The Implications of Eusebius's Lost "Arian" Ending for the Historia Ecclesiastica: Constantine Made Alexander of Alexandria = Alexander of Constantinople

Approx. date / event	Philostorgius	Eusebius (HE / VC)	Rufinus	Socrates	Sozomen	Theodoret	Gelasius of Caesarea
c. 318–321 Alexander of Alexandria vs Arius in Alexandria	Treats Alexander of Alexandria as the one who first moves against Arius; emphasizes that Alexander later comes to Nicomedia to push a homoousios formula against Arius and his supporters.	HE and VC effectively skip the doctrinal details; Eusebius never narrates a full Alexander–Arius controversy, only alludes vaguely to “divisions,” avoiding names and theology.	10.1: Alexander succeeds Achillas; Arius, a presbyter “religious in appearance,” introduces novel doctrine; Alexander admonishes gently, then convenes synods; the controversy spreads.	1.5–6: Alexander of Alexandria preaches on the Trinity; Arius objects (“there was when he was not”); Alexander convenes councils and excommunicates Arius and his followers.	1.15–16: Essentially same outline as Socrates, stressing Alexander’s orthodoxy and Arius’s innovation; the dispute becomes empire-wide.	1.2–4: Similar to Socrates/Sozomen; Alexander of Alexandria is defender of tradition and condemns Arius via synod.	In the Nicaea-prelude fragments, Alexander of Alexandria appears as the pre-Nicene opponent of Arius, but Gelasius concentrates more on the council itself than the earlier Alexandrian phase.
325 Council of Nicaea (Alexander of Alexandria as leader; Alexander of Constantinople still in background)	I.7–8: Alexander of Alexandria travels to Nicomedia before Nicaea, persuades a gathering there to adopt homoousios and expel Arius; at Nicaea itself, the story is Arian-tilted: Arius treated sympathetically, homoousios a violent innovation, only Secundus and Theon refuse to sign.	VC 3 (and related passages) stress Constantine’s role, play down the Arian controversy; Alexander of Alexandria is not foregrounded as theological hero, and the Creed is not analysed in anti-Arian terms.	10.2–6: Nicene dossier with Alexander of Alexandria as principal opponent of Arius; Constantine’s burning of petitions; the “dialectician converted by a confessor”; Paphnutius and Spyridon anecdotes; Creed and anathemas.	1.8–10: Alexander of Alexandria leads the anti-Arian side; Nicaea is decisive; more than two oppose Arius; Arius condemned, Eusebians suspect; Creed and canons summarized.	1.17–23: Closely parallels Socrates with extra colour; Alexander of Alexandria is central to the anti-Arian majority; Nicaea settles the homoousios formula.	1.7–8: As with Socrates/Sozomen; Alexander of Alexandria, Hosius, etc., defeat Arius at Nicaea; strong pro-Nicene framing.	F11–F14: “Way to Nicaea” and council narrative; Alexander of Alexandria a chief protagonist; emphasizes that this fills in what Eusebius did not narrate in detail.
c. 328 Death of Alexander of Alexandria; ordination of Athanasius	Echoes the Arian slander tradition: Athanasius seizes the see irregularly; the succession after Alexander of Alexandria is depicted as contentious and illegitimate.	No explicit narrative of Alexander’s death or Athanasius’s election; Eusebius avoids focusing on Athanasius as Nicene leader.	10.15: Famous “baptizing on the seashore” story; Alexander recognizes Athanasius’s precocious priestly aptitude; raises him “for the church”; Athanasius becomes deacon at Nicaea, then legitimate successor at Alexander’s death.	1.15: Note of Alexander’s death and Athanasius becoming bishop; also repeats child-play/baptism story (explicitly attributed to Rufinus in many editions).	2.17–19 (approx.): Athanasius presented as lawful heir of Alexander of Alexandria; Alexander’s death ties directly into Athanasius’s struggles with Arians.	1.26: Alexander of Alexandria dies; Athanasius canonically elected; strongly anti-Arian framing, rejecting slanders about illegitimate ordination.	Athanasian fragments (F18–F21) focus on Athanasius as Nicene hero rather than narrating Alexander’s last days, but presuppose the same “legitimate succession” story as Rufinus/Socrates/Theodoret.
c. 330–334 Foundation / dedication of Constantinople; emergence of Alexander of Constantinople	I.9–10: Dates the dedication to Constantine’s 28th year (glossed as 334); compresses episcopal succession so that on the death of Alexander of Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia simply translates to the new see, minimising Paul’s role and tightening the link between the court and Arian leadership.	VC 3–4: Extended panegyric on the foundation and adornment of Constantinople as “New Rome”; does not give a detailed episcopal list; Metrophanes/Alexander/Paul/Eusebius succession is not laid out, leaving room for later chronographic manipulation.	10.12–14: Presupposes Alexander of Constantinople as a real, independent bishop resisting Eusebius of Nicomedia; does not list the whole succession but clearly distinguishes Alexander from Eusebius’s later occupation of the see.	1.2; 2.6–7: Gives a more elaborate succession: Metrophanes → Alexander of Constantinople → Paul → Eusebius of Nicomedia, explicitly correcting rival lists (which likely include Philostorgius’s compressed version).	2.3–4: Similar to Socrates: Metrophanes and Alexander as early bishops of Constantinople; then Paul and Eusebius; opposes any narrative that erases Paul.	1.19: Follows the Metrophanes → Alexander → Paul → Eusebius sequence, with strong sympathy for Paul and criticism of Arian interventions.	F22b (Alexander’s prayer and death of Arius) presupposes Alexander of Constantinople as a distinct figure whose episcopate straddles the Arius controversy in the capital; his dossier underlies later hagiographic Vitae Metrophanis et Alexandri.
