0380-0440 – Socrates Scolasticus – Historia ecclesiastica The Ecclesiastical History this file has been downloaded from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.html NPNF (V2-02) Socrates Scholasticus v THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. Revised, with Notes, by THE REV. A. C. ZENOS, D.D. PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT HARTFORD, CONN. vii Prefatory Note. ———————————— The basis of the present edition of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History is the translation in Bagster’s series mentioned in the Introduction, Part IV. The changes introduced, however, are numerous. The translation was found unnecessarily free; so far as the needs of the English idiom require freedom no fault could, of course, have been found with the translation; but the divergences from the original in multitudes of cases were not warranted by any such need; they were more probably induced by the prevailing style of rhetoric common in the days when the translation was made. The change which has gradually come about in this respect called for modifications in the present edition. Many more might have been introduced without damage to the work. But it was felt that the scope and purpose of the edition only called for the most necessary of these changes. In the preparation of the notes the editions of Hussey and Reading, containing Valesius’ and Reading’s annotations, were freely used. Whenever a note was taken bodily from these, it has been quoted and duly credited. It was thought best, however, usually to condense and reduce the number 2 NPNF (V2-02) Socrates Scholasticus and bulk of these notes and introduce sparingly such new notes as were suggested by more recent study in ecclesiastical history. The Introduction is almost altogether dependent on the literature quoted in Part I. The writer claims no original discovery respecting Socrates or his work. The facts had been diligently collected by his predecessors; he has simply rearranged them and put them into expression such as, to his mind, suits the requirements of the plan of the series. A.C. Zenos. ix Introduction. ———————————— I. Sources and Literature.1 U. Chevalier in his Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age gives the following list of authorities on Socrates Scholasticus. Baronius:* Ann. [1593] 439, 39. Cf. Pagi, Crit. [1689] 9, 11, 427, 15–6. Bellarmin Labbé: S. E. [1728] 164. Brunet:* Manuel [1864] V. 425. Cave:* S. E. [1741] I. 427. Ceillier:* Hist. Aut. Eccl. [1747] XIII. p. 669–88. (2 a VIII. 514–25.) Darling:* Cyclopædia Bibliographica; Authors. Du Pin:* Bibl. Aut Eccl. [1702] III. ii. 183. Ebed-Jesu: Cat. Scr. Eccl 29. (Assemani: Bibl. Orient. III. 141.) Fabricius:* Bibl. Græc. [1714] VI. 117–21. (2 a VII. 423–7.) Graesse:* Trésor [1865] VI. 1, 429. Hoffmann: Lex. Bibl. Gr. [1836] III. 625–6. Holzhausen: Commentatio de fontibus quibus Socrates, Sozomenus ac Theodoretus usi sunt, &c. Götting. 1825. Jöcher. Nouvelle Biog. Gen.:* [1868] XLIV. 127–8. 1 All works marked with a star in Chevalier’s list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of Chevalier. 3 NPNF (V2-02) Socrates Scholasticus Nolte:2 Tübing. Quartalschrift [1860] 518; [1861] 417–51. Patrologia Græca* (Migné) LXVII. 9–26. Sigebert: Gembl. S. E. 10. Tillemont:3 Hist. des Emp. [1738] VI. 119–22. Trithemius: Scr. Eccl. 137. Vossius: Hist. Græca [1651] 259. Walford:4 in Bohn’s Eccl. Libr. VI. 1853. To these there should be added important notices of Socrates or his Ecclesiastical History as follows: F. C Baur: Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung Tübing. 1852, p. 7–32. J. G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History. Ad. Harnack: In Herzog-Plitt’s Real Enkyclop. vol. 14, Sokrates und Sozomenos and in Encyclop. Britannica, Socrates. K. O. Müller: History of Greek Literature: English translation and continuation by Donaldson, Vol. III. Rössler: Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. Jeep: Quellenuntersuchungen zu der griech. Kirchenhistorikern. Leipsic, 1884. Sarrazin: De Theodoro Lectore, Theophanis Fonte præcipuo, 1881. Stäudlin: Gesch. und Literatur der Kirchen-geschichte, 1827. Overbeck: Theol. Liter.-Zeitung, 1879. No. 20. Also articles on Socrates in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (by John Calrow Means) and Smith & Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography (William Milligan), as well as passing notices in standard ecclesiastical histories such as Neander, Hase, Killen, Schaff, &c., and Introductory notices of Valesius (Hussey), Parker, Bright, &c. II. Life of Socrates. x We cannot but regret the fact that the age in which Socrates lived cared little, if at all, about recording the lives of its literary men. The only sources of information in this respect are the writings 2 Nolte’s article is on the textual emendations needed in the edition of Socrates. The text of our historian has not been as thoroughly and completely examined and corrected as other writings. Valesius’ edition (Hussey) gives an account of a few mss. examined by himself; nothing further has been done of any importance. It is to be hoped that Gebhardt and Harnack may find it convenient to incorporate a new collation and revision in their Texte und Untersuchungen. 