Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica

Salamanes Hermeias Sozomenos began writing his ecclesiastical history circa 439 and dedicated the completed work to Theodosius II in 443-44.^[99] He was born in Bethelea near Gaza circa 380, and later moved to Constantinople.^[100]

For Sozomen, monks and confessors represented the ideological antithesis to reliance on eloquence and dialectic for authority by earning their claim to respectful consideration through ascetic practices and suffering. Their virtuous deeds guaranteed the truth of their beliefs, making verbal articulation or defense unnecessary.^[101] Sozomen prefaced his discussion of the controversies of the church by describing the edifying lives of these ascetic Christians, who demonstrated

the truth of their doctrines by their virtuous way of life. In fact the most useful gift that man had received from God is their philosophy. They ignore many aspects of mathematics and the contrived argumentation of the dialectical art () because they viewed such pursuits as meddling (), and a profitless waste of time since they contribute nothing to living uprightly. . . . For they do not

[98] In 426, Valentinian III issued the "Law of Citations" (Codex Theod . 1.4.3) to regulate the function of juristic opinion in legal decision making. Thenceforth, court rulings were to be based on a corpus of five authorities: Gaius, Julius Paulus, Ulpianus, Modestinus, and Papinianus. Judges were instructed to follow the five jurists where they were in consensus, to follow the majority view when opinion was divided, and, when equally divided, to adopt the decision of Papinianus. This rule has been regarded by scholars as a prime indicator of the decline of Roman jurisprudence in late antiquity because the "tyranny of the majority" was set over juristic rationalization; see P. Dalloz, Institutions politiques et sociales de l'antiquité (Paris, 1984), 428; W. W. Buckland, A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian , 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1932), 27. Under this law, there was no longer room for local discussion or individual judgment in matters already ruled upon by the ancient jurists. Suggesting that this law ought to be seen as part of a broader and more persistent trajectory toward authoritarianism, Dalloz (428) traces the development back to around 325, when the Sententiae Pauli , a collection of decisions by the famous jurist Julius Paulus (fl. circa 210) was compiled sans argumentation.

[99] See C. Roueché, "Theodosius II, the Cities, and the Date of the 'Church History' of Sozomen," JTS n.s. 37 (1986): 130-32.

[100] He probably also attended the school of law at Gaza; see B. Grillet's introduction to A.-J. Festugière and G. Sabbah, eds., Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique livres I-II , SC 306 (Paris, 1983), 19n. 1.

[101] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.1.

use demonstration to show their virtue (), but they practice it, dismissing as nothing the reputation before men.^[102]

Sozomen's preface to his Nicene account describes the lives and deeds of confessors and monks more fully than did the work of Socrates.^[103] This may be seen as a function of Sozomen's general belief, expressed later in his discussion of the Anomoean controversy, that all the "monk-philosophers" were faithful supporters of the Nicene creed. It was through the widely admired, heroic, and god-loving Christians that the common people also came to hold the right belief.^[104]

Sozomen also told a story about Spyridon not found in Socrates' Historia ecclesiastica . At a meeting of the local bishops on Cyprus, a certain Triphyllius,^[105] the bishop of the Ledri and a scholastikos , quoted the scriptural phrase "Take up the bed and walk" but substituted the literary word for "bed," skimpous , for the humbler krabbatos in the original. Hearing this, Spyridon flew into a rage and reproached Triphyllius for daring to improve the scriptures. He made this outburst so that all present might learn a lesson, for according to Sozomen,

he was teaching them to keep a man who was proud in words within bounds (); and he was worthy to give this rebuke because he was reverenced and enjoyed the highest reputation from his deeds, also at the same time he happened to be more advanced in age and in priestliness.^[106]

Eloquence was not in and of itself an evil art,^[107] unless employed in a spirit of contention or in the persistent investigation of out-of-bounds topics. For Sozomen, the close examination of a subject by its very nature led to differences: "

[102] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.12 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 162-63). See pp. 85-86 on Sozomen's preference for the monks' simplicity and ignorance.

[103] For Sabinus of Heraclea's account of Nicaea, see Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8. For Sozomen's use of Sabinus' account of Nicaea, see G. Schoo, Die Quellen Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin, 1911).

[105] See Jerome, De viris illustribus 92.

[106] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.11 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 160-61).

[107] According to Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.20, the emperor Constantine, after listening to speeches by the respective parties in the palace, "applauded those who spoke well, [and] rebuked those who displayed a tendency to altercation." The definition of "speaking well" was of course at issue here.

."^[108] He thus shared Socrates' assessment of debate as an unhelpful, even unhealthy, process. He also unabashedly professed his own lack of understanding of the controverted issues.^[109]

Writing his Historia ecclesiastica about a decade after Socrates had finished his, Sozomen often used his description of theological debates to emphasize the superiority of the Christian life and the manifestation of divine grace.^[110] Sozomen either deliberately chose not to use Socrates' idiosyncratic second edition, or he based his work on the latter's unrevised books 1 and 2, which may have represented the debate at Nicaea much as in Rufinus' version. In effect, Rufinus' version resurfaced in Sozomen's work; Sozomen also developed one of the potential trajectories of Rufinus' story into an exemplary demonstration of Christian arete by linking the confessors triumph over the philosopher with another story in which a pious Christian confounded pagan sophistry.

