DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0233
App. V. HIEROCLESJS LYDIAN LIST. 207
Diocaesareia of Isauria appear thus in De Boor's Nolitia ; and Prymnessos-
Akroenos is probably another example \ There were therefore in exist-
ence lists in which the double bishoprics were fully named; and it is my
hypothesis that Hierocles's authorities varied in the different provinces.
He had a much better list in Phrygia Pacatiana than in Lydia. In some
provinces, e.g. Hellespontus and Bithynia, he possessed knowledge beyond
what could be found in a mere Notitia, while in others, e. g. Isauria and
Pontus, he was slavishly dependent on them. The hypothesis that he
used an official list of cities, arranged according to administrative purposes,
is wholly inadequate to explain the facts. It ought to disappear from
works on the subject; but so long as the existing low standard of know-
ledge about Asia Minor continues, it is likely to hold its ground on
Parthey's authority. Whether the theory held by Wesseling (in support
of which I have advanced some arguments) be right or not, the idea that
Hierocles took a complete official list of all the cities and cut out a number
of them seems to me simply foolish: it explains the incompleteness of
the lists by saying that Hierocles chose to make his lists incomplete.
APPENDIX VI.
BISHOPS OF ATTOUDA AND TRAPEZOPOLIS.
i. Attouda.
Hermolaus Attydeorum Cone. Ejrtes. 431.
Symmachus 'AtvScdv absent from Cone. Chalced. 451.
Stephanus 'Arvdov Cone. Qui?iisext. 692.
Nicetas 'Arovbcav Cone. 879.
Arsenius 'ATovhmv Cone. 879.
2. Trapezopolis.
1. Hierophilus was transferred from Trapezopolis to Plotinopobs
probably during the fourth century (Socr. HE VII 36).
2. Asclepiades ttjs Kara Tpaire(ovi:okiv (KK\T]crias 431.
3. Joannes Cone. Chalced. 451.
4. Eugenius ir6\£<os TpaireC&v Cone. Quinisexl. 692.
5. Zacharias Cone. Nicaen. II 787.
6. Leo Cone. Eliot. 879.
1 Hist. Geogr. p. 139-
Diocaesareia of Isauria appear thus in De Boor's Nolitia ; and Prymnessos-
Akroenos is probably another example \ There were therefore in exist-
ence lists in which the double bishoprics were fully named; and it is my
hypothesis that Hierocles's authorities varied in the different provinces.
He had a much better list in Phrygia Pacatiana than in Lydia. In some
provinces, e.g. Hellespontus and Bithynia, he possessed knowledge beyond
what could be found in a mere Notitia, while in others, e. g. Isauria and
Pontus, he was slavishly dependent on them. The hypothesis that he
used an official list of cities, arranged according to administrative purposes,
is wholly inadequate to explain the facts. It ought to disappear from
works on the subject; but so long as the existing low standard of know-
ledge about Asia Minor continues, it is likely to hold its ground on
Parthey's authority. Whether the theory held by Wesseling (in support
of which I have advanced some arguments) be right or not, the idea that
Hierocles took a complete official list of all the cities and cut out a number
of them seems to me simply foolish: it explains the incompleteness of
the lists by saying that Hierocles chose to make his lists incomplete.
APPENDIX VI.
BISHOPS OF ATTOUDA AND TRAPEZOPOLIS.
i. Attouda.
Hermolaus Attydeorum Cone. Ejrtes. 431.
Symmachus 'AtvScdv absent from Cone. Chalced. 451.
Stephanus 'Arvdov Cone. Qui?iisext. 692.
Nicetas 'Arovbcav Cone. 879.
Arsenius 'ATovhmv Cone. 879.
2. Trapezopolis.
1. Hierophilus was transferred from Trapezopolis to Plotinopobs
probably during the fourth century (Socr. HE VII 36).
2. Asclepiades ttjs Kara Tpaire(ovi:okiv (KK\T]crias 431.
3. Joannes Cone. Chalced. 451.
4. Eugenius ir6\£<os TpaireC&v Cone. Quinisexl. 692.
5. Zacharias Cone. Nicaen. II 787.
6. Leo Cone. Eliot. 879.
1 Hist. Geogr. p. 139-