¹ Philostorgius's text is traditionally titled the Ecclesiastical History, but see note 3 below. It is customary to cite this text, along with all the ecclesiastical histories from this period, as Historia Ecclesiastica (hereafter these are cited as HE). Citations for Philostorgius's text follow the book and chapter numbers of the critical edition originally edited by Joseph Bidez in 1913 but subsequently revised by Friedhelm Winkelmann. See Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte: Mit dem Leben des Lucian von Antiochien und den Fragmenten eines arianischen Historiographen, ed. Bidez, Joseph, rev. Winkelmann, Friedhelm, 3rd rev. ed., Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 21 (Berlin: Akademie, 1981)Google Scholar. English quotations are from Philostorgius: Church History, ed. and trans. Amidon, Philip R. (Leiden: Brill, 2007)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Church History), which follows Bidez's book and chapter divisions. See also the recent French translation: Philostorge. Histoire Ecclésiastique, trans. Édouard Des Places, with Bruno Bleckmann, Doris Meyer, and Jean-Marc Prieur, Sources Chrétiennes 564 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2013).

² Philostorgius was from Borissus in Cappadocia specifically. Philostorgius, HE 9.9, in Church History, 127. Eunomian Christianity is usually described in comparison to the views associated with the early fourth-century Arius, who was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Nicaea. In fact, Eunomianism developed after the original “Arian” controversy. Also known as Anomoean, Dissimilarian, or heteroousian (other in substance), Eunomian Christianity emphasized God's oneness and immutability as well as the Son's difference from the Father; yet it differed in simultaneously insisting that God's essence and will is knowable and comprehensible. Amidon, Church History, xviii; Eunomius, The Extant Works: Text and Translation, ed. Vaggione, Richard (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 94–95Google Scholar; and Vaggione, Richard, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 252–258Google Scholar.

³ The evidence for how Philostorgius titled his history is inconclusive. Bidez argued in favor of the version preserved in the Palatine Anthology, 9.193–194, which contains a title and two epigrams describing the history. Anthologie grecque: Anthologie palatine, Livre IX, Épigrammes 1–358, text by Pierre Waltz, trans. Guy Soury, vol. 7, Collection des Universités de France (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957), 77. These refer to the work as just a history, not an ecclesiastical history. However, the epitomizer of the history, Photius, refers to it as an ecclesiastical history twice. I tend to concur with the argument that the title and epigrams come from Philostorgius himself because the title refers to him as a Eunomian in contrast to Photius's consistent references to him as an Arian. Amidon translates the title as “The History of Philostorgius, the Eunomian from Cappadocia.” Amidon, Church History, 1. For further discussion, see Bidez, Kirchengeschichte xcix–ci; Amidon, Church History, 1n1; and Des Places et al., Philostorge, 130–131nn1–3.

⁴ See discussion in Amidon, Church History, 1–2n1.

⁵ Philostorgius, HE 9.9, in Church History, 127.

⁶ Philostorgius, HE 3.21, 10.10, in Church History, 57, 140.

⁷ See section I below for more on the summary by Photius and on some differences between the summary and other fragments.

⁸ I will use “ecclesiastical history” or “church history” throughout this essay to describe the Christian histories from this period, with the understanding, however, that this in no way implies that there was a clear and established genre of church history, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries. See also Inglebert, Hervé, “Developpement de l'historiographie chrétienne dans le monde mediterraneen,” Mediterraneo Antico 4, no. 2 (2001): 559–584Google Scholar; Inglebert, Hervé, Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des saviors (cosmographie, geographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l'Antiquite chretienne 30–630 apres J.-C. (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 2001)Google Scholar; and Inglebert, Hervé, Les Romains Chrétiens face à l'Histoire de Rome: Histoire, Christianisme et Romanités en Occident dans l'Antiquité tardive (IIIe–Ve siècles) (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 1996)Google Scholar. For more on Eusebius's historical works, see Johnson, Aaron and Schott, Jeremy, eds., Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013)Google Scholar; and Verdoner, Marie, Narrated Reality: the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011)Google Scholar.

