TO THE MOST CHRISTIAN KING OF THE FRANKS AND NAVARRE, LOUIS, GIVEN BY GOD.
Whether I ought to dedicate to Your Majesty, most Christian King, the Ecclesiastical History, written long ago in Greek by Socrates and Sozomen, and now rendered by me into the Latin tongue and illustrated with observations, I have pondered for a long time. For since from my early youth I had devoted myself to the liberal arts, and had always preferred a quiet and tranquil life of letters to all other concerns, it seemed to me improper and alien to my accustomed way of life, now that I am advanced in age, to seek royal favor and to interrupt Your Majesty—distracted as you are by so many and such great affairs—with a literary gift. But after I observed that Your Majesty by no means disdains such offerings, and that you embrace scholarly men—not only those who live under your rule, but also foreigners—with singular humanity and benevolence, and that you have recently, by your liberality, stirred all minds to the cultivation of the most excellent arts, I deemed it an act of ingratitude if I were to dedicate this work, begun and fashioned during your reign, to another rather than to you. For when I have already published so many books, celebrated so many illustrious men in my writings, and even praised the queen of a foreign nation in a special address, should I pass over my own king, excellent in the glory of his deeds and in all the arts of war and peace, in silence? Should I not strive in every way so that some monument of my genius might appear under his most august name?
Added to this is the example of our Sozomen, who, having composed an Ecclesiastical History in nine books from the reign of Constantine the Great to his own times, judged that it should be dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. Following him, after a long interval, Nicephorus Callistus dedicated his own work to the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus. And truly, most wisely, as I believe, did both of them judge that no more fitting gift could be offered to kings and emperors than the history of ecclesiastical affairs. For what knowledge is more useful and more necessary to a prince than that of those matters which are daily laid before him? Certainly, since religion holds the first place in the state, and since, from the time that kings and emperors joined themselves to the body of the Church, their authority in the administration of Church affairs has always been of the greatest weight, it is shameful and unseemly for them to be ignorant of those matters with which they are constantly engaged. Therefore, your ancestors, I mean the Charleses and the Louises, who attached the Roman Empire to the Frankish kingdom as if it were a certain appendage, applied themselves with all effort and diligence to acquiring the most exact knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For those most wise princes understood that when matters of the Church are properly constituted and ordered, the rest subsequently proceeds according to one's desires, and that the peace and tranquility of the empire flow, as from a fountain, from the peace and tranquility of the Church.
This study of theirs is testified to both by ancient histories and by the capitular laws issued and promulgated by them—decrees of such a kind that they always established matters concerning ecclesiastical affairs in the first place, than which nothing more useful could be ordained for ecclesiastical discipline. The same is also testified to by those books written by Charlemagne, which are commonly called the *Libri Carolini*. Not, therefore, without cause did I judge that the antiquities of the Christians should be dedicated to the most Christian prince, and the Ecclesiastical History to you, the firstborn among the sons of the Church. In it, Your Majesty will clearly perceive what and how great is the right of a prince in ecclesiastical matters; and just as, among the Roman emperors, those who harassed the Church with cruel persecutions always experienced adverse fortune and finally perished by a miserable end, while those who strove in every way to augment and adorn the Church, who bestowed honor upon the priests and privileges and immunity upon the clergy,
have always experienced all things favorable and prosperous, and have brought back the greatest victories over their enemies and tyrants. Since you have imitated their piety from the very first beginnings of your reign, by just right and merit the same good fortune perpetually accompanies you in all your expeditions. I could here run on more freely in your praises, and do so by the example of those writers whom I named above. For the noble deeds of Your Majesty provide for me, in truth, far richer material for discourse than the affairs of Theodosius the Younger once provided for Sozomen, or the affairs of Andronicus for Nicephorus. But because my discourse was instituted primarily for ecclesiastical matters, the history of which I have approached to offer to Your Majesty, I prefer to keep myself within these bounds which I myself prescribed at the beginning, and from your praises to touch only upon those which pertain to the Church and to religion. I will say nothing, therefore, of your extraordinary kindness, with which you are accustomed to receive all who approach you; nothing of the admirable prudence with which you administer both civil and military affairs; nothing of the justice which you observe most religiously in all your deeds and words; nothing of the incredible vigor of your intellect; nothing of your generous munificence toward letters, of which you have long since declared yourself the patron. I shall pass over your so many military expeditions, the storming of cities and towns, the armies of enemies slaughtered, [and] trophies in Belgium, in Germany, and in the middle of a conquered Pannonia. I am silent about the Turks, who were routed and put to flight at the first arrival of your troops, and the river filled with corpses. I will say nothing of your most recent expedition into Belgium, in which you captured more cities in the space of one summer than had been taken in the entire previous war by your father of blessed memory, Louis. I pass over the County of Burgundy, taken rather than captured in the cold of mid-winter. But that peace, which you recently concluded at Aachen with the Spanish king, I can in no way pass over in silence. In composing it, you clearly declared how great was your equity and moderation of spirit. For the desire to enlarge your kingdom did not lead you astray from the straight path of justice. Neither the strength and multitude of your soldiers, nor the excellence of your commanders, nor the magnitude of your military equipment, nor the enemy provinces stripped of their military forces, disturbed your mind. But content with your own, you desired nothing further. Indeed, I think this peace is to be preferred by far to all your victories and triumphs. For it added the greatest and most fortified cities of Belgium to your domain and gained immortal glory for your name. For what is more glorious than to conquer oneself in the midst of the highest success, and, standing above trophies, to impose a limit upon one's own victory? Religion, whose primary account you thought should be held in renewing the covenant, derived no small fruit from this peace. For when it saw with great difficulty two of the most powerful princes of the Christian world clashing with one another and already prepared to exhaust themselves with mutual slaughter; and that at a time when it [the Church] itself was being attacked by the enemies of the Christian name on land and sea; now, with a peace treaty firmly established between these same princes, it rejoices and, having regained confidence, promises itself a triumph over those impious ones who are hateful to God. The Gallican Church also promises itself peace with no doubtful hope. For though it has been shaken and troubled for several years now by the most serious dissensions, it now trusts that it can be recalled to its former concord and tranquility through the intervention of your peaceful Majesty. Finally, our letters, because of this peace, rejoice and exult with incredible joy. Since they have long owed you a great deal for your regal munificence toward them, they now frankly profess that they owe you their very life on this account. For they are the foster-daughters of peace and the companions of quiet and leisure. Therefore all learned and upright men, especially those upon whom the tempest of this war had weighed, pray to God with the most ardent vows that this peace may be lasting and perpetual. From their number, I dedicate and offer these books of Ecclesiastical History, edited and emended by me, to Your Majesty. I beg you, again and again, to receive them with a kindly countenance, as hostages of my most devoted obedience and most certain witnesses of a grateful heart.
Your Majesty's Most devoted, HENRICUS VALESIUS.
PREFACE TO THE STUDIOUS READER
After Eusebius of Caesarea, whom we can rightly call the father of ecclesiastical history, many, fired by pious emulation, undertook to treat the same subject. But above all others, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret have been celebrated by the judgment of all antiquity; for starting from the times where Eusebius had ended his writing, they carried their work forward to the times of Theodosius the Younger. And at first, indeed, I had decided to bring these three writers to light joined together A, so that just as they followed one and the same subject in their writing, they might also be read comprised in one and the same volume. But because the volume would have become too prolix if this had been done, I have been compelled to defer the edition of Theodoret to another time. To it I shall join the history of Evagrius of Epiphania along with the excerpts of Philostorgius and Theodore the Lector, so that students may hereafter be able to peruse the whole body of ecclesiastical history, exposed and explained by our labor. Meanwhile, however, you have, Reader, Socrates and Sozomen joined together in this body. Receive in brief what I have accomplished in their edition.
Eight years ago, when I was bringing to light the History of Eusebius of Caesarea by the order and auspices of the most illustrious prelates of the Gallican clergy, I endeavored to achieve three things in that edition. First, by procuring manuscripts of the best quality from everywhere, I amended and punctuated those things which had been corrupted and interpolated in previous editions. Then, since earlier interpreters, whether through a scarcity of the authors' exemplars or for some other reason, had faltered in many places, that their interpretation might not lead readers into error, I myself composed a new translation, by which I trust students will be content in the future. Finally, I added annotations by which I might both account for my emendations and expound and illustrate all the more obscure and difficult passages. And this edition, kindly received by all, now stays in the hands of the learned. B Therefore, what I then achieved in the History of Eusebius of Caesarea with the help of God, the same I have now endeavored to perform in the History of Socrates and Sozomen, by the order and auspices of the same prelates I mentioned.
For, to speak first of Socrates, who was the first to set himself to writing, I have amended his history with the help and assistance of three manuscripts: namely, the Sfortian, the Florentine, and the Allatian. The Sfortian manuscript, the best and most ancient, is now kept in the Vatican Library. This, long ago, for the sake of the most illustrious man Carolus Monchallus, Archbishop of Toulouse, Lucas Holstenius, a man of great learning, had collated with the Genevan edition; and he had sent various readings, together with the emendations of Philostorgius culled from a manuscript of the Escorial, to the same prelate when the Gallican clergy had entrusted to him the task of procuring a new edition of the ancient ecclesiastical history, as the same Holstenius writes in a letter to Petrus Possinus, a theologian of the Society of Jesus.
But afterward, when at the request of the Archbishop of Toulouse himself—who realized he could not attend to this edition on account of his excessive occupations—the Gallican clergy had assigned that province to me, the same Holstenius sent to me the various readings of the aforementioned Sfortian manuscript, inscribed in his own hand in the margin of the Genevan edition, along with those emendations of Philostorgius: intending to send more, moreover, if a longer life had been granted to him. For indeed, shortly before his death, he sent me some dissertations concerning certain passages of the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Chalcedon, and concerning the bishopric of Synesius. Which dissertations, if God shall aid, will be published by us in the third volume of ecclesiastical history, lest the literary republic be longer defrauded of the lucubrations of a most learned man.