c. 335–336 Recall of Arius; Alexander of Constantinople’s resistance; Arius’s death	Recolours events to suit Arian chronography: stresses Arius’s rehabilitation under Constantine and Constantius; downplays or repositions the “privy death”; tends to associate the crisis more with Constantius’s period than with Constantine’s last year.	VC does not narrate Arius’s recall or macabre death; Eusebius maintains a studied silence on this entire episode, one of the main grounds for later suspicions of his Arian leanings.	10.12–14: Fullest Latin version of the Alexander-Arius story. Constantia’s semi-Arian presbyter persuades Constantine to recall Arius; Eusebius of Nicomedia uses his influence; Alexander of Constantinople refuses to admit Arius; spends the night in prayer; Arius’ bowels pour out in the latrine; Eusebius and party are shamed; heretics suppress the story so Constantius will not realize he was misled.	1.37–38: Parallel narrative: Arius about to be received into communion at Constantinople; Alexander prays that God remove Arius if his doctrine is false; Arius dies in the privy; Alexander dies not long after; the episode is firmly placed under Constantine’s lifetime.	2.29–30: Same core story as Socrates, with additional rhetoric; Arius’s death is divine judgement and vindication of Alexander; again set at the end of Constantine’s reign.	1.14: Retells the Alexander-Arius confrontation and the gruesome death as an act of God; uses it to underscore the justice of the Nicene cause.	F22 (“Death of Arius early in the reign of Constantius”) and F22b (Alexander’s prayer and the death of Arius) reproduce the same Alexander-prayer / privy-death dossier but nudge the chronology slightly toward the early years of Constantius, a move that resonates with Arian chronographic patterns and with Philostorgius’s tendency to shift the centre of gravity toward Constantius.
c. 336–337 Deaths of Alexander of Constantinople and Constantine; succession issues	I.2 & I.9–10: Explicitly says Eusebius “brought down his history” to the time when Constantine was succeeded by his sons; Alexander of Constantinople is pushed into a scheme where Eusebius of Nicomedia’s ascendancy and the Constantinian succession form the climax; Constantine’s final years are read as Arian triumph.	HE ends essentially with Constantine’s victory over Licinius and the peace of the Church; VC carries his life down to his baptism and death; nothing in the preserved Eusebian corpus narrates the Alexander-Arius episode or the detailed post-Nicene Arian developments, which is precisely why Philostorgius’s claim about a “longer” Eusebius is so tantalising.	10.12–14 and the short preface to his continuation: the Alexander-Arius incident and the Constantinian succession are part of Rufinus’s own books 10–11, explicitly added “like two little fish” to Eusebius’s loaves; the death of Constantine and accession of his sons mark the transition into the Arian emperors, not the end of Eusebius’s narrative.	1.1; end of book 1: Socrates ends his first book with Constantine’s death and the succession of his sons, and then opens book 2 by criticizing Rufinus for extending “Eusebius” beyond the proper chronological limit; his structural choice mirrors Philostorgius’s claim about where a Eusebian church history might naturally end, even while he insists that the surviving Greek HE stops earlier.	1.1–2; 2.1–2: Sozomen likewise treats Constantine’s death and the succession as the hinge between his first and second books, but does not explicitly tie this to a lost Eusebian edition; Alexander of Constantinople’s death is folded into the narrative of subsequent Arian struggles.	1.25–27: Theodoret moves quickly from Constantine’s death and the succession to the Arian persecutions and the fortunes of Paul of Constantinople; Alexander of Constantinople is already gone, and the see becomes a tug-of-war between Paul and Eusebius of Nicomedia.	Preface F1b and endpoint fragments: Gelasius says he will write “the history of the things that happened after Eusebius and of the things Eusebius did not record,” then in practice rewinds to Diocletian/Constantine and carries the story at least to Valens. The Alexander-of-Constantinople material is thus explicitly “post-Eusebian” in his scheme, even though, structurally, his combined codex “Eusebius + Gelasius” ends up covering exactly the span Philostorgius attributes to “Eusebius’s history.”