⁹ Winkelmann, Friedhelm, “Historiography in the Age of Constantine,” in Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., ed. Marasco, Gabriele (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 38–39Google Scholar; Urbainczyk, Theresa, Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997), 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croke, Brian and Emmett, Alanna M., “Historiography in Late Antiquity: An Overview,” in History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. Croke, Brian and Emmett, Alanna M. (Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon, 1983), 6Google Scholar; and Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.,” in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. Momigliano, Arnaldo (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 91Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This tendency to amalgamate the Greek historians dates back to the sixth-century Latin translation and compilation of their works by Epiphanius Scholasticus under the direction of the Roman statesman and writer Cassiodorus. Known as the Tripartite History, this conflation became the standard work of ecclesiastical history for centuries in the Latin Middle Ages. Croke, Brian, “Historiography,” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, ed. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 426Google Scholar. For the church historians of the fifth century, see: Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople; Urbainczyk, Theresa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thelamon, Françoise, Païens et Chrétiens au IVe Siècle: L'apport de l’ “Histoire Ecclésiastique” de Rufin d’ Aquilée (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1981)Google Scholar; and Chesnut, Glenn F., The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, 2nd ed. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Rufinus: ca. 403; Philostorgius: 425–433; Socrates: shortly after 439; Sozomen: between 439 and 450; and Theodoret: between 444 and 450.

¹² Philostorgius, HE 1.2, in Church History, 7–8; also, see section III below for discussion of Philostorgius's view of Eusebius's theology and history writing. The other earlier continuators of Eusebius include an anonymous “Arian historian.” For the complex question regarding the fragments traditionally identified as the work of the “Arian historian” and the possibility that a portion of those fragments constitute a chronicle by the non-Nicene Eusebius of Emesa, see Reidy, Joseph J., “Eusebius of Emesa and the ‘Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii,’” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66, no. 3 (July 2015): 471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ If we are going to judge ecclesiastical historians by notions of heresy and orthodoxy, let us bear in mind that Rufinus was accused of Origenism, Socrates was a Novatian, some of Theodoret's work was condemned as Nestorian, and the founding historian Eusebius was himself reputed to be an Arian sympathizer. Rufinus: Deun, Peter Van, “The Church Historians After Eusebius,” in Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. Marasco, Gabriele (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 161Google Scholar. Socrates: Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople, 26–27; and Van Nuffelen, Peter, “Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (381–450 c.e.): The Local Dynamics of Power,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, no. 3 (Fall 2010)Google Scholar: 428n11. Theodoret: Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 28. Eusebius: Schott, Jeremy, “Afterward: Receptions,” in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, ed. Johnson, Aaron and Schott, Jeremy (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), 351–365Google Scholar.

¹⁴ On the development of theology during the fourth century and the construction of the “Arian” controversy, see Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318–381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988)Google Scholar; Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth-century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987)Google Scholar; Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Kopeček, Thomas A., A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge, Mass.: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979)Google Scholar; and especially important for Eunomianism, Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus.

¹⁵ See, for example, the “most radical form of Arianism” in Marasco, Gabriele, “The Church Historians (II): Philostorgius and Gelasius of Cyzicus,” in Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. Marasco, Gabriele (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similarly, see his more recent book, Marasco, Gabriele, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2005), 13Google Scholar. See also the designation “extreme heresy” in Treadgold, Warren, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 126Google Scholar; the designation “polemicist-historian” in Argov, Eran I., “Giving the Heretic a Voice: Philostorgius of Borissus and Greek Ecclesiastical Historiography,” Athenaeum 89, no. 2 (November 2001): 516Google Scholar; and, most recently, “the Arian historian Philostorgius” and “the marginal and idiosyncratic author[s]” in Kaldellis, Anthony, Ethnography after Antiquity: Foreign Land and Peoples in Byzantine Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Throughout the History, Philostorgius disparages those who (in his view) rightly acknowledge that the Son is of another substance than God the Father but fail to see other truths crucial to Eunomian theology; for example, Arius and many of his followers. He also criticizes Arius on multiple occasions: Philostorgius, HE 2.2, 2.2a, 2.3, 10.2, in Church History, 16, 135. See note 3 above for a discussion of “Eunomian” in the title of the text.

