The Historians of Late Antiquity (20 page)

Socrates lived at least until 439, when his history concluded. We know of no other works by him.

Work

Socrates’
Ecclesiastical History
was intended as a continuation of the pioneering work of Eusebius of Caesarea, and indeed “Eusebius” is the first word of the first book. In the preface to the work, Socrates announces his intention to write in a plain style, to treat the heresy of Arius, which Eusebius had not fully discussed, and to “give an account of the events concerning the churches from that time until today.”

The date of publication cannot be exactly pinpointed. Sozomen’s
Ecclesiastical History
depended heavily upon Socrates’ work, and Sozomen’s work must have been published before 450, as he invites the emperor Theodosius II, who died in 450, to suggest possible corrections or improvements. Socrates’ history finishes in 439. The last chapters refer favorably to Eudocia, the emperor’s sister. She was charged with adultery and exiled to Jerusalem, perhaps in 443 (Holum 1982: 193–4), after which such favorable mention would be unlikely. The year 439 also marks the publication of the Theodosian Code, the empire-wide compilation of laws which had been in preparation for years. The last section of the
History
, with its fulsome praise of the reign of Theodosius, might be expected to make some reference to its publication if time had allowed, and this provides some slender evidence that the work was published closer to 439 than to 443 (Urbainczyk 1997b: 19–20).

Socrates writes in a clear and uncomplicated style. He asserts his desire to write without affectation for the benefit of both learned and unlearned men (6.
pref
.). In his first edition he did not include documents, in an attempt to avoid boring the reader by excess (2.1.5–7). This concern to avoid prolixity is also apparent in his harsh critique of the
Christian History
of Philip of Side (7.27). Socrates charges that this (lost) work, in a thousand books, was written in a style too lofty for the unlearned, yet was too tedious and detailed for the learned. Socrates also suggests that his own simple style is evidence of his accuracy and concern for truth, while ancient (classical) historians, who exaggerated and invented, were at liberty to write more ornately (6.
pref
.).

The history is divided into the rather unsymmetrical number of seven books. In contrast to many classical works and to Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History
, the successor church histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret are all divided into odd numbers of books. It has nevertheless been suggested that the original plan of the work was limited to the first five books (discussed in Urbainczyk 1997b: 61–2). Socrates claims, however, in the preface to the first book, that he will treat the history of the church all the way up to his own day. Also, the end of the fifth book would make a particularly unsatisfying end to a work so concerned with the unity of the church, as the last books discuss the disagreements in the church concerning the date of Easter, the further factionalization of Arian and Eunomian heretics, the assassination of the emperor Valentinian III, and the death of Theodosius.

Although the work was conceived as a whole, the preface to the sixth book does attempt to differentiate the last two books from those that came before. Here Socrates writes that he has worked to fulfill the expectations of his dedicatee, the otherwise unknown Theodore, and that he now turns to events of his own time. As was common for historians preparing to treat contemporary events, he comments on the dangers of arousing anger from those whom he criticizes or toward whom he is insufficiently respectful. These traditional themes are similar to those in the preface to book 26 of Ammianus’
Res Gestae
and elsewhere.

In addition to the sixth book, Socrates’ first, second, and fifth books also contain prefaces. The preface to the second book reveals that at least some books were circulated separately and then revised in later editions. Socrates says that he had completed the first and second books of his history relying heavily on the church history of Rufinus. Later, however, he had discovered some works of Athanasius and some other unspecified letters which revealed Rufinus to be an inaccurate guide to certain events, a discovery which necessitated the rewriting of several sections. Socrates’ attempts to repair the chronology of Rufinus’ account were only partly successful, although the self-contained episodes are generally accurate (Barnes 1993b: 200–4). In addition to altering the chronology, Socrates decided upon a stylistic change. While previously the work contained only a narrative history, he decided to include letters and documents in emulation of the work of Eusebius. While it has been suggested that the documents were added at the insistence of Theodore, Socrates does not explicitly say so, claiming only that the documents will be beneficial to his patron.

