Although, as one contributor observes (p. 113), the pugnacious bishop of Laodicea has a ‘long and impressive’ list of ‘theological achievements’, he is seldom remembered except as a heresiarch. Sixteen distinguished scholars have collaborated in the present volume to produce a more accurate record of his career and to promote a more comprehensive understanding of his thought. In the view of Kelly Macarthur Spoerl, the best available evidence does not suggest that he was as much a disciple of Athanasius or as much a foe to George of Laodicea as is generally supposed. Susanna Elm suspects that even in Gregory Nazianzen's letters against him we see traces of an earlier convergence in their Christological teaching. Volker Drecoll's analysis of the Ad Jovianum offers hints towards a secure chronology of his writings in the 370s; according to Markus Vinzent (here augmenting the arguments of his doctoral thesis), these include the fourth Oration against the Arians, wrongly ascribed to Athanasius. Hanns-Christof Brennecke finds that, after Eustathius of Antioch, the denial of a human soul in Christ was not regarded as an ‘Arian’ heresy. Johannes Zachhuber demonstrates that the notion of the unity of the human race in Adam, which underpins the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Apollinarius, is grounded in a Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotelian logic. Benjamin reads Apollinarius as a proponent of the communication of idioms rather than as the creator of a metaphysical hybrid; Ekkehard Muhlenberg, while he admits the force of the Antiochene strictures on Apollinarius, maintains that his flesh-bearing Christ is a pattern of holiness, not an intellectual construct. Uta Heil concludes that the attack on Apollinarius in the pseudo-Athanasian sermo contra omnes haereses has been grafted on to a prototype which restricted itself to heresies that Athananius had denounced by name. The two books of another pseudo-Athanansian text, the De incarnatione contra Apollinarium, are judged by Alessandro Cappone to be separate though interdependent works by different authors. Martin Heimgartner argues that the extracts from Diodore of Tarsus in the Vatopedi Florilegium are independent of the London Florilegium, which was complied with a hostile purpose. Karin Metzler assembles the fragments of an Apollinarian commentary on Genesis from the catena on the Octateuch by Procopus of Gaza. Silke-Petra Bergian explains the rhetorical strategy of Theodoret's Eranistes, in which he cites Apollinarius but not the Antiochene critics whom he cites more often elsewhere. Claudia Rammelt surmises that Ibas of Edessa, who certainly imputed the teachings of Apollinarius to Cyril, may have been ready to change his judgement after the Formula of Reunion. Theresa Hainthalter, charting the use of Apollinarian forgeries by the Miaphysite party after Chalcedon, supplements Lietzmann's researches with materials in Syriac which throw light on the reception of these texts in Antioch. Patrick Andrist, in a review of later testimonia, notes that posterity found so much to praise in the apologetic works of this infamous heretic that he was sometimes divided into two men. He is certainly one man of whom we would gladly know more.