At a meeting before the day the council was to be formally convoked, many bishops and their accompanying clergy, all of them skilled in debate () and trained in the rules of disputation (), met to conduct a public debate.^[111] Foremost among the participants was Athanasius, who even as a deacon took a leading position in the deliberating process (). Having told this much, Sozomen digressed into two "miraculous" stories before proceeding with the account of the disputation. The first is a variant of the multiform story we have been discussing:

While these disputations were being carried on, certain of the pagan philosophers became desirous of taking part in them; some, because they wished for information as to the doctrine that was inculcated; and others, because, feeling incensed against the Christians on account of the recent suppression of the pagan religion, they wished to convert the inquiry about doctrine into a strife about words, so as to introduce dissensions among them, and to make them appear as holding contradictory opinions ().^[112]

Of Sozomen's two explanations for the presence of pagan philosophers at a Christian convention, the first—sheer curiosity about the upstart religion—seems reasonable enough, although mere plausibility

[108] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 196-97); see also Hist. eccl . 3.13 on the disruptive effects of verbal contests.

[109] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 7.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 41, 48-49, esp. n. 5).

[110] See Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 41.

[111] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 196-97).

[112] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (trans. from NPNF 253; Greek text in Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 198-99); see Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 37-41 on Sozomen's treatment of miracles.

does not prove its authenticity. The second explanation—a scheme to undermine Christian unity and discredit the religion by introducing dialectical disputation—appears much more insidious, as it reiterates a prejudice against philosophical reasoning as the primary cause for discord within the church catholic. Following this expository introduction, Sozomen adhered more closely to his source, Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica , in depicting the confrontation between the philosopher and the confessor:

It is related that one of these philosophers, priding himself on his acknowledged superiority of eloquence (), began to ridicule the priests, and thereby roused the indignation of a simple old man, highly esteemed as a confessor, who, although unskilled in logical refinements and wordiness, undertook to oppose him. The less serious of those who knew the confessor, raised a laugh at his expense for engaging in such an undertaking; but the more thoughtful felt anxious lest, in opposing so eloquent a man, he should only render himself ridiculous (); yet his influence was so great, and his reputation was so high among them, that they could not forbid his engaging in the debate.^[113]

The confessor stepped into the fray, recited his credo, and exhorted the philosopher not to waste his time in attempting to understand what could only be grasped with humble, unmeddling faith (). The philosopher, dumbfounded by the confessors words (), assented to their truth. He even professed that his enlightenment had been brought about by nothing less than divine intervention ().^[114]

It is significant that Sozomen chose to reject Socrates' shorter and more idiosyncratic variant in favor of Rufinus'.^[115] But unlike Rufinus' story, which Thélamon characterizes as a typological drama, Sozomen's account was transformed by the second "miraculous" story into a folk tale.

Sozomen introduced the second tale as a similar marvel (), a bit of hearsay () most likely picked up in the bustling streets of Constantinople.^[116] It certainly had a strong local flavor. After Constantine founded his new imperial capital, a number of the philosophers from the incorporated pagan city of Byzantium approached Alexander, the first bishop of Christian Constantinople, to find out whether he dared to debate with them. Although Alexander, a

[113] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (trans. from NPNF 253-54; Greek text in Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200, and Bidez, ed., 39-40).

[114] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201).

[115] See Schoo, Die Quellen Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos , 19, 26.

[116] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201).

virtuous man (), was untrained in the philosophical discourse of the schools (), he agreed to meet their challenge, perhaps because he considered his upright way of life a sufficient guard against subtle words.^[117] The philosophers gathered, eager for debate (), but before their chosen spokesman could say a word Alexander said: "In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you to be silent ()." After these words, the philosopher could not utter a sound.^[118] An anticlimactic ending perhaps, but telling in its crude abruptness.

From dialectical debate to quiet virtue to the silencing of adversaries: this movement was for Sozomen the outline of a Christian miracle and triumph.^[119] His high regard for the self-chosen ignorance and virtuous silence of Christian ascetics informed Sozomen's choice to favor Rufinus' version as well as the particulars of his own treatment of the story.^[120]

Sozomen's respect for asceticism was born of close personal involvement. The entire city of Bethelea, where Sozomen's family was among the first of the aristocratic families to become Christian, had been converted when Hilarion, an anchorite from the Egyptian desert, cast a demon out of Alaphion, a citizen of Bethelea and possibly Sozomen's relative.^[121] To one who grew up in a tradition validating the miraculous power of charismatic Christian ascetics, the power of persuasion naturally paled by comparison.^[122]