Socrates’ work depends on a wide variety of sources, both written and oral (Geppert 1898; Barnes 1993b: 205–6; Urbainczyk 1997b: 48–64). In the first category, he is particularly dependent upon Eusebius (especially the
Life of Constantine
), Rufinus, Athanasius, and the
Synagoge
of Sabinus, a collection of church documents with the author’s commentary which is no longer extant. In addition to these major sources, Socrates mentions many other works which he has used, including orations of Libanius (3.22–3) and Themistius (3.26, 4.32) and an epic poem by one Eusebius Scholasticus on the war with Gainas (6.6.36). He also comments upon the works and the style of a variety of heretical writers, including Nestorius (7.32.8), Eunomius (4.7.4–9), Origen (whom he defended, 6.13, 7.45.5–7; cf. Chesnut 1986: 177–81) and the aforementioned Sabinus, whom he accuses of supporting the Macedonian heresy (2.15.8–11, 2.17.10–11) and of being “half Arian” (4.22). For a chronological framework, Socrates was apparently dependent upon a chronicle of events at Constantinople and a list of bishops. A glance at the section-by-section breakdown of sources for the
History
in the work of Franz Geppert (1898: 112–32) will reveal how intricately Socrates has woven together the various written sources for his work.

Socrates also relied on numerous oral sources, particularly for the last two books of his work. The preface to book 6 emphasizes his reliance on oral sources and his methods used to evaluate them. He will write what he has seen and what he has learned from eyewitnesses, and he will carefully compare stories to ensure their accuracy. Socrates makes much use of oral sources, particularly in the later books of the history, not only for information but also to create atmosphere and to allow Socrates to describe contemporary rumors and opinions. Consider Socrates’ use of oral sources in
chapter 19
of book 6, for example. Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon, had both of his feet amputated due to gangrene, and Socrates reports that “many” claimed this was a form of divine punishment for the bishop’s opposition to John Chrysostom. A powerful hailstorm and the death of the empress were put forth as further evidence of divine anger at the treatment of John, although Socrates adds that “others” found the deposition of John to be just due to his violent behavior.

The elderly priest Auxanon, who was an important source for Socrates, was present at the Council of Nicaea. Auxanon also provided information about the monk Eutychian (1.13) and about the cruelty and tortures which Macedonius inflicted upon the Novatian church and the homoousian church (2.38). The historian says that he is undeterred by the risk of incurring the enmity of his
readership for his use of a Novatian-like Auxanon as a source (1.13.2). Socrates’ ecumenical approach to oral sources is also revealed in his citation of an Arian priest, Timothy (7.6.6), and the priest Eudaemon (5.19.10), a homoousian (Urbainczyk 1997b: 18).

Church history centers upon conflict, and Socrates portrays both religious and secular controversy. The principal Christian protagonist of the work is Athanasius, the homoousian bishop of Alexandria, whose struggles with church and state authorities dominate the first four books. Almost as important is John Chrysostom, the homoousian bishop of Constantinople, whose struggles dominate book 6 and whose corpse makes an appearance in book 7. Socrates’ interest in the unity of the church under a single, strong emperor is demonstrated in the overall structure of the work, which begins with the conversion of Constantine, laments the disunity which embroiled the church after that period, and finally concludes on a positive note with praise of Theodosius II and the restoration of church unity. The return of the body of John to Constantinople under the sponsorship of the bishop Proclus signifies the unity of the church, and the visit of the empress Eudocia to Jerusalem recalls the pilgrimage of Helena, the mother of Constantine, in the first book.

Socrates has some success in avoiding monotony by varying his subject matter, as a quick outline of the first book may illustrate. Of course, doctrinal disputes predominate. Early in the first book, for example, Arius is introduced in the context of his Christological conflict with the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander (1.5). A failed attempt by Constantine to reconcile the two (1.7) is followed by the synod at Nicaea (1.8–10). After the death of Alexander, Athanasius takes up the anti-Arius cause, while Arius is supported by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Arius and Athanasius fall in and out of favor with the emperor and the bishops, and a synod at Tyre and then one at Jerusalem attempt to settle their differences. Partisans of Eusebius and Arius bring charges, which Socrates views as spurious, against Athanasius, most memorably accusing the bishop of the murder of one Arsenius. The production of Arsenius’ severed hand provides evidence for the accusation. Athanasius, however, manages to locate Arsenius, who is both alive and in possession of all of his limbs, and to produce him at a crucial moment. “Arsenius has been found to have two hands, as you see. Let the accusers point to the place where the third was cut off” (1.29.9). This first book, which featured the rise of Arius in its early chapters, portrays the ignominious death of Arius (in a public restroom) in one of its last chapters (1.38.7–9).

