1. HE 5.3.8 seems to be a clear allusion to monophysite ideas and can hardly have been written before c. 447, while 5.36.4 refers to the (plural) sisters of Theodosius as sharing his private devotions (cf. Socrates, HE 7.22.5) and hence must have been written before the death of Marina on 3 August 449 (Chr. min. 2.83). Despite modem assumptions to the contrary, Ep. 113 does not show that the History was still unwritten in 448: G. F. Chesnut, The Date of Composition of Theodoret's Church History,' Vig. Chr. 35 (1981), 245-252. For recent discussion, see B. Croke, 'Dating Theodoret's Church History and Commentary on the Psalms,' Byzantion 54 (1984), 59-73; A. D. Lee, 'Dating a Fifth-Century Persian War in Theodoret,' Byzantion 57 (1987), 187-190.
2. For Theodoretus' use of Socrates, see A. Güldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos: Eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen (Halle, 1889), 39-41. He identified three clear cases of derivation in the first book of Theodoretus: (i) 1.9-10, which not only quotes two documents written from Nicaea in June 325 from Socrates, HE 1.9.1-14, 32-46, namely, Urkunden 23, 26 (taken by Socrates from Athanasius, Deer. 36, and Eusebius, VC 3.17-20), but also summarises a document of 333 which Socrates had included between them (9.14 < Socrates, HE 1.9.30/31 = Urkunde 33); (ii) 15.3 < Socrates, HE 1.9.46/7, linking documents taken from Eusebius, VC 2.46 and 4.36; and (iii) 31.5, where both the name of
Trier and the note 'this was the thirtieth year of his reign* seem to come from Socrates, HE 1.35.4, 37.1. Theodoretus' use of Socrates was in cffect denied by L. Parmenrier, who declared, in the preface to his edition of the Ecclesiastical History, that the similarities between Theodoretus and the other extant continuators of Eusebius are far better explained by his independent use of common sources than by direct borrowing. Among these lost sources, Parmentier gave pride of place to the Greek sources of Rufinus—in other words, the lost Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea (GCS 19 11911 J, lxxxiv). For proof that Theodoret combines Gelasius and Eusebius' Life of Constantine in his account of Helena in Jerusalem, see now S. Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross Was Found: From Event to Medieval Legend (Bibliotheca Theologiae Practicae/Kyrkovetenskapliga studier 47 [Stockholm, 1991]), 17-21.
3. App. 6, at nn. 8-10, cf. n. 1. Hence it is chronologically impossible for Theodoretus to have drawn on Sozomenus, as argued by A. Güldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (1889), 41-49, who dated Theodoretus' History to 448/9 (18-25), Sozomenus' to 443/4(12/3).
4. L. Jeep, 'Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern,' Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supp. 14 (1885), 53-178, at 154.
5. L. Parmentier, in his edition (GCS 19, 1911), xcviii-cvi; F. Winkelmann, 'Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im oströmischen Reich,' Byzantinoslavica 37 (1976), 1-10, 172-190, at 177/8; P. Allen, The Use of Heretics and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians: Studies in Socrates and Theodoret,' Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. G. W. Clarke, (Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 265-289, at 271-282.
6. For example, the letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Byzantium (HE 1.4 = Urkunde 14) and the full text of the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre, which is also partly preserved in Latin by Marius Victorinus (HE 1.6 = Urkunde 8). Theodoretus presumably took both of these letters from Sabinus of Heraclea: for discussion, see A. Güldenpenning, Kirchengescbichte (1889), 59-61.
8. For discussion of the difficult question of Theodoretus' use of Gelasius/Rufinus, see A. Güldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (1889), 26-39 (arguing for Rufinus as the 'Grundquelle'); G. Rauschen, Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius (Freiburg, 1897), 559-563; L. Parmentier, GCS 19 (1911), lxxxiv-Ixxxvi.
9. A. Güldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (1889), 49-56. On the date and scope of the work, see recently G. Zecchini, 'Filostorgio,' Metodologie delta ricerca sulla tarda antichitä, ed. A. Garzya (Naples, 1991), 579-598. Its precise date is uncertain. J. Bidez, in his edition (GCS 21 , exxxii), argued that Philostorgius wrote before 433, but F. M. Clover, 'Olympiodorus of Thebes and the Historia Augusta,' Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1979/1981 (1983), 136-141, has shown that his arguments arc inconclusive. Clover argues for a date in the late 430s, largely based on the account of the period 408-423 in Philostorgius, HE 12.7-12, and on Socrates' allusion to Eunomians who quote the letters of Arius (HE 1.6.41), but neither argument is decisive—and a date in the 440s might conceivably find advocates.
10. Brennecke, Homöer (1988), esp. 134-141. For the fragments, see Philostorgius, ed.
J. Bidez (GCS 21, 1911), Anhang VII: 'Fragmente eines arianischen Historiographer' cf. Gwatkin, Arianism2 (1900), 219-225; L. Parmentiet, GCS 19(1911), lxxxviii-xc.
11. On the interpretation of this obscure fragment, see 'Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems,' A)AH 3 (1978), 53-75, at 57-59.
13. The list is based on the analysis by A. Güldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (1889), 67-74.
14. Not in fact an authentic work of Athanasius (Chapter XVII n. 73).
15. E. 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), 331-355, argues that what is said about Cyril of Jerusalem and the feud between him and Acacius of Caesarea in Theodorctus, HE 2.26.2, and Sozomenus, HE 4.25.2-4, comes from Theodore of Mopsuestia (cf. above n. 12).
Was this article helpful?