There follows the Florentine manuscript, transcribed about five hundred years ago, which is now kept in Florence in the library of Saint Lawrence. Its discovery and use I owe to Emericus Bigotius, a most sagacious seeker of ancient libraries, through whose diligence it has come about that we, sitting here and idle, may enjoy the resources and treasures of many and far-flung libraries. For at his request, Michael Erminius, a Florentine patrician, collated that manuscript with the Genevan edition and transmitted its various readings to me. For which name I profess that I am most indebted to both. C
The third is the manuscript of Leo Allatius, a man of great learning in every respect, and one who has merited well concerning ecclesiastical antiquity. This manuscript contains the ecclesiastical history of Theodore the Lector, comprised in two books: which Theodore the Lector had collected from three writers of ecclesiastical affairs—namely, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret—in the same manner exactly as Cassiodorus Senator composed his Tripartite History. But this tripartite history of Theodore the Lector embraces things done in the Church only during the reign of Constantine and Constantius: whether because Theodore the Lector had not progressed further, or because the remaining books of his work perished through the neglect of antiquity. From this manuscript, therefore, Leo Allatius had long ago culled various readings in the first two books of Socrates and transferred them to the most illustrious prelate Carolus Monchallus, transcribed in his own hand. Which I afterward obtained by the kindness of the most illustrious man Dionysius Talæus, advocate of the most Christian king in the supreme court of Paris.
Besides these three manuscripts, I used the Royal manuscript, and that not very old, which is the only one that Robertus Stephanus printed with his types. Wherefore it is less to be wondered at that the editions of Socrates hitherto published are so faulty, since they have all been described from a single exemplar, and that one very recent. Moreover, this manuscript, retrieved from the Royal Library, was kindly [made available] to me. D
The most illustrious and most Reverend Prelate, Nicolas Colbert, Bishop of Luçon, a man endowed with exceptional learning, virtue, and dignity, communicated it to me. I would say much in his praise here, were I not restrained by his singular modesty, though I desire to do so most of all. And these are the resources of manuscripts, supported by which I have girded myself for this edition of Socrates. B
In correcting the History of Sozomen, however, fewer manuscripts were available to me. For besides the exemplar from the Royal Library, which Robert Stephanus published in his edition, and besides that codex of Leo Allatius which I mentioned above—which was of help to us only in the first four books of Sozomen and at the beginning of the fifth—I had the single Fuketian codex. This book had first belonged to Carolus Monchallus, Archbishop of Toulouse, a man very
Those varied readings which the Greeks call *dittographiai* are for the most part unpleasant and tiresome to readers, yet they are extremely useful and absolutely necessary, especially in those writers whose books have reached us in a less than emended state. I have already noted above that the books of Socrates and Sozomen are of this kind. A Indeed, observations display a greater appearance of erudition, but correction seems to me to require more talent and judgment. For it is not the task of just anyone to pass judgment on the true and genuine reading of ancient writers, but only of one who is instructed in manifold learning and has been long and much exercised in this art of judging.
Furthermore, I have appended three books of ecclesiastical observations by me, which pertain to the illustration of the History of Socrates and Sozomen. For when I observed that many and very great errors had been admitted by Socrates and Sozomen—and by those who later followed them—in recording the affairs of Athanasius of Alexandria and Paul of Constantinople, I endeavored to illustrate that part of the history with all the care and diligence that was possible, in the two prior books. In these, the studious will find many things observed by me which had escaped the diligence of others. B Moreover, the third book, which contains an explanation of the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea, has been included here by me for the reason that this canon treats of the right and power of the patriarchs, of whom our Socrates makes mention in the sixth and seventh books. I have thought it right to warn readers of this fact, lest anyone imagine that I have added this book to the others for the purpose of criticizing anyone; for that was certainly not my intention. Rather, in the first place, I undertook to explain that canon out of a desire to seek the truth; and then, in order to bring some light to my author, I placed that little book under my annotations. If, in it, I dissent from a learned and friendly man, I have done so modestly, and not without an honorable mention of him.
By way of a corollary, there is added the disputation of Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, against the Manichaean, mentioned by Socrates in the first book. Epiphanius mentions this same work in his section on the heresy of the Manichaeans, and Jerome in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, whose words are these: "Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, composed in the Syriac tongue a book of his disputation which he held against the Manichaean as he was leaving Persia; it has been translated into Greek and is held by many." He flourished under the Emperor Probus. This outstanding monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had hitherto lain hidden in the libraries of Italy. At last, however, by the study and diligence of that most distinguished man Emeric Bigot, it has been rescued from darkness and brought to light. But it is to be lamented that the copy from which these things were transcribed has reached us filled with innumerable errors, and moreover, imperfect and mutilated. For the disputation itself of Archelaus, which he held against the Manichaean in the house of Marcellus, in the presence of four judges elected by Marcellus, seems to be missing. Unless, perhaps, we say that the disputation of Archelaus is contained in the letter to the presbyter Diodorus, in which Archelaus relates entirely the disputation he had held against the Manichaean, as may be gathered from the end of that letter.
And these are the matters concerning which I thought I should warn the readers at the beginning of this work, so that they might recognize at a first glance what was the essential feature of this our edition, and what was not to be found in the previous editions of this History. It remains now to say a few words about Socrates and Sozomen: who and what sort of men they were; what manner of life they followed, what religion they professed, and which of them wrote his History first.
OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN
Socrates, therefore—for we shall begin with him—had Constantinople as his homeland. He testifies, certainly, in the fifth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 24, that he was born and educated in that city, and for that reason, he primarily commemorated those events which had happened in that state. He was grounded in the precepts of the grammatical art, while still a mere youth, by the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, who at that time, having fled from Alexandria, had retreated to Constantinople. If anyone wishes to know the reason why those grammarians migrated from Alexandria, he will find it related by Socrates in book V, chapter 16. For when the temples of the gentiles had been destroyed in Alexandria by the care and zeal of Theophilus, the bishop of that city, Helladius and Ammonius the grammarians—of whom one was a priest of Jupiter and the other of Simius in Alexandria—resenting this insult to their gods, left the city of Alexandria, departed for Constantinople, and settled their domicile there. Furthermore, the temples of the gentiles were destroyed in Alexandria in the consulship of Timasius and Promotus, as Marcellinus writes in his *Chronicle*, which was the eleventh year of the Emperor Theodosius. From which it appears that our Socrates B was brought to light about the beginning of the reign of Theodosius. For boys of about ten years of age were accustomed to be handed over to grammarians for their education.
After this, Socrates learned rhetoric under the sophist Troilus, who during that time was teaching eloquence at Constantinople with the highest praise. Our Socrates does not indeed state this explicitly. Truly, however, an attentive and diligent reader will easily gather that which I have said from his words. For he makes mention of him so often, and so honorably, that he seems to be paying a fee to his master. For he names his homeland, Side in Pamphylia; and he commemorates not a few of his disciples, namely Eusebius Scholasticus, and the bishops Silvanus and Ablabius. Finally, in the seventh book, he writes that Anthemius the Praetorian Prefect, who administered the republic while Theodosius the Younger was still a boy, used the counsels of the sophist Troilus primarily. Where he also adorns him with this eulogy: *os meta tes ouses auto philosophias* (for so it must be written, as I have noted in the appendix of annotations), *kai kata ten politiken phronesin to Anthemio epamillos en*—that is: who, besides the philosophy that was in him, in political wisdom was a rival to Anthemius...
A Seduced by these reasons, I have believed that our Socrates employed the rhetorician Troilus as his master. But let everyone decide on this matter according to their own judgment. It should be known, moreover, that the ancients did not study the works of eloquence hastily and hurriedly, as is the custom now, but over a very long period of time. Certainly Gregory Nazianzen attests in his *Poem on His Own Life* that he departed from Athens in the thirtieth year of his age, when he had learned the precepts of the rhetorical art in that city. After these things, Socrates, having left the school of Troilus, betook himself to the forum and conducted cases at Constantinople. Whence he acquired the nickname "Scholasticus." For thus were the advocates of that time called, as has long since been observed by others: not because they were connected to schools, but because young men, having set out from the schools of the rhetoricians, professed this art. Eventually, however, having cast aside legal practice, he applied his mind to writing an ecclesiastical History. In this matter, he used both judgment and diligence of a singular kind. And indeed, his judgment is declared by the observations and opinions interspersed throughout his books, than which, in my judgment, there is nothing more illustrious. That diligence, indeed, is testified to by many other things, but especially by the fact that he frequently records the note of time—that is, the consulates and olympiads—especially when he commemorates matters of greater moment. Nor did he write his History negligently and sluggishly, like Rufinus of Aquileia, who seems to me to have composed the two books of ecclesiastical History which he appended to the books of Eusebius of Caesarea from memory. Far otherwise is our Socrates, who, with the best materials collected from all sides—that is, from the letters of bishops, from synodal acts, and from the books of ecclesiastical writers—wrought out his History upon their authority. And since, in the first edition of his work, following Rufinus, he had recorded the synod of Tyre and the relegation of Athanasius to the Gauls during the principate of Constantius Augustus, upon reading the books of Athanasius afterwards, he perceived his error. Wherefore he found it necessary to undertake a new edition of his History, in which he both corrected the error I just mentioned and added some other things that were desired in the former edition, as he himself testifies at the beginning of the second book. From which it appears how highly this History of Socrates should be esteemed by us, for which the writer himself applied the final hand. In writing his History, Socrates used a simple and humble style, and this by design, so that it might be more easily understood by all, as he himself testifies in the prologue of the first and third books. For he judged that the sublime and ornate kind of speaking was more suitable for panegyrical orations than for the history of ecclesiastical affairs. Furthermore, he dedicated his History to a certain Theodorus, whom in the beginning of the second book he calls a holy man of God, just as our Eusebius calls Paulinus, the bishop of Tyre, in the prologue of the tenth book. But who this Theodorus might be is unknown to me. For I would not believe him to be Theodorus, the bishop of Mopsuestia, since B Socrates wrote his History after the death of Theodorus of Mopsuestia. But the time has now come for us to inquire about his sect and religion, as we promised at the beginning.
