INTRODUCTION. xv

Furthermore, regarding the duration of the fast preceding Easter among the western churches, he mistakenly states that it was three weeks and that Saturdays and Sundays were excepted.

Finally, the credence Socrates gives to stories of miracles and portents must be noted as a blemish in his history. On the other hand, he was certainly no more credulous than his contemporaries in this respect; many of them—if we are to judge by Sozomen—were much more so. That age was not accustomed to sifting accounts critically to eliminate the untrue. In this regard, Socrates shows a historical instinct for distinguishing between various degrees of probability and credibility, though he does not seem to exercise this instinct when dealing with accounts of the prodigious.

To offset these faults, we must consider the persistent and successful attempt of our historian at impartiality. Of all the Christian writers of his day, he is the fairest toward those who differed from the creed of his church. No one else has done justice to Julian³² or to the various heretical sects of the day as Socrates has. To avoid even the appearance of partiality, he sets a rule for himself not to speak in terms of praise of any living person,³³ and it must be said that he faithfully observes this rule, making only one exception in favor of Emperor Theodosius the Younger.³⁴ Of this prince, he gives a eulogistic picture entirely different from the representations found universally in the other historians of the age.³⁵ His independence of judgment is manifested even more signally in his estimates of ecclesiastics—especially the more prominent ones³⁶—bordering at times on unjust severity. "In short," says Harnack, summarizing his estimate of Socrates, "the rule to be applied to Socrates is that his learning and knowledge can be trusted only a little, but his good will and straightforwardness a great deal. Considering the circumstances under which he wrote and the miseries of the times, it can only be a matter for congratulation that such a man should have been our informant and that his work has been preserved to us."³⁷

Socrates' style is characterized by simplicity and clarity. From the very start, he informs us that he is about to make a new departure in this respect.³⁸ Eusebius' language was not entirely satisfactory to him, nor that of older writers,³⁹ hence his own attempt everywhere at plain, unadorned expression. The criticism of Photius⁴⁰ that Socrates' style "had nothing remarkable about it," although made in the spirit of censure, is true; according to Socrates' standard (which is also the standard of modern times), it amounts to a commendation. Socrates, however, was not lacking in good humor and satire,⁴¹ as well as an appreciation for short and pithy utterances; he often quotes proverbs and epigrammatic sayings,⁴² and understands the influence of the anecdote and reminiscence in interesting the reader.

The value of Socrates' History cannot be overestimated. It will always remain a source of primary importance. Though, as already noted, its ideal as a history is below that set by Thucydides, Tacitus, and others of an earlier age—and even below that of Eusebius—yet as a collection of facts and documents regarding some of the most important events in the church's life, it is invaluable. Its account of the great Arian controversy, its details of the Councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, and Ephesus (besides those of the lesser, local conventions), its biographical items relative to the lives of emperors, bishops, and monks (some of whom are of pivotal importance in the movements of the times), its sketches of Ulphilas and Hypatia, and its record of the manner and time of the conversion of the Saracens, Goths, Burgundians, Iberians, and Persians, as well as the persecution of the Jews and the Paschal controversy, are all of great historical significance.