 

Across these writers, Alexander of Alexandria is consistently the pre-Nicene and Nicene anti-Arian figure: his conflict with Arius, leadership at Nicaea, and succession by Athanasius line up quite closely in Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gelasius; Philostorgius preserves the same milestones but reframes them in an Arian key.

Alexander of Constantinople is the hinge of the Arius-recall story. Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gelasius all share a common dossier in which he prays, Arius dies in the privy, and Alexander soon dies himself; they date this to Constantine’s final years (Gelasius slightly slides it toward Constantius). Philostorgius pulls the whole complex toward an Arian triumphalist chronology (foundation of Constantinople in year 28, Eusebius of Nicomedia’s translation, emphasis on the succession of Constantine’s sons), and explicitly claims that Eusebius’s history ran down to that point – in tension with the surviving Greek HE but structurally echoed by the way Socrates and others end or break their own first books.

A Reconstruction of History Assuming Philostorgius Knew the lost Arian Version of Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica and Weighting it Heavier in Our Historical Reconstruction of Events at the End of Constantine's Reign:

Year / event	Philostorgius (baseline; epitome)	Eusebius VC 2–4	Rufinus HE 9–11	Socrates / Sozomen	Theodoret	Gelasius of Caesarea
c. 318–323 Alexander of Alexandria vs Arius	Alexander of Alexandria is the bishop who provokes the controversy with Arius; Arius reacts against Alexander’s teaching on the Son; Alexander deposes / expels Arius. The whole quarrel is framed with clear Arian sympathy for Arius and hostility to Alexander.	No; VC skips the detailed Alexandrian dogmatic quarrel and passes quickly from general “schisms” to Constantine’s concern for Church unity.	Yes; in HE 10 (Rufinus’ continuation) Alexander of Alexandria appears as the orthodox bishop, Arius as the innovator; the narrative is anti-Arian, but it is clearly covering the same basic quarrel Philostorgius presupposes.	Yes; Socrates HE 1.5–7 (and Sozomen 1.15–17) tell the same Alexander–Arius story, but from a pro-Nicene angle. Same basic actors, inverted value-judgements.	Yes; Theodoret HE 1.2–3 again gives Alexander vs Arius with Nicene sympathies.	Yes; where preserved, Gelasius assumes the Alexandrian quarrel as the prelude to Nicaea (F11 “Way to Nicaea”).
325 Council of Nicaea; role of Alexander of Alexandria	Nicaea is described from an Arian perspective: homoousios is an intrusive, violent formula; Alexander of Alexandria is part of the anti-Arian party; only a very few (Secundus, Theonas) refuse; the rest, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, sign under pressure. Alexander stands at the Arian “villain” pole of the story.	No full narrative; VC alludes to Nicaea as Constantine’s great council but does not retell Philostorgius’ Arian-flavoured details or stress Alexander of Alexandria in the same way.	Yes; Rufinus 10.1–6 has the same basic cast (Alexander, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, small minority of dissenters) but turns Nicaea into a Spirit-led anti-Arian victory. He reacts to the Philostorgian / Arian framing but clearly shares the dossier.	Yes; Socrates 1.8–10 and Sozomen 1.17–23 re-narrate Nicaea with Alexander as orthodox hero and the “Eusebians” as bad actors. Same skeleton; values reversed.	Yes; Theodoret 1.6–8 likewise tells Nicaea with Alexander of Alexandria as defender of true doctrine.	Yes; Gelasius’ big Nicaea fragments (F11–F14) deliberately “do what Eusebius didn’t,” but they presuppose the same actors: Alexander of Alexandria, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, minority of hold-outs, etc.
c. 328 Death of Alexander of Alexandria; rise of Athanasius	Alexander of Alexandria dies; Athanasius’ succession is given in hostile, Arian terms. Philostorgius has the classic Arian slander: Athanasius forces an episcopal ordination (two Egyptian bishops locked up and compelled, etc.), and many anathematise him. Alexander is not a “holy predecessor” but part of a corrupt line that produces Athanasius.	No; VC does not narrate Alexandrian succession in detail and does not enter into the Athanasius-ordination legend.	Yes; Rufinus 10.15 gives the famous “child Athanasius baptising on the seashore” and the smooth, Spirit-guided succession from Alexander to Athanasius. This reads like a deliberate reversal of the Arian story Philostorgius preserves.	Yes; Socrates 1.26–27 and Sozomen 2.17 present Athanasius as legitimately chosen successor of Alexander, and explicitly reject Arian calumnies.	Yes; Theodoret 1.26–27 sides with the Athanasian tradition and treats Arian stories of illegitimate ordination as slander.	Yes in tendency; Gelasius’ Athanasian fragments (F18–F21) line up with the pro-Athanasius, pro-Alexander picture, not with Philostorgius’ slanders.
