Comparable Timelines for All Surviving Nicene Historical Accounts

Year / period	Philostorgius (esp. I–II)	Socrates	Other “orthodox” historians (Sozomen, Theodoret, etc.)	Gelasius of Caesarea (Wallraff–Stutz–Marinides)	Rufinus (translator and continuer of Eusebius)	Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2–4
305–306 (Constantius & Constantine)	Constantius made emperor in the West, dies in Britain; Constantine arrives, buries him, is at once proclaimed successor (I.5–6, nn.7–8 = 305–306). Philostorgius’ basic outline matches the “standard” tetrarchic succession, but with his characteristic interest in Constantine’s providential rise.	Socrates HE 1.1–2 reproduces the same overall framework: Diocletian and Maximian’s abdication, the division of the empire, Constantius’ death in Britain, and Constantine’s acclamation by the army. He tracks the same succession as Philostorgius here, just stripped of Arian coloring and miracle-heavy rhetoric.	Sozomen HE 1.5–8 and Theodoret HE 1.6–8 largely repackage the same tetrarchic story: end of the “persecuting emperors,” Constantius’ mildness toward Christians, Constantine’s succession in Britain. They follow the same “orthodox” chronographic skeleton that Socrates and, at a distance, Philostorgius share.	Gelasius’ F2–F5 retell the end of Diocletian/Maximian and the origins of Constantine and his family, but as the preface says, this is a “re-narration” in order to continue beyond Eusebius, not a replacement of him.	Rufinus explicitly positions himself as translator of Eusebius HE in nine books, then as continuator. In the preface he says the Greek tenth book contained “very little history” and mostly panegyrics of bishops, which he omits and fuses the historical residue into book nine. He then composes books ten and eleven himself, “like the two little fish,” covering events “from the time of Constantine after the persecution to the death of the emperor Theodosius.” This means that for 305–306 he is simply transmitting the same short Greek HE as everyone else, not a longer Arian recension. His own additions begin only once Constantine has already overcome the persecution phase.	VC 2 opens after Constantine’s victory and focuses on his Christian rule (church building, legislation, episcopal relations), not on the mechanics of the tetrarchy. Books 2–4 presuppose the same earlier imperial sequence (Diocletian → Constantius → Constantine) but do not retell 305–306 in detail; that material is effectively outsourced to HE 8–9 and to Lactantius.
312 (vision & battle at the Milvian Bridge)	Highly dramatized cross-in-the-sky with Latin slogan “In hoc signo vinces”; Constantine converts and defeats Maxentius (I.6, nn.9–10). Philostorgius gives the most baroque, miracle-heavy version, but the structure (vision → victory → pious Constantine) parallels the Eusebian tradition.	Socrates HE 1.2–4 harmonizes Lactantius and Eusebius: Constantine sees a sign from heaven, is instructed to adopt the cross-symbol, defeats Maxentius, and favors the Christians. He does not quote the Latin slogan, but the constellation “heavenly sign + cross-device + conversion + Milvian victory” is the same as Philostorgius’ dossier with the Arian varnish removed.	Sozomen HE 1.3–4 and Theodoret HE 1.10–11 follow the same pattern: divine sign (either dream or vision), adoption of the cross, victory over Maxentius, and Constantine’s special favor toward the Church. They sit on top of the same narrative complex that both Socrates and Philostorgius are clearly using.	Gelasius’ F6–F7 retell Constantine’s victory over Maxentius and his support of Christians as part of his “post-Eusebian” narrative.	In Rufinus the Milvian Bridge material stands at the end of his book nine (still “Eusebius”) and at the threshold of his continuation, but the preface is explicit: the part he attributes to Eusebius ends before he himself launches into the Nicene/Arian material. He does not treat the Milvian episode as belonging to a later, expanded historical edition of Eusebius; it is just the familiar VC/HE dossier wrapped into his Latin redaction.	VC 2–4 look back to the Milvian event as the turning point but do not re-narrate the battle itself; the detailed vision story is in VC 1.28–32. Books 2–4 assume that Constantine’s Christian empire begins from this victory and build their panegyric around that, without adding new chronological data.
325 (Council of Nicaea; Alexander of Alexandria, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia)	Alexander of Alexandria supposedly comes to Nicomedia before the council and sways a gathering there; Philostorgius’ Nicene narrative (I.7–9) is strongly Arian: Arius is treated sympathetically, the homoousion is a violent innovation, only Secundus and Theon refuse, the rest (including Eusebius of Nicomedia) sign under protest, reading ὁμοιούσιος under ὁμοούσιος. The narrative skeleton—controversy → council → creed → exiles—is nevertheless the same as in the “orthodox” historians.	Socrates HE 1.5–10 gives a pro-Nicene script: Alexander of Alexandria as defender of the faith; Arius and his allies as innovators; Nicaea as the decisive moment. Socrates has more than two hold out, and the “Eusebians” function as the bad actors, but he follows the same sequence of events that Philostorgius does (pre-Nicene quarrel → imperial summons → creed and anathemas → exiles), just with the value-sign reversed.	Sozomen HE 1.16–23 and Theodoret HE 1.7–12 recycle the same dossier: letters between Alexander and Arius, Constantine’s intervention, the council, the creed, exile of Arius and his supporters, the subsequent jockeying by Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party. Again, the narrative blocks are parallel to Philostorgius; only the theological spin and character evaluation differ.	Gelasius’ big Nicaea block F11–F14 overlaps the same dossier: F11 “Way to Nicaea”; F12 “Council of Nicaea,” including F12a–f (parties for/against Arius, burning of petitions, the dialectician converted by a simple confessor, Paphnutius and Spyridon anecdotes, and “decision at Nicaea and its discontents”). The stance is pro-Nicene and explicitly frames itself as doing what Eusebius did not do: giving a true “historiographical” account of the council itself.	Rufinus’ book ten opens exactly here and is explicitly his own continuation, not “Eusebius”: 10.1: Alexander succeeds Achillas in Alexandria; Arius, a presbyter “religious in appearance,” introduces novel doctrines; Alexander tries gentle admonitions; the controversy spreads to other cities; Constantine is informed and summons the council of 318 bishops to Nicaea. 10.2–3: Constantine’s burning of petitions, speech about bishops as “gods,” and the conversion of the dialectician by a simple confessor. 10.4–5: Paphnutius the confessor, and Spyridon of Cyprus, with exactly the anecdote pattern you see in Gelasius’ F12d–e. 10.6: Nicene creed, anathemas, and canons; and the classic story that only seventeen bishops sided with Arius, six went into exile with him, and eleven “signed with hand, not heart,” at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia. All of this Rufinus explicitly presents as his fish-like “additions” beyond the Greek HE, not as part of Eusebius’ own text. And the theology is entirely anti-Arian.	VC 3.6–21 gives Constantine’s version of Nicaea: his letters of convocation, entrance into the council, speech on concord, and general praise for the agreement on the faith. But Eusebius carefully avoids relaying the creed text or the homoousios controversy in detail. The overlap in structure with Philostorgius and Socrates (controversy → council → settlement) is obvious, but VC 2–4 are deliberately mute about the dogmatic content that dominates Philostorgius, Socrates, Gelasius, and Rufinus.
c. 328 (Death of Alexander of Alexandria; ordination of Athanasius)	Philostorgius gives the classic Arian slander: Athanasius hijacks the see by forcing two Egyptian bishops, locked in a church, to ordain him; others anathematize him; Alexander is retrospectively painted as inconsistent. Here too he is shadow-boxing against the same Athanasian successio pattern that the orthodox writers preserve.	Socrates HE 1.26–27 stresses Alexander’s designation of Athanasius and a regular synodical ordination, and explicitly rejects the Arian story as calumny. He is clearly aware of some version of Philostorgius’ story (or its sources) and writes against it, which is itself a kind of “negative parallel.”	Sozomen HE 2.17 and Theodoret HE 1.26 repeat the “orderly election” and “designation” narrative, again polemically targeting Arian claims that Athanasius was irregularly imposed. They stand in the same dialectical relation to Philostorgius’ story as Socrates does.	Gelasius’ Athanasian fragments (F18–F21) revolve around Athanasius as Nicene hero, resistance to Arius’ rehabilitation, fabricated charges, and appeal to Constantine.	Rufinus 10.15 explicitly gives Athanasius’ childhood “baptizing game” on the seashore; Alexander discovers that the boy’s mock-baptisms were canonically correct; he treats them as valid and has the boys raised “for the church.” Athanasius is then educated as a sort of new Samuel in the sanctuary, becomes Alexander’s deacon at Nicaea, and on Alexander’s death “puts on the ephod” as his legitimate successor. No trace here of the Arian “illicit ordination” legend; Rufinus is on the same track as Gelasius and the Athanasian dossiers—and therefore in implicit tension with Philostorgius.	VC 4 is conspicuously silent about Athanasius’ ordination and about Alexandrian succession politics in general. Athanasius is almost airbrushed from the narrative; Eusebius concentrates on Constantine’s positive dealings with bishops in general, not on the very disputes that structure Philostorgius, Socrates, and Rufinus.
330 / 334 (Foundation of Constantinople; Alexander of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia)	Philostorgius dates the founding/dedication of Constantinople to “the twenty-eighth year of Constantine” (glossed as 334) and compresses the episcopal succession so that, on the death of Alexander of Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia is simply translated to the new see (I.9–10; n.31 flagged as dubious by Valesius). His compressed sequence stands in deliberate tension with the more elaborate orthodox lists.	Socrates HE 1.16–18 gives the more familiar sequence: Metrophanes → Alexander of Constantinople → Paul → Eusebius of Nicomedia, etc., and dates the dedication to 330. He explicitly notes divergent lists and silently corrects the kind of compression you see in Philostorgius. So again, Socrates is an “orthodox double” of Philostorgius at the level of structure, but with different chronological choices and a more developed episcopal series.	Sozomen HE 2.3–4 and Theodoret HE 1.18–20 follow Socrates’ pattern on the episcopal succession and the date of the dedication (c. 330), though with their own rhetorical dress. They help cement Socrates’ correction of Philostorgius’ 334/translation scheme as the mainstream “orthodox” account.	Gelasius’ fragments do not have a standalone “foundation of Constantinople” narrative, but in F22b (“Alexander’s prayer and the death of Arius”) and related material he presupposes Alexander of Constantinople as a real, independent episcopal figure, not just a stepping-stone for Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the Vita Metrophanis et Alexandri is treated as drawing on his dossier.	Rufinus’ narrative of this phase is concentrated in 10.12–14, but he does not dwell on the founding date of Constantinople or on the full episcopal list. Instead, he frames things around: 10.12: Constantia (Licinius’ widow, Constantine’s sister) attached to a semi-Arian presbyter; her deathbed plea leads Constantine to reconsider Arius’ condemnation. 10.13–14: Eusebius of Nicomedia, leveraging his influence over Constantius, convenes a synod in Constantinople to force Alexander of Constantinople to admit Arius; Alexander spends the night in prayer; Arius dies in the latrine; Eusebius and his party are shamed. So Rufinus presupposes an independent Alexander of Constantinople (against Philostorgius’ compressed picture), but his focus is not chronographic; it is theological and anecdotal.	VC 3.1–3 celebrates the foundation of Constantinople as Constantine’s “new Rome,” emphasizing its Christian character (churches, relics, episcopal privileges). Eusebius names bishops and describes Constantine’s patronage of the see, but avoids controversial details about the exact dating or about Alexander/Paul/Eusebius of Nicomedia. In that sense he provides the exalted framework that both Socrates and Philostorgius later fill with competing chronographies.
c. 336–337 (Death of Arius; Alexander of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia; Constantine’s last years)	Philostorgius stresses Arian rehabilitation under Constantine’s later years and into Constantius; the Alexander-prayer / latrine-death story is sidelined or re-colored in a way that fits Arian sensibilities; emphasis is on Eusebius of Nicomedia’s prominence and the succession of Constantine’s sons. He explicitly says Eusebius “brought down his history to the period when Constantine the Great was succeeded in the empire by his sons” (I.2, n.3), implying an extended HE.	Socrates HE 1.35–38 gives the classic story: Arius about to be readmitted at Constantinople; Alexander prays that God remove him rather than let him communicate; Arius’ bowels gush out in the privy; Alexander dies not long after; only later does Eusebius of Nicomedia secure the see, under Constantius. Socrates’ chronological markers firmly place Arius’ death in Constantine’s lifetime, and his narrative blocks overlap almost point-for-point with Rufinus and Gelasius—against Philostorgius’ Arian spin.	Sozomen HE 2.29–31 and Theodoret HE 1.19–20 repeat the same dossier: Arius’ recall, creed, imperial pressure, Alexander’s prayer, latrine death, and subsequent elevation of Eusebius under Constantius. Once again they stand as the pro-Nicene mirror image of Philostorgius: same incidents, different interpretation and dating emphasis.	Gelasius F22 (“Death of Arius early in the reign of Constantius”) and F22b (“Alexander’s prayer and the death of Arius”) show him using the same Alexander/latrine story, but with a chronological rubric that nudges it into the early years of Constantius. So in content he lines up with the Socrates/Sozomen story against Philostorgius, but his dating has a whiff of the “Arian chronographic” pattern that prefers to associate the crisis with Constantius, not Constantine.	Rufinus 10.12–14 gives the fullest Latin version of exactly this dossier: Constantia’s Arian presbyter; Constantine persuaded that Arius may have been unjustly condemned; Arius composes an apparently orthodox creed; Constantine, still cautious, sends him to a council. Eusebius of Nicomedia manipulates Constantius and pushes another council at Constantinople; Alexander refuses to admit Arius; spends the night at the altar praying “Judge, O Lord, between me and the threats of Eusebius and violence of Arius!” Arius, on the way to the church, turns aside “at a call of nature”; his bowels and intestines fall out into the drain; Eusebius and his party are disgraced; the heretics then conspire to suppress the story so Constantius will not realize he has been the victim of perfidy. Rufinus very clearly regards this as part of his own Latin continuation (book ten), not something he found in Eusebius’ Greek HE. The content is parallel to Socrates/Sozomen/Theodoret; the attribution to Eusebius is not.	VC 4.54–73 narrates Constantine’s illness, baptism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, will, death, and burial. It says nothing about Arius’ death or Alexander’s prayer, but it does end squarely with Constantine’s demise and the initial arrangements for the succession of his sons (“Constantine’s sons take up their father’s power”). That ending is very similar to the temporal horizon Philostorgius later ascribes to “Eusebius’ history,” which might explain how a combined HE + VC (or HE + continuation) could be read as one “Eusebian” dossier down to Constantine’s sons. The other possibility is that VC ran parallel to the extended Church History, like the Chronicon did.
Extent / endpoint of Eusebius’ Church History	Philostorgius: “Eusebius brought down his history to the period when Constantine the Great was succeeded in the empire by his sons” (I.2, n.3). On that basis, later readers have posited a longer Eusebian edition, possibly Arian-leaning, that went beyond book ten as we have it.	Socrates HE 1.1 presents Eusebius HE as ending with Constantine’s victory over Licinius and the peace of the Church (c. 324/325). He then explicitly positions his own history as taking things further. Yet at the hinge between his Books 1 and 2, immediately after narrating Constantine’s death (which closes Book 1), Socrates chooses to open Book 2 by admonishing Rufinus for his chronology in exactly this post-Constantine segment. That is striking: even though Socrates says the Eusebian HE ended earlier (pre-Nicaea), the very first business of his “post-Constantine” narrative is to correct Rufinus’ way of extending Eusebius. This makes good sense if, in practice, readers in his milieu knew an “Eusebius + continuation” dossier that effectively ended with Constantine’s death. The fact that Socrates’ first move after Constantine’s death is to attack Rufinus’ sequencing right there suggests that the “Where does Eusebius end?” question was felt most sharply at precisely that point.	Sozomen and Theodoret follow Socrates in treating Eusebius as their predecessor whose work ended before the full Arian controversy, and they too begin their “continuation” narrative in the Constantine/sons transition zone. They don’t polemicize against Rufinus the way Socrates does, but structurally they treat the Constantine/death/succession boundary as the natural seam between “Eusebius” and “what comes next.”	Gelasius: in his preface (F1b), he says explicitly he will write “the history of the things that happened after Eusebius and of the things that Eusebius did not record.” The fragment listing shows him starting again from Diocletian/Constantine (F2–F10) and then continuing at least to Valens (F28). So the combined “Eusebius + Gelasius” codex does, in practice, run from the apostles to after Constantine’s sons and the Arian conflicts, but Gelasius is clear about where Eusebius proper ends.	Rufinus is the clearest explicit witness on this point. In his preface he says: – The Greek book ten “has very little history in it; all the rest is bishops’ panegyrics” which “add nothing to our knowledge of the facts.” – He therefore “omitted what seemed superfluous and joined what history there was in it to the ninth book, which we have made the conclusion of Eusebius’s account.” – “The tenth and eleventh books we composed… adding them like two little fish to the aforesaid loaves.” – These two books cover “from the time of Constantine after the persecution to the death of the emperor Theodosius.” Then, in the short conclusion “Preface to the Continuation of Rufinus,” he repeats that “the record of the affairs of the church with which Eusebius has provided us extends to this point. We for our part have briefly added… the events which followed.” So, from Rufinus’ own testimony: the Greek HE he had ended where everyone else says it does, before the major Arian councils and the succession of Constantine’s sons. All the Nicene, Constantian, Arian, Athanasian, and post-Constantinian material we now read in his books 10–11 is consciously his continuation, not Eusebius.	VC 4 brings the “Constantinian dossier” down to the emperor’s death, baptism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and initial division of power among his sons, then stops. Taken together with the HE (ending at Licinius’ defeat and the peace of the Church) and the prologue-like Chronicon.