CHAPTER TWELVE

VICE AND ADVICE IN SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN

Theresa Urbainczyk, (University College, Dublin)

Introduction

In the mid fifth century, two laymen, Socrates and Sozomen, wrote church histories in .1 Both works are in Greek and both cover the period from Constantine to Theodosius II. The number of similarities between the two texts suggests that Sozomen was familiar with Socrates' history.2 Some have even accused Sozomen of being little more than a plagiarist, but it seems to me that he should not be dismissed in this way. There are substantial differences between the two historians and one of these lies in where they place their praise and blame. In this article I examine both the form and content of panegyr• ical writing in the two church histories. First, I look at how far they conform to conventions of panegyric in their descriptions of prominent individuals; then I focus on the descriptions to see which virtues are being highlighted. My title is not simply chosen for the rhyme but refers to the less obvious uses of panegyric. Panegyric can perform at least three functions: flattery is the most obvious, given that a speech in praise of someone easily veers into

1 It used to be thought that they were both lawyers. Sozomen was, but there is no evidence that Socrates was. See Urbainczyk 1997a, 13-14. 's name is often linked with those of Socrates and Sozomen since he also wrote a church history in Greek at this time. I have not included him in this study because the result would be a book rather than an article. His work is markedly different from the other two histories and deserves special study which I hope to complete soon. 2 It seems almost certain that it is this way round, not that Socrates was using the work of Sozomen, because of a comparison between two particular passages, that is Socrates 1.10 and Sozomen 1.22, which deal with the meet• ing of Constantine and the Novatian bishop Acesius. Socrates says explicitly that no one ever mentioned this story before, whereas Sozomen simply introduces the same anecdote with 'it is said' (A.eye-mt). 300 THERESA URBAINCZYK flattery. However as well as this, it can also be understood in some cases to contain criticism, since by praising certain virtues in one ruler the speaker may be drawing attention to the lack of these virtues in another. Or, by praising certain virtues, the speaker may be commenting implicitly on the lack of other virtues in the honorand, since the standard qualities were so well known that omissions would be noted. This function is observed more easily in history where implicit comparisons may be drawn between emperors of the past and present.3 A historian's description of the past may contain criticism of the present. Thirdly, there may be advice contained in a panegyric; the speaker may be encouraging the recipient to practise the virtues for which he is being praised.4 So panegyric can be prescriptive as well as descriptive. The same is true of history to some extent. When Ammianus praises Valen• tinian for his religious tolerance, he could be seen as criticizing the emperor in whose reign he was writing, the famously intoler• ant , but he could also be seen as trying to encourage a different attitude in his ruler (30.9.5). History writing, not just in the ancient world, involves judge• ment, although perhaps modern historians are rather less ready to admit this. In ancient historiography there was often an explicit acknowledgement that the recording of history would leave models of behaviour for future generations to copy or avoid. The idea that history is useful is largely based on this. 5 If history was seen as providing lessons for the present, then it is unsurprising that some historians employed the conventions of panegyric to make their point more strongly. This continued into late antiquity. Sabine MacCormack argues that because the traditional aspects praised by panegyrists were imperial military success and the

3 · , Life of 53 describes how Augustus was angered by the use of the term dominus ('master') to address him. Only slaves called their masters this. Readers were surely meant to think of Domitian who styled himself dominus et deus ('master and god'). Audiences/readers would be in the habit of making connections since explicit comparisons are a very import• ant part of panegyric, as Menander Rhetor (377) makes clear. 4 Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 145-49 on virtues in public life. He points out that the virtues Suetonius praises are clemency, civility, liberality, and restraint from luxury and lust (152) and that these are the virtues most appreciated in an emperor by the upper classes (157). 5 E.g. Thucydides 1.22.4, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.6.3-4, praef. 10. For further examples and a discussion of exempla in history being a guide to behaviour see Blockley 1975, 162.