Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates and Sozomen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography

  • 14 Accesses

Abstract

Evidently thinking that he could do a better job than Philip of Side, Socrates completed his Ecclesiastical History sometime around 439. Though Socrates was a pro-Nicene Christian in belief, his parents instilled in him a rare attitude of tolerance toward polytheists and dissidents of established Christian orthodoxy, a trait that is evident throughout his history. His uncommon name implies his family’s appreciation for the classical world, and Socrates confirms this suspicion by including references to his Hellenistic education from pagan priests and through many passages alluding to and defending non-Christian classics. In a similar fashion, he is singularly lenient toward minority sects among Christians: He writes favorably of the Novatians, a rigorist branch of Christianity, and even has sympathetic words for “Arians.” While details of Socrates’ personal life are unknown, a late manuscript of his Ecclesiastical History identifies Socrates as “Scholasticus,” a term usually denoting a lawyer by profession. Some scholars remain skeptical of the accuracy of this late addendum, but Socrates’ theological broad-mindedness would be surprising if he were a cleric, and subtle details found in the text itself may suggest a familiarity with the legal world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For Socrates, see Chesnut, The First Christian Histories, 175–98; Theresa Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997); Treadgold, Early Historians, 134–45. For Socrates’ low opinion of Philip of Side’s Christian History, see Socrates, EH, 7.27.

  2. 2.

    The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire lists only two other “Socrates.” For his comments regarding his pagan teachers, see Socrates, EH, 5.16.9-14. One of his instructors boasted how he had killed nine (Christian) men single-handedly during riots caused by the decision of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria to melt down various images of the pagan gods. For an example of his esteem for the classical education, see Socrates, EH, 3.16.8-27, in which he defends the traditional curriculum against charges that it instilled polytheism.

  3. 3.

    See Socrates, EH, 6.22 for a favorable account of Sisinnius, a bishop of the Novatians. Treadgold, Early Historians, 136 goes so far as to suggest that the Novatian priest Auxanon may have been a family friend of Socrates. See also 4.33.7 and 7.6 for favorable comments regarding “Arians.” In the former chapter Socrates describes “Arian” Goths killed by pagans as martyrs while in the latter he identifies two “Arian” prelates whom he admired and conversed with, though the historian regretted that they continued to hold fast to a creed that was unworthy of their learning.

  4. 4.

    For a skeptical view of our ability to know his profession, see Urbainczyk, Socrates, 13–14, Martin Wallraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates: Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode und Person (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 214–21, and Peter van Nuffelen, Un héritage de paix et de piété: étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrates et de Sozomène (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 9. Urbainczyk notes that the title “Scholasticus” is not included in any Greek manuscript predating the fourteenth century. See Urbainczyk, Socrates, 14, n. 3 for a list of prominent scholars on either side of the debate. The general assumption among scholars is that the author was indeed a man of the courts. Recently, Warren Treadgold suggests that, contrary to Urbainczyk’s reading, the text of the Ecclesiastical History does imply a professional familiarity with the legal world. See Treadgold, Early Historians, 136–37, especially n. 67.

  5. 5.

    Socrates, EH, 2.1.6: ὦἱρὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπε Θεόδωρε.

  6. 6.

    Chesnut, The First Christian Histories, 176–77 argues that Socrates’ Theodore was none other than the Theodore appointed in 429 as magister memoriae in connection with the Theodosian Code. Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates, 218–20 rejects this since he sees it as unlikely that Socrates would address a civil official as a “holy man of God.” Urbaincyzk, Socrates, 14 also remains unconvinced by Chesnut’s argument. The matter is largely tangential to the present study, but it seems less probable that Socrates would emphasize the inclusion of letters and synod decisions so that Theodore would not be ignorant of their own words (αὐταῖς λέξεσιν) if Theodore were already a member of the bureaucracy. Far more likely is the idea that Theodore was a monk or cleric who requested that such documents be included for the very reason that he would not otherwise have access to them.

  7. 7.

    Socrates, EH, 2.1.1-5.

  8. 8.

    Socrates, EH, 2.1, 2.5-6.

  9. 9.

    Treadgold, Early Historians, 138; Urbaincyzk, Socrates, 50 also notes the dramatic disparity in length between these enhanced first two books and the subsequent ones of the history.

  10. 10.

    For commentary on Socrates’ sources and his use of them, see Urbainczyk, Socrates, 48–64, especially 48–57. Socrates drew upon a wide variety of material—including pro-Nicene, anti-Nicene, and polytheist.

  11. 11.

    For studies on Sabinus, see Ludwig Jeep, “Quellenuntersuchgen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern,” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 14 (1884): 53–178, particularly 114–16; Pierre Batiffol, “Sozomène et Sabinos,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 7 (1898): 265–84; Franz Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1898), 82–111; Georg Schoo, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1911), 95–134; Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, “Die antinizänische Synodalensammlung des Sabinus von Heraklea,” Vigiliae Christianae 24 (1970): 105–26; and Winrich A. Löhr, “Beobachtungen zu Sabinos von Herakleia,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98 (1987): 386–91; van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 447–50.

  12. 12.

    Socrates, EH, 1.8.25-28. For other examples, see 2.17.9-11 and 4.22.1-2. The Bohn translation renders ἰδιώτας as “idiots.” Urbainczyk, Socrates, 53 believes that “laymen” is more accurate.

