The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  Text and translation

  Latin text edited by T. Mommsen (1908), Eusebius Werke 2.2. English translation by P. Amidon (1997), Oxford University Press.

  9

  SOCRATES

  Life

  We have no information about the life of Socrates outside of what can be inferred from his history, and thus any account of his life must be both brief and speculative. The historian’s name is often given as Socrates “Scholasticus,” a surname which suggests its bearer might be a lawyer. However, Urbainczyk, in her full study of the historian, points out that the title seems to have been a late addition to the manuscripts. The scribes may have confused the historian with another church historian, Evagrius Scholasticus, who was a lawyer, or the title may have been added to distinguish the historian from the philosopher. Socrates shows no particular knowledge of the law and, as Urbainczyk points out, his reference to “the worthless and unjust lives of those in the courts” (6.3.2) would reflect a rather unusual attitude toward his own profession (Urbainczyk 1997b: 13–14; Errington 1997: 403–6).

  Socrates was born in Constantinople around 380. The date can be estimated by three pieces of information. In his preface to the sixth book of his history, which begins with the accession of Arcadius in 395, he claims to be turning to events from his own time (6.pref.6; Urbainczyk 1997b: 19). Also, he says that when he was a boy he studied under the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius (5.16.9). These men probably fled Alexandria for Constantinople around 390, and if Socrates were 10 when he studied with them he must have been born by 380. Finally, the priest Auxanon, who died during the reign of Theodosius I (and thus before 395), told stories about the monk Eutychian to Socrates “when he was very young” (1.13.3).

  Socrates says he was born, educated, and lived at Constantinople (5.24.9, 5.16.9). He provides us with a bit of information about his teachers, the aforementioned Helladius and Ammonius. The former was a priest of Zeus, the latter of the ape god Pithekos, in Alexandria. After the destruction of the temple of Serapis at the urging of the bishop Theophilus, religious objects taken from the interior of the temple were paraded through the streets, leading to civil unrest in which many Christians and a few pagans were killed. Socrates recalls the complaints of Ammonius, who was offended at the prominent place given to display of an ape statue in the Christian attempt to mock paganism, and the boasts of Helladius, who had successfully killed nine Christians during the rioting (5.16.13–14).

  The education of Socrates by non-Christians provides no certain information about his childhood religion, but may help to explain his generally sympathetic attitude toward the study of the Greek classics (Allen 1987: 371–3). While his citations of non-Christians are limited, there are more than were found in the works of his predecessor, Eusebius. He often praises or denigrates figures in his history based on the extent of their traditional schooling. Most striking is the digression (3.16) on Greek learning, where Socrates explicitly argues for the study of the Greek classics. He supports traditional education both because the ancients have wisdom which is true and which supports Christianity, and because training in ancient literature prepares the student to successfully refute the arguments of non-Christians.

  A central concern expressed in Socrates’ work is the necessity for order and harmony in the church, which perhaps explains why he is more tolerant of doctrinal difference than other church historians. It is in this context that his sympathy for the Novatian sect should be examined. The Novatians were not “heretical,” which is to say that their understanding of Christian doctrine was in line with the proto-Orthodox or “homoousian” position. They were, instead, “rigorist,” insisting that Christians who had apostatized in the face of the persecutions of the third century could not be forgiven and that forgiveness for any serious sin after baptism was generally impossible. They were also more ascetic in their practices and were more likely to reject classical culture and learning (Gregory 1975: 1–18; Urbainczyk 1997b: 26–8). Socrates mentions numerous contacts with Novatians, who served as sources for his history, and he sometimes defends their views, stressing their opposition to the Arian heresy. In 1.10.4, for example, he criticizes Eusebius for overlooking Constantine’s support of the Novatian Acesius. His omission of six imperial laws hostile to the Novatians, and inclusion of the one which was favorable, only underlines his partisanship (Allen 1990). It is possible that Socrates himself was a Novatian, but his references to the Novatians as separate from “the church” (2.38.5) suggest otherwise. His sympathies with the sect are clear in any case.

  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 tho
se 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 s
ecular 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).