¹ Historia acephala 7.10, ed. Martin, A. in Histoire acéphale et index syriaque des lettres festales d'Athanase d'Alexandrie, SC cccxvii, Paris 1985Google Scholar.

² ‘Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est’: ALO 19, ed. A. Canellis, in Débat entre un luciférien et un orthodoxe = Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi, SC cdlxxiii, Paris 2003, 158, 10–1.

³ For an intepretation of this document see E. Fiano, ‘The presence of the Meletians at the Council of Alexandria (362)’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum (forthcoming).

⁴ See, for example, Tetz, M., ‘Über nikäische Orthodoxie: der sog. Tomus ad Antiochenos des Athanasios von Alexandrien’, ZNW lxvi (1975), 194–222Google Scholar and Brennecke, H. C., Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche, Tübingen 1988, 178Google Scholar; see Theodoret, HE iii.5; Rufinus, HE x.27; Socrates, HE iii.9; Sozomen HE v.12. On Lucifer and his theology see Krüger, G., Lucifer Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer, Leipzig 1886Google Scholar; Marcello, P. M., La posizione di Lucifero di Cagliari nelle lotte antiariane del IV secolo, Nuoro 1940Google Scholar; Zedda, C., ‘La dottrina trinitaria di Lucifero di Cagliari’, Divus Thomas lii (1949), 276–329Google Scholar; Simonetti, M., ‘Appunti per una storia dello scisma luciferiano’, in Atti del Convegno di Studi religiosi sardi, Cagliari 24–26 Maggio 1962, Padua 1963, 67–81Google Scholar; Opelt, I., ‘Formen der Polemik bei Lucifer von Calaris’, VigCh xxvi (1972), 200–26Google Scholar; Diercks, G. F., Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt: ad fidem duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus, CCSL viii, Turnhout 1978, pp. i–cxxxiGoogle Scholar; Piras, A., ‘Kritische Bemerkungen zur Schrift “De Athanasio” des Lucifer von Calaris’, VigCh clvi (1992), 57–74Google Scholar; Simonetti, M., ‘Lucifero di Cagliari nella controversia ariana’, VC xxxv (1998), 279–99Google Scholar (in S. Laconi [ed.], La figura e l'opera di Lucifero di Cagliari: una rivisitazione: atti del 1° Convegno Internazionale, Cagliari, 5–7 dicembre 1996, Rome 2001, 9–28); Gastoni, L. M., ‘La battaglia antiariana di Lucifero e il suo coinvolgimento in alcuni scismi del tempo’, in Mastino, A., Sotgiu, G. and Spaccapelo, N. (eds), La Sardegna paleocristiana tra Eusebio e Gregorio Magno: atti del convegno nazionale di studi, Cagliari, 10–12 ottobre 1996, Cagliari 1999, 169–85Google Scholar; Ulrich, J., Die Anfänge der abendländischen Rezeption des Nizänums, Berlin 1994, 217–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corti, G., Lucifero di Cagliari: una voce nel conflitto tra Chiesa e impero alla metà del IV secolo 2004, Milan 2004Google Scholar; A. Alba López, ‘El cisma luciferiano’, in G. Bravo and R. González Salinero (eds), Minorías y sectas en el mundo romano: actas del 3er coloquio de la Asociación Interdisciplinar de Estudios Romanos, Madrid 2006, 177–91; A. Canellis, ‘Écrire contre l'Empereur… Le De Athanasio de Lucifer de Cagliari’, in F. Vinel (ed.), Écrire contre: quête d'identité, quête de pouvoir dans la littérature des premiers siècles chrétiens, Strasbourg 2012; C. M. Whiting, ‘Christian communities in late antiquity: Luciferians and the construction of heresy’, unpubl. PhD diss. Riverside, Ca 2015; and Cibis, A. T., Lucifer von Calaris: Studien zur Rezeption und Tradierung der Heiligen Schrift im 4. Jahrhundert, Paderborn 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ The ordination of Paulinus is narrated in Theodoret, HE iii.5; Socrates, HE iii.9; Sozomen, HE v.12; and Rufinus, HE i.27. The assistance of two confessores, colleagues of Lucifer's, is implied by Jerome, Chronicon, ad annuum Romanorum XXXVI, ed. R. Helm, in Die Chronik des Hieronymus: Hieronymi Chronicon, GCS xlvii; Eusebius Werke vii, Berlin 1956, 242 (trans. Donalson, M. D. in A translation of Jerome's Chronicon with historical commentary, Lewinston, NY 1996, 50Google Scholar). A scholion on that notice of Jerome's (Die Chronik, 242, in the apparatus) identifies those two bishops as Gorgonius of Germanicia and Cymatius of Gabala. This identification led Honigmann, E., ‘Cymatius of Gabala (358, 362 A.D.)’, in his Patristic studies, Vatican City 1953, 36–8Google Scholar to provide a different emendation for the text of Athanasius, HA 5.2 (originally copied by E. Schwartz, ‘Zur Geschichte des Athanasius: VIII’, in Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse [1911], 367–468 at p. 406 n. 3 [= his Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin 1959, 188–264 at p. 238 n. 2]) than the one provided by H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, II: Die ‘Apologien’. 5. Lieferung, Berlin-Leipzig 1940, 183–230 at p. 185. Honigmann's emendation is received by H.-D. Altendorf, ‘Zur Bischofsliste von Gabala’, ZNW l (1959), 48–61 at p. 52; Cesana, F., ‘Annotazioni al testo di H. G. Opitz dell’ “Historia Arianorum ad monachos” di Sant'Atanasio’, VC xix (1982), 257–74 at pp. 258–9Google Scholar; and Westall, R., ‘Review of R. Flower, Imperial invectives against Constantius II: translated with introduction and commentary’, Plekos xxi (2019), 139–51 at p. 147Google Scholar. The emendation raises, in turn, textual and historical questions for the Antiochene events of the years 362 to 363: see Martin, A., Athanase d'Alexandrie et l'Eglise d'Egypte au IVe siècle (328–373), Paris 1996, 564 n. 71Google Scholar, and Camplani, A., ‘Atanasio e Eusebio tra Alessandria e Antiochia (362–363): osservazioni sul Tomus ad Antiochenos, l’Epistula catholica e due fogli copti (edizione di Pap. Berol. 11948)’, in Covolo, E. Dal, Uglione, R. and Vian, G. M. (eds), Eusebio di Vercelli e il suo tempo, Rome 1997, 191–246 at p. 194Google Scholar.

