Title: NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories Creator(s): Socrates Scholasticus Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor) Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886 Rights: Public Domain CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church; LC Call no: BR60 LC Subjects:
Christianity
Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
VOLUMES I-VII.
UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME II
SOCRATES & SOZOMENUS
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF
SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.
Revised, with Notes, by
The rev. A. C. Zenos, D.d.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological
Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
Prefatory Note.
------------------------
The basis of the present edition of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History is the translation in Bagster's series mentioned in the Introduction, Part IV. The changes introduced, however, are numerous. The translation was found unnecessarily free; so far as the needs of the English idiom require freedom no fault could, of course, have been found with the translation; but the divergences from the original in multitudes of cases were not warranted by any such need; they were more probably induced by the prevailing style of rhetoric common in the days when the translation was made. The change which has gradually come about in this respect called for modifications in the present edition. Many more might have been introduced without damage to the work. But it was felt that the scope and purpose of the edition only called for the most necessary of these changes.
In the preparation of the notes the editions of Hussey and Reading, containing Valesius' and Reading's annotations, were freely used. Whenever a note was taken bodily from these, it has been quoted and duly credited. It was thought best, however, usually to condense and reduce the number and bulk of these notes and introduce sparingly such new notes as were suggested by more recent study in ecclesiastical history.
The Introduction is almost altogether dependent on the literature quoted in Part I. The writer claims no original discovery respecting Socrates or his work. The facts had been diligently collected by his predecessors; he has simply rearranged them and put them into expression such as, to his mind, suits the requirements of the plan of the series.
A.C. Zenos.
Introduction.
------------------------
I. Sources and Literature. [1]
U. Chevalier in his Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age gives the following list of authorities on Socrates Scholasticus.
Baronius:* Ann. [1593] 439, 39. Cf. Pagi, Crit. [1689] 9, 11, 427, 15-6.
Bellarmin Labbé: S. E. [1728] 164.
Brunet:* Manuel [1864] V. 425.
Cave:* S. E. [1741] I. 427.
Ceillier:* Hist. Aut. Eccl. [1747] XIII. p. 669-88. (2 a VIII. 514-25.)
Darling:* Cyclopædia Bibliographica; Authors.
Du Pin:* Bibl. Aut Eccl. [1702] III. ii. 183.
Ebed-Jesu: Cat. Scr. Eccl 29. (Assemani: Bibl. Orient. III. 141.)
Fabricius:* Bibl. Græc. [1714] VI. 117-21. (2 a VII. 423-7.)
Graesse:* Trésor [1865] VI. 1, 429.
Hoffmann: Lex. Bibl. Gr. [1836] III. 625-6.
Holzhausen: Commentatio de fontibus quibus Socrates, Sozomenus ac Theodoretus usi sunt, &c. Götting. 1825.
Jöcher.
Nouvelle Biog. Gen.:* [1868] XLIV. 127-8.
Nolte: [2] Tübing. Quartalschrift [1860] 518; [1861] 417-51.
Patrologia Græca* (Migné) LXVII. 9-26.
Sigebert: Gembl. S. E. 10.
Tillemont: [3] Hist. des Emp. [1738] VI. 119-22.
Trithemius: Scr. Eccl. 137.
Vossius: Hist. Græca [1651] 259.
Walford: [4] in Bohn's Eccl. Libr. VI. 1853.
To these there should be added important notices of Socrates or his Ecclesiastical History as follows:
F. C Baur: Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung Tübing. 1852, p. 7-32.
J. G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History.
Ad. Harnack: In Herzog-Plitt's Real Enkyclop. vol. 14, Sokrates und Sozomenos and in Encyclop. Britannica, Socrates.
K. O. Müller: History of Greek Literature: English translation and continuation by Donaldson, Vol. III.
Rössler: Bibliothek der Kirchenväter.
Jeep: Quellenuntersuchungen zu der griech. Kirchenhistorikern. Leipsic, 1884.
Sarrazin: De Theodoro Lectore, Theophanis Fonte præcipuo, 1881.
Stäudlin: Gesch. und Literatur der Kirchen-geschichte, 1827.
Overbeck: Theol. Liter.-Zeitung, 1879. No. 20.
