The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  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).

  In his praise of Proclus, Socrates adds that the bishop, in avoiding persecution, imitated the emperor Theodosius II. Socrates’ scorn for bishops who foment dissension is accompanied by praise for emperors, particularly sole emperors, who ensure unity. He claims that Constantine was aggrieved by the divisions which the dispute between Arius and Alexander had created, and works admirably to heal the split (1.7.1–2). By the end of the work, peace has returned to the empire under the protection of the devout emperor Theodosius II (7.42). Piety is the most remarkable quality of Theodosius II in Socrates’ panegyric (7.22); as Urbainczyk points out, the emperor is portrayed more like a holy man than like an emperor (Urbainczyk 1998). Ironically, perhaps, the emperors are more “Christian” than the bishops in Socrates’ history.

  The work of Socrates, like other products of the mid-fifth century by Olympiodorus and Sozomen, is a celebration of the peace in both church and state in his time, and an exploration of the causes of disunity in the past. He concludes with a prayer that the churches, cities, and nations be at peace, and he remarks that the work could only come to an end because the “lovers of trouble” had grown silent (7.48.7). Socrates modernized the genre of ecclesiastical history by integrating secular history into his framework. His work is valuable because of his judicious use of a wide variety of sources, his lack of sharp partisanship, and his generally humane attitude toward the people and events he describes. His plain style may have encouraged successors to attempt a more elegant treatment of the period and events he covered, but no successor was more accurate or reliable.

  Text and translation

  Greek text edited by G.C. Hansen and M. Sirinjan (1995), Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. English translation by A.C. Zenos (1890), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Available on-line at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-05.htm.

  10

  SOZOMEN

  Life

  The full name of the ecclesiastical historian Sozomen was Salamanes Hermeias Sozomenos, according to Photius (cod. 30). Our knowledge of the life of Sozomen is derived almost entirely from comments in his own work, which Grillet and Sabbah have conveniently collected (1983: 9–25).

  Three sixth-century writers, Cassiodorus, Theodore Lector, and Gregory the Great, use Sozomen’s work, and refer to the historian simply as “Sozomen.” He was born in Bethelia, a town near Gaza in Palestine (5.15.14). According to Sozomen, Bethelia was noteworthy for its large population and for a number of highly regarded ancient temples. In Sozomen’s time, the most remarkable and celebrated temple was called by its Greek name “Pantheon,” or “temple of all gods,” and gave its name to the town as well, since Bethelia means “temple of all gods” in Syriac.

  Sozomen’s grandfather, who had been born a pagan, was one of the first in the town to convert to Christianity. When a certain townsman Alaphion was possessed by a demon, neither pagans nor Jews were able to cure him, but by speaking the name of Christ the monk Hilarion expelled the demon (5.15.15). Sozomen (3.14.21–8) describes some other exploits of Hilarion, who lived from 291 to 371, and still more can be found in Jerome’s Life of Hilarion. Because Jerome’s Life does not include the exorcism of Alaphion with the other miracles which first brought the monk fame in 329, it probably occurred after that date. Alaphion and his family immediately embraced Christianity, as did Sozomen’s grandfather. Sozomen adds that his grandfather was a learned man, knew mathematics, and became famous in the surrounding area for his great skill in interpreting the Bible. The grandfather and other relatives of Sozomen were forced to flee the town for a time during the reign of Julian, perhaps in 362, when the emperor suggested to locals that Christians were agents of sedition. The family of Alaphion was responsible for the creation and support of the first monasteries and churches in the region. Sozomen says that he knew some members of this family when he was very young and they were very old, and adds that he will have further reason to discuss these men later in his history (5.15.13–17).

  Sozomen refers to four monks who had been taught by Hilarion and who lived in Bethelia during the reign of Valens (6.32, 8.15). If these men were the members of Alaphion’s family to whom he promised to return, it is possible to speculate a bit on Sozomen’s date of birth. If the monks were around 40 years old at the high point of their fame in the 360s, then they were born around the 320s. For Sozomen to know them when he was 10 and they were 70 would suggest a birth date around 380 (Grillet et al. 1983: 12).

  One of the clear differences between Sozomen’s and Socrates’ church histories is the much greater emphasis Sozomen places on monks and monastic activity. The historian’s knowledge of monasticism and his claim to have spent time with monks in his youth suggest that he may have received his earliest education in a monastery. This form of education was still rather uncommon in the fourth century. His later schooling must have been more traditional, as he frequently reveals his knowledge of the classics in his history. It is possible that Sozomen studied rhetoric at the famous schools of Gaza. Sozomen’s title scholasticus implies that he went to law school, probably at Beirut, where he would have studied law and Latin. That he knew Aramaic as well is evident from his comments on the Greek translations of the Syrian writer Ephrem (3.16).

  Sozomen asserts that he himself can vouch for the regular attendance at church services of the bishop Zeno of Maiuma in Gaza, when Zeno was almost a hundred years old (7.28.6). Since Zeno is included in a collection of those bishops who flourished at the end of the time of Theodosius, this trip must have been around 395 or 400, shortly before the end of his schooling. This is one of a number of places in the history where Sozomen demonstrates familiarity with people and places in Gaza, which he may have frequented as a boy or as an adult.

  Sozomen appears to have been well traveled, to judge from his frequent references to places around the empire. Unfortunately, he provides us with no certain itinerary, but his survey of the customs and traditions of churches around the world (7.19) provides several suggestive details. In Scythia, Sozomen claims, there is only one bishop for all the cities of the region, but in other places bishops serve even individual villages, “as I have seen in Arabia, Cyprus, and among the Novatians and Montanists in Phrygia” (7.19.2). Sozomen states that monks in Palestine greatly revere the non-canonical Apocalypse of Paul, which they claim was discovered in a marble box under the house of Paul at Tarsus in Cilicia. An elderly priest of the church in Tarsus denied to Sozomen that this story was true, although whether the conversation took place at Tarsus or Constantinople is not clear. Sozomen mentions the common habit among the Romans of swearing by an annual hymn, and gives further evidence that he may have visited Italy by his knowledge of Sicilian topography (2.24.2) and of specific details of the rite of penance in the Roman church (7.16.4–7).

  Sozomen may have been familiar with the contemporary appearance of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (2.1) and he appears to have spoken with those who participated in the election of Maximus to the bishopric of that city (2.20). He provides detailed information about the geography of the area around Hebron (2.4). The historian also visited Bithynia near Mount Olympus, where he saw many of the Huns who had been settled there after the defeat of Uldis in 409 (9.5.7). Other references could suggest still other journeys, perhaps to Alexandria or to Antioch.

  Sozomen was a resident of Constantinople when he wrote hi
s Ecclesiastical History, as he reveals in a couple of anecdotes. A church outside of the city dedicated to the Archangel Michael was the scene of many healing miracles. Aquilinus, “a man now dwelling among us and practicing law in the same courtrooms” (2.3.10), was the recipient of one of these miracles, when a divine power instructed him to dip his foot in a mixture of honey, wine, and pepper to cure a digestive disease. From this it is evident both that Sozomen was living in Constantinople and that he was practicing law while he composed his work. Another miraculous event took place when Proclus was bishop of Constantinople, between 434 and 446. The empress Pulcheria dreamed of forty soldier martyrs who had been killed during the Great Persecution of Licinius. The site of the burial was discovered, and the sweet smell of myrrh which arose from the grave inspired confidence in the workmen and the bystanders that they were digging in the right place. The relics were honored with a procession and reburial in an expensive casket at a ceremony which Sozomen claims to have attended (9.2.17).

  It appears that Sozomen was not yet in Constantinople in 403–4, when John Chrysostom was active, since he never mentions his own participation in any of the events he recounts about him. He also says that his information about Atticus, the bishop of the city who died in 426, is derived from other people who knew him (8.28.7; Gillett 1992: 20–2). This is the extent of our information about the date of his arrival.

  The description of the martyr ceremony in the ninth book of the history leads the reader to believe that Sozomen is writing not long after the death of Proclus in 446, as he describes the event as occurring “when Proclus was bishop” and mentions that many are still alive who remember it (9.2.18). Since the work is dedicated to the emperor Theodosius II, the dedication at least must have been written before his death in 450 (Roueché 1986). Because the last book is incomplete, it is reasonable to believe that Sozomen died perhaps in 448 or 449.

  Work

  Sozomen tells us that he had originally planned to write an ecclesiastical history “from the beginning,” but upon reflection he realized that the task had already been completed by many wise men, including Clemens, Hegesippus, Africanus, and Eusebius. He therefore wrote a summary in two books tracing events from the Resurrection to the defeat of Licinius in 324 (1.1.12). This work does not survive, but perhaps served as practice to prepare him for the more ambitious project which we have before us.

  Sozomen lays out the plan of his work in the dedication. His history will begin with the third consulship of Crispus and Constantine (323) and continue to the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius II (439). The work is subdivided as follows: events under Constantine, books 1 and 2; events under his sons, books 3 and 4; events under Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, books 5 and 6; events from Gratian to Theodosius and his sons, books 7 and 8; the rule of Theodosius II, book 9. The division of books according to the reigns of the emperors demonstrates Sozomen’s adherence to the standard chronological arrangement of church historians, as seen in Eusebius and Socrates before him.

  Sozomen follows the outline he proposed in his history with the exception of the incomplete ninth book. There are several reasons to believe that the last book is unfinished. It contains no events after 425 except for the narrative of the discovery of the forty martyrs. While praising the empress Pulcheria, Sozomen promises to describe later how she prevented heresies from spreading (9.1.9). This must be a reference to her conflict with the heretical bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who does not appear in the book (Holum 1982: 152–4). In the penultimate chapter of the work, he promises to narrate the discovery of the relics of Zechariah and of Stephen (9.16.4). Although in the last chapter of the work Sozomen claims that he will “begin” with the relics of Zechariah, no mention of Stephen follows (9.17.1). Instead, the work ends abruptly. Finally, in contrast to the first eight books, the ninth book is largely concerned with secular rather than ecclesiastical events.

  The unfinished ninth book may reveal something of the method Sozomen used to write his history. He seems to have first constructed a framework of secular material (derived in this book from Olympiodorus of Thebes) and must have planned to fill out and to complete the book by inserting religious information into this framework. The existence of an incomplete book further suggests the possibility that the history was published in sections, like that of Socrates, with the dedication attached to the first installment.

  The dedication, to the emperor Theodosius II, is written in a fulsome manner, thick with classical and biblical references and with panegyrical praise of the emperor. The encomium is largely traditional, emphasizing the wisdom, the virtue, and, especially, the piety of the emperor. Two features deserve special attention. One is the lengthy praise of the generosity of the emperor. Sozomen states that Theodosius regularly judges poets and writers and favors them not only with applause but also with gifts, statues, and gold. The fabled benefactions of the ancients, such as the gift of a gold piece for each line of poetry given by the emperor Septimius Severus to the poet Oppian, fall far short, he claims, of the beneficence of Theodosius (pref.5–7). Rarely is an ancient writer so open in his celebration of the possibility of financial reward from a patron. The second is the presentation of the work to the emperor. “Knowing all things, and having every virtue, particularly piety, which the Holy Word says is the beginning of wisdom, take this writing from me and examine it, and by adding or removing things with your accurate knowledge, cleanse it by your labors” (pref.18). This request to the emperor to serve as editor of the work has often been taken at face value, implying that Sozomen moved in the highest circles and was comfortable asking Theodosius for favors. It could equally well demonstrate simply a prudent statement of submission, without any serious expectation that the emperor would become involved.

  The first chapter of the first book is a lengthy and stylized introduction. The first phrase, “It has often crossed my mind,” seems to deliberately evoke the beginning of the Cyropaedia of Xenophon (1.1.1). Sozomen’s choice of introductory topic is rather surprising. He asks at some length why it is that so many of the Jews, despite their familiarity with the biblical prophecies which identified Jesus as the Messiah, refused to convert to Christianity. His tone is not hostile, but is one of puzzled surprise, and it has been suggested that Sozomen writes in part for an audience of Jews or Christians attracted to Judaism (Urbainczyk 1997a: 364–6). While Eusebius had stated that one aim of his ecclesiastical history was to describe the misfortunes which the Jews suffered (Eus. HE 1.1), Sozomen’s concern here is more what he sees as a failure of the intellect than the punishment which resulted from that failure.

  Another purpose of Sozomen’s rumination on the Jews becomes clearer as the introduction continues. The historian turns to reflect upon those who espoused Christianity, who were unskilled in rhetoric or science, but who convinced others to convert by their brave endurance of torture and martyrdom. The superiority of deeds to reason is an important theme of Sozomen’s history, which elevates the unstudied asceticism of monks and scorns the divisive hairsplitting arguments of heretical bishops and priests. The failure of the Jews to recognize the truth is merely one example of the general failure of reason when confronted with simple faith.

  Sozomen proceeds to discuss the methods of investigation he employed to gather the information in his history (1.1.13–16). His statement on oral sources is wholly conventional (compare Soc. 6. pref.9–10): he will record the actions which he himself witnessed, and those which he learned from others who had participated in them. For earlier events, he says that he will rely upon documents including laws which pertain to Christianity, proceedings of synods, and letters of emperors and religious figures. He provides us with a welcome insight into his working methods when he says that he has discovered these documents preserved in palaces, churches, and in the individual holdings of private citizens.

  The source he does not mention, however, is by far the most important one. A very large percentage of Sozomen’s ecclesiastical history is lif
ted directly from that of Socrates, without attribution (Schoo 1911: 19–25; Grillet et al. 1983: 59–87; Urbainczyk 1997a). There is no precedent in ancient literature for two works written at nearly the same time which share so much detail. Since neither historian mentions the other, it is only through one passage that the priority of Socrates can be made certain. Socrates records a witty comment of the emperor Constantine to Acesius, a Novatian bishop, and he adds that neither Eusebius nor any other historian had recorded this conversation, but that he had heard it himself from a trustworthy source (1.10.4). When Sozomen provides the story (1.22.1), it is introduced by a simple, “it is said”.

  It has been suggested that Sozomen followed the narrative of Socrates’ history in order to correct his errors (Downey 1965: 64). Sozomen did clearly introduce new oral and documentary evidence to his work, and he returned again for a first-hand inspection to the sources used by Socrates, such as Sabinus, Athanasius, Rufinus, and Eusebius. For example, in Socrates’ account of the Council of Nicaea (1.8.31), he names five bishops who did not sign the Nicene Creed and who did not support the deposition of Arius. In Sozomen’s retelling (1.21.2), he correctly states that although the bishops did support Arius, they also signed the Creed. Independent research must have made Socrates’ error apparent.