Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Socrates' Ecclesiastical History.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
III. Socrates’ Ecclesiastical
History.
Until the beginning of the
fourth century historiography remained a pagan science. With the
exception of the Acts of the Apostles and its apocryphal imitations, no
sort of attempt had been made to
record even the annals of the Christian Church. At the opening of the
fourth century Eusebius conceived the idea of writing a history which
should include a complete account of the Church’s life to his own
days. Hence he has correctly been called the Father of Church History.
His work was done so satisfactorily to his contemporaries and immediate
successors that none of them undertook to go over the same field
again.61
| 61That this was not due to a general conviction that
one history of a period rendered another of the same period unnecessary
is evident from the fact that the period immediately succeeding is
treated of by three successive historians, and that the second of
these, at least, knows and uses the work of his predecessor.
|
They estimated the thoroughness and accuracy of his work much higher
than later ages have done. But this respect, which enhanced the
magnitude of his work in their eyes, at the same time inspired many of
them with a desire to imitate him.
Thus a school of church historians arose, and a number
of continuations of Eusebius’ History were undertaken. Of
these, six are known to have seen the light: three of these again are
either in part or wholly lost; viz., those of Philippus Sidetes,
of Philastorgius, and of Hesychius. The first because of
internal characteristics which made it difficult to use; the second
because its author was a heretic (an Arian), and with the wane of the
sect to which he belonged, his work lost favor and was gradually
ostracized by the orthodox, and thus was lost, with the exception of an
abstract preserved by Photius; and the third, for reasons unknown and
undiscoverable, met with the same fate, not leaving even as much as an
abstract behind. The remaining three are the histories of
Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That of
Theodoret begins with the rise of Arianism, and ends with Theodore of
Mopsuestia (429 a.d.). That of Sozomen was
begun with the purpose of including the history of the years between
323 (date of the overthrow of Licinius by Constantine) and 439 (the
seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger), but for some reason
was closed with the death of the Emperor Honorius (423), and so covers
just one hundred years. The work of Socrates, being evidently older
than either of the other two, is more directly a continuation of the
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. The motives which actuated
him to continue the narratives of Eusebius may be gathered from the
work to be his love for history,62
| 62Harnack, however, successfully proves that
Socrates’ ideal of history, in spite of his love for it, was far
from being the scientific idea which existed among pagan writers even
of the age preceding his own. Cf. Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyk. Vol.
14, p. 413 sq.
|
especially that of his own times,63
his respect for Eusebius, and the exhortation of Theodorus, to whom the
work is dedicated.64
| 64Cf. II. 1; VI. Int.; VII. 47. This Theodorus is
simply addressed as ἱερὲ τοῦ
θεοῦ ἄνθρωπε,
from which it has been rightly inferred that he was an ordained
presbyter. The view that Theodore of Mopsuestia is the person addressed
has been proved to be erroneous from the date of his death, 429 a.d. The Ecclesiastical History was no doubt
completed after that event, and could not have contained an address to
the eminent Theodore.