⁶ For a more complete summary of the events see Devreesse, R., Le Patriarcat d'Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’à la conquête arabe, Paris 1945, 17–38Google Scholar.

⁷ On the council in the Thebaid see Armstrong, G. B., ‘The Synod of Alexandria and the schism at Antioch in ad 362’, JTS xxii (1921), 206–21, 247–355, 206–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manlio Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Rome 1975, 359 (who sees it as a mere colloquy between Lucifer and Eusebius); C. Yeum, Die Synode von Alexandrien (362): die dogmengeschichtliche und kirchenpolitische Bedeutung für die Kirche im 4. Jahrhundert, Münster 2005, 27–32 (with a similar reading); and Segneri, A., Atanasio: lettera agli Antiocheni: introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, Bologna 2010, 33 n. 42Google Scholar.

⁸ Socrates, HE iii.5–6.

⁹ ‘Ἐπὶ διορθώσει τε τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων κοινῇ συνθήκῃ’: Sozomen, HE v.12.1.

¹⁰ ‘Ἐπὶ βεβαιώσει τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ δοξάντων’: ibid. v.12.2.

¹¹ Rufinus, HE x.28.3.

¹² So Martin, Athanase d'Alexandrie, 542 n. 4. On Socrates's self-avowed dependence on Rufinus see Socrates, HE ii.1, and M. Walraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates: Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode und Person, Göttingen 1997, 186–9. On Sozomen's dependence upon both Rufinus and Socrates see Schoo, G., Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos, Berlin 1911Google Scholar, and Jeep, L., Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern, Leipzig 1884Google Scholar. More generally on the relationships between the three historians see H. Leppin, ‘The church historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus’, in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek & Roman historiography in late antiquity, Leiden 2003, 219–54.

¹³ ‘Εὐσέβιος δὲ καὶ Ἱλάριος οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ Λουκίφερ ὁ Σαρδῶ τὴν νῆσον ποιμαίνειν λαχὼν ἐν τῇ Θηβαίων τῇ πρὸς Αἴγυπτον διῆγον· ἐκεῖ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὁ Κωνστάντιος ἐξωστράκισεν. Οὗτοι σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμόφροσι κατὰ ταὐτὸν γενόμενοι χρῆναι τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἔλεγον εἰς μίαν συναγαγεῖν συμφωνίαν. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον αὐτὰς οἱ τἀναντία φρονοῦντες ἐπολιόρκουν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐταὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὰς ἐστασίαζον. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ διχῆ τὸ ὑγιαῖνον σῶμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας διῄρητο· οἵ τε γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς Εὐσταθίου χάριν τοῦ πανευφήμου τῶν ἄλλων ἀποκριθέντες καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς συνηθροίζοντο, καὶ οἱ μετὰ Μελετίου τοῦ θαυμασίου τῆς Ἀρειανικῆς συμμορίας χωρισθέντες ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ Παλαιᾷ τὰς λειτουργίας ἐπετέλουν τὰς θείας’: Theodoret, HE iii.4.2–3.