c. 330–334 Alexander of Constantinople during the founding / early years of Constantinople	Philostorgius gives a compressed Constantinopolitan succession tied to Constantine’s “New Rome.” Metrophanes is followed by Alexander of Constantinople; the city’s foundation / dedication is dated in Constantine’s 28th year (glossed as 334). Alexander is there mainly to be the predecessor of Eusebius of Nicomedia; the see is on its way to Arian control.	Yes on the city, no on the tight Arian succession; VC 3–4 celebrates the foundation and dedication of Constantinople and Constantine’s building works, but does not spell out the short episcopal list Philostorgius gives or make Alexander of Constantinople a simple stepping-stone to Eusebius.	Partial; Rufinus knows Alexander of Constantinople and the later move of Eusebius of Nicomedia, but he inserts other figures and episodes and does not keep Philostorgius’ compressed line.	No to the compression; Socrates 1.8, 1.36, 2.6 gives a different list: Metrophanes → Alexander → Paul → Eusebius of Nicomedia. This looks like a conscious correction of Philostorgius’ simple “Alexander then Eusebius” schema.	No to the compression; Theodoret 1.19, 2.6 likewise knows of Paul of Constantinople and refuses the neat Alexander → Eusebius jump.	Yes to Alexander as a real figure; Gelasius’ material presupposes an Alexander of Constantinople independent of Eusebius of Nicomedia (e.g. in the dossier behind F22b), not just a name on the way to an Arian settlement.
After death of Alexander of Constantinople Eusebius of Nicomedia translated to Constantinople	Philostorgius presents Eusebius of Nicomedia as translated directly to Constantinople after Alexander’s death, securing the capital for the Arian cause. There is no intervening Nicene martyr-bishop (like Paul) to interrupt the story; Alexander’s role is to open the door for Eusebius.	No explicit narrative; VC focuses on Constantine’s piety and the unity of the Church, not on the details of Eusebius’ translation or Alexander’s death.	Yes but re-worked; Rufinus acknowledges Eusebius’ later power at court and his role in Arianising policy, but he inserts a very different storyline about councils, exiles and Nicene resistance and does not present a clean Alexander → Eusebius jump.	Yes but corrected; Socrates insists on Paul of Constantinople between Alexander and Eusebius and makes Eusebius’ ascendancy part of a condemnable Arian usurpation, not the natural fulfilment of Constantine’s arrangements.	Yes but corrected; Theodoret also interposes Paul and stresses the injustice and violence involved in Eusebius’ gaining the see.	Yes in substance; Gelasius’ fragments assume that the Constantinopolitan see comes under Arian pressure, but like the others he embeds this in a narrative of Nicene resistance rather than Philostorgius’ smoother Arian consolidation.
c. 336–337 Last years of Constantine; succession of his sons	Philostorgius explicitly says that Eusebius “brought his history down to the time when Constantine the Great was succeeded by his sons.” Under the “long Eusebius” assumption, this is the theological high-water mark: Constantine’s sons rule, and Arian bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia have decisive influence. Alexander of Constantinople has done his part (by dying and making way); Alexander of Alexandria stands back at the fountain-head of the controversy that is now, from an Arian perspective, finally being resolved in their favour.	Yes on the succession, no on the Arian triumph; VC 4 closes with Constantine’s death and burial and gestures to the sons’ rule, but it is written to celebrate Constantine, not to glorify the Arian settlement that Philostorgius presupposes.	Yes but as continuation; Rufinus’ own books 10–11 cover the period “from Constantine after the persecution to the death of Theodosius.” He knows that Eusebius’ Greek HE ended earlier; he does not treat the Arian ascendancy under Constantine’s sons as Eusebius’ own climax.	Yes but as the starting point of their histories; Socrates explicitly starts his narrative where Eusebius stopped and ends book 1 with Constantine’s death and his sons’ succession. His criticism of Rufinus at the start of book 2 presupposes that in his view “Eusebius” did not legitimately extend through this Arian-coloured period.	Yes; Theodoret also treats the sons’ reign as part of the post-Eusebian story of conflict between Arianism and Nicene faith.	Yes; Gelasius’ preface says he will write “the things that happened after Eusebius and the things Eusebius did not record.” His fragments then run deep into the Arian controversies under Constantius and beyond, but always as “after Eusebius,” not as part of Eusebius’ own history.