|
The author opens with a statement of his purpose to take up the account
where Eusebius had left it off, and to review such matters as,
according to his judgment, had not been adequately treated by his
predecessor. Accordingly he begins with the accession of Constantine
(306 a.d.), when the persecution begun by
Diocletian came to an end, and stops with the year 439. He mentions the
number of years included in his work as 140. As a matter of fact, only
133 years are recorded; but the number given by the author is doubtless
not meant to be rather a round than a precise number. The close of his
history is the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the
Younger—the same as the proposed end of Sozomen’s work. Why
Socrates did not continue his history later is not known, except
perhaps because, as he alleges, peace and prosperity seemed to be
assured to the church, and history is made not in time of peace, but in
the turmoils and disturbances of war and debate. The period covered by
the work is very eventful. It is during this period that three of the
most important councils of the church were held: those of Nicæa
(325), of Constantinople (381), and the first council of Ephesus (431),
besides the second of Ephesus, called the “Robbers’
Council” (λῃστρική), and
that of Chalcedon, which were held not much later. It is this period
which saw the church coming to the ascendant. Instead of its being
persecuted, or even merely tolerated, it then becomes dominant. With
its day of peace from without comes the day of its internal strife, and
so various sects and heresies
spring up and claim attention in church history. Socrates appreciated
the importance which these contentions gave to his work.65
Geographically Socrates’ work is limited to the
East. The western branch of the church is mentioned in it only as it
enters into relations with the eastern. The division of the history
into seven books is made on the basis of the succession in the eastern
branch of the Roman Empire. The seven books cover the reigns of eight
eastern emperors. Two of these reigns—that of Julian
(361–363) and that of Jovian (363–364)—were so brief
that they are combined and put into one book, but otherwise the books
are each devoted to the reign of one emperor. The first book treats of
the church under Constantine the Great (306–337); the second, of
the period under Constantius II. (337–360); the third, of that
under Julian and Jovian taken together (360–364); the fourth, of
the church under Valens (364–378); the fifth, of Theodosius the
Great (379–395); the sixth, of Arcadius (395–408); and the
seventh, to those years of Theodosius the Younger (408–439) which
came within the period of Socrates’ work.
As the title of the work (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ
῾Ιστορία) indicates,
the subject is chiefly the vicissitudes and experiences of the
Christian Church; but the author finds various reasons for interweaving
with the account of ecclesiastical affairs some record also of the
affairs of the state. His statement66
of these reasons puts first among them the relief his readers would
experience by passing from the accounts of the perpetual wranglings of
bishops to something of a different character; second, the information
which all ought to have on secular as well as ecclesiastical matters;
and third, the interlacing of these two lines, on account of which the
understanding of the one cannot be full without some knowledge of the
other. ‘By a sort of sympathy,’ says he, ‘the church
takes part in the disturbances of the state,’ and ‘since
the emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church have become
dependent on them, and the greatest synods have been held and are held
at their bidding.’ It cannot be said, however, that Socrates
either thoroughly realized or attempted any systematic treatment of his
subject from the point of view of the true relations of church and
state; he simply had the consciousness that the two spheres were not as
much dissociated as one might assume.
On the general character of Socrates’
History it may be said that, compared with those produced by his
contemporaries, it is a work of real merit, surpassing in some respects
even that of his great predecessor, Eusebius. The latter has confused
his account by adopting, under the influence of his latest informant,
differing versions of facts already narrated, without erasing the
previous versions or attempting to harmonize or unify them. Compare
with this feature Socrates’ careful and complete revision of his
first two books on obtaining new and more trustworthy information.67
| 67II. 1. The new information here referred to is drawn
from the works of Athanasius, which had come into the hands of the
author. Cf. II. 17.
|
In the collection of his facts Socrates everywhere tried
to reach primary sources. A great portion of his work is drawn from
oral tradition, the accounts given by friends and countrymen, the
common, but not wild, rumors of the capital, and the transient
literature of the day. Whenever he depends on such information,
Socrates attempts to reach as far as possible the accounts of
eye-witnesses,68
| 68I. Int.; V. 19; VI. Int.
|
and appends any doubts he may have as to the truth of the statements
they make. Of written works he has used for the period where his work
and that of Eusebius overlap the latter’s Ecclesiastical
History and Life of Constantine;69
for other events he follows Rufinus,70
| 70I. 12, 19; II. 1; III. 19; IV. 24, 26.
|
abandoning him, however, in his second edition, whenever he conflicts
with more trustworthy authorities. He has also made use of
Archelaus’ Acts,71
of Sabinus’ Collection of the Acts of the Synods, which he
criticises for unfairness,72
| 72I. 8; II. 15, 17, 20; III. 10, 25; IV. 12, 22.
|
Epiphanius’ Ancoratus,73
George of Laodicea,74
Athanasius’ Apolog.,75
de Syn.,76
and de Decr. Nic.,77
Evagrius,78
Palladius,79
Nestorius,80
and Origen.81
Christian writers before Origen are
known to him and mentioned by him, such as Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Apollinaris the Elder, Serapion, and others; but he does
not seem to have used their works as sources, probably because they
threw no light on the subject at hand, his period being entirely
different from that in which they flourished. Besides these writers,
Socrates has also used public documents, pastoral and episcopal
letters, decrees, acts, and other documents not previously incorporated
in written works. Some of these the author has used, but does not quote
in extenso, on account of their length.82
Of the sources that he might have used, but has not, may be mentioned
Dexippus, Eunapius (χρονικὴ
ἱστορία), Olympiodorus
(λόγοι
ἱστορικοί), and
especially Zosimus, his contemporary (ἱστορία νέα).