¹⁴ ‘We have already said before how those people, having come together, both killed and took captive many thousands among them’ (‘προειρήκαμεν δὲ ἤδη ὡς πολλὰς αὐτῶν μυριάδας οὗτοι κατὰ ταὐτὸν γενόμενοι καὶ κατηκόντισαν καὶ αἰχμαλώτους ἀπήγαγον’): idem, Commentaria in Esaïam xviii, ed. J.-N. Guinot, in Théodoret de Cyr: Commentaire sur Isaïe: tome II (sections 4–13), SC ccxcv, Paris 1982, 121 (italics mine). Guinot translates as ‘se coalisèrent’.

¹⁵ ‘“I cannot”, said the admirable Eusebius, “give up the common deposit before all those who have entrusted it (to me) have got together”’ (‘οὐκ ἀνέχομαι, ἔφη Εὐσέβιος ὁ θαυμάσιος, τὴν κοινὴν ἀποδοῦναι παρακαταθήκην, πρὶν ἅπαντες οἱ δεδωκότες κατὰ ταυτὸν γένοιντο’): Theodoret, HE ii.33.2.

¹⁶ See A. Martin, ‘L’Église d'Antioche dans l'Histoire ecclésiastique de Théodoret’, in B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier and C. Saliou (eds), Antioche de Syrie: histoire, images et traces de la ville antique: colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerraneée, 4, 5, 6 octobre 2001, Lyon–Paris 2004, 481–506 at p. 483.

¹⁷ See L. Parmentier, Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, GCS xix, Leipzig 1911, pp. xci–xcv. In general, Theodoret used Rufinus or the latter's likely main source, the lost Church history of Gelasius of Caesarea: Güldenpenning, A., Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos: eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen, Halle 1889, 26–39Google Scholar; Rauschen, G., Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius, Freiburg 1897, 559–63Google Scholar; Parmentier, Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, pp. lxxxiv–lxxxvi. On the debated relationship between Rufinus’ and Gelasius’ works see Schamp, J., ‘Gélase ou Rufin: un fait nouveau: sur des fragments oubliés de Gélase de Césarée (CPG, N° 3521)’, Byzantion: Revue internationale des études byzantines lvii (1987), 360–90Google Scholar; P. Van Deun, ‘The Church historians after Eusebius’, in Marasco, Greek & Roman historiography, 151–76 at pp. 156–67; and G. Marasco, ‘The church historians (II): Philostorgius and Gelasius of Cyzicus’, in his Greek & Roman historiography, 257–88 at pp. 284–8. Theodoret also occasionally used Socrates (Güldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte, 39–41) and Sabinus of Heraklea (Güldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte, 59–61), but not Sozomen, who wrote after Theodoret. Theodoret utilised the anonymous homoian source of the 360s edited in J. Bidez, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte mit dem Leben des Lucian von Antiochien und den Fragmenten eines Arianischen Historiographen, GCS xxi, Leipzig 1913, 179–222 (= Anhang VII) and considered by Battifol the work of an Arian historian, but called by Burgess simply Antiochene continuation of Eusebius and possibly used by Philostorgius himself: see Güldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte, 49–56; Battifol, P., ‘Un Historiographe anonyme arien du ive siècle’, Römische Quartalschrift ix (1895), 57–97Google Scholar; Burgess, R. W., Studies in Eusebian and post-Eusebian chronography, II: The ‘Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii’: a chronicle of Antioch and the Roman Near East during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius II, AD 325–350, Stuttgart 1999Google Scholar. For the dating of this source to the 360s see H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism: chiefly referring to the character and chronology of the reaction which followed the Council of Nicæa, 2nd edn, London 1900, 219–24, and Brennecke, Studien, 114–57. On Philostorgius see Marasco, ‘The church historians (II)’, 257–88 at pp. 257–84.

¹⁸ Armstrong, ‘The Synod of Alexandria’, 348. On Hilary of Jerusalem see Hanson, R. P. C., The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy, 318–381, Edinburgh 1988, 399, 401Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Parmentier, Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, 387, s.v. Ἱλάριος. This onomastic entry has remained unaltered in the two further editions of Theodoret's Church history published in the same series: F. Scheidweiler edn, GCS xliv, Berlin 1954, 405; and G. C. Hansen edn, GCS N.F. v, Berlin 1998, 387.

²⁰ Sée J. Bouffartigue, A. Martin, L. Pietri and F. Thélamon (eds), Théodoret de Cyr: Histoire ecclésiastique, t. II (livres III–IV), SC dxxx, Paris 2009, 109 n. 3.

