Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/143

 SOCRATES

119

SOCRATES

Eusebius, he began at the year 306, when Constantine was declared emperor. His work ends with the seven- teenth consulate of Theodosiiis the Younger, 439. The division of his history into seven books was based on the imperial succession in the Eastern Empire. The fii'st book embraces events in the reign of Con- stantine (306-37): the second those in the reign of Constant ius (337-60): the third includes the reigns of Julian and Jovian (360-4): the fourth deals with the reign of Valens (364-78): the fifth with that of Theodosius the Gieat (379-95) : the si.xth with that of Arcadius (393-408) : the seventh with the first thirty- one years of the reign of Theodosius the Yoiinger (408-39).

The general character of the work of Socrates can be judged from his attitude on doctrinal questions. Living as he did in an age of bitter polemics, he strove to avoid the animosities and hatred engendered by theological dilTeronces. He was in entire accord with the Catholic party in opposing the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and other heretics. The moderate tone, however, which he used in speaking of the Novatians, and the favourable references which he makes to them, have led .some authors into the belief that he belonged to this sect, but it is now generally admitted that the expressions which he used were based on his desire for impartialitj' and his wish to give even his enemies credit for whatever good he could find in them. His attitude towards the Church was one of unvarying respect and submi.ssion. He honoured clerics because of their sacred calling, and entertained the profound- est veneration for monks and the monastic spirit. His ardent advocacy and defence of Christianity did not, nevertheless, prevent him from using the writings of pagan authors, nor from urging Christians to study them. Though he entitled his work 'EKKXjjo-iairriKT) 'lo-Topio, Socrates did not confine himself merely to recounting events in the history of the Church. He paid attention to the military history of the period, ijecause he considered it necessary to relate these facts, but principally "in order that the minds of the readers might not become satiated with the repetition of the contentious disputes of bishops, and their insidious designs against one another; but more especially that it might he made apparent that, whenever the affairs of the State were disturbed, those of the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered also" (introd. to Book \'}. Though thus recognizing the intimate relation of civil and ecclesiastical affairs, Soc- rates had no well-tlefined theory of Chm'ch and State.

Socrates had a restricted idea of the scope and func- tion of history. To his mind the task of the historian consisted in recording the troubles of mankind, for as long as peace continues, those who desire to write histories will find no materials for their purpose (VH, xlviii). As an example of historical composition the work of Socrates ranks very high. The simplicitj' of style which he cultivated, and for which he was re- proached by Phot ius, is entirely in keeping with his method and spirit. Xot the le;i,st among his merits is the sedulou.sness he exhibited in the collection of evidence. He had a truly scientific instinct for pri- mary sources, antl the number of avithors he has drawn on proves the extent of his reading and the thorough- ness of his investigations. In addition to using the works of such men ;is Athana.«ius, Evagrius, Talla- dius, Nestorius, he drew freely on public and official documents, conciliar Acts, encyclical letters, etc. As might be exix'ctecl when wTifing of events .so close to his own time, he had to depend frequently on the re- ports of eyewitnesses, but even then he used their evidence with prudence and c,-iution. Notwithstand- ing his industry and impartiality, however, his work is not without serious defects. Though restricting himself so largely to the affairs of the Eiustern Church, he is guilty of many serious omissions in regard to other parts of Christendom. Thus, when he speaks

of the Church in the West, he is frequently guilty of mistakes and omissions. Nothing for instance is said in his history about St. Augustine. In questions of chronology, too, he is frequently at fault, but he is by no means a persistent sinner in this respect. The ob- jection most frequently made in respect to Socrates as a historian is that he was too credulous and that he lent too ready an ear to stories of miracles and portents. This, however, is a fault of the time rather than of the man, and was shared by pagan as well as Christian authors. His most notable characteristic, however, is his obvious effort to be thoroughly impartial, as far as impartiality was consistent with conviction. He held the scales equitably, and even when he differed widely from men on matters of doctrine, he did not al- low his dissent from their views to find expression in denimciat ion or abuse. His "Church History" was pviblislicd by Stephen (Paris, 1.544) and by Valesius (Paris, Kills, reprinted at Oxford by Parker, 1844, and in P. G., LXVTI). A good translation is given in the Post-Nicene Fathers. II (New York, 1890), with an excellent memoir on Socrates by Zenos.

Staudun. Geschichte ufxi Litn-'Unr iter Kirchengeschirhte (Hanover, 1827); Geppert, Dif Quellen rfes Kirchenhislorikers Socrates Schotasticus (Leipzig, 1898); Milligan in Did. Christ. Biog., 3. V. Socrates (2).

Patrick J. Healy.

Socrates, Greek philosopher and educational re- former of the fifth century B.C., b. at Athens, 469 B.C.; d. there, 399 b. c. After having received the usual Athenian education in music (which included litera- ture), geometry, and gymnastics, he practised for a time the craft of sculptor, working, we are told, in his father's work- shop. Admon- ished, as he tells us, by a divine call, he gave up his occupation in order to devote himself to the moral and intel- lectual reform of his fellow-citizens. He believed liim- self destined to become "a sort of gadfly" to the Athenian State. He devoted him- self to this mis- sion with extraor- dinary zeal and singleness of pur- po.se. He never left the City of Athens except on two occasions, one of which was the cam- paign of Potidea and Delium, and the other a public religious festival. In his work as reformer he encountered, indeed he may be said to have pro- voked, the opposition of the Sophists and their influ- ential friends. He was the most tmconventional of teachers and the least tactful. He delighted in a.s- suming all sorts of rough and even vulgar manner- ism.s, and purposely shocked the more refined sensi- bilities of his fellow-citizens. The opposition to him culminated in formal accusations of impiety and sub- version of the existing moral traditi(ms. He mot these accusations in a spirit of defiance and, instead of defending himself, jirovoked his opponents by a speech in jiresence of his judges in which he affirmed his innocence of all wrongdoing, and refused to re- tract or ajjologize for anything that he had said or done. He %vas condemned to drink the hemlock

Socrates Antiriue Fragment, Uffiz: