, therefore, cannot be accepted in our
present state of knowledge. But I think that the principle is worth
investigation, as I believe that it will yet be found to explain many
difficulties and to be of great importance. But evidence is too scanty at
present.
In Phrygia we find that, if Hierocles's authority was an ecclesiastical
list, it must have been one in which the double bishoprics were expressed
in full detail, whereas in Lydia he used one in which the double bishoprics
were described by the name of one city only. It is quite certain that both
methods of naming occur in the'Notitiae; but the briefer style is much
commoner. It is also certain that some Notitiae have erroneously divided
double bishoprics and given them as two separate bishoprics. Prakana and
1 In the lists of Cone. Nicaen. II A. d. as bishop of Satala. Michael TpaAXjjr
787 we find Stephanus 2dXa>i/, who is once appears as 2rdXX?jy, which may be
taken by Le Quien (and I think rightly) an alteration of 26X\rjs.
in a list of bishopries, because they were included in the same
bishoprics with other cities. In proportion as this is made probable,
the dependence of Hierocles on an ecclesiastical authority is also
made probable.
(i) The union of Sala and Tralla in a single bishopric was already
suggested in Hist. Geogr. p. 122 *.
(2) Blaundos and Mesotimolos are united in Notitia XIII. The
other Notitiae mention them side by side except the Nova Taetiea which
gives Blaundos and omits Mesotimolos, and X which gives Mesotimolos
and omits Blaundos.
(3) Stratonikaia is omitted by VIII and De Boor's Notitia (the two
earliest forms we possess for Lydia), also by XIII. In X the proper
text is, as I think, 6 ^rparoviKfias ijtol KaXavbov i'Jtoi [Na]Kepaaeu)v (where
Parthey makes a new bishopric.....7/roi Kepaaicnv). The close proximity
of all three is established, and the Notitiae regularly put Stratonikaia and
Nakrasa (Kerasa Hist. Geogr. p. 126) side by side. It is, however, certain
that in the fifth century Stratonikaia and Nakrasa had separate bishops.
(4) Daldis is omitted by VIII. It is placed next Hierocaesareia in all
Notitiae except XXIII which gives it between Apollonis and Attaleia.
The situation has been discussed in Ch. V § 11. A union with Apollonos-
Hieron is suggested there; but in the fifth century certainly they were
separate.
(5) Hyrkanoi and Mostenoi were certainly close beside one another and
closely connected with each other [Hist. Geogr. p. 124). They are both
mentioned in all Notitiae, side by side ; but there can be no doubt that in
the fifth century they were separate bishoprics.
The theory which I have suggested, therefore, cannot be accepted in our
present state of knowledge. But I think that the principle is worth
investigation, as I believe that it will yet be found to explain many
difficulties and to be of great importance. But evidence is too scanty at
present.
In Phrygia we find that, if Hierocles's authority was an ecclesiastical
list, it must have been one in which the double bishoprics were expressed
in full detail, whereas in Lydia he used one in which the double bishoprics
were described by the name of one city only. It is quite certain that both
methods of naming occur in the'Notitiae; but the briefer style is much
commoner. It is also certain that some Notitiae have erroneously divided
double bishoprics and given them as two separate bishoprics. Prakana and
1 In the lists of Cone. Nicaen. II A. d. as bishop of Satala. Michael TpaAXjjr
787 we find Stephanus 2dXa>i/, who is once appears as 2rdXX?jy, which may be
taken by Le Quien (and I think rightly) an alteration of 26X\rjs.