²¹ See Sulpicius Severus, Vita sancti Martini Turonensis 7.1, ed. J. Fontaine in Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin, i, SC cxxxiii, Turnhout 1967, 266; Chronica ii.42.1–2; ii.45.2–4, ed. P. Parroni, in Sulpicii Severi Chronica; CCSL lxiii, Turnhout 2017, 99, 194; ed. G. de Senneville-Grave, in Sulpice Sévère. Chroniques, SC cdxli, Paris 1999, 322, 328–32. On Hilary's exile and its reasons see Wilmart, A., ‘Les “Fragments historiques” et le synode de Béziers de 356’, RB xxv (1908), 225–9Google Scholar; D. H. Williams, ‘A reassessment of the early career and exile of Hilary of Poitiers’, this Journal xlii (1991), 202–17; P. Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers’ preface to his Opus historicum, Leiden 1995, 126–31; H. Ménard, ‘Exil et déploiement d'une théologie, le cas d'Hilaire de Poitiers’, in P. Blaudeau (ed.), Exil et relegation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant l'antiquité romaine et chrétienne (Ier–VIe siècle ap. J.-C.): actes du colloque organisé par le Centre Jean-Charles Picard, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne, 17–18 juin 2005, Paris 2008, 233–40; Barnes, T. D., ‘Hilary of Poitiers on his exile’, VigCh xlvi (1992), 129–40Google Scholar; Barry, J., ‘Heroic bishops: Hilary of Poitiers's exilic discourse’, VigCh lxx (2016), 155–74Google Scholar, and Bishops in flight: exile and displacement in late antiquity, Oakland, Ca 2019, 18–20. On Hilary's return from exile to Gaul see Duval, Y.-M., ‘Vrais et Faux Problèmes concernant le retour d'exil d'Hilaire de Poitiers et son action en Italie en 360–363’, Athenaeum: studi periodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichità xlviii (1970), 251–75Google Scholar. The return of Hilary is mentioned in Sulpicius Severus Chronica ii.45 (Parroni edn), Sulpicii Severi Chronica, 98–9; and Altercatio Heracliani et Germinii, PL Suppl. i. 345–50 at 345, ‘[p. 134]’.

²² ALO 27 (Canellis edn), Débat, 196.

²³ On Hilary of Rome see Cavallera, F., Saint Jérôme, sa vie et son œuvre, Louvain–Paris 1922, i. 56–7Google Scholar, and Mas, J. Pérez, La crisis luciferiana: un intento de reconstrucción histórica, Rome 2008, 45–51, 183–6, 267–75, 361–3Google Scholar. See also J. Rüpke, Fasti sacerdotum: a prosopography of pagan, Jewish, and Christian religious officials in the city of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499, trans. David Richardson, Oxford 2008, 716, s.v. ‘Hilarius’ (no. 1898), with references to ancient sources for his activity; C. Pietri and L. Pietri, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II: Prosopographie de l'Italie chrétienne (313–604), Rome 1999–2008, i. 985–6 (s.v. ‘Hilarius 1’); Pietri, C., ‘Appendice prosopographique à la Roma christiana (311–440)’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Antiquité lxxxix (1977), 371–415 at p. 386Google Scholar. The possibility of this identification is raised also in Pérez Mas, La crisis luciferiana, 126. Jerome mentions Hilary in ALO 21, 25–7 and, along with Lucifer and Pancratius, in De regibus apostaticis 5.

²⁴ See PL xxxv.2007/2008; PL xvii.43. J. Langen rejected this theory: ‘De commentariorum in epistulas Paulinas qui Ambrosii et Quaestionum biblicarum quae Augustini nomine feruntur scriptore dissertatio’, unpubl. PhD diss. Bonn 1880, 5, as did Krüger, Lucifer, 88. A. Souter refused to accept the possibility that Ambrosiaster was a deacon: A study of Ambrosiaster, Cambridge 1905, 175. For the debate about the identity of Ambrosiaster see T. S. de Bruyn, S. A. Cooper and D. G. Hunter (eds), Ambrosiaster's Commentary on the Pauline Epistles: Romans, Atlanta, Ga 2017, pp. xxiv–xxv, and Hunter, D. G., ‘Presidential address: the significance of Ambrosiaster’, Journal of Early Christian Studies xvii (2009), 1–26Google Scholar.

²⁵ Epistula legatorum, apud Hilary of Poitiers, Fragmenta historica, ser. A, VII, ed. A. Feder, S. Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera. Pars IV, CSEL lxv, Vienna–Leipzig 1916, 89–93. See also Eusebius Vercellensis, Filastrius Brixiensis, Hegemonius (Ps.), Isaac Iudaeus, Archidiaconus Romanus, Fortunatianus Aquileiensis, Chromatius Aquileiensis: Opera quae supersunt; Diversorum hereseon liber; Adversus haereses; Opera quae supersunt; De reconciliandis paenitentibus; Commentarii in evangelia; Opera quae supersunt, ed. B. Bischoff, V. Bulhart, F. Heylen, A. Hoste and A. Wilmart, CCSL ix, Turnhout 1957, 120.

²⁶ These letters are edited in Eusebius Vercellensis, 120–3. See V. Saxer, ‘Fonti storiche per la biografia di Eusebio’, and M. Simonetti, ‘Eusebio nella controversia ariana’, in Dal Covolo, Uglione and Vian, Eusebio di Vercelli, 121–52 at pp. 123–4, 155–79 at pp. 156–7. On the Life see R. Grégoire, ‘Agiografia e storiografia nella Vita antiqua di Eusebio di Vercelli’, in Mastino, Sotgiu and Spaccapelo, La Sardegna paleocristiana, 187–200.

