Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: 22.02.03 Introduction Part 3
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 02 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 22.02.03 Introduction Part 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Innocent to the presbyters, deacons, all the clergy, and the people of the church of Constantinople (viii. 26); also in Palladius' Dial.
There are five imperial letters, four synodical letters, seven episcopal letters, one presbyterial letter, making seventeen in all. This is not nearly so large a number as is given by Socrates, but we must remember the expressed purpose of Sozomen, that, as a rule, he would give abstracts only, and text when in his judgment fairness made it necessary. Of these documents, there are at least three found in no earlier author. In them all, there is only one symbol transcribed, and that is from Arius and Euzoius!
b. Documentary acts of Synods which are mentioned by name.
Acts of the Synod of Tyre (ii. 25).
Acts of the Synod of Seleucia, taken down by tachygraphists (iv. 22).
c. Acts of those Synods only, of which an abstract is recorded.
Alexandria i. 15.
Bithynia i. 15.
Palestine i. 15.
Egyptian i. 16.
Nicaea i. 17-23.
Antioch ii. 19.
Tyre ii. 25.
Jerusalem ii. 27.
Constantinople ii. 29, 33.
Constantinople iii. 3.
Antioch iii. 2.
Antioch iii. 8.
Philippopolis iii. 11.
Sardica iii. 11, 12.
Jerusalem iii. 21, 22.
Alexandria iv. 1.
Sirmium iv. 6.
Antioch iv. 8.
Milan iv. 9.
Antioch iv. 12.
Ancyra iv. 13.
Ariminum iv. 16-19, 23.
Seleucia iv. 22, 23.
Constantinople iv. 24, 25.
Alexandria v. 12.
Macedonian Council, s.l. v. 14.
Antioch v. 12.
Lampsacus vi. 7.
Nicaea vi. 8.
Macedonian, s.l vi. 10, 11.
Sicily vi. 12.
Tyana vi. 12.
In Caria vi. 12.
Rome vi. 23.
Pazucomen vi. 24.
Rome vi. 25.
Antioch (Caria) vii. 2.
Constantinople vii. 7-9.
Sangurum vii. 18.
Constantinople viii. 2.
Cyprus viii. 14.
Of the Oak at Chalcedon viii. 17.
Constantinople viii. 19.
Constantinople viii. 20.
d. Letters of which an abstract is given, or the general object is stated.
Constantine's Letter to Alexander end Arius i. 16.
Imperial Letters about the Nicene Council i. 21, 25.
Constantine to Sapor ii. 15.
Constantine to the people of Alexandria ii. 22.
Constantine to Athanasius ii. 23.
Synod of Tyre to the bishops ii. 25.
Antony's letters to the Emperor ii. 31.
Constantine's letter to the Alexandrians ii. 31.
Eusebius to Julius iii. 7.
Julius, bishop of Rome, to the bishops of the East iii. 8.
Synod of Antioch to Julius iii. 8.
Constantius to Philip, prefect of Constantinople iii. 9.
Bishops of Egypt in favor of Athanasius iii. 10.
Julius to the bishops of Antioch iii. 10.
Constans to Constantius iii. 10.
Constans to Constantius iii. 11.
Athanasius to Constans iii. 11.
Paul, bishop of Constantinople iii. 11.
The bishops of Philippopolis to the bishops of the West iii. 11.
Constans to Constantius iii. 20.
Constantius to Athanasius iii. 20.
Constantius to the Alexandrians iii. 20.
Julius to clergy and people of Alexandria iii. 20.
Constantius to the bishops, presbyters, and to the people of the church of Alexandria iii. 21.
Cyril of Jerusalem to Constantius iv. 5.
Constantius to Athanasius iv. 9.
Constantius to Basil of Ancyra iv. 16.
Basil of Ancyra to Constantius iv. 16.
Constantius to Basil iv. 16.
Basil to all the bishops iv. 16.
Athanasius to a friend iv. 17.
Constantius to the Synod of Ariminum iv. 19.
Reply of the bishops iv. 19.
Julian to the Alexandrians v. 7.
