Socrates Scholasticus' Historia Ecclesiastica

The next extant variant of our story is found in Socrates Scholasticus' Historia ecclesiastica , a work that resumes where Eusebius' history leaves off and that continues to 439. The author was born and raised in Constantinople, where he met an elderly Novatian priest who claimed to have been present at the Council of Nicaea.^[71] Yet, for his description of the council, Socrates did not rely solely on this oral tradition, but drew liberally from Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica . The first two extant books of Socrates' history come from his revised second edition (circa 440), which he composed after reading Athanasius' writings and becoming dissatisfied with his own previous overindebtedness to Rufinus.^[72] Knowing this, we can examine the differences between the treatment in the two books and the treatment in their known precedent to uncover a particular critical reception of Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica in late antiquity.

After encomiastic descriptions of Paphnutius and Spyridon, Socrates digressed to recount our story, contrasting the two charismatics with the simple confessor. Socrates placed the debate prior to the formal session of the council, contradicting his model Rufinus, who had placed it in the midst of the full session. It is unclear whether Socrates made this change on the basis of new information, but rather than postulate unknown sources it is more sound to suppose that he had difficulty accepting Rufinus' attribution of this episode to the formal proceedings of

[70] See P. R. L. Brown, "The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity," JRS 61 (1971): 80-101.

[71] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.1:3; 2.38.

[72] See Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 76. See A. Ferrarini, "Tradizioni orali nella storia ecclesiastica di Socrate Scholastico," Studia Patavina 28 (1981): 29-54.

the council. His own experience with the procedures of ecclesiastical councils—procedures by then well established—may have suggested that such a debate was too incompatible with the nature of imperial councils to have been authentic.

Socrates' story also differs radically from Rufinus' in its treatment of details. His narrative is shorter and accords the debate less symbolic weight as a paradigmatic confrontation of good versus evil; it is less an anecdotal, almost folkloric, moral tale. He specifies that the participants in the debate were Christians, but does not associate them with particular doctrinal positions. For Socrates, the precise cognitive (i.e., theological) nature of the issues debated was less important than the form of the debate:

There were also present among each party () many laypeople skilled in dialectic who were eager to plead for their own side. But while Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom I mentioned earlier), and Theognis and Maris (the first was the bishop of Nicaea while the latter, Maris, was the bishop of Bithynian Chalcedon) were in support of the opinion of Arius, Athanasius, who, while still a deacon in the church of Alexandria, was esteemed highly by the bishop Alexander (which made him the target of envy, as we shall narrate), nobly contended ( ) with them. Just before () the unified meeting of the bishops, the dialecticians conducted preliminary contests of words () before () many people.^[73]

Casting Athanasius as the hero of Nicaea was anachronistic, though understandable. Socrates did not indicate whether the dialecticians who engaged in preliminary logical skirmishes were connected with Eusebius of Nicomedia or with Athanasius, but the lack of such a distinction hardly lessened the impact of Socrates' story, with its genetic and timeless quality. Next, the confessor entered the fray:

When many were drawn by the lure of the reasoning (), a certain one of the confessors, a layman and an old man who has good judgment (), opposed the dialecticians, and said to them: "Did Christ and the apostles hand down to us the dialectical art? . . ."

In this version, the confessor not only enjoyed the respect due his advanced age but was deemed in possession of good judgment, no doubt precisely because he spoke against the exercise of dialectic in Christian debates. Because all the participants were already Christians, Socrates ended this episode not with a conversion but by stressing the confessors success in putting a felicitous end to harmful disputations.

[73] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67:64A); my translation.

The old man's intervention had a decisive outcome: "Then the disruptive uproar () arising out of dialectic was stopped."^[74]

A negative evaluation of disputation shaped Socrates' narrative throughout his Historia ecclesiastica . For him, the preeminent cause of the controversies that lasted until his own time was the practice of dialectical debate among Christians. He said that one of his reasons for composing the history was to combat the "dialectical and vain deceit [that] confused and at the same time dispersed the apostolic faith of Christianity"; he wished to narrate in a continuous fashion the historical progress of orthodoxy, so that his readers would not be so easily swayed by the sophistry of the moment.^[75]