  13. 13.

    Löhr, “Beobachtungen,” 386. Unfortunately, Sabinus is not among those described in Jerome’s De viris illustribus.

  14. 14.

    Hauschild, “Die antinizänische Synodalensammlung,” 110.

  15. 15.

    Löhr, “Beobachtungen,” 387. He translates ἰδιώτας καὶ ἀϕελεῖς as “einfach und ungebildet” (simple and uneducated).

  16. 16.

    Löhr, “Beobachtungen,” 387. Löhr, however, does note that Sabinus wrote a polemical work. Löhr identifies Sozomen, EH, 4.16 as derived from Sabinus’ Collection. He sees, contrary to Batiffol and Hauschild, a position implicitly hostile to the Homoian creed in Sozomen’s account of the councils of Sirmium and Rimini, including the denunciation of its decrees as Heterousian. This attitude convinces Löhr that a Homoiousian composed the account, namely Sabinus. See Löhr, 388. This would also weigh against the idea that Sabinus was the lost author of the Arian History, for that history—or at least parts of it—possesses an implicit Homoian perspective, as Chap. 7 discusses.

  17. 17.

    See Chapter 7.1.

  18. 18.

    For Socrates’ theory of συμπάθεια, or “cosmic sympathy,” see Socrates, EH, 5.Introduction and Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 194–98. Socrates’ idea, to summarize briefly, is that when affairs are right with the Church, they are so with the Empire; if, however, one or the other suffers some turmoil, both will soon be dragged down into a state of commotion.

  19. 19.

    Hauschild, “Die antinizänische Synodalensammlung,” 112.

  20. 20.

    See Urbaincyzk, Socrates, 48–64.

  21. 21.

    For Sozomen’s profession, see HE, 2.3.10, in which he clearly identifies himself as a member of the judicial system.

  22. 22.

    For example, Sozomen, EH, 1.20.3 (in which he refrains from including details of heretical opinions and even the Nicene Creed in his account of the council); 3.15.10 (his account of Didymus the Blind ends with his statement that a history should not include judgments on heretical beliefs); 6.27.7-10 (he decides not to comment on the theology of Eunomius and Apolinarius because he admits his difficulty in understanding them) and 7.17.8 (which includes his decision not to delve into the particulars of non-Nicene theology because he has not the required skill). His Preface, 1.1, also makes explicit his hesitation to include in his narrative the various theological disagreements.

  23. 23.

    Sozomen, EH, 6.28-6.34; see also Treadgold, Early Historians, 153–54.

  24. 24.

    Treadgold, Early Historians, 154.

  25. 25.

    Sozomen, HE, Dedication. Ironically, Socrates, EH, 7.21.10 mentions disparagingly authors who, like Sozomen, wrote to win imperial favor.

  26. 26.

    For example, Sozomen, EH, 9.1.9 (a promise to describe Pulcheria’s role in the defeat of heresy) and 9.16.4 (which ends suddenly before describing the discovery the relics of Stephen the proto-martyr). Treadgold, Early Historians, 149 points out that Eudocia translated the body of Stephen to Constantinople in 439 and it is possible that Sozomen used the story of the relics’ discovery to introduce Eudocia and her marriage to Theodosius II that year.

  27. 27.

    Joseph Bidez and Günther Christian Hansen, “Einleitung,” in Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, 2nd ed., ed. Joseph Bidez and Günther Christian Hansen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995), lxvi-lxvii suggest that Sozomen died before completing his history. (Hereafter cited as Sozomenus.) Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 59 has more recently echoed this opinion.

  28. 28.

    Albert Güldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos: Eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1889), 12–18 first argued that Sozomen’s history had been edited, though he believed that Sozomen himself was the editor. Schoo, Die Quellen des Sozomenos, 3–11 attributes the mutilation to the emperor. Treadgold, Early Historians, 148, n. 131 agrees with Schoo regarding the involvement of Theodosius II but also believes, in contrast to Schoo, that Güldenpenning’s date of 443/44 is probable. Since the imperial couple’s estrangement became public knowledge in 444, it seems likely that Sozomen would have made his own emendations to the text if he had submitted it after that year. Alan Cameron, “The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II,” Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982): 217–89 suggests that Sozomen’s reference to Pulcheria’s victory over heresy refers to the Council of Chalcedon, but Sozomen’s dedication to Theodosius II, who died prior to Chalcedon, makes such a reading unlikely.

  29. 29.

    See Schoo, Die Quellen des Sozomenos, 6–8.

  30. 30.

    Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 30. For his masked dependence, see Sozomen, EH, Preface and van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 246–7.

  31. 31.

    Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenos, xliv-xlvii; Chesnut, The First Church Historians, 204–206.

  32. 32.

    For more on the publication and dissemination of texts in Late Antiquity see Darío N. Sánchez Vendramini, “The Audience of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Circulation of Books in the Late Roman World,” Journal of Ancient History 6.2 (2018), 243–247 and 253. Though his work focuses on the history of Ammianus Marcellinus, many of his observations can be applied to the situation surrounding Sozomen’s use of Socrates as well as his use of Gelasius of Caesarea, a connection we propose in 4.4.

  33. 33.

    Sozomen, EH, 1.1.

  34. 34.

    Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenos, lvi-lx.

  35. 35.

    For detailed studies on Sozomen’s sources, see Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenus, xlviii-xlix and Schoo, Die Quellen des Sozomenos, 28–39.

  36. 36.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 244. See 244, n. 115 for the various authors that Sozomen claims to have read.

  37. 37.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 245. For Olympiodorus and his account, see Treadgold, Early Historians, 89–96.

  38. 38.

    Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenus, li-lii suggest that Sozomen drew upon the fourth-century “Ecclesiastical History” of Timothy of Beyrout. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 207, however, notes that there are no compelling reasons to believe this collection of letters had a role in the composition of Sozomen’s account.

  39. 39.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 475–97 presents a detailed description of the sources used by Sozomen. Though this study disagrees with some of van Nuffelen’s conclusions, it owes much to his scrupulous attention.

  40. 40.

    For a detailed discussion on fragment (35), see Appendix 1.

  41. 41.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 485 attributes this to John Chrysostom, De S. Babyla contra Julianum et gentiles, 17, but this sermon lacks details, such as the independent story of the prebyster Theodoritus, that are found in Sozomen’s account. Thus, while the two accounts are very similar, Sozomen apparently used another source that at least supplemented the sermon, if he did in fact use it.

  42. 42.

    Though Sozomen, EH, 5.10.5-7 presents a number of parallels concerning the sufferings of Christians in Gaza that mirror Bidez’s fragment (33), van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 486 suggests convincingly that these parallels derive from Gregory of Nazianzus’s Contra Iulianum 4.86-91.

  43. 43.

    For Eunapius and his History to Continue Dexippus, see Treadgold, Early Historians, 81–89. Roger C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Vol. I (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1981), 99–100 suggests that Sozomen used Eunapius directly.

  44. 44.

    Bidez and Hansen, Sozomenus, liii-liv believe that Sozomen and Philostorgius consulted a mutual source, perhaps Eunapius. For Philostorgius’ sources, including his use of Eunapius, see Ludwig Jeep, Zur Überlieferung des Philostorgius (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1899) and Bidez and Winkelmann, Philostorgius, cxxxiv-cxl. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 476, n. 29 states that is it more probable that Sozomen used Eunapius rather than Philostorgius directly.

  45. 45.

    A third way remains possible that would combine both approaches: Sozomen had before him both Eunapius and Philostorgius, taking secular material from the former and his detailed knowledge of the Heterousian community from the latter. While this compromise may seem to the best theory to solve the convoluted riddle, there exists another option discussed below.

  46. 46.

    This interpretation of Constantine’s desire to be baptized is found in the pagan Count Zosimus’ New History 2.29, a history that drew extensively from Eunapius’ account; see Zosimus, Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, ed. François Paschoud, 3 vols. (Prais: Les Belles Lettres, 1979–2000). (Hereafter cited as New History.) For a biography of Zosimus, see Treadgold, Early Historians, 107–14.

  47. 47.

    Sozomen elaborates that the dew on the grapes was in the shape of the cross which signified the truth of Christianity. The green grapes, meanwhile, become a sign that Julian’s reign would be cut short by a premature death.

  48. 48.

    See John Chrysostom, De S. Babyla contra Julian et gentiles, XII-XIII (§67–72).

  49. 49.

    Though there was a similar spring near the Gulf of Corinth, it may be that Sozomen is referencing one much closer to Antioch; see John C. Rolfe in Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, Vol. II, 363, n. 1. For the location of the shrine at Corinth, see Michael Grant, Myths of the Greeks and Romans (New York: World Publishing Company, 1962), 139.

  50. 50.

    See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, 22.12.8 in which he recounts Hadrian’s activities at this spring. Ammianus and Sozomen appear to have a parallel that may be explained through a mutual use of Eunapius. For Ammianus’ awareness of Eunapius’ history and possible desire to counter its narrative, see Michael Kulikowski, “Coded Polemic in Ammianus Book 31 and the Date and Place of its Composition,” Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012): 79–102, especially 99–102.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, 1.42-44.

  52. 52.

    Peter Heather, “The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies (1986), 298–304.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., 302; 304–5.

  54. 54.

    Michael DiMaio, “History and Myth in Zonaras’ Epitome Historiarum”: The Chronographer as Editor.” Byzantine Studies 10 (1983), 27, n. 57; Noel Lenski, “The Gothic Civil War and the Date of the Gothic Conversion,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies (1995), 66. There is no need here to become distracted by the debate between Lenski and Heather regarding the worthiness of Sozomen’s account of the Gothic conversion vis-a-vis that of Socrates.

  55. 55.

    The Artemii Passio §69, which drew from Philostorgius for its own account, describes Julian as addressing Christ, but this must be an addition that did not come from Philostorgius, since Photius’ epitome makes it clear that the Heterousian historian did not mention Christ at this moment of Julian’s career. For more on the Artemii Passio, see Chaps. 5 and 6.

  56. 56.

    Philostorgius, EH, VII.15: καὶ οὑτος μὲν εἰς τὸν ἥλιον ἀπορραίνειν τὸ αἷμα καὶ τοὺς αὐτοῦ θεοὺς κακολογεῖν, οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἱστορούντων εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν ἑκάτερον γράϕουσιν ἐναπορρίψαι.