Also articles on Socrates in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (by John Calrow Means) and Smith & Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography (William Milligan), as well as passing notices in standard ecclesiastical histories such as Neander, Hase, Killen, Schaff, &c., and Introductory notices of Valesius (Hussey), Parker, Bright, &c.
[1] All works marked with a star in Chevalier's list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of Chevalier.
[2] Nolte's article is on the textual emendations needed in the edition of Socrates. The text of our historian has not been as thoroughly and completely examined and corrected as other writings. Valesius' edition (Hussey) gives an account of a few mss. examined by himself; nothing further has been done of any importance. It is to be hoped that Gebhardt and Harnack may find it convenient to incorporate a new collation and revision in their Texte und Untersuchungen.
[3] All works marked with a star in Chevalier's list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of Chevalier.
[4] E. Walford, A.M., appears as the translator of Sozomen, not of Socrates. See IV. of Introduction, note 6.
II. Life of Socrates.
We cannot but regret the fact that the age in which Socrates lived cared little, if at all, about recording the lives of its literary men. The only sources of information in this respect are the writings themselves of these literary men and the public records, in case they held the double character of literary men and political or ecclesiastical officials. As Socrates did not participate in the public affairs of his day, our information respecting him is confined to the scanty and incidental items we may gather from his history. As he was not very fond of speaking of himself, these data are few and often of doubtful significance. In fact, the reconstruction of his biography from these scattered items is a matter of difficult critical investigation.
All that these inadequate materials yield of his biography may be summed up as follows:
He was born in Constantinople. [5] He nowhere mentions his parents or ancestry, and no information has reached us on this point from any other source. The year of his birth is inferred from what he says of his education at the hands of the grammarians Helladius and Ammonias. [6] These grammarians were originally Egyptian priests living in Alexandria--the former of Jupiter, and the latter of Pithecus (Simius); they fled from their native city in consequence of the disturbances which followed the cleansing of the Mithreum and destruction of the Serapeum by the bishop Theophilus. It appears that at that time an open conflict took place between the pagans and Christians, and many of the pagans having taken part in the tumult, laid themselves open to criminal prosecution, and to avoid this, took refuge in other cities,--a large number of them naturally in Constantinople. TheChronicon of Marcellinus puts this event in the consulship of Timasius and Promotus, i.e. 389 a.d. Now, as Socrates was very young [7] when he came to these grammarians, and it was the custom to send children to the schools at the age of ten, Valesius has reasoned that Socrates must have been born in 379; others have named 380 [8] as a more probable date for this event. Other data for ascertaining the exact date of Socrates' birth are of very doubtful significance. He speaks, for instance, of Auxanon, [9] a Novatian presbyter, from whom he had received certain information; but as Auxanon lived till after the accession of Theodosius the Younger in 408 a.d., it is impossible to draw any conclusion from this fact. So again Socrates mentions the patriarchate of Chrysostom in Constantinople (398-403) as if he had received his information at second hand, [10] and thus implies that he was perhaps too young to be an interested eye-witness of the events of that period. But how young he was we cannot infer from this fact; and so cannot take the patriarchate of Chrysostom as a starting-point for our chronology of Socrates' life. Still another item that might have served as a datum in the case, had it been definitely associated with a known event in Socrates' career, is his mention of a dispute between the Eunomians and Macedonians which took place in Constantinople in 394. [11] If he were an eye-witness of this quarrel, he must have been old enough to take an interest in it, hence about fourteen or fifteen years of age. But this conclusion, even though it coincides exactly with the date found previously (379), is not at all certain, as he does not state that he was an eye-witness; and if the reasoning is correct, then he was not too young to be interested in the events of Chrysostom's patriarchate which occurred a little later. Thus, on the whole, while it is extremely probable that Valesius is right in setting the date of Socrates' birth in 379, this event may have taken place several years later.
Nothing further is known of Socrates' early life and education except that he studied under Ammonius and Helladius, as already noted. Valesius has conjectured from the mention of Troïlus, the famous rhetorician, [12] that Socrates must have received instruction from this teacher also, but with no sufficient foundation. [13]
Socrates always remained a resident of Constantinople, and was evidently proud of his native city, and fond of alluding to its history as well as its actual condition. He relates how the Emperor Constantine enlarged it and gave it its present name in place of the former heathen name it bore (Byzantium). [14] He speaks of its populousness, and at the same time of its ability to support its many inhabitants from its abundant resources. [15] He looks on its public structures very much as the ancient Israelite did on the towers and battlements' of Jerusalem. He mentions especially the walls built by Theodosius the Younger, the Forums of Constantine and Theodosius, the Amphitheatre, the Hippodrome with its Delphic tripods, the baths, especially that called Zeuxippus, [16] the churches of which he names at different times as many as five; viz.: the church of the Apostles, erected by Constantine especially for the burying of the emperors and priests; [17] the church of St. Sophia, which he calls the great church'; the church of St. Irene, [18] located in the same enclosure as that of St. Sophia; the church of St. Acacius, together with its appendages; [19] and the chapel of St. John, built seven miles outside the city. [20] Besides these he also mentions circumstantially the porch and shambles and porphyry column near which Arius was attacked with his sudden and fatal illness, [21] the region called Sycæ, and the tomb of Alexander the Paphlagonian, who was tortured and died in prison during the temporary supremacy of the Arians. [22]
Although there is no distinct mention of his ever having left the great city, [23] it is improbable that, like his great Athenian namesake, he was averse to traveling. In fact, his frequent mention of the customs of Paphlagonians, Thessalians, Cyprians, and others with minuteness of detail, rather gives the impression that he had visited these places.
According to the preponderance of evidence Socrates was trained as a pleader or advocate, and practiced this profession for a time. Hence his cognomen of Scholasticus. [24] At the instance of a certain Theodorus he undertook to write a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, bringing it down to the seventeenth consulate of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger (439 a.d.). [25]
This year is the last definitely mentioned in his work. He must have lived, however, until some time after that date, as he speaks of a revision of the first two books of the History. [26] How much later it is impossible to tell: it was not certainly till after the end of Theodosius' reign; for then he would have brought down his history to that event, and thus completed his seventh book according to the plan, which is evident in his whole work, of assigning one complete book to each one of the emperors comprised in his period.
Of the character of Socrates as a man we know as little as of the events of his life. Evidently he was a lover of peace, as he constantly speaks with abhorrence of the atrocities of war, and deprecates even differences in theological standpoint on account of the strife and ill-feeling which they engender.
Socrates' knowledge of Latin has been inferred from his use of Rufinus, [27] but Dodwell [28] conjectures that Socrates read Rufinus in a Greek translation, and that such translation had been made by Gelasius.
Inasmuch as he lived in, and wrote of, an age of controversies, and his testimony must be weighed according to his theological standpoint, this standpoint has been made the subject of careful study. There is no doubt left by his explicit declarations about his agreement in the main with the position of the orthodox or catholic church of his age, as far as these are distinguished from those of Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, and other heretics. But as to his attitude towards Novatianism there has been considerable difference of opinion. That he was a member of the Novatian sect has been held after Nicephorus Callisti [29] by Baronius, Labbæus, and others, and argued from various considerations drawn from his work. Some of these are: that he gives the succession of the Novatian bishops of Constantinople; [30] that he knows and mentions Novatian bishops of other places, e.g. of Rome, [31] of Scythia, [32] of Nicæa; [33] that he mentions Novatian churches as existing in Phrygia and Paphlagonia, [34] in Lydia, [35] in Cyzicum, [36] in Nicæa, [37] in Nicomedia and Cotyæum, [38] and in Alexandria; [39] that he knows and describes their church edifices; [40] that he knows their internal troubles and trials, [41] especially their position on the Paschal controversy; [42] that he gives vent to expressions of a sympathetic nature with the rigor practiced by the Novatian church; [43] that he records the criticisms of Novatians on Chrysostom and the opinion that his deposition was a just retribution for his persecution of the Novatians; [44] that he attributes miracles to Paul, Novatian bishop of Constantinople, [45] takes the testimony of Novatian witnesses, [46] rejects current charges against them, [47] and finally speaks of the death of Novatian as a martyrdom. [48]