Baronius, indeed, in his *Annals*, and Philippus Labbeus in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, affirm that our Socrates belonged to the Novatian sect. Nicephorus also held the same opinion before them in the prologue of his *Ecclesiastical History*, with these words: *ho ten prosëgorian, ou mēn de ge kai tēn proairesin katharos Sokrates*. That is: "And he who is by nickname indeed Catharus [‘Clean’], but in mind was less pure, Socrates." This is not to be understood as though Socrates was nicknamed Catharus, but that it is signified that he was a Novatian. For the Novatians called themselves Cathari, as the eighth canon of the Council of Nicaea teaches. The same Nicephorus, in book II, chapter 14, writes thus about Socrates: "Socrates writes that these things were reported to him (who in this place openly shows that he does not abhor the tenets of the Novatians) by a certain old man," etc. But there are neither few nor light reasons why our Socrates has been considered a Novatian by many. First, for he diligently records the series of Novatian bishops who governed their church at Constantinople ever since the times of Constantine, noting also the consuls under whom each one departed from this life. Then he extols each of them with the highest praises, especially Agelius and Sisinnius, Chrysanthus and Paul. He even writes that a certain miracle was performed at Constantinople by his prayers. Finally, C he pursues everything that pertains to the Novatian sect with such care and diligence that he appears to have been addicted to this sect. But if anyone wishes to examine these things more accurately, he will find nothing in them that would convince us that our Socrates was a Novatian. For he also enumerates the Arian bishops who administered their church in Constantinople with equal diligence; nor yet for that reason is he said to have been an Arian. He also reported everything that happened to the Arians and Eunomians and Macedonians at Constantinople without less study than what happened to the Novatians. He himself gives the reason for this in the fifth book, chapter 24, where he writes that it was his intention to commemorate especially those things that happened at Constantinople, both because he was born and educated in that city; then because the affairs enacted in that city were more illustrious and more worthy of the memory of men. But if anyone should object that the Arian bishops are not praised by Socrates as much as the Novatians are, the answer is easy. For the Arian bishops who were living in Constantinople at that time were far inferior to the Novatian bishops. For their church abounded in many and most excellent priests during those times. And Sozomen confirms this by his own testimony as well, who records praises of them very similar to the praises of our Socrates. Wherefore, either Sozomen must also be said to have been a Novatian, or our Socrates must be acquitted of this calumny. Yet it is established that Sozomen...
was not a Novatian. For to omit the testimony of Theodore Lector, who in the epistle which he prefixed to his Tripartite History calls him A most blessed, he himself writes in the ninth book that he was present at a public procession which was celebrated at Constantinople in honor of the forty Martyrs, while Proclus was administering the Church of that city. From which it clearly follows that Sozomen was a man of the Catholic communion, inasmuch as he participated in the public supplication together with Catholics.
I admit indeed that our Socrates generally favors the Novatians: as when he numbers Novatian, the author of that sect, among the martyrs; when he says that the Novatians were joined to the Catholics by the closest benevolence, and that he prayed to God in church together with them; [and] when he commends the discourse of Sisinnius, which he delivered against that saying of Chrysostom: "Even if you have performed penance a thousand times, draw near." But it is one thing to favor the Novatians, and another to be a Novatian. Our Socrates could indeed have favored the Novatians, whether because he was joined to them by intimacy and familiarity, or because he approved of their discipline and abstinence. For he was, as far as we can gather from his books, a little too severe. But that he was a Novatian, I would persuade myself only with great difficulty; especially since from some places which occur in his History, I seem to have detected the opposite.
For first, in book II, chapter 58, he calls them B *those of the Church* not once, but repeatedly, "Catholics"; and he opposes them to the Novatians. He acknowledges, therefore, that the Novatians were outside the Church. This he certainly would never do if he had embraced the sect of the Novatians. But further, in the sixth book, chapters 20 and 25, he names the Novatians among the heretics, namely with the Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomians. Finally, from chapter 19 of the same book, it is openly gathered that Socrates was not a Novatian. For first, he calls the Church perpetually, simply and absolutely, *the Church of the Catholics*: opposing it to the churches of other sects, of which he treats in the following chapters, namely the Arians, Novatians, and Eunomians. Secondly, he does not obscurely censure that counsel of Nectarius, who abolished the penitentiary presbyter. For he says that by this action, liberty was given to sinners, since there was no one to rebuke them. Which opinion indeed cannot proceed from a Novatian man, since the Novatians never admitted C either penance or a penitentiary presbyter, as Socrates himself testifies in the same place.
There is added the testimony of Theodore Lector, who in the epistle which he prefixed to his ecclesiastical history, calls Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret *men beloved of God* (ἄνδρας θεοφιλεῖς), that is, pious men and acceptable to God. Moreover, Theodore Lector lived in the same city and at almost the same times as Socrates, namely while Anastasius was administering the empire. Furthermore, Petrus Halloixius in his Notes on the Life of the blessed Irenaeus, page 664, feels the same as we do. For, arguing against Baronius, who had written thus regarding the year of Christ 159: *This Socrates the Novatian, himself also celebrating the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon, etc.*, he says this: And that which is said of Socrates [being] a Novatian can be taken in two ways. One, that he favored the Novatians at times: which even Bellarmine writes in the book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* regarding the year of our Lord 440, concerning both him and Sozomen. The other, that he was of the Novatian heresy. D In the cited chapter, however, he neither shows himself to be one nor to favor them. For he also censures them, and discloses their dissensions and vices: so that he may appear not as a friend, but as an enemy, or rather as neither, but as an narrator of the truth: which is the duty of a historian. Thus far concerning Socrates. Now we must speak of Sozomen.
Hermias Sozomen was himself also a lawyer at Constantinople, in the same times as Socrates. He had ancestors who were not ignoble, hailing from Palestine, from a certain village near Gaza which is called Bethelia. This village once abounded in a multitude of inhabitants, and had very beautiful and ancient temples. But above the rest, the Pantheon stood out, placed upon a hill made by hand, which was, as it were, a certain fortress of Bethelia, as Sozomen writes in book V of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 15. From that village the grandfather of Hermias Sozomen was born, having been first converted to the faith of Christ by Hilarion the monk. For when Alaphion, an inhabitant of the same village, was vexed by a demon, and certain Jews and physicians had attempted to heal him and had accomplished nothing with their incantations, Hilarion, having invoked only the name of God, put the demon to flight. Stupefied by which miracle, the grandfather of Sozomen, and Alaphion himself, together with his whole family, embraced the Christian religion.