²⁷ The sources for the Council of Milan of 355 are Rufinus, HE x.20; Socrates, HE ii.36; Sozomen, HE iv.9; Theodoret, HE ii.15; Lucifer, Moriundum esse pro dei filio i (Diercks edn), Luciferi Calaritani Opera, 265–300 at pp. 265–6; Athanasius, HA 31–4, 76 (Opitz edn), Athanasius Werke, II: Die ‘Apologien’. 5. Lieferung, 199–202, 224–6; Hilary, Ad Constantium Liber primus viii, PL x.557–64 at p. 562; S. Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera (Feder edn), 181–7, 186–7. On the eclectic nature of the tripartite Ad Constantium (of which chapter 8 constitutes the third part) see Wilmart, A., ‘L’Ad Constantium liber primus de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers et les fragments historiques’, RB xxiv (1907), 149–79, 291–317Google Scholar; Williams, D. H., ‘The anti-Arian campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the “Liber Contra Auxentium”’, CH lxi (1992), 7–22 at p. 9 n. 11Google Scholar; and L. Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: conflicts of conscience and law in the fourth-century Church, Liverpool 1997, p. xxvi, and ‘Shaping Church-State relations after Constantine: the political theology of Hilary of Poitiers’, CH lxxxvi (2017), 287–310 at p. 287 n. 1.

²⁸ No explicit mention is made of the exile of the presbyter Pancratius. More clergymen were exiled at the council than just the Roman delegates. The names of the exiles of 355 are provided varyingly by different sources.

²⁹ Athanasius, HA xli.1–2 (Opitz edn), Athanasius Werke, II: Die Apologien, 5. Lieferung, 205–6. Here the name of the presbyter accompanying Hilary is not Pancratius but Eutropius.

³⁰ On the exiles of Eusebius of Vercellae see Simonetti, ‘Eusebio nella controversia ariana’, 159–62, esp. p. 159 n. 62; B. Studer, ‘Eusebio e i rapporti con la Chiesa di Roma’, in Dal Covolo, Uglione and Vian, Eusebio di Vercelli, 181–9, 185–7; and P. Meloni, ‘Eusebio di Vercelli “natione sardus”’, in Mastino, Sotgiu and Spaccapelo, La Sardegna paleocristiana, 345–51.

³¹ See ALO 21.

³² The mention of one Hilary in Jerome, Chronicon, ad annuum Romanorum xxii (Helm edn), Die Chronik, 241 (‘Hilary returned to Gaul after he had offered his book on his own behalf to Constantius at Constantinople’: trans. Donalson, A translation, 49), just like that contained in Jerome, Chronicon, ad annuum Romanorum xxiii, ed. Helm, Die Chronik, 242 (‘Gaul – through the agency of Hilary – condemned the treacheries of the falsehood of Ariminium’: trans. Donalson, A translation, 50), is mistakenly referred to as Hilary the deacon in Helm, Die Chronik, 266. For correct identifications of this Hilary as Hilary of Poitiers see Donalson, A translation, 81 n. 241g and 82 n. 242a, and B. Jeanjean and B. Lançon, Saint Jérôme, Chronique: continuation de la chronique d'Eusèbe, années 326–378: suivie de quatre études sur les chroniques et chronographies dans l'antiquité tardive (IVe–VIe siècles), Rennes 2004, 92 n. i and 96 n. a (as well as, seemingly, Helm's own apparatus ad locos).

³³ See, for example, Armstrong, ‘The synod of Alexandria’, 208–9.

³⁴ The transition καὶ γὰρ (‘and in fact’) indicates that the Antiochene schism is an example of the discord described in the previous sentence, which is therefore nothing but the rift between old-Nicene and non-old-Nicene pro-Nicene.

³⁵ Macedonius of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Basil of Ancyra, Heortasius of Sardis, Dracontius of Pergamus, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, Neonas of Seleucia, Ciryl of Jerusalem and the newly-elected bishop of Antioch Anianus: Sozomen, HE iv.24–5; Socrates, HE ii.42; Theodoret, HE ii.27–8; Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, in Easter Chronicle, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae xi–xii, Bonn 1832, i, 542; Epiphanius Panarion ii.73.23.4. On the actions of the Council of Constantinople see also Athanasius, De synodis 30, and Basil, Adversus Eunomium i.2.

³⁶ Philostorgius, HE v.1.

³⁷ On later exiles to the Thebaid see Fiano, E., ‘The Trinitarian controversies in fourth-century Edessa’, Le Muséon cxxviii (2015), 85–125 at pp. 104–7Google Scholar.

³⁸ See Martin, ‘L’Église d'Antioche’, passim.

³⁹ ‘Τῆσδε τῆς συναφείας οἱ περὶ τὸν Εὐσέβιον καὶ Λουκίφερα πόρον ἐπεζήτουν εὑρεῖν· καὶ Λουκίφερα μὲν ὁ Εὐσέβιος τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἠξίου καταλαβεῖν καὶ Ἀθανασίῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ περὶ τούτου κοινώσασθαι, αὐτὸς δέ γε τὸν περὶ τῆς συμβάσεως ἤθελεν ἀναδέξασθαι πόνον. Ἀλλ’ ὁ Λουκίφερ εἰς μὲν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν οὐκ ἀφίκετο, τὴν Ἀντιόχου δὲ πόλιν κατέλαβε. Πολλοὺς δὲ περὶ συμβάσεως λόγους καὶ τούτοις κἀκείνοις προσενεγκών, εἶτα ἰδὼν ἀντιλέγοντας τοὺς τῆς Εὐσταθίου συμμορίας (ἡγεῖτο δὲ ταύτης Παυλῖνος πρεσβύτερος ὤν), ἐχειροτόνησεν αὐτοῖς, οὐκ εὖ γε ποιῶν, τὸν Παυλῖνον ἐπίσκοπον. Τοῦτο τὴν διάστασιν ἐκείνην μακροτέραν εἰργάσατο· πέντε γὰρ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα διέμεινεν ἔτη μέχρι τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ πάσης εὐφημίας ἀξίου προεδρίας’: Theodoret, HE iii.4.6–5.2.

⁴⁰ ‘Illud apud omnes constitit unius Hilarii beneficio Gallias nostras piaculo haeresis liberatas. Ceterum Lucifer tum Antiochiae longe diversa sententia fuit. Nam in tantum eos, qui Arimini fuerant, condemnavit, ut se etiam ab eorum communione secreverit, qui eos vel sub satisfactione vel paenitentia recepissent. Id recte an perperam constituerit dicere non ausim’: Sulpicius Severus, Chronica ii.45.3–4 (Parroni edn), Sulpicii Severi Chronica, 102–3; Sulpice Sévère. Chroniques (de Senneville-Grave edn), 330. On the section of Sulpicius’ Chronica devoted to the Trinitarian controversies and on its sources see F. Ghizzoni, Sulpicio Severo, Parma 1983, 222–9, and G. Zecchini, ‘Latin historiography: Jerome, Orosius and the western chronicles’, in Marasco, Greek & Roman historiography, 317–42.

⁴¹ See Simonetti, ‘Appunti’, and ‘Lucifero di Cagliari’, and Pérez Mas, La crisis luciferiana, passim.

⁴² See P. Smulders, ‘Two passages of Hilary's Apologetica Responsa rediscovered’, Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Philosophie en Theologie xxxix (1978), 234–43 [= in J. Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik: eine Aufsatzsammlung, Berlin 1987, 539–47].

⁴³ ‘optimum factu arbitratus revocare cunctos ad emendationem et paenitentiam. Frequentibus intra Gallias conciliis, atque omnibus fere episcopis de errore profitentibus’: Sulpicius Severus, Chronica ii.45.2–3 (de Senneville-Grave edn), Sulpice Sévère. Chroniques, 330, lines 23–6.

⁴⁴ On the Council of Paris see H. C. Brennecke, Studien, 87; A. Feder, Studien zu Hilarius von Poitiers, I: Die Sogenannten ‘Fragmenta historica’ und der sogenannte ‘Liber I ad Constantium imperatorem’ nach ihrer Überlieferung, inhaltlichen Bedeutung und Entstehung, Wien 1910, 62–4; and M. Meslin, Les Ariens d'occident, 335–430, Paris 1967, 292, 328. For the possibility that the council was not held in Paris see H. C. Brennecke, U. Heil, C. Müller and A. von Stockhausen (eds), Athanasius Werke, III/1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318–328. 4. Lieferung, Berlin 2014, 584. The council is dated to the summer of 360 by Feder, Studien, 63. On various proposals about the dating of the council see C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers’ role in the Arian struggle, 2nd edn, Dordrecht 1966, 178–9 nn. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. The soundest reasoning on the dating is that of Duval, who refrains from establishing a definite date: ‘Vrais et Faux Problèmes’, 265–6 n. 63. According to Brennecke, Julian might have been present at the council: Studien, 87 n. 1. Duval ponders this question: ‘Vrais et Faux Problèmes’, 264. T. D. Barnes rejects the hypothesis: Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge, Ma 1993, 288 n. 12 (with reference to pp. 226–8).

⁴⁵ See Athanasius, Epistula ad Rufinianum, ed. P. P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (II^e–IV^e s.), II: Les Canons des Pères grecs, Grottaferrata 1963, 76–80 at p. 78. Given what Athanasius writes (Joannou, Discipline générale antique, 79, lines 17–21), it seems probable that Rufinian was a pro-Nicene who had hesitations about establishing communion with lapsed clergy. On the difficult identification of Rufinian see A. von Stockhausen, ‘Epistula ad Rufinianum’, in P. Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch, Tübingen 2011, 235–8 at p. 236. On the dating of To Rufinian see Joannou, Discipline générale antique, 61; Martin, Athanase d'Alexandrie, 547; and Camplani, ‘Atanasio e Eusebio’, 199.

