THE CHURCH HISTORIANS (I):
SOCRATES, SOZOMENUS, AND THEODORETUS*
Hartmut Leppin
I Introduction
The reign of Theodosius II (408–450) was an age of cultural ascendancy.
The classical tradition was still vibrant, but Christian influence
showed its mark, too. Poetry blossomed, continuing older motives
and forms but also dealing with Christian themes; the Codex Theodosianus
was drawn up, assembling the tradition of imperial legislation.
Classicising historiography found a worthy continuator in Olympiodorus;
ecclesiastical historiography was as productive as never before.
No less than four Church historians are known from this age:
Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus. The works by
three of them are completely or nearly completely preserved, Philostorgius’
work can be reconstructed from numerous fragments in its main
outlines.1
Apart from these a so-called Christian history was written
by Philippus of Side, which was certainly more directly related to
the Church histories than to pagan historiography.
There are many striking resemblances between the Church histories
of Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus: all three of them claim
to continue Eusebius’ Church history; all three of them are built
around the reigns of Roman emperors; and their judgements on
individual emperors are all very similar. For Cassiodorus (Epiphanius)
and Theodorus Anagnostes those similarities were so evident that
they wrote Church histories, which assembled passages from those
three authors, so-called historiae tripartitae. Therefore, the label “synoptical
Church historians” has been adopted in the language of modern
* Many thanks to John Drinkwater for his help.
1
This Herculean task has been achieved by J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann (Berlin,
1981).
research to describe the work of Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus.
More recent studies have, however, highlighted the differences between
them,2
which will also be underlined in this contribution. Therefore
the term “synoptical”, which is sometimes useful, is written in inverted
commas here.
Nevertheless, the question remains as to how the cluster of Church
histories in the reign of Theodosius II is to be explained. The phenomenon
seems to be a symptom of the consolidation of Christian
faith in Roman state and society. On the other hand, the necessity
of defending the orthodox interpretation of history against heretical
concepts, which retained a certain allure for many, was without doubt
widely felt.3
One thing is clear: paganism is not the main target of the polemics
of these historians. Although they like to write triumphalist accounts
of the destruction of pagan sanctuaries, the victory over the pagans
is generally taken for granted. The main enemy is heterodoxy, especially
homeanism, and all those confessions that are labelled as Arian
in the Athanasian tradition. This observation makes the Church history
of Philostorgius, not to be dealt with here, the more valuable,
because he was an adherent of Eunomius, and thus, in the eyes of
his “colleagues”, an Arian. In any case, the Church histories of the
Theodosian age give a colourful impression of the plurality of theological
and political (not only in terms of Church policy) concepts
of this age.4
II The Authors
1. Lives
A. Socrates
Socrates is known only from his own writings.5
He was a native of
Constantinople, where he grew up and wrote his Church history.
2
H. Leppin, Von Constantin dem Großen zu Theodosius II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei
den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret (Hypomnemata 110), Göttingen,
1996; T. Urbainczyk, “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories
of Socrates and Sozomenus”, Historia 46 (1997), 355–373; id., Socrates of Constantinople.
Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor, 1997).
3
See Marasco in this volume.
4
All translations are based on the respective NPNF-volumes.
5
For his life see Leppin, op. cit., 10ff.; see T. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople,
220  
His date of birth lay in the period 380–390. He was educated by
pagan grammatici6
and probably received a rhetorical training. His
humble style cannot be put forward in evidence against this supposition,
because it corresponded to certain ideals of Christian literature.7
He
was certainly to some extent familiar with concepts of classical culture,
but it is not certain whether this reached farther than he made
explicit in his work. Socrates must have died after 439.
His exact social position remains unclear. The traditional surname
“Scholasticus”, which would point to a position as a jurist, is certainly
late, probably given to him in analogy to Evagrius Scholasticus,
who was indeed an advocate. Several points tell against the idea that
he was a jurist. There is no sign of any legal training in his work.
The personal contacts he names have no political or administrative
functions. He certainly had no links to court society.8
Since he felt
competent to give theological judgements and knew many bishops
personally, most likely he held some position in the Church.
Also controversial is his theological stance. Although there is no
doubt that he adhered to the orthodox theology in terms of the
canons of the Council of Nicaea (325), it remains unclear whether
he was a member of the dominant orthodox Church or of the
Novatian sect which, for example, in respect of penitence, accepted
more rigorous standards9
and which holds a surprisingly prominent
position in Socrates’ Church history. Since Henri de Valois (17th
century) there had been a consensus that Socrates did not belong
to the Novatians. This was founded on the interpretation of 5.19.10,
where he intimates a position critical to a particular reform in ecclesiastical
institutions, which made the main Church more similar to
the Novatian. Recently, Wallraff has been able to show that this
interpretation is not cogent and has even gone so far as to declare
that Socrates was a Novatian,10
convincing most of his reviewers.11
13ff.; M. Wallraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates. Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung,
Methode und Person (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 68) (Göttingen,
1997), 209ff.
6
Socrat., HE 5.16.9.
7
Socrat., HE 6. pr. 2–5; 7.27.5.
8
Cf. Socrat., HE 7.22.1, where he rejects the idea that he wants to become
known at the court by his work.
9
M. Wallraff, “Geschichte des Novatianismus seit dem vierten Jahrhundert im
Osten”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 1 (1997), 251–279.
10
Op. cit. 1997, 235ff.
11
For example St. Rebenich, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 4 (2000), 392–395, 394;
  (): ,    221
I still hold to the minority position that Socrates did not belong
to the Novatians. My main reason is that the alleged Novatian did
not write a history of the Novatian Church (although he was well
informed on it), but of the main Church, numbering the Novatians
among the “others”.12
Why should a Novatian have written the history
of another Church? The work of Philostorgius shows that an
alternative narrative of Church history was feasible.
This problem is conspicuous in the treatment of the Council of
Nicaea. Socrates gives a lengthy account of this assembly,13
although
he knows (and tells his readers) that in the eyes of the Novatians
the Council was unnecessary, because it did nothing but confirm the
ancient dogmas.14
In my opinion, the lengthiness of the account
would be inexplicable in a Novatian source.
Even Socrates’ integrative attitude towards heresies and his wish
to unite as many Christian groups as possible is no sign of a specifically
Novatian position. This corresponds to pragmatic positions which
were widely held, especially in Constantinople, whereas the tendency
to underline differences and to fight aggressively against deviant theologians
is typical for certain ecclesiastical groups. The latter are well
represented in the literary tradition and are therefore easily overestimated.
More important than these details is that Socrates, no matter
whether he was a Novatian or not, was by necessity dogmatically
and politically committed to the Nicaean Church, because the
Novatians were not persecuted in the Theodosian age but accepted
as orthodox in the literal sense.
Socrates says that he was encouraged to write his Church history
by one Theodorus, a holy man of God.15
The identification of this man,
who probably was a monk or a cleric, is impossible. If Socrates refers
to someone like him, it seems plausible that he reckoned to have
among his readers members of Church milieux. On the other hand,
he thinks it necessary to explain several theological items and words,
which suggests that he hopes to win also a readership outside such
circles. All his work shows that he is emotionally near to the bishops
of Constantinople, whereas the flaws of holders of rivalling Episcopal
but see J. Ulrich, s.v. Sokrates, Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp
and W. Geerlings (Freiburg, 1998), 562f.
12
Socrat., HE 5.20.1.
13
Socrat., HE 1.7–13.
14
Socrat., HE 1.10.1–4.
15
Socrat., HE 2.1.6; 6, pr. 1; 7.48.7.
222  
sees, such as those of Alexandria or Rome, are often highlighted.
Socrates’ writing of his Church history did not go smoothly. At
the beginning of the second book he informs his readers that he had
had to draw up a second version of his work, because he had relied
on Rufinus too heavily before;16
he had detected that this historian
had made serious chronological errors regarding Constantine the
Great. This revision extended at least until the sixth book, where it
is obvious that a chapter of the former version has been preserved.17
For the date of the composition of his Church history as we have
it, we possess a reliable terminus post quem, namely 439.18
The terminus
ante quem is the death of Theodosius II on 28 July 450, because the
text supposes the emperor to be alive. Besides, Sozomenus and probably
Theodoretus, who also wrote during the lifetime of Theodosius,
used Socrates’ work. Most scholars maintain a date shortly after 439;
I myself have proposed a date closer to the mid-440s, for the reason
that sharp polemic against Cyrillus, bishop of Alexandria, in an
author who wants to promote peace in the Church seems to be
more conceivable after the bishop’s death in 444.19
But this suggestion
is certainly not cogent and has not won acceptance as yet.20
B. Sozomenus
The second “synoptical” Church historian, Sozomenus [or Salamanes
Hermeias Sozomenos, to give him his full Greek name], is not otherwise
known,21
but his work gives various clues to his life.22
He was
born into a Christian family from Bethelea near Gaza about 380.
His grandfather had been converted to the Christian faith and the
family had suffered from persecution under Julian. Sozomenus himself
came to Constantinople in 425/6 at the earliest; there he worked
as a lawyer. When he wrote his Church history he had already been
16
Socrat., HE 2.1.1–4.
17
Socrat., HE 6.11.9–20.
18
Socrat., HE 7.48.8.
19
Socrat., HE 7.7.2–5; 7.13–15; 7.34.
20
Leppin, op. cit., 274ff.; cf. Wallraff’s criticism (op. cit. Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates,
210f.).
21
The identification with the homonymous domesticus of the pretorian prefect in
Oriens about 435/6 (proposed in PLRE II 1023f.) is speculative.