But here's the weird thing. Alexander of Alexandria's death appears as the last mention of any "Alexander" in the chronology. Eusebius has a narrative in VC I think where he was offered the see of Antioch (and would thereby be called "Eusebius of Antioch") but refuses. The back to back death of Alexander "bishop of this city" and Alexander of Alexandria to me allows for the possibility that Alexander bishop of Alexandria became the bishop of Constantine in the same way as Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia became his successor (and thus "Eusebius of Constantinople"):

Approx. year / phase	Alexander in Philostorgius (Epitome)
c. 313–318 (early episcopate in Alexandria)	Alexander of Alexandria appears as the bishop who succeeds Peter and Achillas and under whom the later controversy with Arius will break out. He is the sitting bishop of Alexandria for the “pre-Nicene” phase of the story; Philostorgius frames him as the one whose teaching and actions provoke the conflict that will give rise to the Arian movement.
c. 318–323 (outbreak of the Arius controversy)	Alexander of Alexandria is the bishop whose discourse on the Trinity prompts Arius’s objections. In Philostorgius’ Arian-leaning narrative, Alexander is portrayed as introducing or defending a doctrine that Arius attacks as Sabellian; Alexander responds with deposition and excommunication. The whole framing is hostile to Alexander and sympathetic to Arius: Alexander is the innovator and persecutor, Arius the defender of true doctrine driven into exile.
325 (Council of Nicaea)	Alexander of Alexandria is now the leading anti-Arian figure at Nicaea. Philostorgius’ Nicene narrative presents the council as a violent innovation: the party of Alexander and his allies impose the ὁμοούσιος; the only steadfast opponents are Secundus and Theon. Alexander is one of the principal architects of the homoousion condemnation of Arius and his followers. (No Alexander of Constantinople here; the “Alexander” in view throughout this block is the Alexandrian bishop.)
c. 328 (death of Alexander of Alexandria; Athanasius’ succession)	Alexander of Alexandria dies and his see is taken over (in Philostorgius’ version) by Athanasius through illegal or violent means. The Arian slander that Athanasius forces two Egyptian bishops, locked in a church, to consecrate him appears here; Alexander functions as the predecessor whose death opens the way. Alexander himself is not developed theologically at this point; he is the departed bishop whose chair is seized by Athanasius in a way that Philostorgius wants to brand as criminal.
Early 330s (foundation / promotion of Constantinople; first notice of its bishop)	Alexander of Constantinople (often called Alexander of Byzantium in other sources) enters Philostorgius’ story as the sitting bishop of the city which Constantine is now enlarging and honoring. In Philostorgius’ compressed chronology of the foundation/dedication of Constantinople, Alexander is the bishop whose death allows Eusebius of Nicomedia to translate directly to the Constantinopolitan see. There is no attempt in Philostorgius to distinguish this Alexander from any other Alexander, nor to harmonize with later orthodox episcopal lists: he simply treats “Alexander, bishop of Constantinople” as the immediate predecessor of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
c. 335–336 (Arius’ recall and final crisis in Constantinople)	Alexander of Constantinople appears again in connection with the attempt to restore Arius to communion in the capital. Constantine (under the influence of the Arian party) orders Arius to be received; Alexander is the bishop who resists. Philostorgius acknowledges Alexander’s role as the episcopal opponent of Arius’s formal readmission, but in an Arian-colored way: the emphasis falls on Alexander as obstructionist, not heroic. The precise manner of Arius’s death in Philostorgius diverges from the standard orthodox “toilet miracle” of Socrates/Sozomen; the epitome concentrates instead on Alexander’s refusal and the political maneuvering around him. Again, this Alexander is consistently the bishop of Constantinople, distinct (in Philostorgius’ narrative flow) from the earlier Alexander of Alexandria.
c. 336–337 (death of Alexander of Constantinople; rise of Eusebius of Nicomedia)	Alexander of Constantinople dies and, in Philostorgius’ compressed episcopal sequence, Eusebius of Nicomedia moves straight into the Constantinopolitan see. This is the point where Philostorgius explicitly connects the end of Alexander of Constantinople’s tenure with the triumph of the Arian cause at court. There is no trace here of a separate “Metrophanes → Alexander → Paul → Eusebius” chain; Alexander is simply the predecessor whose death clears the way for Eusebius, and thus for the fully Arianizing policy under Constantine’s sons.
Later fourth century (retrospective allusions)	Philostorgius makes scattered retrospective references to both Alexanders in later narrative: – Alexander of Alexandria is invoked as the bishop whose earlier hostility lies behind the later Arian–Nicene tensions, usually in connection with Athanasius’ ongoing conflicts. – Alexander of Constantinople is recalled as the bishop displaced in the sequence that leads to Eusebius of Nicomedia’s ascendancy in Constantinople and the consolidation of Arian influence under Constantius. These are backward-pointing references, not new narrative episodes: they keep both Alexanders in view as key turning points in Philostorgius’ “Arian history” of the Church.

CHAP. 9.--He says that, in the twenty-eighth year29 of his reign, Constantine turned Byzantium into the city of Constantinople; and that, when he went to mark out the circuit of the city,30 he walked round it with a spear in his hand; and that when his attendants thought that he was measuring out too large a space, one of them came up to him and asked him, How far, O prince?" and that the emperor answered, "Until he who goes before me conies to a stop ;" by this answer clearly manifesting that some heavenly power was heading him on, and teaching him what he ought to do. Philostorgius adds, that Constantine, after building the city, called it "Alma Roma.," which means in the Latin tongue, "Glorious." He also states, that the emperor established there a senate, and distributed among the citizens a copious allowance of corn, and adorned the city in other particulars with such sumptuous magnificence, that it became a rival to ancient Rome in splen dour. CHAP. 10.--He states, that on the decease of Alexander, the bishop of this city, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was translated to the episcopal chair of the newly erected metropolis. CHAP. 11.--The impious contriver of lies asserts, that after the death of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the votes of the prelates were not unanimous, and that when there was a diversity |439 of sentiment, and a considerable amount of time had been spent in altercation, the divine Athanasius suddenly appeared one evening in the church called after Dionysius, and finding there two Egyptian bishops, firmly closed the doors with the assistance of some of his followers, and so was ordained by them,32 though strongly against the will of the the ordainers. For a power from above fell upon them, and so constrained their will and powers that what Athanasius wished ; was at once done. Philostorgius adds, that the remainder of the bishops then present anathematized Athanasius on account of this transaction ; and that the latter, having first thoroughly strengthened his cause, addressed to the emperor certain letters relating to his ordination, in the name of the entire state; and that the emperor, thinking that the letters in question were written by the assembly of the Alexandrians, ratified the election with his own approval. Afterwards, however, upon being informed of the details of the transaction, he sent Athanasius to Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, to give account of the matter before a synod which was assembled there. And Philostorgius writes, that Athanasius gave way before the threats of the emperor. At length, however, upon arriving at Tyre, he was unwilling to submit to a legal inquiry, but fraudulently suborned a certain harlot, whose belly proclaimed her shame, and laid his plots against Eusebius, who was regarded as the head and chief of the assembly,33 thinking doubtless that he would escape from trial, and avoid the sentence of the synod, in the midst of the tumult and commotion which he thought in all probability would be raised. But our author, so partial to liars, writes that the fraud was openly detected in the very same manner, as the orthodox party say the harlot was detected who had been suborned by the heretics to give evidence against the great Athanasius. For he says that Eusebius asked the harlot if she knew the person who had defiled her; and that upon her answering that she knew him well, Eusebius again asked her whether the party in question was present |440 among the episcopal assembly. She answered, "Spare evil words, my lord; I should be mad, if I were to accuse such holy men of such foul lust" From this the truth was elucidated, and so the whole of the fraudulent conspiracy was brought to light. Thus, says Philostorgius, Eusebius showed himself superior to every calumny that was brought forward, but Athanasius, who hind hoped to escape trial altogether, went away after having been convicted of a double crime, not merely an illegal ordination, but also a foul calumny; and so, by the common consent of all, a sentence of deposition was passed against him. Athanasius, however, went on unblushingly, and ventured to assert that time sentence of deposition and time calumnious stories thrown in his teeth were equally untrue, being mere fabrications of time hatred and ill-will of the bishops assembled in the synod, because lie refused to receive ordination at their hands. On this account the emperor, he adds, charged a second synod of bishops to examine into the cause of Athanasius; and the latter added some fresh charges to the original calumnies. For they said. that Callinicus the confessor, and bishop of Pelusium, had been loaded by him with iron chains and sent into confinement, and that Athanasius did not cease to treat him with contumely, until he had fairly removed him out of his way. Then also the hand of Armenius was brought into court, and Mareotes and Ischyras came forward, and the sacred cup and other stories of a like kind were devised. For these reasons, he says, Athanasius was excommunicated by the synod, and Gregory the Cappadocian substituted in his place.34 Such are the stories of this lover of untruth against the holy Athanasius.