Socrates' conviction that disputation was the chief cause of Christian theological controversies pervaded his treatment of historical material. According to Socrates, the early Arian dispute began when Alexander of Alexandria attempted to publicly explain the Trinity with more precision than his theological acumen warranted.^[76] His imprudent words aroused in Arius, "a man not unlearned in the dialectical art," a spirit of contentiousness (),^[77] and the subsequent disagreement between the two became the catalyst for factionalization throughout eastern Christian communities. When Alexander sent out his circular epistles to bishops of other cities, the recipients of his letters "were thereby excited to contention." Disputation spread like a plague, splitting Christian congregations into warring camps, with "some attaching themselves to one side, others to the other," as congregants witnessed their priests wrangling in debates.^[78]

The most striking evidence that Socrates considered disputation a major cause, and not just a manifestation, of Christian controversy lies in his narrative of events following the Council of Constantinople in 381.^[79] Socrates praised Theodosius for convoking the synod, noting that the emperor innocently supposed that a fair and open examination of the disputed matters would result in universal agreement. But however noble Theodosius' motives, the proposed discussions would not further the cause of unity. Or so thought Socrates, who demonstrated his skepticism by the manner in which he narrated the episode.

Nectarius was then the orthodox bishop of Constantinople and The-

[74] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67: 64B); my translation.

[75] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67:64B).

[76] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.5.

[77] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.5. See R. Williams, "The Logic of Arianism," JTS n.s. 34 (1983): 56-81.

[78] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.6 (PG 67: 52c).

[79] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10.

odosius' confidant.^[80] Informed of the emperor's intentions for the council, the bishop grew uneasy, in part because he lacked the experience to preside over such an event. He conferred with Agelius, the bishop of the Novatian Christians in the city, who confessed that he too was not fit to oversee such a debate because of his ignorance of the art of disputation.^[81] He, however, had a reader Sisinnius (who later succeeded him as Novatian bishop) who was well versed in both philosophical knowledge and scriptural exegesis. When consulted, this reader expressed the opinion that "debates () not only do not heal schisms, but they make the heresies even more contentious (). On account of this he offered this advice to Nectarius."^[82] This sentiment, echoing the general characterization of the christological controversies by Socrates, himself a Novatian Christian, was highlighted by its attribution to one who allegedly advised Theodosius in the organization of an important imperial Christian council.

The emperor's original designs were represented as commonsensical but misguided. Sisinnius proposed to Theodosius (via Nectarius) that the bishops at the forthcoming council "ought on the one hand to avoid dialectical combats () and to call instead into witness the ancient authorities."^[83] This learned reader's voluntary disavowal of philosophical argumentation as a means of resolving theological disputes conveyed a moral more subtle than that contained in Rufinus' tale of the simple confessor and the philosopher.^[84] Here was an accomplished champion in philosophical disputation who nevertheless disapproved of its use in mending Christian theological divisions. A genuine expression of mature and informed judgment, the rejection of formal debate could no longer be dismissed as an expedience allowing the unlearned to hide their ignorance.

Theodosius assented to this wise counsel, and asked the leaders of the sects appearing in Constantinople in June 383 to submit to the views of "those teachers who lived previous to the dissension in the church."^[85] This request may be regarded as part of the germinating ideological justification for the patristic florilegia that would play a large role in

[80] See Baur, John Chrysostom , 1:150-51; E. Getland, "Die Vorgeschichte des Patriarchates von Konstantinopel," Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 9 (1932): 217-30, at 226-28.

[81] See T. E. Gregory, "Novatianism: A Rigorist Sect in the Christian Roman Empire," Byzantine Studies 2 (1975): 1-18.

[82] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585A); my translation.

[83] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585A); my translation.

[84] See De Ghellinck, "Quelques appréciations de la dialectique," 9-10.

[85] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585B). "Previous to the period of dissension" refers to the time before 318.

Christian councils. Here, the reaction of Theodosius to Christian controversy recalls Socrates' earlier characterization of Constantine's attitude toward the disputing parties during the opening phases of the Arian controversy.^[86]

The emperor's decision put the disputing parties in a quandary, for they had come with their champions in dialectical disputation ().^[87] They had dearly expected the council to be a dialectical contest (), and were utterly at a loss when that prospect did not materialize. Perceiving that the attending bishops' fear that an appeal to traditional authorities would undermine their causes, Theodosius, to eliminate trickery and evasion, ordered each of the sects to submit in writing a statement of its dogmatic beliefs, which he would then use as the basis of his final decision.^[88] On the appointed day, bishops representing each of the sectae were called to the imperial palace to deliver their creeds,^[89] after which the emperor

betook his own counsel, and began praying assiduously that God would help him make the true decision. Then after reading each of the written doctrinal statements, he accepted and praised only the one which contained the homoousion ; all the rest he condemned on account of the fact they introduced a separation of the Trinity.^[90]

In this manner, the creed from the Council of Nicaea, after a number of setbacks at regional councils, again received its formal reinstatement at Constantinople. The happy outcome was attributed strictly to the agency of a pious emperor who, praying to God for the wisdom of discernment, had the good sense to halt destructive theological debates.^[91]

Socrates' distrust of verbal disputation was probably informed by his perspective as a professional lay Christian.^[92] Ammianus Marcellinus,

[86] See a letter from Constantine to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius quoted in Eusebius' Vita Constantini 2.64-72.

[87] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585-94).

[88] See F. Dvornik, "Emperor, Popes and General Councils," DOP 6 (1951): 3-23.

[89] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:588A).

[90] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:589A-92A); my translation. On Constantine's daily secluded prayers, see Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.22.

[91] See Codex Theod . 16.4.1 (386), 16.4.2 (388), in Krueger, Meyer, and Mommsen, eds., 1:853-54. On the importance of the emperor's prayer, see Socrates' account about Theodosius' prayer before the Battle of Frigidus, in Hist. eccl . 5.25.

[92] See Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 77:

Socrates was by profession a lawyer (scholasticus ), and was on the side of all which made for peace and good government. He notices that whenever the Church is distracted, civil disturbances ensue, and he has the practical objection of a layman to disputes on theological subtleties being allowed to disturb public tranquility.

an army officer and a polytheist, shared Socrates' view to a remarkable degree when he criticized Constantius for importing complexity and subtlety into Christian quarrels, arguing that the frequent meetings of the bishops made a bad situation worse.^[93] On his part, Socrates was aware of pagan criticisms of Christian disunity and sought to rebut them in his work.^[94]

Socrates believed in a bond of cosmic sympathy between the affairs of state and church, and that Christian quarrels could bring down on the empire such calamities as barbarian invasions. This theory does much to explain Socrates' wish for peace and eutaxia in the church: he was troubled by Christian factionalism not only for sectarian reasons but because it affected the very well being of Rome and its people.^[95] Belief in a dose causal connection between ecclesiastical unity and the manifestation of pax Dei could easily lead to a totalitarian vision of ecclesiastical affairs. Surprisingly, Socrates was one of the most tolerant of late antique church historians in his treatment of those ordinarily considered unorthodox.^[96]

We must remember that, according to the prevailing orthodoxy of his time, Socrates himself belonged to a schismatic sect, the Novatians. He pleaded not for the forceful suppression of religious dissidents but for a consensus gentium that was moderate, tolerant, and conducive to the common good of the Roman world. The goal of polite coexistence was often hurt when opposing sides articulated their differences dearly and publicly, whereas a measure of mutual ignorance could help the cause of peace. This profoundly pragmatic and secular perspective left little room for debates on complex theological issues, which our author confessed not to understand in any case. A peace-loving attitude counted for more than precise knowledge: the new emperor Jovian, besieged by bishops competing for his favor, declared his hatred of contentiousness, adding that he would favor those individuals who promoted concord.^[97]

[93] Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae 21.16.18. See also, in Anecdota 13, the similar reservation shown later by Procopius in his characterization of the disastrous consequences of Justinian's excessive zeal in pursuing religious controversy.

[94] See Downey, "Perspectives of the Early Church Historians," 59-63.

[95] See, e.g., Socrates, Hist. eccl . 2.10, where he connected the pro-Arian council of Antioch with the invasion of the Franks and an earthquake near Antioch. See also Chestnut, "Kairos and Cosmic Sympathy."

[96] Socrates' treatment of fellow Novatians such as Agelius and Sisinnius is generous to a fault. In contrast, his negative judgment of Nestorius stemmed from his hatred of the man both as a troublemaker and a "busybody" heresy hunter; see Socrates, Hist. eccl . 7.29; Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 78.

[97] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 3.25.

A trained scholastikos in the late Roman Empire, Socrates had little reason to regard argumentation as a necessary, let alone healthy, component of sound government, whether secular or ecclesiastical.^[98]