22
For his life, see B. Grillet, “Introduction”, in Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres
I–II, SCh 306 (Paris 1983), 9–58; Hansen, op. cit. Sokrates, LXIVff.; Leppin, op. cit.,
13ff.
  (): ,    223
baptized. The historian seems to have undertaken voyages as far as
Rome. He died probably not long after 446.
His Church history was not completed and breaks off in the ninth
book. It is based on Socrates,23
but is written in a significantly more
rhetorical style. In his dedication and at the beginning of the ninth
book Sozomenus ably uses the technique of panegyric.24
This major
difference between Sozomenus and Socrates should not lead to the
conclusion that their educational levels were different, because both
authors made a conscious decision to write in the style which they
thought suitable for Church historiography. The Church history is
not the only work which Sozomenus wrote. He mentions a completely
lost Epitome dealing with the period from the Ascension to
the death of Licinius.25
His intended public consists of well-educated people who enjoyed
literary style and disliked studying long canons or theological letters.
Many of his potential readers were obviously in need of fundamental
information about Christian religion. As he is the most polemical
against paganism among the Church historians, he seems to have
expected to find some pagans or paganizers in his readership. On
the other hand, he considers readers who would like to live as
monks.26
Sozomenus was in all probability near to members of the imperial
court, especially Pulcheria, Theodosius’ sister, whose qualities and
influence on her brother are praised at the beginning of Book Nine.27
She had been a dominant figure during the first years of Theodosius’
reign, but in the 440s her relationship with her brother was strained,
because she favoured a considerably more aggressive policy against
those groups which were to become regarded as monophysites.
The date of composition of Sozomenus’ work28
depends on the
dating of that of Socrates, which varies between 439 and 446. It is
evident that Sozomenus used, revised and complemented that work.
23
That Socrates was prior is proved by the general impression that Sozomenus
often elaborated on Socrates and by a detail: in HE 1.10 Socrates declares that he
personally had received information from a witness. The notice is repeated by
Sozomenus (HE 1.22) without any clear hint as to the source.
24
Sozomen., HE 9.1.
25
Sozomen., HE 1.1.12.
26
Sozomen., HE, Ded. 18.
27
Sozomen., HE 9.1–3.
28
See C. Roueché, “Theodosius II, the Cities, and the Date of the Church
History of Sozomenus”, Journ. Theol. Stud. 37 (1986), 130–132; Leppin, op. cit., 279ff.
224  
The terminus ante quem is again Theodosius’ death, and probably also
that of Pulcheria’s sister, Marina, on 3 August 449, because Sozomenus
mentions the sisters without alluding to any bereavement. As he presupposes
peace in Church,29
a date before 448, when the controversies
revived, seems plausible.
C. Theodoretus
Theodoretus was a prominent figure in Church politics during the
reign of Theodosius II.30
Born into a well-off family in Antioch about
393, he was early dedicated to a life in the service of Christ by his
mother and maintained close contacts with the monks in the region
of Antioch. Although he was deeply imbued with Christian teachings,
he received a traditional intellectual education. At an early age
he became a monk; in 423 he was consecrated Bishop of the small
town of Cyrrus. Being ambitious, he nevertheless spent a lot of time
in Antioch and became a leading contestant in the christological
debates between Antiochenes and Alexandrians, which first culminated
in the Council of Ephesus in 431. In this synod he participated
personally, also meeting Theodosius II, whose behaviour
disappointed him. After the failure of the council a formula of union
was proposed to which Theodoretus gave his assent reluctantly,
although he had contributed to it intellectually. Years of relative
peace followed, yet in 444/5 the Bishop was involved in a regional
dispute and felt that the imperial government discriminated against
him.31
In the course of the so-called Robbers’ Synod of 449 he was
deposed and afterwards duly exiled, to be rehabilitated and reinstated
by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. He returned to Cyrrus,
where he died during the period 460/466.
Theodoretus was a prolific author, who wrote works in several
genres,32
mainly in order to defend his theology and politics. As
he was a radical exponent of Antiochene, dyophysite theology, the
Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 condemned several of his works.
29
Sozomen., HE 9.1.9.
30
For his life, see H.G. Opitz, “Theodoretos”, RE V A 2 (1934), 1791–1801;
Y. Azéma, “Théodoret de Cyr”, Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 15 (1991), 418–435; Leppin,
op. cit., 15ff.; cf. also now T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The bishop and the holy
man (Ann Arbor, 2002) (n.v.).
31
H. Leppin, “Zum kirchenpolitischen Kontext von Theodorets Mönchsgeschichte”,
Klio 78 (1996), 212–230.
32
See Clavis Patrum Graecorum 6200–6288.
  (): ,    225
Nevertheless, he had his Nicene orientation in common with Socrates
and Sozomenus, even if his sympathies with Nestorius were evident.
Theodoretus is the only one of the three who is not connected to
Constantinople. In several passages of his Church history his Syriac
perspective is tangible. The public he writes for is decidedly orthodox
and he believes it to be willing to read long dogmatic texts. There
is no indication of any pagan sympathies in his intended readership.
The date of his Church history is controversial.33
Previously, it
seemed to be established that Theodoretus wrote it during the years
of his exile, but this has been questioned with strong (if not completely
compelling) reasons. Again, the death of Theodosius II is the
terminus ante quem; the latest safely datable event mentioned in the
Church history is the translation of John Chrysostom’s relics to
Constantinople in 438. However, as Theodoretus alludes to his Historia
religiosa, which is now generally dated at 444, he must have finished
his history after this. His visible interest in emperors who have been
misled by evil, heretical advisers may be understood as a reaction
to his own experiences since 448, which would suggest a return to
the traditional date. In any case, Theodoretus wrote his Church history
after having been discriminated against by imperial decisions,
which he must have interpreted as wrong and dangerous to the true
faith.
2. Sources
All Church historians are authors who compose and formulate their
works consciously, following clear principles; none of them simply
reproduces his sources. All the same, the foundations of their knowledge
and judgement are their sources. Many of them can be ascertained.
Nevertheless, studies of special problems may still produce
new ideas about them.34
33
See G.F. Chesnut, “The Date of Composition of Theodoret’s Church History”,
Vet. Christ. 35 (1981), 245–252; B. Croke, “Dating Theodoret’s Church History and
Commentaries of the Psalms”, Byzantion 54 (1984), 59–74; Leppin, op. cit., 281f.
34
See, e.g. recently T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in
the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass. and London), 1993; P. van Nuffelen, “La
tête de l’‘histoire acéphale’”, Klio 84 (2002), 125–140.
226  
A. Socrates35
There were two elder Church histories which covered the time from
Constantine to Theodosius I and which could provide an outline for
Socrates’ work, that of Gelasius of Caesarea and that of Rufinus of
Aquileia.36
Socrates had used Rufinus extensively in the first version
of his work and apparently even consulted the Greek translation by
Paeanius.37
After having read through Athanasius, he became more
critical, but arguably he still consulted him. Gelasius of Caesarea,
an earlier continuator of Eusebius, who was also used by Rufinus,
is never named by Socrates, but is widely regarded as fundamental
to his work because of correspondences between his text and that
of the so-called Gelasius of Cyzicus, who, in numerous passages of
his Church history, almost certainly followed his alleged namesake
from Caesarea. This thesis is well argued, but necessarily based on
various assumptions, which are debatable (although they are not
debated currently, as far as I can see).
A number of theological writings are detectable among Socrates’
sources. Most important are Eusebius’ Vita Constantini, Athanasius’
writings, the collection of synodal acts composed by Sabinus of
Heracleia (an adherent of the Macedonian confession), and lists of
bishops.
Socrates does not avoid secular sources such as Eutropius’ Breviarium
ab urbe condita or a Latin chronicle of Constantinople, which is naturally
very important for chronological questions. Even pagans such
as Libanius and Julian are cited, and in two cases he refers to epic
poems, which are known only by name.38
There is no sign of any
knowledge of legal sources.
Exceptionally important for Socrates is the oral tradition, which
he obtains from personal contacts. Among these is the Novatian
priest Auxanon, who even remembered details regarding the Council
35
F. Geppert, Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates Scholasticus (Leipzig, 1898; repr.
Aalen, 1972); Hansen, op. cit. Sokrates, XLIIIff.; Wallraff, op. cit. Der Kirchenhistoriker
Sokrates, 185ff.
36
See for the background F. Winkelmann, “Zur nacheusebischen christlichen
Historiographie des 4. Jahrhunderts”, in G. Makris and C. Scholz (eds.), POLUPLEUROS
NOUS Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Byz. Archiv 19)
(Munich and Leipzig, 2000), 404–414.
37
P. Périchon, “Eutrope ou Paeanius? L’historien Socrate se referait-il à une
source latine ou grecque?”, REG 81 (1968), 378–384.
38
Socrat., HE 3.21.14 (Callistus); 6.6.36 (Eusebius Scholasticus with his Ganais).
  (): ,    227
of Nicaea. It is understandable that most of the personal witnesses
are cited for events near to Socrates’ own lifetime.
B. Sozomenus39
Sozomenus’ (nowhere mentioned)40
main source is Socrates, but his
independence should not be undervalued. He did much more than
rework Socrates stylistically. Several sources used by Socrates were
again consulted by Sozomenus. This holds true, e.g. for Rufinus,
Eusebius’ Vita Constantini, and Athanasius. Moreover, he produces
more documentary sources, which he probably took over from the
collections, particularly (again) that of Sabinus of Heraclea. Otherwise,
he relies on several monastic histories, for example Palladius’ Historia
Lausiaca. In the ninth book, which is not completely preserved,
Sozomenus made extensive use of the secular historian Olympiodorus.
This explains the remarkable prominence of detailed secular events
in these passages. Presumably, he also integrated material from Syriac
sources. Very important for Sozomenus and for the problem of his
reliability is the fact that he was well versed in legal texts.41
In many
passages he integrates laws in his account in a very independent
(that is often wrong!) way.42
But his mistakes involve mainly the contextualisation
of the texts and not their content, which he understands
well.
C. Theodoretus43
Theodoretus may have known Socrates and (less probably) Sozo-
menus.44
As long as all the possible common sources, such as Gelasius
of Caesarea, are poorly known, certainty cannot be reached on this
question. Doubtlessly he used Eusebius’ Vita Constantini. There are
good reasons to suppose that Theodorus of Mopsuestia’s works on
heresies served him well. Theodoretus may have used local sources
for many details regarding martyrs and bishops. Moreover, his own
39
G. Schoo, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin, 1911; repr. Aalen,
1973); Hansen, op. cit. Sozomenus, XLIVff.; 528ff.
40
In HE 1.1.13 Sozomenus even suggests that HE had no predecessor at all.
41
Sozomen., HE 1.1.13.
42
J. Harries, Sozomenus and Eusebius: The Lawyer as Church Historian in the Fifth
Century, in C. Holdsworth and T.P. Wiseman (eds.), The Inheritance of Historiography
350–900 (Exeter, 1986), 45–52.
43
Parmentier, op. cit. LXXIIIff.
44
Hansen, op. cit. Sokrates, XXVf. argues that Theodoretus used Socrates; cf. id.,
Theodoret, 434ff., where he also affirms that Theodoretus used Sozomenus.
228  
experiences, which he had partially recorded in his Historia religiosa,
went into his Church history, as well as information which he received
from personal conversations or letters. Beyond that, numerous documents
are inserted into Theodoretus’ Church history which probably
stem from the usual collections, but probably also from the
Antiochene archives.
Although the Church historians had many sources in common
and at least to some extent knew each other, there are remarkable
differences in their selection and use of sources. This is highly
influenced by their respective ideas on Church history and Church
politics.
III Character of the Works
The term “synoptical” Church historians is based on superficial observation.
Whoever reads those works carefully will come across many
differences which cannot be explained by the use of divergent sources,
but must be ascribed to differences in their respective Weltanschauungen.
I will first illustrate the differences by three examples; then I shall
proceed to examine them systematically.
A. Differences between the “synoptical” Church historians. Some examples
The Council of Nicaea of 32545
was fundamental to the Church history
of the fourth century, because in the 350s Athanasius was to
make the homoousios propounded by this council the main point of
reference for assessing Christian orthodoxy. Therefore the council
merited extensive treatment in every Church history which covered
those years, and this treatment was bound to be of major importance
for the treatment of all councils that followed. In the perspective
of the Church historians, who lived in a time when a number
of councils were held under imperial influence, the role of the emperor
must have been paramount. The right to convoke and to steer councils
could be a key power of rulers in late antiquity, the extent of
which was still in dispute.
Socrates, Sozomenus and Theoderet all regard Constantine’s convocation
of the council as a laudable act, which was unavoidable
45
See Leppin, op. cit., 53ff.
  (): ,    229
since the main contestants themselves had not been able to find a
common solution.46
Socrates47
is closest to Eusebius,48
whom he cites
word for word at length. The emperor arrives when the bishops are
fully assembled, demonstrating his deep respect for them. He sits
down only after having been invited to do so. Then he delivers a
speech, in which he makes an appeal for unity. Afterwards the discussion—a
passage which is taken over directly from Eusebius—
shows the emperor as a patient moderator who directs the bishops
to unity by listening to their words and giving or refusing his assent.
Thus, the emperor appears to be a competent judge in theological
affairs. The creed is not formulated by him, but it can materialize
only with his help. After the council the emperor does his best to
make the decisions work, by exiling Arius and his friends and by
communicating the decrees to his subjects.
Sozomenus ascribes a seemingly stronger position to the emperor:49
after their first debates the bishops are convoked in the imperial
palace. After the emperor has taken his seat on the throne, the bishops
are allowed to sit down on their benches; it is their turn to show
respect. Yet, interestingly, the emperor’s role during the debates is
less prominent than in Socrates. While the bishops are discussing, a
consensus emerges which is accepted by the emperor as god-given.
After the council he puts the decrees into action, as he did according
to Socrates. It is also significant that Sozomenus is the only
author to take over the following element from Eusebius’ account:
the invitation of the bishops to Constantine’s vicennalia,50
which connects
the ecclesiastical event with a political one.
Finally, Theodoretus.51
His emperor is full of respect (aidós) for the
bishops; he looks up to them like a child who loves his parents. He
asks whether he might participate and takes one of the seats, not a
special throne. Bishops and emperor sit down at the same time. The
ruler gives a speech at the beginning, but is silent during the debates
themselves. After the bishops have taken their decisions, the emperor
does whatever is necessary to implement them.
These extremely diverse accounts of the same event, which are
46
Socrat., HE 1.7; Sozomen., HE 1.16–17.1; Theodoret., HE 1.7.1.
47
Socrat., HE 1.8.
48
Eus., V. Const. 3.5–14.
49
Cf. esp. Sozomenus. HE 1.19f.
50
Sozomen., HE 1.21.4f.
51
Theodoret., HE 1.7–10.
230  
based on only slightly different sources, show how free the Church
historians feel in their treatment of the tradition. In the end, the
“facts” they give depend on their view of the ideal emperor or the
ideal council.
The second example relates to the emperor Jovian, who reigned
only a few months. Since he was regarded in the Nicene tradition
as an orthodox emperor, his early death, which under normal circumstances
would have been interpreted as a sign of God’s wrath,
required an explanation. Socrates simply refers to a natural cause:
constipation.52
Sozomenus, who does not conceal that Jovian was
considered gluttonous, is not sure whether his death was brought
about by his excessive meals or by poisonous vapours in his chamber.53
Completely different is Theodoretus. Jovian dies after having
received the last rites (perhaps even baptism), and he does not die
from a luxurious life, but because he was too good for this world.
After distinguishing the beginning of his reign by edicts of this (sc.
orthodox) kind, Jovian set out from Antioch for the Bosphorus; but at
Dadastanae, a village lying on the confines of Bithynia and Galatia,
he died. He set out on his journey from this world with the grandest
and fairest support and stay, but all who had experienced the clemency
of his sway were left behind in pain. So, me-thinks, the Supreme Ruler,
to convict us of our iniquity, both shews us good things and again
deprives us of them; so by the former means He teaches us how easily
He can give us what He will; by the latter He convicts us of our
unworthiness of it, and points us to the better life.54
As so often, Theodoretus shows a remarkable inclination to impute
a deeper theological understanding to an incident which is regarded
by others as the result of a bad life or contingent circumstances.
Thirdly, a military event, the battle of Frigidus in 394. Theodosius
was victorious against the allegedly pagan usurper Eugenius, but at
the cost of heavy losses, because on the first day of the battle his
Goths, who had to get through a defile, were decimated. It is clear
that all three Church historians give the same general judgement.
The Christian emperor won against an enemy flawed by his pagan
sympathies; his losses are not seen as being serious.
But seemingly superficial differences demonstrate the divergent
52
Socrat., HE 3.26.5.
53
Sozomen., HE 6.6.1.
54
Theodoret., HE 4.5.
  (): ,    231
attitudes of the authors. Socrates55
ignores the fact that the battle
lasted over two days, but he is aware that there were two phases of
fighting. In the first, the Romans among Theodosius’ soldiers were
a match for the Romans in the ranks of Eugenius; only the barbarians
were driven back. Perceiving the critical situation, Theodosius
threw himself on the ground and began to pray. This brought about
a complete change. Bacurius put the enemies to flight; at the same
time a miracle came about. A strong storm blew the missiles, which
Eugenius’ men had thrown, back towards them. Thus Theodosius’
prayer won the battle. Socrate combines a military explanation with
a miraculous one.
Sozomenus goes into greater detail.56
Theodosius, while in the
Alps, is encircled by Eugenius’ troops. He suffers serious losses in
the vanguard while already under attack from the rear. Realising
the hopelessness of his position, the emperor throws himself on the
ground and begins a tearful prayer. He gets an immediate result.
The leaders of the troops who surround him offer to change sides,
if they are granted sufficient recognition. The emperor does not find
paper and pen, but takes a tablet on which to write down which
military offices they will earn—the fact that what they did was an
act of treason is nowhere reflected. Then the battle in the vanguard
is decided by the miraculous storm. To this is adjoined a Constantinopolitan
anecdote. At the time of the battle a demon appears in the
Church of John Baptist at the Hebdomon, which had been built by
Theodosius, slandering John but confessing his own defeat.
In Theodoretus the story of the battle appears in an extremely
stylised form.57
Against all the odds the emperor, trusting in God
and in God alone, is triumphant over the pagan usurper. He even
dismisses his barbarian allies before the combat. His prayer does not
take place in a crisis, but during the night before the battle a dream
announces the victory to him and to a soldier. Although the foe surpasses
Theodosius’ troops in number many times over, Theodosius
is victorious because (and only because) of a miracle, which makes
the enemy soldiers change sides.
It is evident again that Socrates is the most sober and most pragmatic
among the Church historians, whereas Theodoretus is most
55
Socrat., HE 5.25.11–14.
56
Sozomen., HE 7.24.3–9.
57
Theodoret., HE 5.24.3–17.