¹⁷ Bidez, Kirchengeschichte, xcix–ci.

¹⁸ Momigliano, Arnaldo, “The Origins of Ecclesiastical Historiography,” in The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Sather Classical Lectures 54 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 132–152Google Scholar; Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Popular Religious Beliefs and the Late Roman Historians,” in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Momigliano, Arnaldo, “L'eta del trapasso fra storiografia antica e storiografia medievale (320–550 d.C.),” Rivista Storica Italiana 81, no. 2 (1969): 286–303Google Scholar; and Momigliano, , “Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.” Studies immediately inspired by Momigliano include: Croke, Brian and Emmett, Alanna M., eds., History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon, 1983)Google Scholar; and Holdsworth, C. J. and Wiseman, T. P., eds., The Inheritance of Historiography, 350–900 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Croke, “Historiography”; Woods, David, “Late Antique Historiography: A Brief History of Time,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Rousseau, Philip and Raithel, Jutta (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marasco, Gabriele, ed., Greek and Roman Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brodka, Dariusz and Stachura, Michał, eds., Continuity and Change: Studies in Late Antique Historiography (Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Rohrbacher, David, Historians of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002)Google Scholar; and Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians.

²⁰ Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople, 89–105; Croke, Brian, “Uncovering Byzantium's Historiographical Audience,” in History as Literature in Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007, ed. Macrides, Ruth (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 31–34Google Scholar; and DeVore, David J., “Genre and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Toward a Focused Debate,” in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, ed. Johnson, Aaron and Schott, Jeremy (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), 19–45Google Scholar.

²¹ DeVore, 21–22.

²² Ibid., 44–45.

²³ Leppin, Hartmut, “The Church Historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus,” in Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. Marasco, Gabriele (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 219–254Google Scholar; Sterk, Andrea, “‘Representing’ Mission From Below: Historians as Interpreters and Agents of Christianization,” Church History 79, no. 2 (June 2010): 287–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nobbs, Alanna Emmett, “Philostorgius’ View of the Past,” in Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. Clarke, Graeme (Rushcutters Bay: Australian National University Press, 1990), 251Google Scholar; Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople; Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus; Urbainczyk, Theresa, “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen,” Historia 46, no. 3 (1997): 355–373Google Scholar; Urbainczyk, Theresa, “Vice and Advice in Socrates and Sozomen,” in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Whitby, Mary (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 299–320Google Scholar; Leppin, Hartmut, Von Konstantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II: das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anna Lankina, “Reassessing Historiography in Late Antiquity: Philostorgius on Religion and Empire” (PhD diss., University of Florida, 2014).

²⁴ Leppin, “The Church Historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus,” 253.

²⁵ Croke, “Historiography,” 404–406, 417–419; Croke, “Uncovering Byzantium's Historiographical Audience,” 31–34.

²⁶ The evidence suggests that the historians read each other. Philostorgius wrote parts of his narrative to argue against Rufinus's version of events. Then all the church historians basically read those who came before them. In chronological order: Socrates read Rufinus and possibly Philostorgius; Sozomen read Rufinus, Socrates, and Philostorgius; and Theodoret read Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and possibly Philostorgius. Moreover, Philostorgius read the non-Christian historians Eunapius and Olympiodorus. Sozomen also used Olympiodorus as a source quite extensively.

²⁷ Nobbs, Alanna, “Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History: An ‘Alternative Ideology,’” Tyndale Bulletin 42, no. 2 (November 1991): 279–280Google Scholar.

²⁸ In part, my approach to Philostorgius is influenced by Elm, Susanna, Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012)Google Scholar; and Elm, Susanna, “Pagan Challenge, Christian Response: Emperor Julian and Gregory of Nazianzus as Paradigms of Interreligious Discourse,” in Faithful Narratives: Historians, Religion, and the Challenge of Objectivity, ed. Sterk, Andrea and Caputo, Nina (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2014)Google Scholar. I see this essay on Philostorgius as a historian in his own right as a crucial starting point for a larger project on late antique historiography comparing Nicene, non-Nicene, and non-Christian historians, which I hope will reveal—in the words of Elm—“far more complex interactions, as behooves persons who had far more in common, namely, a deeply cherished shared culture, than divided them—even if their gods were not entirely the same.” Elm, “Pagan Challenge, Christian Response,” 31.

