INTRODUCTION. xiii

Various sects and heresies sprang up and claimed attention in church history. Socrates appreciated the importance these contentions gave to his work.⁵

Geographically, Socrates' work is limited to the East. The western branch of the church is mentioned only as it enters into relations with the eastern branch. The history is divided into seven books based on the succession of emperors in the eastern Roman Empire. These seven books cover the reigns of eight eastern emperors. Two of these reigns—those of Julian (361–363) and Jovian (363–364)—were so brief that they are combined into one book; otherwise, each book is devoted to the reign of a single emperor. The first book treats the church under Constantine the Great (306–337); the second, the period under Constantius II (337–360); the third, the period under Julian and Jovian combined (360–364); the fourth, the church under Valens (364–378); the fifth, Theodosius the Great (379–395); the sixth, Arcadius (395–408); and the seventh, the years of Theodosius the Younger (408–439) that fall within the period of Socrates' work.

As the title of the work (Ecclesiastical History original: "Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία") indicates, the subject is primarily the vicissitudes and experiences of the Christian Church. However, the author finds various reasons for interweaving records of state affairs with the account of ecclesiastical matters. His statement⁶ of these reasons puts first the relief his readers would experience by moving from accounts of the perpetual wrangling of bishops to something of a different character. Second, he cites the information everyone ought to have regarding both secular and ecclesiastical matters. Third, he notes the interlacing of these two fields, meaning one cannot fully understand the church without some knowledge of the state. "By a sort of sympathy," he says, "the church takes part in the disturbances of the state," and "since the emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church have become dependent on them, and the greatest synods A council of church leaders have been held and are held at their bidding." It cannot be said, however, that Socrates thoroughly realized or attempted any systematic treatment of his subject from the point of view of the true relations between church and state; he simply understood that the two spheres were not as dissociated as one might assume.

Regarding the general character of Socrates' History, it may be said that compared with those produced by his contemporaries, it is a work of real merit, surpassing in some respects even that of his great predecessor, Eusebius. The latter confused his account by adopting—under the influence of his latest informant—differing versions of facts already narrated, without erasing the previous versions or attempting to harmonize them. Compare this with Socrates' careful and complete revision of his first two books upon obtaining new and more trustworthy information.⁷

In collecting his facts, Socrates everywhere tried to reach primary sources. A great portion of his work is drawn from oral tradition, accounts given by friends and countrymen, common but not wild rumors of the capital, and the transient literature of the day. Whenever he relies on such information, Socrates attempts to reach the accounts of eyewitnesses⁸ as far as possible and appends any doubts he may have regarding the truth of their statements. Regarding written works, he used Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine⁹ for the period where his work overlaps with his predecessor's. For other events, he follows Rufinus,¹⁰ though he abandons him in his second edition whenever he conflicts with more trustworthy authorities. He also made use of Archelaus' Acts,¹¹ Sabinus' Collection of the Acts of the Synods (which he criticizes for unfairness¹²), Epiphanius' Ancoratus,¹³ George of Laodicea,¹⁴ Athanasius' Apology¹⁵ (as well as On the Synods¹⁶ and On the Decrees of Nicaea¹⁷), Evagrius,¹⁸ Palladius,¹⁹ Nestorius,²⁰ and Origen.²¹