Titus of Bostra to Julian v. 15.
Julian to Jewish patriarchs, leaders, and people v. 22.
Reply of the Jews v. 22.
Julius to Arsacius, king of Armenia vi. 1.
Jovian to the governors of the provinces vi. 3.
Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis et al., to Jovian vi. 3.
Liberius and the Western bishop to the East vi. 12.
Memorial of grievances presented by eighty ecclesiastics to Valens vi. 13.
Damasus in behalf of Peter of Alexandria vi. 39.
Synodical epistles of Rome to Paulinus, bishop of Antioch vii. 11.
Western bishops and Gratian to the Eastern bishops vii. 11.
Irenic letters to the adherents of Flavian from the priests of Egypt and the West viii. 3.
Theophilus of Alexandria, paschal letter viii. 11.
Theophilus of Alexandria to Epiphanius viii. 14.
Epiphanius to the bishops and the bishop of Constantinople against Origenism. vii.14.
2. Authors.
a. Authors from whose works a textual quotation appears.
Apolinarius, the Syrian, on the succession of Athanasius ii. 17, new.
Extract from Athanasius' Epistola ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae ii. 30.
Extract from Libanius, the Sophist; in oratione funebri de laudibus Fuliani vi. 1.
Gregory Nazianzen to Nectarius, on Apolinarius; Ep. ccii. vi. 27.
The first extract alone is known through no other source.
b. Authors and works directly referred to as used.
The Sibyl i. 1.
Josephus i. 1.
Clemens (Romanus) i. 1.
Hegesippus i. 1.
Julius Africanus i. 1.
Eusebius Pamphili, Historia Ecclesiastica i. 1.
Vita Constantini i. 3, extract.
Philo (Pythagorean) i. 12.
Biographies of Monks i. 14.
Eusebius' Oration i. 19.
Address of Constantine i. 19.
Collection of Nicene Canons i. 19.
Syrians' Account of the actions and life of Bishop Milles ii. 14.
Persian, Syrian, Edessan, martyrology of Persians ii. 14.
Discourse of Eudoxius, extract from iv. 26.
Meletius' first discourses at Antioch iv. 28.
Athanasius, on his flight v. 12.
c. Authors and their works mentioned, but not used.
Arius, the Thalia, not read i. 21.
Eustathius, bishop of Antioch ii. 19.
Marcellus (de Subjectione Filii Dei) ii. 33.
Asterius, a treatise on the defense of the Arian doctrine ii. 33.
Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, works iii. 2.
Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, an ascetic treatise, also attributed to Basil the Great. iii. 14.
Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, works iii. 14.
Titus, bishop of Bostra, works iii. 14.
Serapion, bishop of Ancyra, works iii. 14.
Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, works iii. 14.
Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, works iii. 14.
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, works iii. 14.
Didymus, works iii. 15.
Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, works iii. 15.
Hilary, bishop of Pictavium, works iii. 15, v. 13.
Aetius,works iii. 15.
Ephraim Syrus, works and translations iii. 16.
Bardasanes, poems iii. 16.
Harmonius, poems iii. 16.
Photinus, a work before Constantius, and many works iv. 6.
Acacius, literary works iv. 23.
Apolinarius, works, with those against him v. 18, vi. 27.
Julian, Misopogon v. 19.
Eunomius, works, especially Exercises for the Mind, with those against him vi. 27, vii. 17.
Evagrius, works vi. 30.
Themistius, oration, outline vi. 36.
Ulfilas, translation of Bible into Gothic vi. 37.
Sisinnius, bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople,works viii. 1.
Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, works viii. 2.
Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, works viii. 2.
Chrysostom, Ep. to Theodore viii. 2.
--on Eutropius viii. 7.
--Vices of females viii. 16.
--Extempore discourse after his return viii. 18.
--About the Silver Statue viii. 20.
Origen, works ; especially the one from which Bishop Theotimus read viii. 14.
An unecclesiastic but ancient Hebrew document ix. 17.
d. Hymns of which a line or thought is given.
Refrain of the odes at Antioch iii. 20.
At procession of Babylas, Antioch v. 19.
To Dionysos, by Epiphanius the Sophist vi. 25.
Arian hymns viii. 8. Unmentioned Authorities.
Sozomen has refrained in large measure from indicating directly his chief authorities for political or ecclesiastical affairs; he has indicated, indeed, some minor springs, as we have seen, but the major ones are passed by. He imitated neither Eusebius, nor Socrates, nor Evagrius in this omission. He does abound in phrases indicative of authorities; thus of the forms of le/gw, le/gousi, le/gontai, e!legon, e0le/geto are used somewhat sparingly, while le/getai occurs over eighty times, and lo/go= about twenty ; of fh/mi, e!fhsen and fh/mh occasionally, while fhsi/ or fasi/ introduces about thirty statements; ei0rh/sqw and ei0rh/tai also appear in a few cases. One has no assurance of either the method or the validity of the sources from such vague terms, and it is this uncertain and incautious manner that has so often led critics to impeach his general worth, and it must be conceded with some degree of justice ; the endless iteration of such words savors of gossip rather than history; this obscurity is not diminished by his persistent oi\mai and less frequent ei0ka/zw.
1. In the discussion of his unmentioned authorities, the first to be considered is Socrates. He is nowhere hinted at, unless under an indefinite " some say," when Sozomen presents a group of opinions.
Socrates preceded Sozomen by a few years, writing his history not long after 439. Sozomen undoubtedly produced his record later, as we have already seen, and it would be just as likely that Socrates should be in the hands of Sozomen as that Philip of Side's contemporary Christian History should have been open to the criticism of Socrates; indeed, the predecessor's work was quite probably an incentive to the task proposed by Sozomen to himself. The internal evidence makes the use sure. We have only to note how Socrates derived his statements about the Novatians from members connected with that body of believers; these very facts are reproduced by Sozomen as Socrates gives them, with the slightest of differences; there is no refutation of this possible. Socrates, therefore, manifestly preceded, and Sozomen employed the material thus amassed.
There are three views of the connection: (1) that Sozomen, excepting a few and not very valuable additions of his own, plagiarized Socrates; (2) that he used the same authorities as Socrates independently, and the points of identity arose from the language of the original in the hands of both; (3) that Socrates was his guide to the chief writers from whom he drew directly with more or less freedom; and when no other light presented itself or was to be found, he would use his path-finder. There is scarcely a more fascinating and genuine field for analytical criticism than this. It should be remarked at the outset that we cannot justly apply this term plagiarism, in its modern sense, to the use of material current in these earlier days of history. There was no more intention to appropriate the work of another in Sozomen, than there was in Socrates, when he fails to note his authority, and yet very evidently has followed him closely; or when Theodoret has taken his stuff from Sozomen, and says nothing about the original. To assail Sozomen as if he were a deliberate thief, and stigmatize him as a feeble reviser of Socrates, is wholly unfair and unwarranted by the general usage of his day and by 'tine facts of the case. In no way can it be proved that Sozomen was a general plagiarist in the opprobrium and iniquity conveyed by the modern use of that term. That Socrates was the finer mind, that he had larger sympathies, that he was concerned to reproduce documents in an ampler degree, that he follows the development of the Church with a sharper and brighter criticism, no one can doubt; he is conspicuously superior in almost every quality of a historian, and confined himself more nearly to the modern idea of which the science should aim to do; but that does not set aside the distinct and supplemental value of Sozomen and his fullness in lines, however zigzag, which had been neglected by others. The acknowledged precedence of Socrates does not warrant us in assailing the fidelity of the lesser light. Since the notes are designed to indicate the relationship between the two, the passages need not be anticipated here. (2) The second view, that Sozomen made an independent use of the same source which Holzhausen revived, Stäudlin supported, Hefele and Nolte have espoused, seems less tenable than the first. The Novatian material cannot, under any possible conditions, be so explained; the arrangement of the details in eight of the books will not permit view. The very corrections of that arrangement require us to be convinced that Socrates was in the corrector's eye; the close resemblance of language in many places where he might easily have expanded from the originals, but preferred to confine himself to the equally meagre tracings of his predecessor, leave no basis for this solution. (3) The third explanation of the interrelation seems thus far the most accurate. Sozomen took Socrates for a guide in the main, (a) as to consecution of events, (b) as to sources, much as students would use a Church history to base their own studies upon. Socrates was a director to the authorities; these Sozomen would use freely; when they failed him, he would take the facts given by Socrates, precisely as he did those which Eusebius or Sabinus furnished, because he had nothing better, and in spite probably of his own inquiries ; for let us remember how he insists that he has investigated the originals, and that he had been conscientious in his researches. Now it must be said in further modification of this statement:
(a) That some of the sources obviously consulted by both were doubtless known to Sozomen without Socrates to point them out. Rufinus and Eusebius and Sabinus were known to everybody. In all such cases we may concede an independent reading of those authors, and yet the order in which the subject-matter is arranged is at times more that of his guide-book than of his original.
(b) Moreover, he introduces many new outlines and abstracts, particularly in the transactions of the synods.
(c) He also has independent sources of biography..
(d) His ninth book is wholly unique and entirely out of the leading-strings of the master, for unexplained reasons.
The notes also try to indicate in a measure these more independent traits.
2. The next unmentioned source is Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius in two books ; this Sozomen certainly read independently of Socrates, very likely in a Greek translation. That author's Historia Monachorum also was sifted for a few of the monastic biographies; in these cases there is a closer resemblance to Rufinus than to the parallel sketches of Palladius.
3. Eusebius' Life of Constantine is a primary source for Books i. and ii. In all the events pertaining to that emperor, it is drawn upon freely, . just as freely as Socrates employs it, or as Sozomen handles Socrates.
4. Athanasius is also used independently, although in collocating the events, Socrates is followed. There is direct reference to one work only (v. 12), as we have seen. The unmentioned are as follows:-
The Life of St. Antony: Antonii Vita.
Epistola de Synodis Arimini in Italia ct. Seleuciae in Isauria celebratis.
Epistola ad Serapionem, de morte Arii.
Synodicon; lost.
Tomus ad Antiochenses.
Epistola ad Episcopos Aegypti ct. Libyae; ep. encyclica contra Arianos.
Epistola Encyclica ad Episcopos.
Historia Arianorum ad Monachos.
Apologia contra Arianos.
Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem.
Epistolae heortasticae.
5. Philostorgius: Historia Ecclesiastica, also furnished occasional material, as even the excerpts remaining to us indicate.
6. Sabinus: Collection of Synods (Sunagw/gh tw=n suno/dwn), which is lost; this book was written in the Macedonian and Arian interest; the author is mentioned by Socrates and criticised for his partiality. We can observe how Sozomen used it, where he adds to the statements of Socrates, which the latter had borrowed from that work. These additions are quite frequent in the transactions of the synods; and again a few records of councils, otherwise unknown, are thus preserved for us. We have here a proof of how Sozomen improved on his guide in the details.
7. Philippus of Side; the Christian History (xristianikh\ i9stori/a); a few fragments are preserved; Socrates criticises him severely.
8. For the laws, outside of the records alluded to, he probably used the Codex Gregorianus and the Codex Hermogenianus, his old text-books, and not unlikely the Codex Theodosianus (438).
9. Basil the Great: the limited use is indicated by the notes.
10. Gregory Nazianzen: Orationes contra Julianum. Other occasional citations are indicated in the notes.
11. Sulpicius Severus: vita S. Martini was undoubtedly the source, possibly through a Greek translation of the same, for the summary of that saint's life in iii. 14.
Historia sacra: sometimes there is a hint as if this work had been before him.
12. Palladius: Historia Lausica was not so constant a companion as some have suggested; Sozomen has rather borrowed from the sources out of which the bishop of Helenopolis gathered his sketches of the monks.
Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi was used in narrating the incidents of John's life in Book viii. There is no indication of any large draught of Chrysostom's own writings: they may have been usedfor a few suggestions, contained in the orations before mentioned.
One does not feel sure that Hieronymus or Orosius came under his eye.
He does not seem to have made any direct use of Ammianus Marcellinus (Res gestae), nor of the earlier Latin chroniclers. The points of resemblance with Eutropius (Breviarium Historiae Romanae) are very doubtful in my judgment; Eunapius (ex historia excerpta et fragmenta) seems to have been used in his full form; Zosimus (Historia) pretty surely; and for the ninth book, hardly with a doubt the full Olympiodorus, of whom fragments only remain, and yet in that same ninth book there are entirely independent political chapters whose source cannot yet be determined.The Ninth Book.
The most curious feature of all is Book ix., in the entire change of its method; even were the ecclesiastical affairs to have been presented, he has given here in remarkable excess the events affecting the Western state; he has done it nowhere else; to be sure, he proposes it as a demonstration of the value of imperial piety, and of the ever-present Divine grace, but nowhere else has he done this in so cumulative a form. Some wonderful change came over his purpose, whether that were a fuller view of the relation between state and church, or the desire to deepen, the impression of his philosophy of history; or did some imperial domestic catastrophe make him reluctant to dwell upon the sad events which darkened the court he had so glorified?
The grave question arises, Is anything of Book ix. Iost?
That it is unfinished cannot be doubted; for (a) In the Proëmium he announces his purpose to carry it to the year a.d. 439, or the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius; but this is not done with any of his ordinary fullness, although his hints reach beyond, as we have seen. (b) In lauding Pulcheria (ix. 1) he remarks, "That new heresies have not prevailed in our time, we shall find to be due especially to her, as we shall subsequently see." Here is the declared purpose of delineating the history of Nestorianism and its overthrow, but there is no appearance of the struggle in the record itself he altogether passes by Nestorius, as bishop of Constantinople. (c) The record of the forty martyrs he purposely took out of its normal order, to illustrate the excellence of Pulcheria; a late event is anticipated, but the whole of what would have been its normal setting is not there. (d) One would naturally expect that a book which had thus far treated mainly of state difficulties would have the usual balance, at least, and that ecclesiastical affairs would have preponderated in the remaining chapters; but there is only an initial chapter. Seventeen chapters are not his usual tale for a book; there is an evident break ; the discussion of Nestorianism is not written. Most of all would one expect some allusion to the restoration of Chrysostom under Proclus. (e) In ix. 16, he says, "Among other relics, those of Zechariah, the very ancient prophet, and of Stephen, who was ordained deacon by the Apostles, were discovered; and it seems incumbent upon me to describe the mode, since the discovery of each was marvelous and divine;" but he gives only the invention of Zechariah (c. 17) . The story of Stephen fails us, and would doubtless have followed immediately. It was his purpose to narrate the story,-this story which Theophanes and Marcellinus mention and Lucianus wrote a book about. (f) In c. ix. 17, this is confirmed; for he says, "I shall first speak of the relics of the prophet"; to his second he does not come. (g) The close is abrupt; one feels instinctively that something is amiss. Hence the work, as we have it, is obviously not complete.
Did he finish it, and is the conclusion lost?