  57. 57.

    Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians, vol. 1, 99. That Philostorgius included such details in his own history would further develop Treadgold’s hypothesis that Philostorgius practiced medicine, or at least was interested in its practice; cf. Treadgold, Early Historians, 127.

  58. 58.

    Pawel Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography (Warsaw: Warsaw University, 2006), 382–90.

  59. 59.

    Cf., Socrates, EH, 3.21.11-16. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 488 tentatively ascribes Sozomen 6.2.11 to Eunapius (fr. 28).

  60. 60.

    Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, 25.3. For further studies on the literary conventions surrounding Ammianus and Libanius’ portrayals, see Hans Carel Teitler, “Julian’s Death-bed and Literary Convention,” in Ultima Aetas: Time, Tense and Transience in the Ancient World, ed. Caroline Kroon and Daan den Hengst (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2000), 71–80.

  61. 61.

    Cf. Treadgold, Early Historians, 246–56, especially 251. Treadgold believes that some sources cited by Malalas, such as Eutychianus and Nestorianus, are in fact fabrications. For a contrary perspective and study on Eutychianus’ purported work, see Janiszewksi, The Missing Link, 130–32.

  62. 62.

    The following list derives from van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 476, n. 29.

  63. 63.

    Philostorgius 3.12 is mistakenly described as 1.12 in van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 476.

  64. 64.

    See Amidon, Philostorgius, 22, n.18 regarding Philostorgius’ ambiguous use of certain geographical terms.

  65. 65.

    Philostorgius, EH, 8.12.

  66. 66.

    This is particularly important since Sozomen appears to have two different opinions, and thus probably used two different sources, regarding Apolinarius: 1.11.8-9 (in which he apparently supports Spyridon’s criticism of such efforts) and 5.18.2-6 (in which he makes the hyperbolic claim that Apolinarius’ efforts to rewrite Christian scriptures in Homeric verse rivaled the ancients). Could one of these opinions have come from Gelasius?

  67. 67.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 486, n. 39.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, EH, 7.18. Sozomen claims that the woman herself commissioned the statue.

  69. 69.

    For example, Philostorgius, EH, 2.12 (Helena renames Drepanum after herself.) 3.10 (Amidst the details of the location of the Garden of Eden, he apparently discussed the various names of the Nile.), 4.14 (He introduces the original name of Jerusalem.), 9.12 (He provides the original name of Cappadocian Caesarea.), and 9.17 (Huns are “Neuri” and Goths “Scythians,” and he also explains why Spain was formerly called Hiberia; see also Amidon, Philostorgius, 132, n. 34.)

  70. 70.

    Amidon, Philostorgius, 91, n. 13.

  71. 71.

    John Francis Wilson, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2004), 98–103. Wilson believes that Sozomen and Philostorgius present independent narratives of this event.

  72. 72.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 487.

  73. 73.

    Philostorgius’ chapter also presents an intriguing portent that foretold Valentinian’s future greatness even during the reign of Constantius. This has no collaborating detail in Sozomen.

  74. 74.

    Maurizio Colombo, “La carriera militare di Valetiniano I: Studio letterario e documentario di prosopografia tardoantica,” Latomus 68.4 (2009): 997–1013.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., 1001–1003. In brief, Colombo holds that the tale has its origins in a rumor started by the pagan Maximus of Ephesus who wished to undermine Valentinian’s influence with Julian; subsequent Christian authors embraced the rumor but with a hagiographical interpretation that now supplied pious details to elevate rather than compromise the future emperor.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 1001.

  77. 77.

    David Woods, “Valens, Valentinian I, and the Iouiani Cornuti,” Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 9 (Bruxelles: Latomus Revue Études Latines, 1998), 462–86.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., 480.

  79. 79.

    For example, Philostorgius, EH, 2.11 in which he reverses several episodes in Athanasius’ life so that it is Athanasius who hired a prostitute to discredit Eusebius of Nicomedia or otherwise acted disreputably.

  80. 80.

    Woods, “Valens, Valentinian I, and the Iouiani Cornuti,” 480.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., 468.

  82. 82.

    Noel Lenski, “Were Valentinian, Valens, and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate?,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 6 (2002): 259.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., 267–69.

  84. 84.

    In Theodoret’s account, a pagan priest was injured; in Ammianus, a pagan priest stumbled and died. These events are not mutually exclusive.

  85. 85.

    Lenski, “Were Valentinian, Valens, and Jovian Confessors?,” 265.

  86. 86.

    See Chapter 6.1 for more on Ammianus Marcellinus.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., 272. For Eutropius and his epitome, see Harold W. Bird, “Introduction,” in Eutropius, Breviarium, ed. and trans. Harold W. Bird (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993), vii-lvii.

  88. 88.

    Eutropius, Breviarium, 10.16.

  89. 89.

    Bird, Eutropius: Breviarium, xx.

  90. 90.

    Eutropius, Breviarium, 10.17.

  91. 91.

    Lenski, “Were Valentinian, Valens, and Jovian Confessors?,” 260–61.

  92. 92.

    See Chapter 7.2.

  93. 93.

    Woods, “Valens, Valentinian I, and the Iouiani Cornuti,” 468–69. For Sozomen’s use of Eunapius, see Lenski, “Were Valentinian, Valens, and Jovian Confessors?,” 266. We stress that we are making no claims about the actual historical events or early careers of either Valentinian or Valens but rather are exploring how the historiographical tradition regarding Valentinian’s Christian heroism might have arisen and whether that can be associated with the Lost Arian History.

  94. 94.

    Sozomen does something very similar with two sources in regards to the timing of the Goths’ conversion to Christianity; see the discussion on Sozomen, EH, 6.37.2-5 below.

  95. 95.

    See van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 489 and Chester D. Hartranft, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 363, n. 1.

  96. 96.

    Philostorgius, EH, 3.21.

  97. 97.

    Treadgold, Early Historians, 153–55.

  98. 98.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 283–86.

  99. 99.

    Many of the arguments regarding Sozomen’s use of Gelasius (in this section and the following) were first published in Reidy, “The Works of Gelasius of Caesarea.”

  100. 100.

    Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 102.

  101. 101.

    Lenski, “The Gothic Civil War,” 72–73.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., 68.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., 68–70.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., 67.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., 61: Though Lenski follows Winkelmann’s theory that Socrates, but not Sozomen, employed Gelasius, his reasons why Gelasius would be interested in the conversion of the Goths stand independently.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., 73.

  107. 107.

    There is no particular reason to see Gelasius as hostile to Theodosius, but our biographical knowledge of Gelasius is so meager that any number of reasons could be postulated why his account could at times be critical of this pro-Nicene emperor.

  108. 108.

    Theodoret, EH, 5.19. See also the comments above on Sozomen 6.37.2-5.

  109. 109.

    This is not to imply that Sozomen consciously intended to diminish Amphilochius, whom he mentions with respect in 7.9. He may have simply felt that a lowly priest—similar to the Syrian ascetics recently mentioned—would highlight the didactic purpose of the story more.

  110. 110.

    Theodoret, EH, 4.10. The elevation of Arcadius to Augustus and the edict against various heretics help determine the chronology of the event.

  111. 111.

    Theodoret, EH, 5.24 has a similar episode of heavenly intercession, only in his account it is the apostles John and Philip who fight on behalf of Theodosius.

  112. 112.

    For a study of this question, see Peter van Nuffelen, “The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.348–87): A Reassessment,” Journal of Theological Studies 58 (2007): 134–46.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., 135.

  114. 114.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 283–86.

  115. 115.

    For a study on Socrates’ use of source material, see van Nuffelen, “Socrate de Constantinople et les chroniques,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 54 (2004): 53–75.

  116. 116.

    Socrates, EH, 2.45.18 (for the three intervening “Arian” bishops), 3.20.7 (Cyril as bishop during the reign of Julian), and 4.1.16 and 5.3.1 (Cyril as bishop during the beginning of Valens’ reign and when Theodosius becomes emperor).

  117. 117.

    Van Nuffelen, “Career of Cyril,” 141.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., 140-1. Van Nuffelen elsewhere suggests that Socrates may have employed a list of Jerusalem’s bishops in framing this account; Un héritage, 461, n. 9.

  119. 119.

    Van Nuffelen, “Career of Cyril,” 141. Sozomen 7.2.2 follows Socrates and describes Cyril as already being the bishop of Jerusalem in 379.

  120. 120.

    For Cyril’s nuanced theological position and the misgivings this aroused in later historians, see Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem, 181–86.

  121. 121.

    Sozomen’s statement in 7.7 that Cyril abandoned his Homoiousian beliefs—which association with “Arianism” Gelasius presumably would have wanted to gloss over—derives from Socrates 5.8, which served as his source for that detail. More difficult to explain is Sozomen’s failure to mention Cyril’s statement regarding the fulfillment of a prophecy that is recorded in Socrates 3.20. This pious tradition may have developed after Gelasius wrote his history, but it remains an open question why Sozomen would exclude it since he presumably had Socrates’ account before him.

  122. 122.

    Socrates, EH, II.40.39: ἰστέον γὰρ ὅτι Кύριλλος ἤδη πρότερον κατηγόρητο, καὶ διὰ τί μέν οὐκ ἔχω ϕράσαι, καθῃρεθη δέ, ὅτι πολλάκις ἐπὶ τὸ κριθῆναι καλούμενος ἐϕεξῆς δύο ἐνιαυτω̑ν διέϕευγεν τάς κατηγορίας εὐλαβούμενος. [Italics mine.]

  123. 123.

    Theodoret, EH, 2.26.4-11.

  124. 124.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 484, n. 37.

  125. 125.

    Cf., ibid., 283–86. Sozomen often incorporates different sources side-by-side, so there is nothing contradictory in believing that a Homoiousian source and Gelasius’ pro-Nicene source could be used side-by-side by Sozomen.

  126. 126.

    It is possible to interpret Socrates’ wording as implying that he was unwilling rather than unable to say the reasons for Cyril’s deposition, but there is no reason to believe that Socrates would suddenly become reticent to mention Cyril’s misconstrued act of charity or his theological deviation; cf. Socrates, EH, 5.8.3 in which Socrates notes that Cyril accepted the Homoousian position at the council of Constantinople in 381, clearly implying that previously he did not.

  127. 127.