And the grandfather of Sozomen indeed excelled in explaining the sacred Volumes, since he was of an elegant intellect and possessed of understanding. He was, moreover, moderately learned in the disciplines. Therefore, he was very dear to those Christians living in Gaza and Ascalon and the neighboring places, inasmuch as he was useful and necessary to religion, and one who easily dissolved the knots of the sacred Volumes. But the descendants of Alaphion shone above others in the holiness of their lives, in kindness toward the poor, and in other virtues: and they were the first of all to build churches and monasteries there, as Sozomen testifies in the place already cited. Where he also adds that from this family of Alaphion, certain holy men had come down even to his own age, with whom he himself, while still a young man, had associated, and of whom he promises to speak below. He understands no doubt Salamanes, Fuscones, Malchio, and Crispione, brothers of whom he speaks in book VI, chapter 32. For he says these brothers, having been instructed in monastic discipline by Hilarion, flourished in the monasteries of Palestine during the reign of Valens: and they lived near Bethelia, which is a village in the territory of the Gazans. For they were born of a noble family among them. He mentions the same in book VIII, chapter 14, where he says that Crispione was the archdeacon of Epiphanius. It appears, therefore, that these brothers of whom I have spoken were descended from the family of Alaphion. And Alaphio was joined by blood to the grandfather of Sozomen. And this I conjecture from the fact that the grandfather of Sozomen is said to have been converted with his whole house to the faith of Christ on account of the marvelous healing of Alaphio, whom Hilarion * [the text continues to the next page].
A having invoked the name of the Almighty God alone, had healed. Then, from the fact that Sozomen writes that as a very young man he was familiarly associated with the elderly monks who were of the line of that Alaphio. Finally, from the fact that Sozomen took his name from these sons or grandsons of Alaphio. For he was called Salamanes Hermias Sozomenus, as Photius testifies in his Library, from the name of that Salaman, whom I previously observed to have been the brother of Fusco, Malchio, and Crispion. Wherefore the error of Nicephorus and others must be corrected, who think that Sozomen had the surname Salaminius because he traced his origin from the town of Salamis in Cyprus. But I have shown above from the testimony of Sozomen himself that he was not a Cypriot, but a Palestinian. For not only was his grandfather a Palestinian, as was said above, but Sozomen himself was also raised in Palestine, in the bosom, so to speak, of those monks who were of the family of Alaphio. From which upbringing, it seems to me, Sozomen drew that most ardent love for monastic life and discipline which he displays everywhere in his History. Hence it is that in his books he was by no means content to report who were the fathers and authors of monastic philosophy: but he also studiously commemorated their successors and disciples, both those who had cultivated this kind of life in Egypt, and Syria, and Palestine, and those who flourished in Pontus, Armenia, and Osrhoene. Hence it is that in the first book of his History, chapter 12, he set forth that ambitious panegyric of monastic philosophy, as if to be read in a vestibule. For he thought he would be ungrateful if, toward those in whose company he had lived, and from whom as a youth he had received such excellent examples of good conversation, he did not at least in this way return his gratitude. For he points this out himself in the preface of the first book. However, it is not only from this place that I mentioned that it is gathered that Sozomen was raised in Gaza, but also from the end of the eighth book, where Sozomen says he saw Zeno, the bishop of Maiuma. But Maiuma is the port of the Gazaeans. Although he was nearly one hundred years old, he had never been absent from the morning and evening hymns, unless perhaps sickness had detained him. After these things, Sozomen devoted himself to the practice of law. And indeed he studied civil law at Berytus, a city of Phoenicia, not far distant from Sozomen’s homeland; in which there was a famous school of jurisprudence. Moreover, he pleaded cases at Constantinople, as he himself testifies in book II, chapter 3. Nor does he seem to have been very occupied with pleading cases. For it was at the very time when he was an advocate at Constantinople that he wrote his ecclesiastical History, as may be gathered from his own words. For he says on page 48 of this edition: “But as for what happened to Aquilinus, a man who even to this day lives with me and practices law in the same forum, I shall relate what I have heard from him, and in part what I have seen myself, as necessary.” Moreover, before these nine ecclesiastical Hi- D story books, Sozomen had written a Breviary of ecclesiastical affairs, from the ascension of Christ down to the deposition of Licinius. Which work was comprised in two books, as he himself testifies in the preface of the first book. But these two books have perished through the lapse of time. Now, in writing his History, Sozomen used a style that is neither too low nor too turgid, but which walks in the middle between both. Which style, indeed, suits a writer of ecclesiastical history very well. And Photius, in his Library, prefers the diction of Sozomen to the diction of Socrates. In which we willingly agree. But as much as Sozomen excels in elegance of diction, so much does Socrates excel in judgment. For Socrates judges most excellently both of men and of ecclesiastical affairs and matters. There is nothing in him that is not grave and serious. Nothing that you could expunge as superfluous. On the contrary, however, some things that are trifling and childish occur in Sozomen. Of which kind is that digression in the first book concerning the founding of the city of Hemona and the Argonauts, who carried the ship Argo on their shoulders for some stadia. Also that description of the suburb of Daphne, which is in the fifth book, page 209. Also that observation concerning the beauty of the body, where he deals with that virgin in