1. For a similar brief analysis of HE 2.3-20, see W. Schneemelcher, 'Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341,' Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. October 1977 dargebracht von Kollegen und Schülern (Bonn, 1977), 319-346, at 334-336; for an analysis of the whole book by the sources employed, F. Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 3.4 (Leipzig, 1898]), 118-121.
One of Socrates' important sources, from which he derived his exact and consular dates for imperial accessions and deaths and other events in the fourth century, was a consular list with historical notices closely related to the relevant section of the text which Theodor Mommsen printed as Consularia Constantinopolitana (Chr. min. 1.205-247)—which was presumably the source of the extant document. Geppert styled this presumed lost source 'Die Chronik von Constantinopel' (Quellen 11898], 32-46), but it began before 330: see O. Secck, 'Studien zur Geschichte Diocletians und Constantins. II: Idacius und die Chronik von Constantinopel,' Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 139 (1889), 601-635, at 619-630. Moreover, R. W. Burgess, 'History vs. Historiography in Late Antiquity,' Ancient History' Bulletin 4 (1990), 116-124, at 121/2, argues that the Consularia Constantinopolitana were originally composed in Gaul in the early 340s, then brought to Constantinople, where a continuation was added in the 360s. Socrates' chronological source was also used before him by Jerome in his continuation of Eusebius* Chronicle and after him by Marcellinus and in the Paschal Chronicle: see B. Croke, 'City Chronicles of Late Antiquity,' Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. G. W. Clarke (Rushcuttcrs Bay, 1990), 165-203, at 182-185.
2. E. Bihain, 'La source d'un texte de Socrate (H.E.,11.,38,2) relatif à Cyrille de Jérusalem,' Byzantion 32 (1962), 81-91, argued that this notice derives from 'the Greek Rufinus' and that its logical place is between 2.27.7 and 2.28.1.
3. See 'The Date of the Council of Gangra; JTS, N.S. 40 (1989), 121-124.
APPENDIX 6. SOCRATES, SOZOMENUS, AND SABINUS
1. Alan Cameron, 'The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II,' Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982), 217-289, at 265-267. His argument proceeds from a striking contrast between Socrates and Sozomenus: the former lavishes praise on Anthemius, who had been in power as praetorian prefect of the East from 405 to 414, and on Theodosius' consort Eudocia (HE 7.1, 21.8-10, 47), while the latter is totally silent about Anthemius and Eudocia, but praises Theodosius' sister Pulcheria at length (HE 9.1). F. Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 3.4 [Leipzig 1898}), 4-9, argued that the second, revised edition of the first two books was produced after 439, though before 444.
2. Also named at HE 2.38.11,15 (on the violence of Macedonius).
3. App. 8. On the availability of local written sources, see A. Freund, Beiträge zur antiochenischen und zur konstantinopolitanischen Stadtchronik (Diss. Jena, 1882); B. Croke, 'City Chronicles of Late Antiquity,' Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 165-203.
4. F. Geppert, Quellen (1898), 19-81, cf. L. Jeep, 'Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern,' Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supp. 14 (1885), 53-178, at 105-137; P. Périchon, 'Eutrope ou Paeanius? L'historien Socrate se référait-il à une source latine ou grecque?'R«we des études grecques 81 (1968), 378-384, argues that Socrates used both the original Latin and Paeanius' Greek translation of Eutropius.
5. P. Heseler (with J. Bidez), 'Fragments nouveaux de Philostorge sur la vie de Constantin,' Byzantion 10 (1935), 403-442, at 438-440, reprinted photographically in J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte1 (Berlin, 1972), 364-393; F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia (Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur and Kunst 1965, Nr. 3 [Berlin, 1966}), 103-105. The point at which Gelasius ended his Ecclesiastical History is uncertain, but the death of Julian or thereabouts, where Rufinus ends his tenth book, is a plausible guess.
6. Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 77-82, cf. G. Schoo, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 11 [Berlin, 1911J), 109-134. For a hypothetical reconstruction of what the Synodicus was supposed to contain, see P. Batiffol, 'Le Synod ikon de S. Athanase,' BZ 10 (1901), 128-143. G. Schoo, Quellen (1911), 104-109, argued against Schwartz that there was indeed a Synodicus of Athanasius, but that
Geppert and Batiffol had misapplied the term, since the Synodicus was (so he held) not an otherwise unknown collection explicitly mentioned only by Socrates, but precisely the 'Vorlage der Sammlung des Theodosius Diaconus,' in other words, the Alexandrian compilation from which the texts preserved in Cod. Ver. LX (58), including the Historia acephala, ultimately derive (Chapter I).
7. F. Geppert, Quellen (1898), 69-75. On the difficult problem of the sources of Zonaras, see the contrasting treatments by M. DiMaio, 'Smoke in the Wind: Zonaras' Use of Philostorgius, Zosimus, John of Antioch, and John of Rhodes in His Narrative of the Neo-Flavian Emperors,' Byzantion 58 (1988), 230-255; B. Bleckmann, 'Die Chronik des Johannes Zonaras und eine pagane Quelle zur Geschichte Konstantins,' Historia 40 (1991), 343-363.
8. So, recently, PLRE 2.1024; B. Grillet (with G. Sabbah), Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique, livres /-// (Sources chrétiennes 306, 1983), 30 ('le terminus a quo est 443, date de la dédicace, le terminus ad quem est 448'); G. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories1 (Macon, Ga., 1986), 201.
9. C. Roueché, Theodosius II» the Cities, and the Date of the "Church History" of Sozomen,' JTS, N.S. 37 (1986), 130-132.
10. Alan Cameron, Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982), 265/6. K. G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), 195, similarly deduces a date c. 449 from the encomium of Pulcheria.
11. L. Jeep Jahrbücher fiir classische Philologie, Supp. 14 (1885), 137-145; G. Schoo, Quellen (1911 ), 11; G. Sabbah, Sources chrétiennes 306 (1983), 59-87, cf. P. Allen, 'Some Aspects of Hellenism in the Early Greek Church Historians,' Traditio 43 (1987), 368-381, at 373-376. Hence Photius' verdict that Sozomenus is superior in style to Socrates (Bibliotheca 30). The corresponding passages of Socrates are conveniently noted in the apparatus to the edition of Sozomenus by J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen (GC5 50, 1960).
12. Sozomenus implies that he has seen copies of laws of Constantine in favor of the Christians whose headings named Crispus as Caesar in second place after his father (HE 1.5.2). But his chapter on legislation against paganism and Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves (HE 3.17, cf. CTh 16.10.2, 4-6; 9.2) follows the Theodosian Code in wrongly attributing to Constantius a constitution which Constantine addressed to his praetorian prefect Evagrius [CTh 16.9.2, cf. PLRE 1.284/5; Constantine (1981 J, 392 n. 74). For the importance of law and laws in Sozomenus' conception of ecclesiastical history, see J. Harries, 'Sozomen and Eusebius: The Lawyer as Church Historian in the Fifth Century,' The Inheritance of Historiography, 350-9G0, ed. C. Holdsworth and T. P. Wiseman (Exeter, 1986), 45-52.
13. On the non-documentary sources of Sozomenus, see G. Schoo, Quellen (1911), 19-86; G. C. Hansen, in the introduction to the edition prepared by J. Bidez (GCS 50, 1960), xliv-Ixiv; J. F. Matthews, 'Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A.D. 407-425),' JRS 60 (1970) 79-97. It ought not to be nccessary to discuss the theory that Sozomenus did in fact finish Book IX down to 439, but that the last part was deleted because Theodosius found it too embarrassing (G. Schoo, Quellen 11911], 3-8). Although the idea is still sometimes treated as a serious possibility (as by F. M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (London, 1983], 33: 'it is possible that imperial censors were responsible'), Book IX must be pronounced unfinished on purely literary and stylistic grounds: see G. C. Hansen, GCS 50 (1960), lxvi-lxvii; B. Grillet, Sources chrétiennes 306 (1983), 27-30.
16. For example, the letter of the Council of Ancyra to Constantius in early 358 (HE 4.13.4) or the démarche of the party of Eudoxius (HE 4.16.20-22).
17. P. Batiffol, 'Sozomène et Sabinos,' BZ 7 (1898), 265-284.
18. G. Schoo, Quellen (1911), 95-134. Schoo's analysis employs the unfortunate rubric 'Synodikos und Synagoge,' which groups together documents and information taken by Sozomenus both from an Alexandrian collection made by someone close to Athanasius and from the anti-Athanasian compilation by Sabinus of Heraclea.
19. For fuller discussion (and more examples), see G. Schoo, Quellen (1911), 117-130.
20. For a brief evaluation of Sozomenus as a source for the council of 341, see W. Schneemelcher, 'Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341,' Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. October 1977 dargebracht von Kollegen und Schülern (Bonn, 1977), 319-346, at 336/7.
22. For Sozomenus' use of the Greek original of the Historia acephala, see P. Batiffol, BZ 10 (1901), 130; G. C. Hansen, GCS 50 (1960), lxiii; Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 67.
23. On the date and na:ure of Sabinus* work, see W. D. Hauschild, 'Die antinizänische Synodalensammlung des Sabinus von Heraclea,' Vig. Chr. 24 (1970), 105-126; W. A. Lohr, 'Beobachtungen zu Sabinos von Herakleia,' ZKG 98 (1987), 386-391. It was written shortly after 367 and seems to have resembled Athanasius' On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia in purpose, narure of contents, and style of presentation.
Was this article helpful?