²⁹ As mentioned above, other fragments have also survived. The most substantial ones are in: the pre-ninth-century Artemii Passio (authorship disputed); an anonymous ninth- to eleventh-century Life of Constantine; the tenth-century encyclopedia, the Suda; the tenth-century Palatine Anthology; and the thirteenth-century Dogmatike Panoplia by Niketas Choniates. See Bidez, Kirchengeschichte, xii–cv, for a comprehensive analysis of the fragments and manuscript tradition as well as for discussion on how the fragments in all these texts relate to Philostorgius's lost text and Photius's epitome.

³⁰ For more on Photius, see Treadgold, Warren, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980)Google Scholar.

³¹ Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 40. The critical edition of Photius's Bibliotheca is René Henry, ed. and trans., Photius: Bibliotheque, (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1959–1991). Codex 40 is in 1:23–25.

³² For the suggestion that Photius summarized the text as research for a series of sermons on the Arian Controversy, see Nobbs, “Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History: An ‘Alternative Ideology,’” 277.

³³ Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 40, in Church History, 2.

³⁴ While most treatments of Philostorgius perpetuate stereotypes about him, there are a few notable exceptions: Ferguson, Thomas, The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 125–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leppin, Hartmut, “Heretical Historiography: Philostorgius,” Studia Patristica 34 (2001): 111–124Google Scholar; Meyer, Doris, ed., Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquité tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der spätantiken Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2011)Google Scholar; Alanna Nobbs, “Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History: An ‘Alternative Ideology,’” 271–281; Nobbs, Alanna, “Philostorgius' Place in the Tradition of Ecclesiastical Historiography,” in “Tradition and Traditions,” ed. Dockrill, D.W. and Tanner, R.G., supplement, Prudentia, no. S (1994): 198–207Google Scholar; Nobbs, Alanna E., “Philostorgius’ View of the Past”; and Trompf, G. W., Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice (London: Continuum, 2000)Google Scholar.

³⁵ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, 8.8a, in Church History, 96–97, 116–117. Both seem to advocate for a separation of church and state. See the concluding section of this essay for a more detailed examination of the function of these statements in assessing Philostorgius's views.

³⁶ Codex Theodosianus, 16.5.58, 16.5.59, 16.5.60, 16.5.61, 16.5.65, in The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, ed. and trans. Pharr, Clyde (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), 461–463Google Scholar. Eunomians were also the target of earlier legislation before the reign of Theodosius II, including an edict stipulating the burning of heretical books. Codex Theodosianus, 16.5.34, in The Theodosian Code, 455–456. Eunomians are mentioned seventeen times in laws dealing with heretics promulgated between 381 and 423. Flower, Richard, “‘The Insanity of Heretics Must Be Restrained’: Heresiology in the Theodosian Code,” in Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, ed. Kelly, Christopher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar, 188n55.

³⁷ Nobbs, “Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History: An ‘Alternative Ideology,’” 281. This essay seeks to build on Nobbs's insight about Philostorgius's alternative perspective by going into more detail on the historian's view of the relationship between bishops and emperors in particular.

³⁸ Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 111–124. Unlike this essay, Leppin's article only deals with Philostorgius's view of emperors.

³⁹ Ibid., 124.

⁴⁰ Leppin bases his comparison on his study of the political thought of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Leppin, Von Konstantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II; and Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 124.

⁴¹ Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 124.

⁴² Croke, “Historiography,” 407, 419.

⁴³ Gabriele Marasco, “Église et État chez Philostorge,” in Meyer, Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquité tardive, 265–274; and Marasco, Filostorgio, 189–269.

⁴⁴ Marasco, “Église et État chez Philostorge,” 265. My translation.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 273.

⁴⁶ Croke, “Historiography,” 417.

⁴⁷ In the interest of space, I cannot go into detailed comparisons between Philostorgius and the other church historians. However, preliminary research suggests that Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen all incorporated signs and omens quite differently into their histories. I intend to pursue this research further in my next project.

⁴⁸ See Lankina, “Reassessing Historiography in Late Antiquity,” chapter 7.

⁴⁹ Amidon, Church History, xvi, xviii, xxi–xxii.

⁵⁰ Eunomius, The Extant Works, 94–95; and Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus, 252–258.

⁵¹ Eunomius, The Extant Works, 94–95, 106–109.

⁵² Ibid., 37, 59–61; and Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus, 86–91.

⁵³ Philostorgius, HE 2.3, in Church History, 16.

⁵⁴ He seems to have begun the entire history with a discussion of Maccabees and other historical works. Philostorgius, HE 1.1, 1.1a, in Church History, 7.

⁵⁵ Philostorgius, HE 1.2, in Church History, 8.

⁵⁶ Throughout this essay I analyze Philostorgius's representation of historical events in his history. The accuracy of his version of events is not my focus here.

⁵⁷ Philostorgius, HE 2.9, 2.9a, 3.2, 3.2a, in Church History, 24–26, 38–39.

⁵⁸ Philostorgius, HE 3.2, 3.2a, in Church History, 38–39.

⁵⁹ For Constantine: Philostorgius, HE 1.6, 2.5, in Church History, 8–9, 20–22; and for Constantius: Philostorgius, HE 3.26, 3.22a–3.26a, in Church History, 58–60.

⁶⁰ Philostorgius, HE 3.26, in Church History, 58. Of course, the pro-Nicene historians do not include the same version of events. For Rufinus, see: Rufinus, HE 10.16, in Amidon, Philip R., trans., The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Books 10 and 11 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 28Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Rufinus of Aquileia); but the critical edition of Rufinus's continuation is in Eusebius Werke, ed. Eduard Schwartz and Theodore Mommsen, Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller (Berlin: Akademie, 1999). For Socrates, see: Socrates, HE 2.32, in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, trans. A. C. Zenos, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957), 59 (hereafter cited as NPNF); but the critical edition is Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire Ecclésiastique, Livre I, trans. Pierre Périchon and Pierre Maraval, Sources Chrétiennes 477 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004). For Sozomen, see: Sozomen, HE 4.7, in Chester D. Hartranft, trans., NPNF, 303–304; but the critical edition is Sozomène. Histoire Ecclésiastque, Livres I–II, ed. Joseph Bidez, trans. Andé-Jean Festugière, Sources Chrétiennes 306 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983).

⁶¹ Rufinus, HE 11.33, in Rufinus of Aquileia, 87–89. By comparing Philostorgius's depiction of Constantius to the Nicene historians’ portrayals of Nicene emperors, we can see the different emphases they made describing emperors they were in favor of. For example, both Socrates and Sozomen record a version of Eusebius's famous account of Constantine's vision. See: Socrates, HE 1.2, in NPNF, 1–2; Sozomen, HE 1.3–4, in NPNF, 241–242.

⁶² We can only speculate about Theophilus's origins, but Philostorgius claims he was from an unidentified island called “Diva.” Philostorgius, HE 3.4, in Church History, 40. His missionary activity has generated a good amount of scholarly interest. See: Shahid, Irfan, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984)Google Scholar; Hernández, Gonzalo Fernández, “The Evangelizing Mission of Theophilus ‘the Indian’ and the Ecclesiastical Policy of Constantius II,” Klio 71, no. 2 (1989): 361–366Google Scholar; Frend, W. H. C., “The Church in the Reign of Constantius II (337–361): Mission—Monasticism—Worship,” in L'Eglise et l'Empire au IVe siècle: sept exposés suivis de discussions, ed. Vittinghoff, Friedrich and Dihle, Albrecht (Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1989): 73–111Google Scholar; and Lankina, Anna, “Reclaiming the Memory of the Christian Past: Philostorgius's Missionary Heroes,” Studia Patristica 68 (2013): 3–10Google Scholar.