3 All works marked with a star in Chevalier’s list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of Chevalier. 4 E. Walford, A.M., appears as the translator of Sozomen, not of Socrates. See IV. of Introduction, note 6. 4 NPNF (V2-02) Socrates Scholasticus themselves of these literary men and the public records, in case they held the double character of literary men and political or ecclesiastical officials. As Socrates did not participate in the public affairs of his day, our information respecting him is confined to the scanty and incidental items we may gather from his history. As he was not very fond of speaking of himself, these data are few and often of doubtful significance. In fact, the reconstruction of his biography from these scattered items is a matter of difficult critical investigation. All that these inadequate materials yield of his biography may be summed up as follows: He was born in Constantinople.5 He nowhere mentions his parents or ancestry, and no information has reached us on this point from any other source. The year of his birth is inferred from what he says of his education at the hands of the grammarians Helladius and Ammonias.6 These grammarians were originally Egyptian priests living in Alexandria—the former of Jupiter, and the latter of Pithecus (Simius); they fled from their native city in consequence of the disturbances which followed the cleansing of the Mithreum and destruction of the Serapeum by the bishop Theophilus. It appears that at that time an open conflict took place between the pagans and Christians, and many of the pagans having taken part in the tumult, laid themselves open to criminal prosecution, and to avoid this, took refuge in other cities,—a large number of them naturally in Constantinople. TheChronicon of Marcellinus puts this event in the consulship of Timasius and Promotus, i.e. 389 a.d. Now, as Socrates was very young7 when he came to these grammarians, and it was the custom to send children to the schools at the age of ten, Valesius has reasoned that Socrates must have been born in 379; others have named 3808 as a more probable date for this event. Other data for ascertaining the exact date of Socrates’ birth are of very doubtful significance. He speaks, for instance, of Auxanon,9 a Novatian presbyter, from whom he had received certain information; but as Auxanon lived till after the accession of Theodosius the Younger in 408 a.d., it is impossible to draw any conclusion from this fact. So again Socrates mentions the patriarchate of Chrysostom in Constantinople (398–403) as if he had received his information at second hand,10 and thus implies that he was perhaps too young to be an interested eye-witness of the events of that period. But how young he was we cannot infer from this fact; and so cannot take the patriarchate of Chrysostom as a starting-point for our chronology of Socrates’ life. Still another item that might have served as a datum in the case, had it been definitely associated with a known event in Socrates’ career, is his 5 So he says in V. 24. 6 V. 16. On the destruction of the Serapeum, see Sozom. VII. 15; Theodeoret, H. E. V. 22; Nicephor. XII. 25; Eunap. Ædes. par. 77; Suidas, . Helladius, according to Suidas, wrote a Dictionary, besides other works. Cf. s. v. 7 µ . 8 Valesius’ reasoning is based on the assumption that Socrates was sent to the grammarians as soon as they arrived at Constantinople. If, however, an interval of several years elapsed before his going to them, the date of his birth must be put correspondingly later. The only certainty reached through this datum is that he was born nor earlier than 379. 9 I. 13 and II. 38. 10 VI. 3, and . 5 NPNF (V2-02) Socrates Scholasticus mention of a dispute between the Eunomians and Macedonians which took place in Constantinople in 394.11 If he were an eye-witness of this quarrel, he must have been old enough to take an interest in it, hence about fourteen or fifteen years of age. But this conclusion, even though it coincides exactly with the date found previously (379), is not at all certain, as he does not state that he was an eye-witness; and if the reasoning is correct, then he was not too young to be interested in the events of Chrysostom’s patriarchate which occurred a little later.