The mistake into which Gregory I. fell in ascribing to Sozomen the commendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, with which Theodoret really closes his history, led Baronius to maintain that we did not have the whole of Sozomen; and others have asserted the same for reasons which are indeed sufficient to prove that the history is unfinished, but not that anything is lost. That we have all that Sozomen wrote is more likely, because the Tripartite History at x. 24 makes the last use of Sozomen at viii. 25; it would surely have gone further in its dependence upon him had the later controversy been treated of, since he had been already a chief authority. Nicephorus Callistus, Historia Ecclesiastica, xiv. 8, gives the account of the finding of Zechariah in c. 9 ; the story of Stephen in c. 10 ; then the story of the forty martyrs. His source beyond is Socrates. until Evagrius takes up the thread of affairs. If Sozomen had written the more recent events parallel with Socrates. Nicephorus would undoubtedly have followed him as before. Of Theophanes, one cannot speak so confidently. Moreover, we cannot help asking, since we have Socrates, Theodoret, and Evagrius complete, why should Sozomen, who was so admired an author, have suffered any loss? Now, if we have Sozomen entire so far as he wrote, why did he stop where he did? There are no sufficient subjective reasons to be offered. It could scarcely have been in any unfavorable criticism of his prince, for the work seems to have been accepted by his imperial patron; and there was certainly nothing as objectionable in Sozomen, as in Socrates or in Olympiodorus. Nor is it likely that the unhappiness which invaded the court, the domestic jealousies, which rent its religious as well as connubial peace, or the quarrels over Cyrus or Paulinus or Chrysaphius, in any way restrained him; for he was beyond some, if not all of these agitations, at the time of his writing, and he had deliberately chosen to ignore such noble personages as Anthemius, Troilus, Synesius, Aurelianus, and Eudocia, so that we can argue little from his silence, save his manifest jealousy for Pulcheria, and his hostility to certain more liberal tendencies developed under Eudocia. The Nestorian controversy would have been a choice field wherein to exalt the influence of Pulcheria, as he himself suggested. On the whole, one is constrained to believe that Sozomen died before he had completed the record which he had proposed to himself. He must have been nearing his seventieth year when thus suddenly arrested in his chosen study.The Major uses made of his Work
The major uses of him subsequently were by:
a. Epiphanius Scholasticus, who made a translation into Latin, which Cassiodorus abbreviated, polished, and incorporated in the Historia Tripartita.
b. The deacon liberatus, in his Historia nestorianorum, used the Tripartia.
c. Theophanes, in his Chronographia.
d. Theodorus Lector in his Historia Tripartita.
e. Nicephorus Callistus, in his Historia Ecclesiastica incorportating Theodorus' Tripartita.The Errors
The errors are numerous, as already suggested by Possevin, on dogmatic grounds; Du Pin, and more recently by Harnack, for historic resons. They are due to the lack of a systematic chronology, and the blind copying of his authority, especially Socrates, and occasionally to his attempts to correct the order given by his authority.
Gesner: Bibliotheca universalis. s.v. 1545.
Possevin: Appartus sacer. s.v. 1608.
Du Pin: Nouvelle bibl d. Auteurs Eccles. Tom. iii. Pt. ii. 189-90. 1690.
Sluter: Propylaeum Historiae Christianae, ix. 6, p. 45. 1696.
Ittig: De bibliothecis patrum apostol. s.v. 1699-1700.
Olearius: Bibliotheca scriptorum eccles. Tom. ii. s.v. 1711.
Fabricius: Bibliotheca Graec. Vol. vi. Lib. v. c. 4. xxxi. 1726.
Cave: Scriptorum Ecles. Hist. Literaria. p. 427. 1740.
Walch: Bibl. Theol. Tom. iii. p. 114. 1762.
De Bure: Bibliographie instructive. Nos. 4393-5. 1768.
Nodier: Bibliothéque sacrée gr.-lat. s.v. 1826.
Boose: Grundriss der christ. Liter., § 230. 1828.
Clarke: Concise view of the succession of Sac. Lit. Vol. ii. p. 225. 1831.
Hoffmann, S.f.w.: Lexicon Bibliog. s.v. 1833-38.
Walch, J.g.: Biblioth. Patristica, ii. § 16.2. ed. Danz. 1834.
Vossius (ed. Westermann): De Historicis Graecis, ii. 20. 1838.
Ceillier: Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Sacrés. Tom. viii. c. 39. 1858 sqq.
Alzog: Handb. d. Patrologie. 3d ed. 1876.
Nicolai: Griech. Literaturgesch. in neuer Bearbeitung. 1874-8.
Chevalier: Répertoire des sources hist. d. M.A. s.v. 1877 sqq.
Nirschl: Lehrbuch der Patrologie u Patristik. Vol. iii. c. 4, 235. 1881 sqq.
Harnack: Herzog R.E., Vol. xiv. s.v. 1884.
--: Encycl. Br., Vol. xxii. s.v. 1887.
Thuille: Patristisches Handbuch. 1888.