⁶³ For passages on Theophilus in Philostorgius, see: HE 2.6, 3.4–6a, 3.15, 4.1, 4.7–8, 5.4, 8.2, 9.18, in Church History, 22, 40–44, 54, 63, 68, 78, 112, 133.

⁶⁴ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, in Church History, 40.

⁶⁵ On consecration, see: Philostorgius, HE 3.4, in Church History, 40; and on Eusebius of Nicomedia, see: Philostorgius, HE 1.8a, 1.9, 1.9b, in Church History, 11, 13.

⁶⁶ Philostorgius, HE 1.8a, 1.9b, in Church History, 11, 13.

⁶⁷ Philostorgius, HE 1.7a, in Church History, 10.

⁶⁸ Philostorgius, HE 1.9a, in Church History, 12.

⁶⁹ Philostorgius, HE 2.5, 2.6, 3.4–6, in Church History, 20–22, 40–43. For another ancient account of Ulfila's mission, cf. Auxentius of Durostorum, Letter on the Life, Faith and Death of Ulfila, in The Goths in the Fourth Century, trans. Peter Heather and John Matthews (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1991), 137–143. Also, for discussions of the complex evidence for Ulfila's role in the Gothic conversion, see McLynn, Neil, “Little Wolf in the Big City: Ulfila and his Interpreters,” in Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends, and Pupils, ed. Drinkwater, John and Salway, Benet (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2007)Google Scholar; Sivan, Hagith, “Ulfila's Own Conversion,” The Harvard Theological Review 89, no. 4 (October 1996): 373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, E. A., The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth Publishers, 2008)Google Scholar; Heather, Peter and Matthews, John, The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lankina, “Reclaiming the Memory of the Christian Past.”

⁷⁰ Amidon, Church History, xx.

⁷¹ Homoeans rejected the formulation of Nicaea as introducing unbiblical language of ousia and hypostasis in describing the godhead; hence homoean, meaning similar but not same.

⁷² Philostorgius, HE 2.5, in Church History, 20–22.

⁷³ There is some debate whether the emperor was Constantine or Constantius; see discussion in Amidon, Church History, 20–21n15.

⁷⁴ Ulfila's Roman ancestors from Cappadocia, captured by Goths, serve as the initial agents of Christianization in the narrative. Philostorgius HE 2.5, in Church History, 20.

⁷⁵ Philostorgius, HE 2.5, in Church History, 20–22.

⁷⁶ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, 3.4a, in Church History, 40–42.

⁷⁷ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, 3.4a, 3.4b, in Church History, 41–42.

⁷⁸ Neil McLynn, “Little Wolf in the Big City,” 129.

⁷⁹ Amidon, Church History, 40n8.

⁸⁰ Rufinus, HE 10.9, 10.10, in Rufinus of Aquileia, 19–20.

⁸¹ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, in Church History, 41.

⁸² Just as Philostorgius placed the account of Ulfila and the first mention of Theophilus's mission right next to one another, Rufinus moves from his account of the Christianization of Aksum straight into the account of the conversion of Iberia through another “accidental missionary,” a female captive. Rufinus, HE 10.11, in Rufinus of Aquileia, 20–23. Philostorgius does not seem to be directly responding to Rufinus's account of the conversion of Iberia; parallels between the stories are possible, however, as the story of the female captive in Iberia and Ulfila's captive ancestors both indicate the importance of captives in the spread of Christianity. For more on captives and Christianization, see Sterk, Andrea, “Mission From Below: Captive Women and Conversion on the East Roman Frontiers,” Church History 79, no. 1 (March 2010): 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ Rufinus, HE 10.9, in Rufinus of Aquileia, 19.

⁸⁴ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, in Church History, 40.

⁸⁵ Philostorgius, HE 3.4, 3.4a, in Church History, 41–42.

⁸⁶ Philostorgius, HE 3.5, in Church History, 42; and Amidon, Church History, 42n13.

⁸⁷ Philostorgius, HE 3.6, in Church History, 43.

⁸⁸ Philostorgius, HE 3.6, in Church History, 43.

⁸⁹ Philostorgius, HE 3.6a, in Church History, 43–44. We cannot be certain that Philostorgius made a reference to Theophilus's apostolic status. However, Philostorgius clearly emphasized the bishop's “virtue” and that he received “honor” from the emperor, as these words overlap in the fragments.

⁹⁰ Philostorgius, HE 3.6a, in Church History, 44.

⁹¹ Although Gallus only achieved the status of caesar, Philostorgius presents him as an imperial figure in the History. Cf. Socrates, HE 2.28, 2.33, 2.34, in NPNF, 55–56, 59; Sozomen, HE 4.4, 4.7, in NPNF, 302, 303–304; Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 14.1–11, in Ammianus Marcellinus, trans. John C. Rolfe, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 3–109.

⁹² Philostorgius, HE 3.27–28, in Church History, 60–61; and Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 118–119.

⁹³ Philostorgius, HE 3.25, 3.26a, in Church History, 58, 60.

⁹⁴ Philostorgius, HE 3.27, in Church History, 61.

⁹⁵ Philostorgius, HE 3.27, in Church History, 61.

⁹⁶ Philostorgius, HE 3.28, in Church History, 61.

⁹⁷ Philostorgius, HE 3.28, in Church History, 61.

⁹⁸ Philostorgius, HE 4.1, in Church History, 63.

⁹⁹ Philostorgius, HE 4.1, in Church History, 63.

¹⁰⁰ Philostorgius, HE 4.1, 4.1a, in Church History, 63–65.

¹⁰¹ Philostorgius, HE 5.4, in Church History, 78.

¹⁰² Philostorgius, HE 3.3, 3.12, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.12, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5a, in Church History, 39, 50, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 73–74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82.

¹⁰³ Philostorgius, HE 1.9, 1.9c, 1.10, 2.1, 2.1b, 4.8, 4.12, 5.1, in Church History, 11, 13, 15, 16, 68, 73, 75.

¹⁰⁴ Philostorgius, HE 1.9, 1.9c, 1.10, 2.1, 2.1a, 2.1b, in Church History, 11, 13, 15–16.

¹⁰⁵ Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 117.

¹⁰⁶ For example, Constantius's wife, Eusebia. Philostorgius, HE 4.8, in Church History, 68.

¹⁰⁷ Philostorgius, HE 4.8, in Church History, 68.

¹⁰⁸ Philostorgius, HE 4.8, in Church History, 69.

¹⁰⁹ Philostorgius, HE 4.8, in Church History, 68.

¹¹⁰ Philostorgius, HE 4.9, in Church History, 69.

¹¹¹ Philostorgius, HE 4.9, in Church History, 69.

¹¹² As seen in examples of cooperation: Philostorgius, HE 2.5, 3.4, in Church History, 21–22, 40–41.

¹¹³ Philostorgius, HE 4.10, in Church History, 69. Similarly, Philostorgius, HE 4.12, in Church History, 71.

¹¹⁴ Philostorgius, HE 4.10, in Church History, 69–70.

¹¹⁵ Philostorgius, HE 4.10, 4.11, in Church History, 69–70.

¹¹⁶ Philostorgius, HE 4.11, in Church History, 70–71.

¹¹⁷ Philostorgius, HE 4.11, in Church History, 71.

¹¹⁸ Philostorgius also represents the second council that met in the west in Ariminum as less representative (300 rather than 400 delegates) as it professed the Son to be like the Father and outlawed the use of the term ousia to describe the relationship. Philostorgius, HE 4.10, in Church History, 69–70. He also states that the pressure of the lying bishop Acacius of Caesarea pushed heteroousian bishops to subscribe to it. Philostorgius, HE 4.12 in Church History, 74. Both of these examples reinforce Philostorgius's emphasis on proper conciliar proceedings.

¹¹⁹ Philostorgius, HE 5.1, in Church History, 75.

¹²⁰ Philostorgius, HE 2.1a, 2.1b, 5.1, in Church History, 15–16, 75.

¹²¹ For more examples of bishops tricking each other or emperors, see Philostorgius, HE 5.1, 6.4, 9.8, 9.13, in Church History, 75–76, 80–81, 126–127, 128–129.