whose company the blessed Athanasius hid for a long time. Finally, the ninth book contains almost nothing but warlike events, which have nothing in common with ecclesiastical History. But also the very diction of Sozomen, which Photius puts before the diction of Socrates, is not without its faults. For I have observed that periods are connected by Sozomen in no other way than by those particles δέ and τέ, than which there is nothing more tiresome. But if anyone reads that letter more attentively by which Sozomen dedicated his work to Theodosius the Younger, he will assuredly find what I said, that Sozomen was not a great orator. It remains for us to inquire which of them wrote first, and which borrowed, or rather stole, from the other. Certainly, since both wrote about the same things in almost the same way, and both set out from the same beginning and ran to the same goal, namely from the principate of Constantine to the XVII consulship of Theodosius the Younger, it is absolutely necessary that one has compiled the archives of the other. That this kind of plagiarism was committed by many Greek writers is testified by Porphyry in Eusebius in book X of the *Praeparatio evangelica*. But which is the plagiarist, Socrates or Sozomen, is difficult to say, since both lived in the same times, and both wrote their History in the principate of Theodosius the Younger. Therefore, in the discussion of this question, one must use conjecture. Thus Porphyry in the book mentioned above, when it was uncertain whether Hyperides had stolen from Demosthenes, or Demosthenes from Hyperides, because both had lived at the same time, pronounced that one must use conjecture. Let us see, therefore, upon whom the suspicion of theft falls. For my part, I think that the inferior person usually steals from the more excellent, and the younger from the older. But Sozomen, in my judgment, is far inferior to Socrates; also younger than
Socrates, he turned himself to the writing of history. A For he wrote while he was still an advocate, as I have observed above. However, the profession of advocates among the Romans was not perpetual, but temporary. Finally, he who adds something to another, and who sometimes amends another, appears to have written later. But Sozomen sometimes adds certain things to Socrates, and in some places differs from him, as Photius observes, and as we have admonished in our annotations. Therefore, Sozomen appears to have written later. And this is the opinion of almost all recent authors, who place Socrates before Sozomen. Thus Bellarmine, B followed by Miraeus, Labbé, and Valesius. Among the ancients, however, Cassiodorus and Photius and Nicephorus name Socrates in the first place. Although Cassiodorus is found to have varied. For in the preface of the *Historia Tripartita*, in inverted order, he names Theodoret first, indeed, but recounts Sozomen in the second place, and mentions Socrates last. Thus also does Theodorus Lector recount them in the epistle which he prefixed to the *Historia Tripartita*. Thus far concerning Sozomen. Now it is time that we hear the testimonies of the ancients regarding both writers.
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN.
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN.
Cassiodorus Senator, in the book *De divinis lectionibus*, chapter 17. After the history of Eusebius, among the Greeks, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret wrote the following events. Which, with God’s help, we have caused to be translated from the most eloquent man Epiphanius into one body of twelve books: so that eloquent Greece should not insult us by possessing what is necessary, while judging that it has been taken away from you.
Idem Cassiodorus, in the preface to the *Historia Tripartita*. This ecclesiastical history, therefore, which is proven to be very necessary for all Christians, is established to have been wonderfully written by three Greeks: namely, by Theodoret, a venerable bishop, and by two most eloquent men, Sozomen and Socrates. These, while we were rendering them into Latin eloquence through Epiphanius Scholasticus, we deemed it necessary to reduce their words, culled into a tract of a single style, with the Lord's help, and to make one discourse out of three authors.
Theodorus Lector of the Church of Constantinople, in the *Epistle which he prefixed to the Ecclesiastical History*: After the admirable Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, who placed the greatest effort in collecting the books of most learned men who had written on ecclesiastical matters, not only among Christians but also among the Jews; and who led his history up to the twentieth year of the most pious and truly God-appointed principate of the most laudable and blessed Emperor Constantine: men dear to God, with equal care and diligence, as their own books will make manifest, set out to treat the same subject and wrote the history of the following times: namely, Theodoret of blessed memory, bishop of Cyrus, and Sozomen and Socrates. However, they did not all hold the same path in writing history: but each one reasoned in a peculiar manner, and set forth the events in writing.
Theodorus Lector, in the same Epistle. I shall begin the subject from the history of blessed Sozomen.
Evagrius Scholasticus in the first book of *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 1. Eusebius, I say, of Pamphilus, and Sozomen, and Theodoret, and Socrates, have written most excellently of all concerning the coming of our most benevolent Savior to earth, and his ascension into heaven; as well as those things which were accomplished by the divine apostles and most courageous martyrs struggling for the faith: and whatever else is worthy of praise or blame done by our people, up to the principate of Theodosius, they have produced in the best of writings.
Gregorius Magnus, in the 51st epistle of book VI. In the history of Sozomen, however, some things are told concerning a certain Eudoxius who is said to have reached the episcopate of the Constantinopolitan Church. But the Apostolic See refuses to accept this same History, because it lies about many things, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia too much, and even asserts that he was a great teacher of the Church up to the day of his death.
This praise of Theodore of Mopsuestia does not exist today in the History of Sozomen: but it is found in the fifth book of the *Ecclesiastical History* by Theodoret, chapter 40. Therefore, it must either be said that Gregory the Great suffered from a failure of memory, who attributed to Sozomen that which was said by Theodoret. Melchior Canus was of this opinion in the first book of his *Loci theologici*. Or certainly, with Baronius in his annotations to the *Roman Martyrology*, it must be said that the greatest part of the ninth book of Hermias Sozomen is missing today, namely the history of about 18 years, from the consulship of Agricola and Eustathius up to the consulship of Theodosius Augustus: and in those chapters which perished through the carelessness of antiquity, Sozomen wrote those things concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia.
are those reported by Gregory the Great. But this response of Baronius, although it pleased Miraeus, Vossius, and others, nonetheless does not satisfy me at all. For who would believe that in the age of Gregory the Great the codices of Sozomen were more complete than they are now? For in the age of Cassiodorus, who preceded Gregory the Great, the codices of Sozomen were no more voluminous than those which we now have: and this is easy to know from the *Historia Tripartita* of Cassiodorus.
*The seventh synod, in the first session.*
Constantine, most reverend deacon and notary, reads: From the *Ecclesiastical History* of Socrates: Photius, who became bishop of Sirmium, was a disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra; and he himself called the Lord a "mere man," just as Marcellus did. And again the same man reads from the *Ecclesiastical History* of Socrates: But those who had gathered at Sardica, first indeed condemned them, because they had evaded judgment. And confirming the definition of the Nicene faith, they reject and anathematize unlikeness. Furthermore, they restored their sees to Paul and Athanasius, as also to Marcellus of Ancyra, who rendered an account and said that the things which he had set forth in his books were not understood; especially since he himself detested those who said the Lord was a mere man A. And a little later: Stephen, most reverend monk and librarian, reads: From the *Ecclesiastical History* of Rufinus: This civil persecution, though slight at first, Macedonius, once he had crossed over into the episcopacy, caused to increase. But Acacius and Patrophilus, casting out Maximus of Jerusalem, appointed Cyril in his stead B.
*Photius, in the Bibliotheca, chapter 28.*
The *Ecclesiastical History* of Socrates was read, following next after Eusebius: beginning indeed from the empire of Constantine, and proceeding down to the times of Theodosius the Younger. This writer had as tutors in grammar, while still a boy, Ammonius and Helladius, Alexandrian grammarians who were Gentiles and, having been expelled from their homeland on account of sedition, were living in Constantinople. But this work holds the history of one hundred and forty years, and the whole history is comprised in seven books. His style is not very splendid: but neither is he very accurate on dogmatic matters. And chapter 30: The *Ecclesiastical History* of Salamanes Hermias Sozomenus Scholasticus was read, comprised in nine books, which the author dedicates to Theodosius the Younger. It begins from the consulship of Crispus and his brother Constantine, and proceeds as far as the princedom of Theodosius the Younger. He practiced law at Constantinople: and he is more excellent than Socrates in his writing. He also disagrees with him on certain historical accounts C.
*Nicephorus Callistus, in the first book of Ecclesiastical History, chapter 1.*
Furthermore, Hermias Sozomen, who is also called Salaminius, and the most learned Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, who opposed the third synod: likewise the God-hated Philostorgius, and Socrates—who was "pure" [Katharos] by nickname, though not in intention—having started from the end of Eusebius of Caesarea, carried their history down to the times of Theodosius the Younger, since all of them, I know not how, had proposed the same subject matter to themselves D. See also book XI, chapter 14.
*In the fourth book of the Juris Graeco-Romani, chapter: On the translations of bishops.*
Hermias, the son of Sozomen, writes that under Constantius, Meletius was transferred from Sebaste in Armenia to Antioch.
*Cedrenus, in the Chronicon, page 275.*
But Sozomen says that she was also accounted worthy of a divine vision.
See also Liberatus the Deacon in the *Breviary of Nestorian History*, chapter 2.
SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, translated by H. Valesius. BOOK ONE.
THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Cap. I. The Proemium of the whole book. II. By what reasoning the Emperor Constantine turned himself to the Christian religion. III. How, while Constantine was expanding the affairs of the Christians, Licinius, his colleague, persecuted them. IV. The manner in which the war between Constantine and Licinius arose on account of the Christians. V. Concerning the contention of Arius against Alexander the bishop. VI. How from this contention a schism arose in the Church, and how Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, deposed Arius and his followers. VII. How the Emperor Constantine, deeply grieved by the disturbance in the Churches, sent Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the bishop and Arius to concord. VIII. Concerning the synod which was held at Nicaea in Bithynia, and concerning the faith which was promulgated there. IX. The epistle of the synod concerning those things which were decreed by it: and how Arius and those who had agreed with him were deposed. X. That the emperor also summoned Acesius, the bishop of the Novatians, to the synod. XI. Concerning Paphnutius the bishop. XII. Concerning Spyridon, bishop of the Cypriots. XIII. Concerning Eutychianus the monk. XIV. How Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, who had been sent into exile because they had agreed with Arius, afterwards, having sent a book of repentance and having consented to the exposition of the faith, regained their sees. XV. How, after the death of Alexander following the Nicaean synod, Athanasius was made bishop.