Approx. year / reign-marker	Rewritten Alexander-chronology (one Alexander: Alexandria → Constantinople)	Hook in Philostorgius’ epitome (2.9–11 etc.)
Before Nicaea (c. 312–318)	Alexander is a presbyter or cleric at Alexandria and then becomes bishop of Alexandria. He is the same Alexander who will later be linked with Constantinople, but at this stage he is simply “Alexander of Alexandria,” presiding over the church there and entering into conflict with Arius.	Presupposed in 2.11: “Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας τελευτήσαντος…” The epitomator explicitly remembers him as “Alexander of Alexandria” when discussing Athanasius’ ordination, but does not narrate his earlier career in detail.
325 (Council of Nicaea)	Alexander of Alexandria is one of the principal figures of the Nicene crisis, opposing Arius and his supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia. Under the “one Alexander” hypothesis this is still the same person who will later become bishop of Constantinople, and his prestige at Nicaea helps explain why he is a candidate for the imperial capital later.	Philostorgius alludes to Alexander and Arius in Book I in connection with the Nicene controversy, but the epitome in this section (2.9–11) looks back from the later disputes. The connection to the specific Nicaea dossier is implicit rather than detailed in these chapters.
Constantine’s 28th year (Philostorgius’ dating, c. 334)	Constantine founds or solemnly refounds Constantinople as his “new Rome.” He walks the circuit with spear in hand, led by a heavenly power, adorns the city, establishes a senate and distributes corn. Under the “one Alexander” hypothesis, Alexander of Alexandria is then translated from his Egyptian see to become bishop of this city, Constantinople, in parallel to what later happens with Eusebius of Nicomedia.	2.9 describes the founding and dedication of Constantinople in Constantine’s 28th year and the city’s magnificent adornment. 2.10 then begins, “Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου…,” “When Alexander, high priest of this city, died…”. Under this hypothesis “Alexander of this city” is Alexander formerly of Alexandria, now bishop of Constantinople.
Shortly after foundation of Constantinople (mid-330s)	Alexander, now bishop of Constantinople after translation from Alexandria, dies while in office. This death is narrated in 2.10 as that of “Alexander, bishop of this city.” The shift in 2.11 back to “Alexander of Alexandria” is taken, under this reading, not as a different Alexander but as the epitomator reverting to the older geographical label for the same person.	2.10 states, “Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου…,” the death of Alexander as bishop of Constantinople. Instead of reading this as a different Alexander, distinct from 2.11’s “Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας,” the chronology is recast so they are one and the same, having changed sees.
Immediately after Alexander’s death in Constantinople	After the death of Alexander, the same man now bishop of Constantinople, the emperor and the imperial court engineer a new translation. Eusebius, formerly bishop of Nicomedia, is moved to the Constantinopolitan see and becomes Eusebius of Constantinople, the Arian court bishop.	2.10 continues, “…τὸν Νικομηδείας φησὶν Εὐσέβιον εἰς τὸν τῆς νεοκτίστου πόλεως ἀρχιερατικὸν μεταστῆσαι θρόνον.” “He says that Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the high-priestly throne of the newly founded city.” Under this reconstruction, Eusebius is twice-successor of Alexander, first in doctrine and policy, then in the see itself.
After Alexander’s death (recalled under his old title; c. 328–337)	The narrative then jumps back geographically to Alexandria but keeps Alexander in view under his earlier label “Alexander of Alexandria.” After the death of Alexander, remembered as “Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας,” the Alexandrian see is left contested. The prelates’ votes are divided, the process drags on, and then Athanasius, with a faction and two Egyptian bishops, forces an ordination in the Dionysius church.	2.11 opens, “Ὅτι … Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας τελευτήσαντος…,” “After the death of Alexander of Alexandria…,” and then gives the story of Athanasius’ ordination by two Egyptian bishops with the doors shut. This hypothesis treats “Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας” not as a second Alexander distinct from the one in 2.10, but as the same figure referred to by his earlier see-title because Philostorgius is now talking about the succession to the Alexandrian throne.
Synod of Tyre and aftermath (early / mid-330s)	Athanasius, accused of an irregular and coerced ordination along with other calumnies – the harlot episode, Callinicus, the chalice, the Mareotes investigations, the role of Ischyras – is summoned before the synod at Tyre at the instigation of Eusebius, now in the capital. Athanasius is deposed and Gregory the Cappadocian is imposed in Alexandria. All this unfolds after Alexander has gone from both Alexandria and Constantinople, a single Alexander whose death opens the door for Eusebius in the capital and for the Arian party’s strike at Athanasius.	Still in 2.11 and following, Philostorgius lists the misdeeds attributed to Athanasius, his deposition at Tyre, and the substitution of Gregory the Cappadocian in his place. The whole sequence hangs from the initial “τελευτήσαντος… Ἀλεξάνδρου,” under this reconstruction a single Alexander whose career ends in Constantinople but whose “of Alexandria” title is used when describing the Alexandrian succession.

The basic proposal is simple. Instead of imagining two neatly distinct bishops called Alexander—one safely parked in Alexandria, another conveniently installed in Constantinople—I start from the opposite end: there is one Alexander at the core of Philostorgius’ narrative; he begins as Alexander of Alexandria; he later appears as bishop of Constantinople, “bishop of this city”; and he dies there, opening the way for the translation of Eusebius of Nicomedia. 

 On this reading, the epitome’s alternation between “bishop of this city” (2.10) and “Alexander of Alexandria” (2.11) is not proof of two different men but a shift of reference frame in Photius’ own voice. When the story is anchored in Constantinople, Alexander is “the high priest of this city”; when the focus moves back to the succession crisis in Egypt, the same figure is recalled as “Alexander of Alexandria.” 

If that is right, then the “two Alexanders” of the later orthodox historians begin to look like a harmonizing correction of something more compressed and inconvenient in the underlying Arian dossier—a single Alexander whose career sits at the hinge between Alexandria, Constantinople, and the rise of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Everything here turns on remembering who is actually speaking on the page. Any attempt to use Philostorgius as a witness for “two Alexanders” has to begin with a basic but often blurred fact: the Greek text that survives is not Philostorgius’ own continuous narrative, but Photius’ ninth-century epitome in the Bibliotheca (cod. 40). The sentence frames, the connective tissue, and a good deal of the moral color are Photius’, not Philostorgius’. 