¹²² Philostorgius, HE 8.2, in Church History, 111–112; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus, 278–279; and Van Nuffelen, “Episcopal Succession,” 436–439.

¹²³ It is difficult to characterize the existing church hierarchy given the existence of Nicene, homoean, and Eunomian factions. Van Nuffelen, “Episcopal Succession,” 437–438.

¹²⁴ Ibid., 438–439. He also argues that neither Aetius nor Eunomius perceived themselves to be bishops at this point and that the community had therefore elected to place ecclesiastical authority outside of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. As both Aetius and Eunomius had earlier received ordination as bishops, this argument relies on assessing Aetius's and Eunomius's views of themselves. While Van Nuffelen makes a compelling argument, Philostorgius's History presents Aetius and Eunomius as perfect Christian leaders alongside other bishops.

¹²⁵ See section IX below.

¹²⁶ Philostorgius, HE 6.7, in Church History, 83; and Amidon, Church History, 95n28.

¹²⁷ Philostorgius, HE 3.27, 6.7, 6.7b, 9.4, in Church History, 61, 83, 85, 124; and Amidon, Church History, xxii, 83n16, 95n28.

¹²⁸ Amidon, Church History, 83–84n16.

¹²⁹ Ibid.

¹³⁰ Ibid.

¹³¹ Philostorgius, HE 7.1b, 7.3, 7.3a, 7.3b, 7.4, 7.4a, 7.4c, 7.7, 7.8, 7.8a, 7.9, 7.9a, in Church History, 87, 89–95, 97–105.

¹³² Philostorgius, HE 3.27, in Church History, 61.

¹³³ Philostorgius, HE 6.7b, 9.4, in Church History, 85, 124.

¹³⁴ Amidon, Church History, xxii.

¹³⁵ Philostorgius, HE 1.9a, in Church History, 13.

¹³⁶ Philostorgius, HE 2.16, 2.16a, in Church History, 31–35.

¹³⁷ Philostorgius, HE 2.17, in Church History, 35.

¹³⁸ Philostorgius, HE 2.17, in Church History, 35.

¹³⁹ Philostorgius, HE 3.22a–26a, in Church History, 59–60.

¹⁴⁰ Philostorgius, HE 3.22, in Church History, 57.

¹⁴¹ Philostorgius, HE 4.12, in Church History, 73–74.

¹⁴² Philostorgius, HE 5.4, in Church History, 78. The family reference is to Gallus.

¹⁴³ Philostorgius, HE 6.5, in Church History, 81.

¹⁴⁴ Philostorgius, HE 6.5, in Church History, 81.

¹⁴⁵ Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople.

¹⁴⁶ Philostorgius, HE 5.2, in Church History, 76.

¹⁴⁷ Suda, 254, on Leontius, in Suidae Lexicon, ed. Ada Adler, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–1938); and Vermes, Mark, trans., Artemii Passio in From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History, ed. Lieu, Samuel N. C. and Montserrat, Dominic (London: Routledge, 1996), 224–256Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 96–97.

¹⁴⁹ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 96.

¹⁵⁰ The remainder of the entry on Leontius varies in tone from the epitome and may or may not follow Philostorgius.

¹⁵¹ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 96.

¹⁵² Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 96.

¹⁵³ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 97.

¹⁵⁴ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 97.

¹⁵⁵ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 97.

¹⁵⁶ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 97.

¹⁵⁷ Philostorgius, HE 7.6a, in Church History, 97.

¹⁵⁸ Philostorgius, HE 8.8a, in Church History, 116–117. The text is corrupt after the imperial quotation, which makes it very difficult to make conclusions about this passage.

¹⁵⁹ Philostorgius, HE 8.8a, in Church History, 116–117.

¹⁶⁰ Amidon, Church History, 116n23. On Valentinian and church affairs, see Lenski, Noel, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 211–263Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ Philostorgius, HE 8.8a, in Church History, 117; Amidon, Church History, 116–117n23; and Leppin, “Heretical Historiography,” 119.