⁴⁶ ‘Τούτου τοῦ δόγματος κοινωνούς μοι παρεχομένου τούς τε τῆς Μακεδονίας καὶ τῆς Ἀχαΐας ἐπισκόπους ἅπαντας’: Basil, ep. cciv.6, in Basil: Letters, 186–248, ed. R. J. Deferrari, New Haven 2014, 170. This is also the text of PG xxxii.753B and Saint Basile: Lettres, ii, ed. Y. Courtonne, Paris 1961, 179, line 32 (where there is no mention of a variant in the apparatus); for this reason Schaff's translation (allegedly based on PG) of ‘Asia’ for Ἀχαΐα in Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers viii. 245 appears to be a typo. On the transmission of ep. cciv see P. J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca basiliana universalis: a study of the manuscript tradition of the works of Basil of Caesarea, I: The letters, Turnhout 1993, 514–15. In light of the details provided by Basil about the origin of the bishops who agreed with Athanasius, it seems (contra von Stockhausen, ‘Epistula ad Rufinianum’, 235) that Athanasius’ letter in Basil's possession, whether or not it was directly addressed to Basil, should not be identified with the Letter to Rufinian, which also does not appear to contain the mention of a Roman or Italian council to which von Stockhausen (pp. 236–7) refers twice.

⁴⁷ See Liberius, Epistula ad catolicos episcopos Italiae, apud Hilary of Poitiers, Fragmenta historica, ser. B, IV, 1 (Feder edn), S. Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera, 156–7. On Hilary's stay in Rome see Sulpicius Severus, Vita sancti Martini Turonensis 6.7 (Fontaine edn), Sulpice Sévère, i. 266, 606–7; Simonetti, La crisi ariana, 356 n. 7; and Duval, ‘Vrais et Faux Problèmes’, 263 n. 47, 274–5. From a letter of Pope Siricius we learn that Liberius sent out decrees forbidding the rebaptising of Arians: Siricius, Epistula ad Himerium Tarraconensem 2, ed. P. Coustant, in Epistolae Romanorum pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a. S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III, quotquot reperiri poruerunt seu novae sue diversis in locis sparsim editae, I: Ab anno Christi 67 ad annum 440, Paris 1721, 624–5; PL xiii.1133–4. The letter Olim et ab initio, in Decretales pseudo-Isidorianae, et Capitula Angilramni, ed. P. Hinschius, Leipzig 1863, in which Liberius sympathises with Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops assembled in a synod, may be a fake: personal communication from Dr Glen L. Thompson.

⁴⁸ ‘Οἱ καταπεπτωκότες καὶ προϊσταμένοι τῆς ἀσεβείας’: Athanasius, Epistula ad Rufinianum (Joannou edn), Discipline générale antique, 78.

⁴⁹ ‘Οἱ μὴ αὐθεντοῦντες τῆς ἀσεβείας’: ibid.

⁵⁰ ALO 20 (Canellis edn), Débat, 168.

⁵¹ See Faustinus and Marcellinus, Libellus precum 63, ed. O. Günther in Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab A. CCCLVII usque ad a. DLIII datae avellane quae dicitur collectio, CSEL xxxv, Vienna 1895, 5–44 at pp. 23–5; ed. M. Simonetti in Faustini opera, CCSL lxix, Turnhout 1967, 285–392, 375; ed. A. Canellis in Supplique aux empereurs: Libellus precum et Lex Augusta; Précédé de Faustin; Confession de foi, ed. A. Canellis, SC div, Paris 2006, 166.

⁵² This seems to be the reality referenced by Jerome's statement about Lucifer in ALO 20: ‘Unum, quod etiam in praesenti constat, eloquar: uerbis eum a nobis dissentire, non rebus, si quidem et eos recipiat qui ab Arianis baptisma consecuti sunt’ (‘Let me only say one thing, which is established also in the present: that he differs from us in words, not in actions, since he receives also those who have received baptism from the Arians’): Supplique aux empereurs (Canellis edn), 170.

⁵³ Deucalion orbis (literally ‘Deucalion of the world’): ALO 26 (Canellis edn), Débat, 192, 2. Jerome used against the Luciferians the argument used by Cyprian – whose writings he read – against his adversaries. See P. Battifol, ‘Les Sources de l’Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi de St Jérôme’, in V. Vannutelli (ed.), Miscellanea geronimiana: scritti varii pubblicati nel XV centenario della morte di San Girolamo, Rome 1920, 97–113; Y.-M. Duval, ‘Saint Jérôme devant le baptême des hérétiques: d'autres sources de l'Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi’, REA xiv (1968), 145–80. Jerome, in the Dialogue between a Luciferian and an Orthodox, notes that Hilary acknowledged in his libelli that Popes Julius (337–52), Mark (336) and Silvester (314–35) as well as all older bishops had admitted heretics to penance. The mention of all three immediate predecessors of Liberius, but not of Liberius himself, suggests that the libelli were written against the latter after his composition of the Letter to the Catholic bishops of Italy: Battifol, ‘Les Sources’, 99.