232  
consistent in respect of theological aspects and Sozomenus’ approach
lies between those of his colleagues, since he has an intimate knowledge
of political affairs but is also very impressed by the religious
facets of historical events. Theodoretus’ aspiration towards theological
consistency has grave consequences for his reliability as a historical
source. He has no qualms about stylising or, to put it bluntly,
of falsifying history. For example, contrary to the chronological order,
he makes the rebellion of Antioch (387)58
happen after the act of
penitence in Milan (389/90)59
in order to show how far Ambrose’s
influence went. He was, according to Theodoretus, even (indirectly)
responsible for the act of clemency towards the Antiochenes. Even
though modern historians are frustrated by Theodoretus’ untrustworthiness,
one should not forget that he fulfilled what he considered
as his principal task, that is to give his readers an idea of God’s
involvement in history, which is from a religious viewpoint obviously
much more important than any circumstantial detail.
B. God and the course of history
The Church histories should not be considered as theological works,
but they certainly have a theological dimension since their authors
have to write the history of the true faith and its exponents. All
three are convinced Nicenes. Although it is not their task to argue
the theological correctness of Nicene dogmas, they have to illustrate
the victory of the faithful in history.
This victory is difficult to show in turbulent times. Eusebius’ optimism
regarding the victory of true Christianity and the establishment
of a Christian Empire had been found wanting by the wars between
Christian confessions and by manifest failures of Rome in the course
of the secular wars during the fourth century, which could not all
be ascribed to the mistakes of the pagan Julian and the heretic
Valens.
Yet from a Christian perspective victories of another kind were
possible, namely the triumphs of individual holy men over their enemies,
be they pagans or heretics, as well as miracles and acts of
martyrdom.60
Therefore, the three Church histories are full of events
58
Theodoret., HE 5.20.
59
Theodoret., HE 5.18.
60
See for the miracles L. Cracco Ruggini, “The Ecclesiastical Histories and the
Pagan Historiography: Providence and Miracles”, Athenaeum 55 (1977), 107–126.
  (): ,    233
which illustrate and reinforce the power of holy men and women.
Sozomenus and Theodoretus, in particular, lay great stress on the
importance of monks. This is perfectly in keeping with Theodoretus,
but also suits the more metropolitan Sozomenus. The fascination for
holy men is by no means an apolitical attitude; rather it corresponded
to the development of political culture in the fifth century. Holy men
became more important, and Sozomenus’s probable protectress
Pulcheria, who strove for an image of chastity if not holiness, was
among their most influential patrons. In this sense, Sozomenus grasped
the political situation better than the more down-to-earth Socrates.
Another aspect is more intricate. Eusebius’ optimism had only in
part been motivated theologically; his praise of the felicity under the
reigning emperor was also the manifestation of a long-standing panegyrical
tradition. This tradition is palpable in Socrates and Sozomenus.
Both of them heap praise on the ruling emperor Theodosius II, and
neither apparently sees a contradiction between the glorification of
their own time and their Christian view of secular times and of the
End of Days, when Jesus Christ will return.
Sozomenus sticks firmly to the tradition of the panegyric, although
he enriches it with some Christian overtones. Not only Theodosius,
to whom the Dedicatio is given, is praised in panegyrical words, but
also Pulcheria, his sister, at the beginning of the ninth book. Here,
the Christian slant is much more evident, but the passage remains
within the panegyrical tradition.
Socrates seems to be more independent in the two chapters which
praise Theodosius. He begins by denying the idea that he is going
to write a panegyric, which is the surest sign that he will be doing
exactly this.61
However, his panegyric is more imbued with Christian
concepts than Sozomenus’s. Theodosius appears as the incarnation
of Christian life.62
A kind of second panegyric is found in 7.42. In
this chapter Theodosius’ clemency is extolled and regarded as the
decisive reason for Roman victories.
The last chapter of the whole work seems to be in keeping with
this line of thinking. After having mentioned that Thalassius, a praetorian
prefect designate, had been made Bishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, Socrates carries on rather surprisingly:
61
Socrat., HE 7.21.10.
62
Socrat., HE 7.22.1–19.
234  
In such a flourishing condition were the affairs of the Church at this
time. But we shall here close our history, praying that the Churches
everywhere, with the cities and provinces, may live in peace; for as
long as peace continues, those who desire to write histories will find
no materials for their purpose. And we ourselves, O holy man of God,
Theodore, should have been unable to accomplish in seven books the
task we undertook at your request, had the lovers of seditions chosen
to be quiet.63
What will the contemporary readers have taken this remark to mean?
They knew about the manifold dangers which menaced peace. They
knew about the endless series of theological quarrels. Did Socrates
mean to be ironic in this passage?
Plainly different from both his “colleagues” is Theodoretus. His
work lacks panegyrical passages, flattering politicians of his own age.
He is, on the other hand, tactful enough not to point up weaknesses
in Theodosius’ reign (and being a victim of the emperor’s politics
he could have said a lot about this), but he writes at length on the
contemporary persecution of Christians in Persia. To this digression
he adds a significant reflection.
Innumerable other similar deeds of violence were committed by these
impious men, but we must not be astonished that the Lord of all
endures their savagery and impiety, for indeed before the reign of
Constantine the Great all the Roman emperors wreaked their wrath
on the friends of the truth, and Diocletian, on the day of the Saviour’s
passion, destroyed the Churches throughout the Roman Empire, but
after nine years had gone by they rose again in bloom and beauty
many times larger and more splendid than before, and he and his
iniquity perished.
These wars and the victory of the Church had been predicted by
the Lord, and the event teaches us that war brings us more blessing
than peace. Peace makes us delicate, easy and cowardly. War whets
our courage and makes us despise this present world as passing away.
But these are observations which we have often made in other writings.64
The ideal, peaceful state of affairs, which has been reached according
to the panegyrical passages in Socrates and Sozomenus, is not desirable
according to Theodoretus. Again, his theological consistency is
evident. The purpose of history is not to aggrandize the Roman
Empire, but to teach people how to live pious lives.
63
Socrat., HE 7.48.6f.
64
Theodoret., HE 5.39.24–26.
  (): ,    235
Historical causation is a thorny issue for the Church historians,
because they always have to consider God’s might and human behaviour
at the same time. Unsurprisingly, there are several levels of historical
explanation in their works, the relation of which is nowhere
elucidated. On the one hand, God is obviously the master of whatever
happens and providence is ultimately responsible for everything.
God’s will is steering history by means of the Holy Spirit. One example
of this are the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea. Bishops
and perhaps the emperor decide on the decrees of this council, and
the decision-making process is described in detail, but in the end its
decisions are regarded as the work of the Holy Spirit, who creates
the consensus. God’s force is opposed by the Devil, who is ultimately
responsible for all the problems of Christianity, in particular the existence
of heretics.65
On the other hand, all historical texts of antiquity have to concentrate
on the doing of individuals. They can act well or badly.
Staying with the Council of Nicaea, the participants—bishops, monks
and the emperor—struggle for the right doctrine and fight heretics.
In the end they express the will of the Holy Spirit, whereas the
heretics, people like Arius, are driven by the Devil. In their account
of the battle of Frigidus, Socrates and Sozomenus combine the
heroism or treason of military leaders with the miracle of the storm,
which is prompted by Theodosius’ praying. This manner of explanation
results in a double causality: history is God-worked and manworked
at the same time. Therefore, although the Church histories
tell the story of God’s influence on history, they can simultaneously
create extremely personalised narratives.
This seeming inconsistency regarding historical causality in the
Church histories should be seen in the context of a theological issue:
the problem of free will. This problem obviously was not of central
importance to Eastern theologians. Apparently, the double causality
of the will of God and the will of man was generally accepted. The
Church historians never bother to discuss these subtleties.
In one passage Socrates exhibits an element of what may be considered
as a kind of philosophy of history: the convergence between
65
For the nuanced position towards hereticism, see P. Allen, “The Use of Heretics
and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians: Studies in Socrates and Theodoret”,
in G. Clarke (ed.), Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 265–289.
236  
incidents in the history of the Empire and the Church. He defines
as one of his historiographical aims that
it might be made apparent, that whenever the affairs of the State were
disturbed, those of the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became
disordered also. Indeed whoever shall attentively examine the subject
will find, that the mischiefs of the State, and the troubles of the Church
have been inseparably connected; for he will perceive that they have
either arisen together, or immediately succeeded one another. Sometimes
the affairs of the Church come first in order; then commotions in the
State follow, and sometimes the reverse, so that I cannot believe this
invariable interchange is merely fortuitous, but am persuaded that it
proceeds from our iniquities; and that these evils are inflicted upon us
as merited chastisements, if indeed as the apostle truly says, “Some
men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some
men they follow after.”66
The English word sympathy corresponds to the Greek sympátheia.
This concept has a Stoic background, but its usage by Socrates is
not very deeply considered.67
It aims simply at giving a concise expression
to a banal observation and cannot support the thesis that
Socrates’ historical thinking has been influenced by pagan philosophy.
He himself de facto gives up the concept of sympátheia, when he refers
to sin as the real cause of trouble. This idea is obviously Christian
in character. But again, it is evident that a Church historian is able
to treat historical causality on two levels: abstract and personalised.
There is another kind of “sympathy” between developments in
different fields. Natural catastrophes, such as floods, earthquakes,
plagues of locusts, even military defeats are expressions or better
expressed results of “bad” government in the sense of dogmatically
deviant government. On the other hand, “good” government is
accompanied by the flourishing of affairs in every regard. However,
even in this respect, developments are in the end man-made, since
human sin or human piety leads to certain developments in nature,
as Sozomenus confirms.
66
Socrat., HE 5 pr. 2–5. The biblical citation is 1. Tim. 5.24.
67
See Leppin, op. cit., 208ff.; mine is a minority position: cf. G.F. Chesnut, The
First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, and Evagrius (Paris, 1977),
194ff.; Urbainczyk, op. cit., 86ff.; Wallraff, op. cit., 283ff.; J. Szidat, “Friede in Kirche
und Staat: Zum politischen Ideal des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates”, in B. Bäbler and
H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel: Studien zu Politik, Religion
und Kultur im späten 4. und frühen 5. Jh. n. Chr. zu Ehren von Christoph Schäublin (Munich
and Leipzig, 2001), 1–14.
  (): ,    237
About this period the dissensions by which the Church was agitated
were followed, as is frequently the case, by disturbances and commotions
in the state. The Huns crossed the Ister and devastated Thrace.
The robbers in Isauria gathered in great numbers and ravaged cities
and villages as far as Caria and Phoenicia.68
Therefore an apparent paradox emerges. Those historians who care
most for God and God’s intervention in history are the most prone
to emphasize human responsibility, even in those cases where God
intervenes with all His might, because the idea of fate is irrelevant
to them, even if they use the word tÿche in some contexts where it
is more or less a way of speaking. This personalised view of history
is also a kind of theodicy. If history would be purely the work of
God, the Church would have fared better, but human beings are
fallible and the Devil is always involved in their affairs.
C. Politics
All the Church historians, not just Theodoretus, are forced to tell a
rather depressing story. Christianity became the religion of the Roman
emperors, but peace did not follow, not even peace within the Church,
still less in politics. And turmoil in the Church is in their eyes indissolubly
connected with turmoil in the secular world. Although called
“Church” histories, all three works offer multifarious, often very
detailed information about politics and therefore their accounts are
also political in character. Socrates not unexpectedly is the only one
to reflect on this problem:
Before we begin the fifth book of our history, we must beg those who
may peruse this treatise, not to censure us too hastily because having
set out to write a Church history we still intermingle with ecclesiastical
matters, such an account of the wars which took place during the
period under consideration, as could be duly authenticated. For this
we have done for several reasons: first, in order to lay before our readers
an exact statement of facts; but secondly, in order that the minds
of the readers might not become satiated with the repetition of the
contentious disputes of bishops, and their insidious designs against one
another; but more especially that it might be made apparent, that
whenever the affairs of the state were disturbed, those of the Church,
as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered also.69
68
Sozomen., HE 8.25.1.
69
Socrat., HE 5, pr. 1–3.
238  
Socrates gives three reasons for including political affairs in his Church
history, the second of which seems to be somewhat ironic, as the
bishops’ quarrels are labelled boring. However, the first reason is
pragmatic and convincing. The chronological frame of emperors was
still more solid than that of the various (and often-contested) episcopal
sees. The third one, which has been cited already, is part of
Socrates’ concept of history as already discussed.
Although they do not make it explicit, Sozomenus and Theodoretus
must have had similar reasons for including political affairs in their
Church histories. Nevertheless Socrates’ apology demonstrates that
there existed different, less political concepts of Church history at
this time. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify the circles in
which such ideas circulated.
The political ideas of the “synoptical” Church historians can, to
a certain degree, be distilled from their works. The legitimacy of
those emperors who managed to gain power and to become generally
acknowledged within the Empire, is never doubted. In this regard,
there is no discrepancy between Christian and pagan authors. Although
piety is applied as the paramount criterion for the evaluation of
emperors, impiety, heretical belief or paganism do not invalidate an
emperor’s claim to political legitimacy, with just one exception.
Theodoretus calls Julian the Apostate tÿrannos, that is usurper, several
times.70
However, even he sets out nowhere explicitly to contest
Julian’s legitimacy. Thus, the legitimist standpoint of the Church
historians is clear.
The general evaluation of the emperors is the same among the
three authors. There is a clear distinction between “good” and “bad”
emperors,71
which apparently had been established before the Church
historians began writing, probably in the work of Gelasius of Caesarea.
This evaluation obviously depends on each emperor’s religious affiliation.
Nicene (or seemingly Nicene) emperors are “good”, the other
ones “bad”. The “good” emperors support the Church and individual
Nicenes in every regard, for example by building churches;
the “bad” ones fight against the adherents of true religion.
However, there are two discourses concerning the qualities of
“good” and “bad” emperor in Sozomenus and, to a lesser extent,
70
See, e.g. Theodoret. HE 3.11.1; 3.16.6; 3.28.3; 4.1.3.
71
For details, see Leppin, op. cit., 40ff.
  (): ,    239
in Socrates: a Christian one and a traditional one.72
The latter one
should not be labelled “pagan”, for the reason that, even if it were
indebted to concepts evolved in the pagan tradition, it presented
itself as religiously neutral in order to be acceptable to the whole
multireligious elite of the empire, in the same way as the panegyrical
texts.
The most important quality of the “good” emperor in the Christian
sense is his piety. He acts mercifully; his reign is filled with successes,
even with military successes. All the other qualities depend on this,
which does not make him a perfect man. Even a “good” emperor
can be caught by a fit of rage and behave badly, but he will heed
the reproaches of the holy man. One virtue which was very popular
with Western authors is lacking in the Church histories: humilitas/
tapeinótes. Here, this quality is connected only with women.73
The
“bad” emperor is a heretic or, still worse, a pagan, who will act
upon the council of evil people and who will not be likely to be
revoked to a pious behaviour. He easily becomes angry and punishes
his enemies cruelly. Misfortune will shape his reign.
The traditional discourse on the “good” emperor, as derived from
the panegyrical tradition, is developed by Sozomenus in the panegyrical
passages.74
Here nothing unusual is to be found. The emperor
possesses every Platonic virtue. Philanthropía, which had become the
fundamental imperial virtue both in pagan and in Christian discourses
during the fourth century, is also ascribed to the emperors
in the Church histories.75
The judgements about individual emperors are easily summarised.
Constantine, Jovian, Theodosius I and his sons76
are regarded as
orthodox and, therefore, “good”; Constantius and Valens as heretical
and therefore “bad”; Julian is detested as a pagan and is therefore
necessarily the “worst” emperor. However, the model is not
entirely simple: Constantine cannot be regarded as a perfect emperor,
because he made several mistakes, beginning with the banishment
of Athanasius. Even Theodosius is not blameless. On the other hand,
Constantius is pictured as a less “bad” emperor than Valens. His
72
Cf. Leppin, op. cit., 160ff.
73
Leppin, op. cit., 164f.
74
Sozomen., HE, Ded. and 9.1.6–8.
75
Sozomen., HE, Ded. 3; 9.
76
The evaluation of Theodosius’ sons is a special case, because those emperors
were contemporaries of the Church historians.
240  
personal belief, for example, is considered sincere, and his efforts to
propagate Christianity outside the Roman Empire are appreciated.
Even the detestation of Julian varies in intensity.
Although the three Church historians are in agreement as to their
general evaluation of the emperors, there remain many differences
in detail, as has been shown in the case of Jovian. Whereas Socrates
and Sozomenus, as loyal citizens from the capital Constantinople,
follow the panegyrical tradition and praise Theodosius II, Theodoretus
makes Jovian the ideal emperor, underlining that such an emperor
should not live too long.
Those rulers whose influence was less felt in the East allow the
authors still more freedom in evaluating their work. Thus, the Western,
without doubt “good” emperor, Valentinian I is praised by the tolerant
Church historians Socrates and Sozomenus for his tolerance
(a quality which, indeed, he showed), whereas the rigorously orthodox
Theodoretus paints him as a decidedly orthodox monarch.77
Another example is Gallus, whom most ancient sources, pagan as
well as Christian, judge a despotic emperor. This tradition has had
a deep influence on Socrates and Sozomenus, whereas for Theodoretus
Gallus is above all Julian’s Christian antagonist and therefore a
“good” emperor.78
A fundamental difference between the authors lies in their respective
attitudes towards the priestly function of the emperors.79
Socrates
suggests that the emperor Theodosius II is also a true, that is to say
mild, priest80
and he shows him acting in this capacity on several
occasions.81
This position can be expected in an author with strong
secular interests, who does not wholly recognise the unique dignity
of clerics as people who were distinguished by consecration.
Sozomenus is fundamentally different. He distinguishes sharply
between emperor and priest, whose honour has to be respected at
least in holy places.82
The emperor should restrain himself from intervening
in Church affairs, in the manner of Valentinian I, an exemplary
emperor.83
77
Leppin, op. cit., 91ff.
78
Leppin, op. cit., 84f.
79
Leppin, op. cit., 194ff.
80
Socrat., HE 7.42.1.
81
Socrat., HE 7.22.16–18; 7.23.11f.
82
Sozomen., HE 2.34.5f.
83
Sozomen., HE 6.7.2.
  (): ,    241
Theodoretus emphasizes the distinction still more. The true priest
possesses a special charisma, which has to be respected by the emperor.
Again Valentinian I is depicted as an exemplary ruler. When
he is asked by a synod to decide on the successor of Auxentius on
the episcopal throne of Milan, Theodoretus makes him say: “The
responsibility is too great for us. You who have been dignified with
divine grace, and have received illumination from above, will make
a better choice”.84
It is symptomatic of their respective positions that Socrates does
not mention Theodosius’ act of penitence in front of Ambrose at
Milan, although he must have known about this incident, whereas
Sozomenus and Theodoretus go into it.85
Theodoretus’ conclusion is
characteristic: “So both the archbishop and the emperor showed a
mighty shining light of virtue. Both to me are admirable; the former
for his brave words, the latter for his docility; the archbishop for the
warmth of his zeal, and the prince for the purity of his faith”.86
These divergent attitudes to the emperor’s priestly role explain the
differences in the accounts of the Council of Nicaea. If the emperor
is the holder of certain priestly qualities, as Socrates contends, he
should intervene in the debates. If, on the other hand, the emperor
has to respect the wisdom of the bishops, as in Theodoretus, he has
to keep silent and to implement what the bishops decide. Finally,
Sozomenus, who is near to the court and sees the ceremonial importance
of the demonstration of respect towards the emperor, nevertheless
feels that decisions on dogma should be as free as possible from
imperial intervention.
There is a consensus among all three authors on the general role
of priests in political affairs. Priests are responsible for the well being
of Christians and for the health of the True Faith. In this function
they have to act as the emperor’s counsellors. They enjoy the right
to criticise the ruler and even feel that they are obliged to do so,
because he, as a human being, is fallible. This duty is defined by
the word parrhesía, frankness.87
That attitude had been the property
of philosophers, now it is transferred to clerics and monks. It is con-
84
Theodoret., HE 4.7.1. As Valentinian I is an exemplary emperor this (without
doubt unhistorical) utterance of his can be taken as if it were an authorial comment
by Theodoretus.
85
Sozomen., HE 7.25.1–7; Theodoret., HE 5.17–5.18.23.
86
Theodoret., HE 5.18.23.
87
Leppin, op. cit., 189ff.
242  
ceivable that Theodoretus is the most inclined of the three to extol
this function of the priest. For him Ambrose becomes the embodiment
of the true priest, but he also gives other examples which
demonstrate that the frank conduct of priests can silence even dangerous
enemies.88
In contrast to secular historians such as Ammianus, the Church
historians have no interest in problems of taxation or administration.
In Socrates alone are there detectable some elements of the
senatorial perspective, when he highlights the pains endured by members
of this order.89
But these notices are of only marginal importance,
because in his view the main problem of the Empire lies in
religious division.
Military occurrences are not mentioned in their own right, but as
symptoms of the moral quality of individual emperors. The defeat
at Adrianople, for instance, proves that God hates Valens,90
whereas
the victory at the river Frigidus confirms that God protects Theodosius.
Therefore, the choice of military events is selective, particularly in
Theodoretus. The distinction between civil wars and external wars
is not sharp in any of those authors. A triumph over a usurper is
no less valuable than a victory against foreign enemies.
All the Church historians are loyal subjects of the Roman Empire,
but their perspective is, with few exceptions, limited to the East.
They have only a faint knowledge of Western geography. Typically,
Socrates shifts the Frigidus, which is in the Julian Alps, to Gaul.91
Therefore the sack of Rome 410, which impressed Latin authors
such as Augustine and Jerome so intensely, is of minor importance
to the Greek Church historians. Theodoretus does not even deem
it worth mentioning. Socrates92
and Sozomenus93
do mention it, albeit
from different perspectives. Socrates places his account of the sack
of Rome between two chapters which refer to acts of violence by
Bishops of Rome against Novatians. Thus he constructs a synchronism
which, in his mode of thinking, also gives a reason for the events
of 410 in the sense that the Bishops of Rome are responsible for
88
Theodoret., HE 2.27.21; 2.32.5; 5.32.5–8.
89
See, e.g. Socrat., HE 2.32.1; 6.6.9–11; 7.10.4.
90
Socrat., HE 4.33; Sozomen., HE 6.37; Theodoret., HE 4.36.2–37, cf. 5.1.1.
91
Socrat., HE 5.25.10.
92
Socrat., HE 7.10.
93
Sozomen., HE 9.8.
  (): ,    243
the sack of Rome, not the secular powers; this is without doubt a
manifestation of Socrates’ adherence to the court.
Sozomenus obviously wants to deal with pagan interpretations of
the calamity. He shows that not even those pagans who tried to do
it so were able to avert the catastrophe and that certain Christian
sites and individuals were duly respected by the Christian Goths. In
general, all the past sins of the Romans (i.e. the pagan Romans) are
responsible for their final defeat—which is a remarkably distant way
of judging Roman history. Besides, even for him, whose account is
relatively detailed, the sack of Rome is no more than “a purely local
problem”.94
The Church historians do not discuss the circumstance that the
frontiers of Christendom are not identical with the frontiers of the
Roman Empire; nevertheless they do not take the identity for granted.
Although they do not treat events in Persia or among the barbarians
systematically,95
they give heed to those of them which are
important for the history of Christendom, and Sozomenus even
justifies this by claiming that it is necessary to preserve the memory
of the non-Roman heroes.96
Therefore, the conversion of foreign
nations is important,97
but equally so is the suffering of Christian
martyrs under Persians98
or Goths.99
Their relative openness towards peoples beyond the imperial frontier
does not make the Church historians cosmopolitans. There is
no doubt that they are loyal subjects of the Roman Empire—that
they want the Romans to be victorious against other nations. The
Roman tradition is still very much alive.
All Church historians pay attention to the politics of their times.
Socrates attaches unusual importance to the interests of secular politi-
94
Chesnut, op. cit., 198.
95
See also for this distinction F. Winkelmann, “Die Bewertung der Barbaren in
den Werken der oströmischen Kirchenhistoriker”, in E.K. Chrysos and A. Schwarcz
(eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren (Veröff. Inst. öst. Geschichtsforschung 29) (Vienna
and Cologne, 1989), 221–235.
96
Sozomen., HE 1.1.18f.
97
See, e.g. Socrat., HE 1.19f.; Sozomen., HE 2.7; 2.24; Theodoret., HE 1.23–
1.24.12; cf. B. Bäbler, “Der Blick über die Reichsgrenzen: Sokrates und die Bekehrung
Georgiens”, in B. Bäbler and H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von
Konstantinopel. Studien zu Politik, Religion und Kultur im späten 4. und frühen 5. Jh. n. Chr.
zu Ehren von Christoph Schäublin (Munich and Leipzig, 2001), 159–181.
98
See, e.g. Sozomen., HE 2.9–14; Theodoret., HE 5.39.
99
See, e.g. Sozomen., HE 6.37.12–14.
244  
cians.100
His main concern is the unity of the Empire, which is indissolubly
connected with the unity of the Church, which is in turn
often disturbed by disputatious bishops. This does not mean religious
indifference, but certainly a lack of concern with dogmatic questions.
Obviously in Socrates’ eyes, religion should work as a tool to unify
society, in a way that polis-religion had been doing for centuries.
Therefore, Socrates is fond of tales which show all Christians
united, as for example at the burial of the Novatian bishop Paul:
“At his own funeral he united, in a certain sense, all the different
sects into one Church. For all parties attended his body to the tomb,
chanting psalms together, inasmuch as even during his lifetime by
his rectitude he was in universal esteem by all”.101
Another event
narrated by Socrates has a definite political accent and illustrates the
correspondence of the Christian and of the political body:
This event (sc. the miraculous victory over the usurper John in 425)
afforded that most devout emperor an opportunity of giving a fresh
demonstration of his piety towards God. For the news of the usurper’s
being destroyed, having arrived while he was engaged at the exhibition
of the sports of the Hippodrome, he immediately said to the people:
“Come now, if you please, let us leave these diversions, and proceed
to the Church to offer thanksgivings to God, whose hand has overthrown
the usurper.” Thus did he address them; and the spectacles
were immediately forsaken and neglected, the people all passing out
of the circus singing praises together with him, as with one heart and
one voice. And arriving at the Church, the whole city again became
one congregation; and once in the Church they passed the remainder
of the day in these devotional exercises.102
Because of his secular interests and his seeming devotion to Theodosius,
Socrates has been interpreted virtually as a secular historian. For
G. Zecchini he is a “storico ufficiale di fatto, e non di nome”.103
This position ignores Socrates’ personal aloofness from the court.
Moreover, certain deeds which were important for Theodosius II are
completely ignored by Socrates, as for example the codification of
the law. T. Urbainczyk calls Socrates a “historian of Church and
100
Leppin, op. cit., 227ff.
101
Socrat., HE 7.46.2f.
102
Socrat., HE 7.23.11f.
103
G. Zecchini, “S. Ambrogio e le origini del motivo della vittoria incruenta”,
RSCI 38 (1984), 391–404.
  (): ,    245
state”.104
Even this position seems to be too far reaching. The Church
is always in the centre of Socrates’ work; he is a historian of state
only insofar as the fate of the state is indissolubly intertwined with
the fate of the Church. If a decision between the interests of Church
and state is necessary, Socrates prefers the former. It is remarkable
that in the last chapter of his work he speaks approvingly of the fact
that Thalassius, the praetorian prefect designate, has been ordained
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.105
In Sozomenus106
one thing is clear: he is a devotee of Pulcheria.
As he is writing in the 440s, this means that he finds himself at a
certain distance from imperial policy. He avoids praising Theodosius II
as a kind of priest and, as he knew Socrates, this avoidance must
be meaningful. His main concern seems to be personal holiness,
which was the quality a powerless woman such as Pulcheria might
exploit to establish a position at court. Conceivably, he shows significantly
less sensitivity towards the needs of senators than Socrates.
Theodoretus, the provincial bishop (probably) in exile, has no secular
concerns.107
His main interest is to protect the independence of
the Church from political pressure and to show that the priest has
to be regarded higher than the king. A bishop who does not attach
importance to the distinction between emperor and priest is not
worth his title.108
And as suffering is necessary for human beings,
the aim of winning peace and prosperity does not appeal to him.
Although their positions towards imperial politics are by no means
identical, none of the three Church historians can be used as a
source for the official position of the Theodosian establishment. They
show rather the diversity of political and ecclesiastical positions within
orthodoxy. There was no clear development towards what is later
on perceived as Byzantine Caesaropapism. The intellectual and political
situation was open.
104
In the title of op. cit.; cf. Wallraff’s rather harsh polemic against this position
(op. cit., 20).
105
Socrat., HE 7.48.2–5.
106
Leppin, op. cit., 244ff.
107
Leppin, op. cit., 253ff.
108
Theodoret., HE 5.18.24.
246  
IV The “synoptical” Church histories and the genre of Church history
It is evident that the Church histories combine traditional and
Christian elements. However, the Church historians do not justify
their manner of writing history at length. Socrates is the most original
in this regard.109
Very important is the beginning of Book Five
already cited. In this passage Socrates justifies the inclusion of seemingly
secular matters by developing his theory of sympátheia. The second
main area of Socrates’ theoretical musings is his remarks on his
simple style, to which he alludes several times110
and most extensively
in the proem to Book Six.111
He regards his style, which is
indeed clear but not refined, as an expression of Christian simplicity.
Theodoretus makes some general remarks in the first lines of his
work.112
He declares that he wants to preserve the memory of splendid
deeds and of useful teachings. The reference to the teachings
seems to be specific to the genre of Church history. It makes clear
that Theodoretus does not set out to prove the true dogmas by history,
but only to record them.
Sozomenus offers a long digression on his writing of history in the
first chapter of his first book. He begins rather surprisingly with a
sharp polemic against the Jews whose disbelief he thinks incurable.
He compares them to the pagans who have been convinced by the
words, and still more, by the deeds of Christian missionaries. These
victories are as praiseworthy as the battle of Marathon. Church history
is thus, very traditionally, justified by the importance of the
theme. Then Sozomenus proceeds to explain his treatment of laws,
documents and heretical writings. As regards the quarrelling of the
bishops, which had already concerned Socrates, Sozomenus wants
to hand it down to posterity because of his love for the truth and
in order to show that the true dogma is triumphant in the end.
Finally, he explains why he also includes events which happened
109
M. Mazza, “Sulla teoria della storiografia cristiana: Osservazioni su proemi
degli storici ecclesiastici”, in S. Calderone (ed.), La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda
antichità. Atti del convegno tenuto in Erice, 3–8 XII 1978 (Messina, 1980), 335–389; id.,
“Lo storico, la fede ed il principe. Sulla teoria della storiografia ecclesiastica in
Socrate e Sozomeno”, in id., Le maschere del potere. Cultura e politica nella Tarda Antichità
(Naples, 1986), 255–318; I. Krivushin, “Socrates Scholasticus’ Church History:
Themes, Ideas, Heroes”, Byzantinische Forschungen 23 (1996), 95–107.
110
Socrat., HE 1.1.3; 3.1.3.
111
Socrat., HE 6 pr. 2–5.
112
Theodoret., HE 1.1.
  (): ,    247
among the Persians and the barbarians. This is a very full, if rather
loose, exposition.
Somewhat different is the address to Theodosius II which inaugurates
the whole work. This passage is chiefly devoted to a panegyric
on the emperor. Sozomenus, having underlined the importance
of literary patronage for the good ruler, beseeches the emperor to
give him rewards similar to those that other writers had received
from their sovereigns, and he names several pagan authors (including
Homer, Plato or Theopompus), as if his writing were normal literature
within a system of patronage. We shall return to this mixture
of Christian and pagan perspectives typical of Sozomenus.
Historians of antiquity were likely to claim that they were telling
the truth and nothing but the truth. This is also done by Socrates
in a short polemic against Eusebius’ Vita Constantini.113
His claim
seems to be honest, since he indeed rewrote his history after reading
Athanasius, although his new thinking tarnished the image of
Constantine, the first Christian emperor.114
Less convincing to modern
eyes is Socrates’ assertion that he is not writing in eulogising
words on Theodosius II in order to win the emperor’s favour, but
only because he wants to say what is true.115
This seems to be contradicted
by the panegyrical overtones of his text. But idealisation
of the reigning emperor is acceptable within the contemporary discourse.
Panegyrists do not shrink from underlining the truthfulness
of their utterances, even though the public were fully aware of their
constraints. It would therefore be unhistorical to condemn Socrates
as a hypocrite.
Theodoretus makes no specific claim concerning his truthfulness
and, typically enough, he is the most inclined to introduce stylisation
into his work, as is evident in his narrative of Jovian’s death or
of the battle of Frigidus.
The Church historians do not directly consider their relationship
to the genre of Church history, but some ideas are implicit in their
writings. Church history was a new genre of prose literature in late
antiquity, created by Eusebius.116
It differed from secular history in
two regards. There were no speeches and there were many docu-
113
Socrat., HE 1.1.2f.
114
Socrat., HE 2.1.
115
Socrat., HE 7.21.10–22.1.
116
See Winkelmann in this volume.
248  
ments, which were reproduced verbatim. Thus, for a reader who is
used to classicising prose, Eusebius sometimes creates the impression
of having produced no more than a rough draft. This impression of
roughness is not that surprising, if one remembers that Church
History is not an exact translation of the Greek ekklesiastikè historía.
A more precise rendering would be “history regarding Church matters”.
This concept could include many things; and the resulting
work need not be a well-structured history in the classicising sense.
Even mere collections of material could be termed ecclesiastical
histories.117
The so-called synoptical Church historians depart in several ways
from the Eusebian concept. Nevertheless the core theme remains the
Church. Their idea of Church is, however, difficult to reconstruct.118
One thing is clear. The Church is not an institution, which comprises
only priests, bishops and synods, but includes also holy men
and women, and necessarily the Christian or anti-Christian emperors
who influenced the Church. As Socrates puts it:
We have continually included the emperors in these historical details;
because from the time they began to profess the Christian religion,
the affairs of the Church have depended on them, so that even the
greatest Synods have been, and still are convened by their appointment.
Finally, we have particularly noticed the Arian heresy, because
it has so greatly disquieted the Churches. Let these remarks be considered
sufficient in the way of preface: we shall now proceed with
our history.119
There existed another notion concerning the writing of the history
of the Christian religion, the concept of christianikè historía, “history
regarding Christian matters”. The only known writer in this genre
is Philippus of Side.120
He was a deacon in Constantinople and had
contacts with John Chrysostom. Having been ordained as a priest,
he tried to become bishop three times: 426 against Sisinnius, 428
against Nestorius, 431 against Maximinus. His work is severely criticised
by Socrates.121
Although both, Socrates as well as Philippus,
117
Van Nuffelen op. cit., 128.
118
See, as a good attempt for Socrates, Wallraff, op. cit., 29ff.
119
Socrat., HE 5 pr. 9f.
120
E. Honigmann, “Philippus of Side and his ‘Christian History’”, id., Patristic
Studies (Studi e testi 173) (Vatican City, 1953), 82–91; W. Portmann, “Philippus von
Side”, Biogr.-bibliogr. Kirchenlexikon 7 (1994), 510–512.
121
Socrat., HE 7.27; Phot., Bibl. 35.
  (): ,    249
were Nicenes, they held opposing views in respect of Bishop Proclus
of Constantinople (434–446), of whom Socrates thinks highly, whereas
Philippus was opposed to him. It may be that Socrates began writing
Church history in order to combat Philippus’ Christian history.
The character of Philippus’ work can be reconstructed only tentatively.
The defeated rival of Proclus obviously intended to defend
his position. His style was according to the hardly objective Socrates
“Asianic”, that is to say pompous. Anyway, the work, numbering 36
books each of several volumes, must have been extremely large. It
included many polymathic digressions (as in the case of Philostorgius)
and was chronologically inconsistent. Much remains unclear, particularly
how Philippus handled Church history proper, but it is certain
that this Christian history was very different from the known
Church histories.
Eusebius’ first successor was Gelasius of Caesarea, whose work is
again difficult to reconstruct,122
but of which we know enough to be
sure that Gelasius considered himself to be a continuator of Eusebius.
This is also the case with Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus.
They are explicit followers of Eusebius,123
and they stay within the
general framework of his kind of writing. There are no long speeches
and there are many documents quoted word for word.124
Socrates
and Theodoretus even include digressions of a theological charac-
ter.125
The reliability of the documents is high. For example, neither
Socrates nor Theodoretus mention in their authorial comments on
the Council of Nicaea that it was Constantine who introduced the
concept of homoousios into the debates, but both of them quote
Eusebius’ letter affirming this, despite the fact that this does not suit
their respective interpretations of Nicaea.126
On the other hand, all three of them are influenced by secular
historiography, albeit to different degrees. They evidently take over
certain stylistic features from classicising authors127
—for example a
122
See F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Caesarera
(Berlin, 1966).
123
Socrat., HE 1.1.1; Sozomen., HE 1.1.12s.; Theodoret., HE 1.1.4.
124
An extremely strange element is a dialogue between Constantius and Pope
Liberius included in Theodoretus (HE 2.16.1–26), which the Church historian probably
regarded as a kind of document.
125
E.g. Socrat., HE 5.30–80; 6.13; Theodoret., HE 4.5.2; 5.39.24–26.
126
Leppin, op. cit., 57.
127
T. Hidber, “Eine Geschichte von Aufruhr und Streit: Sokrates’ Kirchengeschichte
250  
narrative, which is more consistent than Eusebius’s. They also accept
the reigns of emperors as the main partitions of history, and they
are akin to senatorial historians insofar as they distinguish between
“good” and “bad” emperors.
Socrates seems to set himself against secular historiography, especially
historiography written in an elevated style, as is illustrated by
his defence of his own deliberately simple style. In several passages
he also shows an aversion to the abuse of pagan education.128
Acumen,
which relies on dialectic, particularly of the Aristotelian kind, is one
reason for the emergence of heresy.129
The basis for polemics like
this is his solid knowledge of classical culture.130
This does, of course, not mean that Socrates is completely free
from pagan influence. He had been educated by pagans, and his
Church history contains not only much secular material—which he
is able to defend—but is also, which is more important, built around
secular dates: emperors, consuls and even Olympic games are fundamental
to his chronology. He lives in a context which is deeply
imbued with pagan culture, and he cannot conceal this.
Theodoretus deeply abhors every form of paganism, but his writing
style is elegant. Indeed all his five books are distinguished by an
artful composition:131
the central chapters have special significance
and are carefully linked to other books. The importance of these
chapters is evident in the following observations: the central chapter
of Book One (17) documents a letter in which Constantine calls
und die Tradition der Zeitgeschichtsschreibung”, in Bäbler and Nesselrath (eds.),
Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel, op. cit., 44–59.
128
See, e.g. Socrat., HE 2.35.6; 7.6.3f.; 7.22.8. Wallraff, op. cit., 83ff. makes too
much of Socrates’ formation by pagan education. His style shows that HE has less
regard for pagan culture than the Cappadocians (contra Wallraff, op. cit., 89f.,
n. 299)—which does not mean complete disregard.
129
Leppin, op. cit., 173.
130
Cf., with other accents, H.-G. Nesselrath, “Die Christen und die heidnische
Bildung: Das Beispiel des Sokrates Scholastikos (hist. eccl. 3,16)”, in J. Dummer
and M. Vielberg (eds.), Leitbilder der Spätantike: Eliten und Leitbilder. Altertumswiss. Koll.
1 (Stuttgart, 1999), 79–100, 97ff. for allusions to classical authors; see also C. Eucken,
“Philosophie und Dialektik in der Kirchengeschichte des Sokrates”, in B. Bäbler
and H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel. Studien zu Politik,
Religion und Kultur im späten 4. und frühen 5. Jh. n. Chr. zu Ehren von Christoph Schäublin
(Munich and Leipzig, 2001), 96–110 (with some misunderstandings); T. Gelzer,
“Zum Hintergrund der hohen Schätzung der paganen Bildung bei Sokrates von
Konstantinopel”, in Bäbler and Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel,
op. cit., 111–124.
131
Leppin, op. cit., 287ff.
  (): ,    251
for the erection of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
The central chapter of Book Five (21) contains Theodosius’ I (non
existent) order to destroy all pagan temples. In Books Two and Four
heretical emperors dominate: Constantius II and Valens. In the central
chapters they are shown clashing with courageous bishops.132
In
this Theodoretus shows himself to be a willing pupil of the rhetorical
schools.
Sozomenus is by far the most influenced by secular historiography,
as has already been shown by the panegyrical dedication and
by the panegyrical beginning of Book Nine. His panegyrics are much
more technical than Socrates’s. Sozomenus informs his readers that
he will paraphrase many documents,133
which is also in keeping with
the tradition of classicising historiography. Moreover, he unmistakably
alludes to Xenophon’s Cyropaedia in the beginnings of his work.134
His books are almost as artfully composed as Theodoretus’s.135
He also makes explicit criticism of certain pagan interpretations,
such as the allegation that Constantine converted to Christianity
because no other religion was able to condone his sins.136
In addition,
he declares that pagans tried to avert Alaric’s sack of Rome,
but to no avail.137
His work was obviously the most palatable to educated
readers used to classicising historiography.
Eusebius defined as one of his main themes the fate of the Jews.
This does not make much impact on the Church historians.138
They
mention the Jews in the context of Julian’s failed plan to rebuild the
temple in Jerusalem, but their principal aim is thereby to illustrate
God’s wrath against Julian.139
Socrates has a noteworthy concentration
of anti-Jewish tales in Book Seven.140
Sozomenus begins his first
book with a reflection on the Jewish stubbornness in refusing to
accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah; afterwards the theme recurs rarely,
even though it is more prominent than in Socrates. Theodoretus
132
Theodoret., HE 2.16; 4.19.
133
Sozomen., HE 1.1.14.
134
Sozomen., HE 1.1.1 with Xen., Cyr. 1.1.1.
135
Leppin, op. cit., 183ff.
136
Sozomen., HE 1.5.
137
Sozomen., HE 9.6s.
138
See Urbainczyk (1997a), 364ff.
139
Socrat., HE 3.20; Sozomen., HE 5.22; Theodoret., HE 3.20.
140
Socrat., HE 7.4; 7.16; 7.17; 7.38.
252  
makes several anti-Jewish comments,141
but the Jews are not very
important to him. The topic seems to have lost its importance in
Church historiography.
To conclude, it is evident that all three Church historians treated
here consider themselves to be true followers of Eusebius, and rightly
so. Nevertheless, a plain tendency to the convergence of Church history
and pagan history is palpable in all of them, particularly in
Sozomenus. This will be taken to its fullest extent by later authors
such as Theophylactus Simocatta (7th century). But even in this case
our main point remains valid: For all that they have in common,
the three so-called “synoptical” Church historians are individual
authors with divergent views, whose works illustrate the intellectual
richness of the Theodosian age.
B
Texts
Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte, hrsg. v. G.C. Hansen mit Beiträgen v. M. ”irinjan (Berlin,
1995).
Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte, hrsg. v. J. Bidez und G.C. Hansen (Berlin, 1995).
Theodoret., Kirchengeschichte, hrsg. v. L. Parmentier, Dritte, durchgesehene Auflage
v. G.C. Hansen (Berlin, 1998).
Other Editions
A.J. Festugière, B. Grillet et G. Sabbah, Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres I–II,
SCh, N°. 306 (Paris, 1983); Livres III–IV, SCh, N°. 418 (Paris, 1996).
Studies
Allen, P. “The Use of Heretics and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians: Studies
in Socrates and Theodoret”, in G. Clarke (ed.), Reading the Past in Late Antiquity
(Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 265–289.
Azéma, Y. “Théodoret de Cyr”, Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 15 (1991), 418–435.
Bäbler, B. and H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel. Studien
zu Politik, Religion und Kultur im späten 4. und frühen 5. Jh. n. Chr. zu Ehren von Christoph
Schäublin (Munich and Leipzig, 2001).
Calderone, S. (ed.), La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda antichità. Atti del convegno tenuto
in Erice, 3–8 XII 1978 (Messina, 1980).
Chesnut, G.F. “The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus,
Theodoret, and Evagrius”, Théologie historique 46 (Paris, 1977).
——, “The Date of Composition of Theodoret’s Church History”, Vet. Christ. 35
(1981), 245–252.
141
Theodoret., HE 1.9.14; 3.20.8.
  (): ,    253
Cracco Ruggini, L. “The Ecclesiastical Histories and the Pagan Historiography:
Providence and Miracles”, Athenaeum 55 (1977), 107–126.
Croke, B. “Dating Theodoret’s Church History and Commentaries of the Psalms”,
Byzantion 54 (1984), 59–74.
Geppert, F. Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates Scholasticus (Leipzig, 1898; repr. Aalen,
1972).
Harries, J. “Sozomenus and Eusebius: The Lawyer as Church Historian in the Fifth
Century”, in C. Holdsworth and T.P. Wiseman (eds.), The Inheritance of Historiography
350–900 (Exeter, 1986), 45–52.
Honigmann, E. “Philippus of Side and his ‘Christian History’,” in id., Patristic Studies
(Studi e testi 173) (Vatican City, 1953), 82–91.
Krivushin, I. “Socrates Scholasticus’ Church history: Themes, Ideas, Heroes”,
Byzantinische Forschungen 23 (1996), 95–107.
Leppin, H. Von Constantin dem Großen zu Theodosius II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den
Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret (Hypomnemata 110) (Göttingen,
1996).
Mazza, M. “Lo storico, la fede ed il principe: Sulla teoria della storiografia ecclesiastica
in Socrate e Sozomeno”, in id., Le maschere del potere: Cultura e politica nella
Tarda Antichità (Naples, 1986), 255–318.
Nesselrath, H.-G. “Die Christen und die heidnische Bildung: Das Beispiel des
Sokrates Scholastikos (hist. eccl. 3,16)”, in J. Dummer and M. Vielberg (eds.),
Leitbilder der Spätantike: Eliten und Leitbilder. Altertumswiss. Koll. 1 (Stuttgart, 1999),
79–100.
Opitz, H.G., “Theodoretos”, RE V A 2 (1934), 1791–1801.
Portmann, W. “Philippus von Side”, Biogr.-bibliogr. Kirchenlexikon 7 (1994), 510–512.
Schoo, G. Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenus (Berlin, 1911; repr. Aalen, 1973).
Urbainczyk, T., “Observations on the Differences between the Church Histories of
Socrates and Sozomenus”, Historia 46 (1997), 355–373.
——, Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor, 1997).
Wallraff, M. Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates: Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode
und Person (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 68) (Göttingen,
1997).
Winkelmann, F. “Die Bewertung der Barbaren in den Werken der oströmischen
Kirchenhistoriker”, in E.K. Chrysos and A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die
Barbaren (Veröff. Inst. öst. Geschichtsforschung 29) (Vienna and Cologne, 1989),
221–235.
254  