It is Photius who decides how to segment, label, and condemn what Philostorgius wrote. In the crucial passage this is very clear. At 2.10 the epitome reads: Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου, τὸν Νικομηδείας φησὶν Εὐσέβιον εἰς τὸν τῆς νεοκτίστου πόλεως ἀρχιερατικὸν μεταστῆσαι θρόνον. “After the high priest of this city, Alexander, had died, he says that Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the episcopal throne of the newly founded city.” The finite verb is φησίν. Grammatically its subject is Philostorgius: “he says that Eusebius…” But the narrative vantage point—the demonstrative “this city” and the phrase “high priest of this city” (τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερεύς)—belongs to Photius sitting in Constantinople. He is the one orienting his readers: “this city” is his city. 

It is also worth noting the terminology: in Constantinople Alexander is called ἀρχιερεύς, “high priest.” Immediately afterwards, at 2.11, the epitome continues: Ὅτι τὸ δυσσεβὲς οὗτος τοῦ ψεύδους ὄργανον, Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας τελευτήσαντος… “That this impious instrument of falsehood, after the death of Alexander of Alexandria…” 

Here the polemical tag τὸ δυσσεβὲς… τοῦ ψεύδους ὄργανον (“this impious instrument of falsehood”) is transparently Photian. We are not overhearing Philostorgius’ voice; we are being told what Philostorgius “says,” in sentences that have been re-cast by a ninth-century patriarch who loathes him. Within that frame, the back-to-back genitive absolutes—first “Alexander, high priest of this city, having died” (2.10), then “Alexander of Alexandria having died” (2.11)—are the epitomator’s way of structuring and disambiguating the story for his audience. 

 Once you see the layered authorship, the tidy “two Alexanders” prosopography looks a lot less solid. On the surface, the epitome seems to set up (a) an Alexander in Constantinople whose death allows Eusebius of Nicomedia to be translated to the new capital, and (b) another Alexander, explicitly “of Alexandria,” whose death precedes the forced ordination of Athanasius. If you read the epitome naïvely, both Alexanders slide very comfortably into the later orthodox lists. But that neatness may be a by-product of Photius’ summarizing technique, not a faithful mirror of Philostorgius’ conception. An epitomator has to compress, label, and tidy.  

One obvious way for Photius to keep his ninth-century readers oriented is to force the material into clear categories: one Alexander “of this city,” another Alexander “of Alexandria.” That does not prove that Philostorgius himself wrote with the same hard distinction. On the contrary, an Arian historian interested in the court politics of Constantine’s new capital might very well have handled the transition from Alexandria to Constantinople in a looser and more fluid way—assuming his readers could carry the identification of “Alexander” across settings without needing repeated city-labels. Under that scenario Philostorgius does not have to spell everything out. He might speak simply of Alexander’s death in connection with Eusebius’ translation, and later of Alexander’s death in connection with Athanasius’ ordination, trusting the narrative context (court vs. Alexandrian succession) to do the disambiguating work. 

It is when Photius retells this material, standing in Constantinople and writing for a very different audience, that “the high priest of this city” on the one hand and “Alexander of Alexandria” on the other crystallize into two seemingly separate prosopographical entries. One further wrinkle reinforces the point. In 2.10 Alexander at Constantinople is “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς), while in 2.11 Alexander in Egypt appears under the more standard Christian title “bishop” in later discourse about him. Those terminological differences can easily be over-interpreted as proof of two figures; but given Photius’ habit of mixing his own ecclesiastical idiom with snippets from Philostorgius, they may tell us more about Photian style than about Philostorgian prosopography. Because Philostorgius’ original text is lost, none of this can be proved. 

The single-Alexander hypothesis cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt, and it would be rash to insist that Philostorgius “must have” written that way. What can be said, and what is often quietly ignored, is more modest but important: the Greek of 2.10–11 does not compel a two-Alexander reading. Grammatically and narratologically it just as easily allows the career of a single Alexander to be described under two aspects—bishop of “this city” when Photius is thinking from Constantinople, and “of Alexandria” when he turns his readers’ eyes back to the Nile. If that is right, the genuine evidential force of the epitome is quite limited. It shows us, in vivid and moralizing language, how a ninth-century patriarch wanted to present an Arian historian’s story of the fourth century. It does not, by itself, exclude the possibility that Philostorgius’ original narrative allowed or even encouraged the conflation of Alexander of Alexandria and Alexander “of this city” into a single career trajectory. And once that possibility is on the table, the tidy Catholic distinction between “Alexander of Alexandria” and a separate “Alexander of Constantinople” starts to look a little more like a later prosopographical convenience than an unavoidable reading of the Arian source.