    Ernest Bihain, “Le ‘Contre Eunome’ de Théodore de Mopsueste, source d’un passage de Sozomène et d’un passage de Théodoret concernant Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Le muséon 75 (1962), 331–55. Though Bihain believes that Sozomen may also rely on Theodore’s work, van Nuffelen defends his reliance on Sabinus. Sozomen’s tendency to claim to have ecclesiastical writings that he did not may negatively influence our willingness to believe that he drew from Theodore’s account.

  128. 128.

    Cf. Theodoret, HE 2.26.7 and van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 484, n. 37. J.W. Drijvers, “A Bishop and his City: Cyril of Jerusalem,” Studia Patristica 42 (2006), 119, n. 34 believes the element of the liturgical robe found in Theodoret may have been an “embellishment” by hostile critics of Cyril. While this is possible, the other details included by Theodoret, including the death of the person wearing it, could be meant to reflect poorly not on Cyril himself, but on those who took advantage of the bishop’s concern for the poor. Regardless of whether a certain aspect originally derived from a hostile voice, the form it retains in both Sozomen and Theodoret seems intended to praise Cyril and criticize his opponent Acacius.

  129. 129.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 483, n. 36 lists seven instances.

    1. 1.

      Sozomen 4.6.12 and Theodoret 2.21.7: Both quote the same document from the council of Thrace, though Theodoret gives the entire creed.

    2. 2.

      Sozomen 4.11.3-11 and Theodoret 2.16: Both present a dialogue between Constantius and Liberius. Theodoret’s account gives a “dramatic” quality to the event by providing what purports to be their exact words; Sozomen summarizes most of the encounter, though he, too, provides direct speech from Liberius. The entire chapter in Sozomen reveals details about events in the West that are not found elsewhere. This section, pace Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 483, does not seem to present any evidence that such material came from Sabinus.

    3. 3.

      Sozomen 4.15.5-6 and Theodoret 2.17: These sections relate the contemporary attitudes surrounding Liberius and his imperial competitor for the Roman see, Felix. While the two historians are united in their presentations of the people’s love for Liberius, they differ in various details. Theodoret, for example, includes the amusing story of the Reds, Blues, Greens, and Whites mocking the emperor’s order to have two bishops of Rome as well as the effective pleas of the noble women on behalf of Liberius. Sozomen, meanwhile, relates that Liberius was so beloved in Rome that seditions arose in his favor and his partisans shed blood on behalf of his cause. The decision to have two bishops of the Roman see came, according to Sozomen, from the council gathered at Sirmium. Finally, Sozomen adds that Felix, rather than retiring to a nearby city as Theodoret relates, died shortly after Liberius’ return, thus healing the divide that had taken place in Rome. Both of these passages include many details absent in Socrates 2.37.95-97. The contradictions between Sozomen and Theodoret could be explained in any number of ways, especially since both adjusted their accounts to suit their particular narratives’ needs. While it could be that Sozomen simply included more details from a common source than did Socrates, the parallels between Theodoret and Sozomen suggests that these two accessed material outside of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History.

    4. 4.

      Sozomen 4.28 and Theodoret 2.31: Both Sozomen and Theodoret include many more details then Socrates (2.44) regarding Meletius’ transfer to Antioch and the events there. Nor is Theodoret dependent upon Sozomen, since he provides a better context and details from Meletius’ sermon that are lacking in Sozomen.

    5. 5.

      Sozomen 6.23.7-15 and Theodoret 2.22.2-12: Both record the epistle of the synod of Ariminum, which deposed Auxentius of Milan. It should be noted that many of the details preserved in Sozomen’s preamble to the decision are unique to him.

    6. 6.

      Sozomen 6.25.6 and Theodoret 5.10: The reaction of Damasus of Rome to the spread of Apolinarism in his see is the parallel matter in these chapters. Sozomen, in addition to citing the decision made by Damasus (whose letter Theodoret quotes in full), presents a western perspective that suggests a source independent of Socrates (cf. Socrates 2.46 and 3.16) and perhaps the same as Theodoret’s.

    7. 7.

      Sozomen 7.11.4 and Theodoret 5.8.10-5.9: Once again, Sozomen’s account focuses on the western perspective. Socrates 5.9 mentions the elevation of Flavius to the see of Antioch, but Sozomen notes the displeasure this caused in the West and the desire of western bishops to organize another council. Theodoret completes the picture begun by Sozomen by including the text of the response from the eastern bishops declining to attend.

  130. 130.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 482, n. 35. 3.20.4 notes that Athanasius refused to have communion with Leontius, the “Arian” bishop of Antioch, and instead associated with the “Eustathians,” those who held fast to the pro-Nicene legacy of the former bishop Eustathius. 3.20.8-9 continues Sozomen’s knowledge of Leontius by recording his words of warning regarding the period after his death. 4.28, in contrast to Socrates 2.44, offers many details concerning Meletius’ reception into Antioch, his dramatic pro-Nicene sermon, and the formation of his own congregation, which was distinct from that of the “Arians” and the Eustathians.

  131. 131.

    6.21.2 makes explicit reference to the preceding narrative regarding Antioch and elaborates on the different communities that had arisen in that city. 6.25.1-5 offers many specific details about the fall of the presbyter Vitalius from communion with Meletius into the heresy of Apolinarius.