⁵⁴ ALO 26. On this work, its dating and its sources see Grützmacher, G., ‘Die Abfassungszeit der Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi des Hieronymus’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte xxi (1901), 1–8Google Scholar; B. R. Voss, ‘Vernachlässigte Zeugnisse klassischer Literatur bei Augustin und Hieronymus’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie N.F. cxii (1969), 154–66 [= Lemmata: donum natalicium W. Ehlers sexagenario a sodalibus Thesauri linguae Latinae oblatum, München 1968, 300–11], 161; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis: prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Stuttgart 1992, 99 n. 473, 138 n. 689; and Canellis, A. ‘La Composition du Dialogue contre les Lucifériens et du Dialogue contre les Pélagiens de saint Jérôme: à la recherche d'un canon de l’altercatio’, REA xliii (1997), 247–88Google Scholar; Jeanjean, B., Saint Jérôme et l'hérésie, Paris 1999, 21–6Google Scholar; and A. Canellis, ‘Saint Jérôme et les Ariens: nouveaux éléments en vue de la datation de l’«Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi»?’, in J.-M. Poinsotte (ed.), Les Chrétiens face à leurs adversaires dans l'Occident latin du IVe siècle: actes des journées d’études du GRAC, Rouen, 25 avril 1997 et 28 avril 2000, Mont-Saint-Aignan 2001, 155–94.

⁵⁵ ALO 26–7 (Canellis edn), Débat, 192–7.

⁵⁶ Pérez Mas, La Crisis luciferiana, 126–7.

⁵⁷ ‘Has eorum impietates execrantes episcopi, qui pro fide poenas exilii perpetiebantur vel qui se in fugam dederunt, licet essent corpore discreti per intervalla regionum, tamen spiritu in unum positi per mutuas litteras apostolico vigore decernunt nullo genere talibus episcopis posse communicari, qui fidem illo modo, quo supra retulimus, prodiderunt, nisi si laicam postulaverint communionem, dolentes suis impietatibus. Sed mortuo Constantio patrono haereticorum, Iulianus solus tenuit imperium’: Faustinus and Marcellinus, Libellus precum 50–1 (Günther edn), Epistulae imperatorum, 5–44 at p. 20; Faustini opera (Simonetti edn), 372; Supplique (Canellis edn), 156.

⁵⁸ Epistula episcoporum Italiae ad episcopos Inlyrici, apud Hilary of Poitiers, Fragmenta historica, ser. B, IV, 2 (Feder edn), S. Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera, 328.

⁵⁹ Cum ypocritis: Pseudo-Eusebius of Vercellae, Epistula ad Gergorium Illiberitanum, apud Hilary of Poitiers Fragmenta historica, ser. A, II (Feder edn), S. Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera, 46–7, 46.

⁶⁰ See Saltet, L., ‘La Formation de la légende des papes Libère et Félix’, BLE vi (1905), 223–36 at pp. 228–30Google Scholar, and ‘Fraudes littéraires des schismatiques Lucifériens aux ive et ve siècles’, BLE vii (1906), 300–26 at p. 326; Wilmart, ‘L’Ad Constantium’, 297; Chapman, J., ‘The contested letters of Pope Liberius, 13: the forger and his work’, RB xxvii (1910), 325–52 at pp. 326–8Google Scholar; Simonetti, La crisi ariana, 234 n. 50; Hanson, The search, 508 n. 2; Simonetti, ‘Eusebio nella controversia ariana’, and ‘Scritti di e attribuiti a Eusebio di Vercelli’, in Mastino, Sotgiu and Spaccapelo, La Sardegna paleocristiana, 449–61 [= Cassiodorus iii (1997), 37–48] at pp. 453–6; and ‘Lucifero di Cagliari’, 293. The authenticity of the letter is retained by Feder, Studien, i. 64–6; Bardy, G., ‘Faux et Frauds littéraires dans l'antiquité chrétienne’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique xxxii (1936), 5–23, 275–302 at p. 16Google Scholar; Duval, ‘Vrais et Faux Problèmes’, 267 n. 65; and William, D. H., Ambrose of Milan and the end of the Arian-Nicene conflicts, Oxford 1995, 50–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ Armstrong, ‘The Synod of Alexandria’.

⁶² Elliott, T., ‘Was the “Tomus ad Antiochenos” a pacific document?’, this Journal lviii (2007), 1–8Google Scholar.

⁶³ Elliott understandably has to reduce Lucifer's anger enigmatically to his being ‘upset by something after Eusebius’ arrival’ (italics mine): ibid. 3.