Socrates illustrates these doctrinal disputes, according to the model of Eusebius, with lengthy quotations of documents. In the first book, these include a letter of Alexander to other bishops, explaining his excommunication of Arius (1.6.4–30), imperial letters, such as that of Constantine to Arius and Alexander (1.7.3–21), and creeds accepted by synods of bishops, such as the one set forth at Nicaea in 325 (1.8.4–11). These are the documents which Socrates had inserted in his second edition, having omitted them in the interest of avoiding tedium in his first edition (2.11). The documents were culled from the collection of Sabinus (1.8) and other historians, or had been discovered by Socrates in his research.

Interspersed within this central narrative of doctrinal dissension are several other sorts of stories. Bishops or monks of outstanding sanctity are brought forth for the reader’s edification. In book 1, for example, we hear of the bishop Paphnutius, who, although unmarried himself, argues in favor of married clergy (1.11), and of the miracles performed by the bishop Spyridon (1.12), the monk Eutychian (1.13), and the monk Antony (1.21). These digressions provide more enlightened examples of Christian behavior which contrast with the often discreditable actions of the doctrinal disputants in the main narrative. Socrates also digresses in the first book upon the spread of Christianity beyond the boundaries of the empire in sections on the conversion of the Indians (1.19) and the Iberians (1.20). Similar information on Christianizing abroad can be found in later books, including the conversion of the Goths (4.33), the Saracens (4.36), and some Persians (7.8). Socrates also occasionally digresses on other topics. These digressions include the value of the pagan classics (3.16), the divisions in the church over the date of Easter and other ritual issues (5.22), and the origins of the singing of responsorial hymns in church (6.8.10–12).

Along with the religious material, Socrates presents many accounts of secular events. When Christianity became the state religion, it was certain that chroniclers of church history would have to devote more attention to imperial affairs than Eusebius had. The historian points out that it was necessary to include information about emperors because of their great influence on church affairs (5.
pref
. 9–10). Socrates, however, includes even more secular material than might be deemed strictly necessary, in keeping with his philosophical approach to history which held that secular events are inextricably mixed with church events (Chesnut 1975, 1986: 190–200; Urbainczyk 1997b: 69–79). He discusses this theory in the preface to the fifth book, by way of apologizing for what some
might see as excessive attention to secular affairs. “When state matters were disturbed, as if by some sympathy also the matters of the church were disturbed. For if someone looks closely, he will find that evils of church and state flourish at the same time. … Sometimes events of the church came first, and then secular events followed, and sometimes the reverse happened” (5.
pref
.).

This idea of “cosmic sympathy,” a mystical link between seemingly unconnected human events, and between human events and natural events, is an old one in ancient thought. It was particularly prominent in Stoic philosophy and in earlier Christian writings. Political and military events thus play an important role in Socrates’ history because he believes that they “sympathetically” affect church events and because they reflect disturbances in church events. Socrates often makes or implies these connections. In book 4, for example, Socrates connects the persecution of homoousians by the emperor Valens (4.2) to the rise of the usurper Procopius (4.3). This union of disturbances in church and state is echoed in natural events as well by an earthquake and the shifting of the sea level (4.3).

Socrates’ concern with disunity and disturbance outweighs any doctrinal concerns he has. He frequently portrays religious controversies as the product of quarrelsome clerics rather than as principled struggles for doctrinal correctness. His portrayal of John Chrysostom, for example, is notably cooler than other extant portrayals of the bishop, and he reports several criticisms of his actions and temperament (Urbainczyk 1997b: 133–7). Socrates’ desire for religious harmony and distaste for persecution are exemplified in his praise of the bishop Proclus. “He was gentle to all heretics, thinking that by this rather than by violence they would best be won over” (7.41.5).