  132. 132.

    See 6 in n. 134.

  133. 133.

    Theodoret’s account, like Sozomen’s, describes Meletius’ making the gestures with his fingers but without providing the important context that the muffled bishop could not speak at the time.

  134. 134.

    This independent detail of the psalm is the reason that I am not convinced that Theodoret lifted this narrative from Sozomen, pace Lenski, “The Gothic Civil War,” 73.

  135. 135.

    Paschal Chronicle, 548C. This chronicler described Vitalius as a layman guilty of imposture, but this may derive more from polemic than from truth.

  136. 136.

    See fragment (33).

  137. 137.

    See Theodoret, EH, 5.9.17, in which Pope Damasus clearly defends Cyril’s religious orthodoxy.

  138. 138.

    Macedonianism takes its name from the prominent Homoiousian prelate Macedonius, former bishop of Constantinople. For more information on his beliefs and the sect associated with his name, see Davis, Ecumenical Councils, 125–26 and Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 214–18; 345–47.

  139. 139.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 475–97. To be clear, there continue to be unknown sources in these last two books, but it is likely that they derive either from oral testimony or from an unknown work that possibly focused on St. John Chrysostom.

  140. 140.

    That Gelasius of Caesarea esteemed his predecessor can be understood from his gesture of restoring the name of Eusebius to the diptyches. See Wace and Smith, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 2, 621.

  141. 141.

    Scholars generally date Gelasius’ death to c. 395, so it is entirely possible that he finished (or at least intended to finish) his history with the death of Theodosius and the rise of his two sons. For our evidence regarding his death, see ibid.

  142. 142.

    See Jerome, De viris illustribus, cxxx for his complaint regarding Gelasius’ refusal to permit anyone to view his writings.

  143. 143.

    It is also worth pointing out that Gelasius would be a prime suspect if we accepted Woods’ theory that someone substituted Valentinian for Valens as a confessor during Julian’s reign. Gelasius, writing in the aftermath of Adrianople, had obvious reasons not to include a positive depiction of an emperor whose authority separated him from his see for years. By substituting Valentinian for Valens, Gelasius would present a “proper” narrative for a pro-Nicene audience: It was the Homoousian brother who championed the cause of Christ and whom God rewarded with the imperial throne,—and not his Homoian brother who later died ingloriously in battle. Of course, the objections of Colombo and Lenski remain, but it may be that Gelasius’ Ecclesiastical History had a hitherto unrecognized role in the confusion of details that we find in the conflicting accounts of Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius.

  144. 144.

    The following require more evaluation than this study provides, but at least attention is drawn to their potential contribution to the argument articulated above.

    1. 1.

      Sozomen 1.11 records a number of stories related to the holy Spyridon, bishop of Trimythus, which are not included in either Rufinus 10.5 or Socrates 1.8. Van Nuffelen believes that these may derive from a Vita Spyridonis, though this is not certain.

    2. 2.

      The more detailed account of Sozomen 2.1, which enhances the account in Socrates 1.17 with the allusion to Zechariah and the Sibylene prophecy, may derive from Gelasius, pace van Nuffelen, “Sozomen’s Chapter on the Finding of the True Cross (HE 2.1),” Studia Patristica 42 (2006), 265–71. Van Nuffelen takes as his opening premise that Sozomen is drawing his material from the Legend of Judas Cyriacus. While this remains a possibility, it is equally possible that Gelasius’ account recorded the event in some detail, including various aspects that would later develop into the Legend. Thus, Sozomen’s dependence on Gelasius may again account for idiosyncratic aspects of his History. It may also be that the account of the invention of the True Cross, written by Alexander the Monk, drew upon this Gelasian tradition.

    3. 3.

      Sozomen 2.2 notes that Helen had two cities named after her, including one in Palestine, a detail not present in Socrates 1.17-18. Philostorgius 2.12 mentions this city, but his inclusion of a miracle involving Lucian and a dolphin make it unlikely that Sozomen drew directly from Philostorgius. Sozomen was eager to include miracles, especially those that showcased the power of Christianity versus paganism. Sozomen apparently honored Lucian as a martyr (for example, 3.5.9), so the fact that he does not include this miracle may hint that he did not use Philostorgius, but rather another source.

    4. 4.

      Our attitude toward Sozomen’s practices as a historian may shape how we view his Palestinian details. Sozomen 2.4 records a number of specific details regarding the oak of Mamre, which is reputedly the place where Abraham entertained the three angels. Sozomen 2.26, meanwhile, describes the great festival at Jerusalem and it is generally attributed to Sozomen’s experience. Yet these could just as easily be attributed to Gelasius if one doubts Sozomen’s resourcefulness in gathering information.

    5. 5.

      Sozomen 2.17.2-3 offers a quotation from Apolinarius the Syrian which is not found anywhere else; coupled with the positive praise of Apolinarius’ writings in 5.18, this may be a reflection of either Sozomen’s appreciation for skillful prose or that of Gelasius, who may have admired Apolinarius’ own writings against the Heterousians. That it does not derive from a non-Nicene source can be surmised from its pro-Athanasius stance.

    6. 6.

      Sozomen 2.20 combines both knowledge both of the West, including a reference to Pope Mark, and of events in Jerusalem, which are lacking in the accounts of Theodoret and Socrates. The text is unabashedly pro-Nicene in tone.