Whether these were unknown to him, or whether he deemed it unnecessary
to make use of the information given by them, or considered them
untrustworthy, it cannot be ascertained. It is sufficient to say that
for the period he covers, and the geographical limitation he has put on
his work, his array of facts is sufficiently large and to the purpose.
The use he makes of these facts also shows sufficiently the historian
as thorough as he could be considering the time and environment in
which he flourished. There is an evident attempt throughout his work at
precision. He marks the succession of bishops, the years in which each
event took place by the consulships and Olympiads of Roman and Greek
history. He has made painstaking investigations on various topics, such
as the different usages in various localities, respecting the
observance of Easter, the performance of the rites of baptism and
marriage, the manner of fasting, of church assemblies, and other
ecclesiastical usages.83
His accuracy has been questioned from the time of Photius84
| 84Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 28.
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν
τοῖς δόγμασι
οὐ λίαν
ἀκριβής. Whether in this phrase he
meant to accuse Socrates with inaccuracy in the narration of facts or
indifference to theological dogma is not very clear. Probably the
former.
|
to our own days. It cannot be denied that there are a number of errors
in the History. He confused Maximian and Maximin.85
He ascribes three ‘Creeds’ to the first Council of Sirmium,
whereas these belonged to other councils. In general he is confused on
the individuals to whom he ascribes the authorship of the Sirmian
creeds.86
Similar confusion and lack of trustworthiness is noticed in his version
of the sufferings of Paul of Constantinople and the vicissitudes of the
life of Athanasius. He has wrongly given the number of those who
dissented from the decision of the Council of Nicæa as five. The
letter of the Council only mentions two,—Theonas and Secundus.
The exile of Eusebius and Theognis is ascribed to a later period and a
different cause by Jerome and Philostorgius, and it is generally
conceded that Socrates’ information was erroneous on this subject
also. He is incorrect on several particulars in the lives of Basil and
Gregory of Nazianzus, as also in assigning the attack at night on the
church of St. Theonas to the usurpation of Gregory, the Arian bishop of
Alexandria.87
The chronology of Socrates is generally accurate to
about the beginning of the sixth book, or the year 398. A number of
errors are found in it after that. But even before the date named, the
dates of the Council of Sardica (347) and of the death of Athanasius
(373, for which Socrates gives 371) are given wrong. St.
Polycarp’s martyrdom is also put out of its proper place by about
one hundred years.88
Valens’ stay at Antioch and persecution of the orthodox is put
too early.89
The Olympiads are given wrong.90
| 90On the chronology of Socrates, see Harnack and
Jeep.
|
Socrates is generally ignorant of the affairs of the
Western Church. He gives a cursory account of Ambrose, but says nothing
of the great Augustine, or even of the Donatist controversy, in spite
of all its significance and also of the extreme probability that he
knew of it; as Pelagius and Celestius, who traveled in the East about
this time, could not but have made the Eastern Church acquainted with
its details. In speaking of the Arian council of Antioch in 341, he
seems to think that the Roman bishop had a sort of veto-power over the
decisions of Occidental councils. The only legitimate inference,
however, from the language of the bishop’s claim is that he
thought he had a right to be invited to attend in common with the other
bishops of Italy.91
So, again, on the duration of the
fast preceding Easter among the western churches, he makes the mistaken
statement that it was three weeks, and that Saturdays and Sundays were
excepted.
Finally, the credence which Socrates gives to stories of
miracles and portents must be noted as a blemish in his history. On the
other hand, he was certainly not more credulous than his contemporaries
in this respect; many of them, if we are to judge from Sozomen as an
illustration, were much more so. The age was not accustomed to sifting
accounts critically with a view to the elimination of the untrue.
Socrates shows in this respect the historical instinct in the matter of
distinguishing between various degrees of probability and credibility,
but does not seem to exercise this instinct in dealing with accounts of
the prodigious.
To offset these faults we must take account, on the
other hand, of the persistent and successful attempt of our historian
at impartiality. Of all the Christian writers of his day he is the
fairest towards those who differed from the creed of his church. No one
else has done justice to Julian,92
| 92III. 1, 12, 14, 21, 23.
|
or to the various heretical sects of the day, as Socrates has. To avoid
even the appearance of partiality, he makes a rule for himself not to
speak in terms of praise of any living person;93
and it must be said that he faithfully observes this rule, making but
one exception in favor of the emperor Theodosius the Younger.94
Of this prince he gives a eulogistic picture, altogether different from
the representations universally found in the other historians of the
age.95
| 95Cf. Sozomen, IX. 1, and Gibbon, IV. 163.
|
His independence of judgment is more signally manifested in his
estimates of ecclesiastics, especially the more prominent ones,96
| 96Cf. attitude towards Chrysostom and Cyril of
Alexandria, above alluded to; also his censure of pride and contention
among members of the clergy. See V. Int. 15, 23; VI. 6; VII. 11,
29.
|
bordering at times on unjust severity. ‘In short,’ says
Harnack, summing up his estimate of Socrates, ‘the rule to be
applied to Socrates is that his learning and knowledge can be trusted
only a little, but his good will and straightforwardness a great deal.
Considering the circumstances under which he wrote and the miseries of
the times, it can only be matter for congratulation that such a man
should have been our informant and that his work has been preserved to
us.’97
Socrates’ style is characterized by simplicity and
perspicuity. From the very start he informs us that he is about to make
a new departure in this respect.98
| 98I. 1, οὐ
φράσεως
ὄγκου
φροντίζοντες
; so in III. 1, μηδεὶς
ἐπιζητείτω
κόμπον
φράσεως; and VI. Int.,
῎Ισθι δὲ
ἡμᾶς μὴ
ἐσπουδακέναι
περὶ τὴν
φράσιν, where he adds that if he had
attempted a different style, he might have failed of his purpose of
writing a popular history.
|
Eusebius’ language was not entirely satisfactory to him, nor that
of older writers.99
Hence his own attempt everywhere at plain, unadorned expression. The
criticism of Photius,100
that Socrates’ style ‘had nothing remarkable about
it,’ although made in the spirit of censure, is true, and
according to Socrates’ standard (which is also that of modern
times) amounts to a commendation. Socrates, however, was not lacking in
good humor and satire,101
| 101III. 16; IV. 22; VI. 13; VII. 21, 34.
|
as well as in appreciation of short and pithy utterances; he often
quotes proverbs and epigrammatic sayings,102
| 102II. 8; III. 21; V. 15; VII. 29, 31.
|
and knows the influence of the anecdote and reminiscence in interesting
the reader.
The value of Socrates’ History cannot be
overestimated. It will always remain a source of primary importance.
Though, as already noted, its ideal as a history is below that set up
by Thucydides, Tacitus, and others of an earlier age,—below even
that of Eusebius,—yet as a collection of facts and documents in
regard to some of the most important events of the church’s life
it is invaluable. Its account of the great Arian controversy, its
details of the Councils of Nicæa, Chalcedon, Constantinople, and
Ephesus, besides those of the lesser, local conventions, its
biographical items relative to the lives of the emperors, the bishops,
and monks—some of whom are of pivotal importance in the movements
of the times, its sketches of Ulphilas and Hypatia, its record of the
manner and time of the conversion of the Saracens, the Goths, the
Burgundians, the Iberians, and the Persians, as well as of the
persecution of the Jews, the paschal controversy, not to mention a vast number of other details
of minor importance, will always be read and used with the deepest
interest by lovers of ecclesiastical history. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