    7. 7.

      Sozomen 3.12 discusses the letter of Hosius and Protogenes to Pope Julius, whose content Sozomen appears to know first-hand. Socrates 2.17 clearly states that Sabinus excludes pro-Homoousian correspondence, so it seems likely that Sozomen’s knowledge of this derives not from Sabinus but from another source that appears to be particularly interested in western affairs.

    8. 8.

      Sozomen 5.3-4, 5.9 and 5.11.4-12 present material that is unique to Sozomen. 5.3-4 includes various insights into Palestinian life, and 5.9 presents the tales of several Palestinian martyrs. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 486 believes that Sozomen’s account of these martyrs derived from local tradition. 5.11.4-12 records the deaths of a number of pro-Nicene martyrs in Cappadocia, while 5.4 describes events in Cappadocian Caesarea.

    9. 9.

      Sozomen 5.15.5-10 offers unique knowledge of the city of Cyzicus, including statements regarding the Christian wool manufactures in that city. Whence this material is derived is an open question, though Gelasius of Caesarea may have researched Eunomius’ episcopal see and included such information as part of his work against the Heterousians.

    10. 10.

      Sozomen 6.1.1 focuses on Julian’s refusal to visit Edessa due to his hatred of the Christians abiding there. Zosimus, New History, 3.12 (and presumably his source Eunapius) has Julian receive a crown from the people of Edessa and halt at their city; Sozomen alone has this otherwise-unattested detail regarding Julian’s abiding hostility toward the Christian people of Edessa.

    11. 11.

      Sozomen 7.2.6 presents the story of Eulalius, bishop of Amasia in Pontus, who offered to share his episcopacy with the previous, “Arian” occupant. The proposal was rejected, though eventually Eulalius ruled without his competitor.

    12. 12.

      Sozomen 7.8 discusses the election of Nectarius to the see of Constantinople. This may have ties to Gelasius’ account since Nectarius’ Antiochene origin is emphasized in the narrative.

    13. 13.

      Sozomen 7.15.11-15 has many independent facts regarding pagan violence in Syrian cities. This narrative may derive from Sozomen’s own research or from an earlier record such as that of Gelasius.

    14. 14.

      Sozomen 7.18.9-14 provides a detailed account of the Quartodeciman controversy, an inclusion that, like the informed polemic against the Heterousian baptism in 6.26.2-6, seems out of place in the otherwise theologically reticent Sozomen.

    15. 15.

      Sozomen 7.19.3-6 has details about Roman liturgical practice that are lacking in the parallel Socrates 5.22. This could derive from that western-looking source shared with Theodoret.

    16. 16.

      Sozomen 7.26, 27, 28 present a number of biographies of various bishops. From where Sozomen drew this material remains unknown.

      Michael P. Hanaghan’s arguments regarding Sozomen’s potential use of Julian’s polemics may provide further insight into his potential use of Gelsius. See Michael P. Hanaghan, “Christian Visions and Sozomen’s Julian,” Studia Patristica 128 (2021): 167–179. Hanaghan’s evidence that Sozomen was responding to Julian’s rhetoric might, in light of the claims made in this chapter, actually point toward underlying material from Gelasius.

  145. 145.

    Cf. Sozomen, EH, 7.7-9 and Socrates, EH 5.8.

  146. 146.

    Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 492.

  147. 147.

    Cf., Heather, “The Crossing”, 302: “Here, as in his work generally, he [Sozomen] must be considered a compiler with limited resources.”

  148. 148.

    Sozomen 4.27 offers more details than Socrates on the origins of the Macedonians. Gelasius, as noted above, presumably had an interest in the Macedonians, and Sozomen’s discussion on their ascetic appearance may reflect knowledge gained through Gelasius’ account.

  149. 149.

    Cf. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 485; he suggests that this section derives from the writings of John Chrysostom.

  150. 150.

    Ibid., 480.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., 483.

  152. 152.

    Another potential association with the Lost Arian History is Sozomen, EH, 6.2.3-5. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 487 suggests that this episode, which recounts a miraculous dream-vision foretelling Julian’s death, may derive from the Lost Arian History, though a direct relationship seems unlikely. See also Michael P. Hanaghan, “Christian Visions and Sozomen’s Julian,” 169–172 and Norman H. Baynes, “The Death of Julian the Apostate in a Christian Legend,” The Journal of Roman Studies 27 (1937), 28–29. Baynes’ suggestion that Sozomen suppressed the names of non-Nicene martyrs could be applied with equal force to Gelasius.

  153. 153.

    Sozomen, EH, 4.16, 5.8, 5.10. Philostorgius may have used Gelasius himself, though this cannot be proven since the one history is lost and the other exists only in a damaged epitome. Nonetheless, a connection between the two makes sense from a number of perspectives. Philostorgius’ time in Syria and Palestine afforded him an opportunity to seek out such texts in preparation for his own, and a number of the potential links between Sozomen and Philostorgius, though not likely to have developed from a direct relationship, may be related through a common source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Joseph J. Reidy

Authors
  1. Joseph J. Reidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

J. Reidy, J. (2024). The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates and Sozomen. In: The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55443-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55444-5

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation