Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/355

 and hands the question over to the clergy. For the clergy as a whole, in spite of his criticism of individuals, he has the very highest respect, as also for the monks, without himself making any inordinate religious professions. In a special excursus of considerable length he has paid a tribute of the highest order to monachism, and in his characterization of Theodosius II. also (where he has made use of the brightest colours) he does not fail to point out that in piety the emperor could almost compete with the monks. But, apart from these two chapters (iv. 23, vii. 22), it is but seldom that one could learn from the pages of Socrates that there was such a thing as monasticism in those days. To his mind the convent is not far removed from the church, and as a layman he is not at all inclined to accept the principles of monachism as applying to himself or to square his views of history in accordance with them. He has even gone so far as formally to express his sympathy with Paphnutius, the champion of the right of bishops to marry.

As a source for the period within which he wrote, the work of Socrates is of the greatest value, but as “history” it disappoints even the most modest expectations. Eusebius, after all, had some conception of what is meant by “church history,” but Socrates has none. “As long as there is peace there is no material for a history of the church”; but, on the other hand, neither do heresies by rights come into the story. What, then, is left for it? A collection of anecdotes and a series of episodes. In point of fact this is the view actually taken by Socrates. His utter want of care and consistency appears most clearly in his vacillation as to the relations between ecclesiastical and political history. At one time he brings in politics, at another he excuses himself from doing so. He has not failed to observe that Church and State act and react upon each other; but he has no notion how the relation ought to be conceived. Nevertheless, his whole narrative follows the thread of political—that is to say, of imperial—history. This indeed is characteristic of his Byzantine Christian point of view; church history becomes metamorphosed into a history of the emperors and of the state, because a special church history is at bottom impossible. But even so one hardly hears anything about state or court except great enterprises and anecdotes. Political insight is wholly wanting to Socrates; all the orthodox emperors blaze forth in a uniform light of dazzling splendour; even the miserable Arcadius is praised, and Theodosius II. figures as a saint whose exemplary piety turned the capital into a church. If in addition to all this we bear in mind that in his later books the historian's horizon is confined to the city and patriarchate of Constantinople, that he was exceedingly ill informed on all that related to Rome and the West, that in order to fill out his pages he has introduced narratives of the most unimportant description, that in not a few instances he has evinced his credulity (although when compared with the majority of his contemporaries he is still entitled to be called critical), it becomes sufficiently clear that his History, viewed as a whole and as a literary production, can at best take only a secondary place. One great excellence, however, cannot be denied him, his honest and sincere desire to be impartial. He tried also, as far as he could, to distinguish between the certain, the probable, the doubtful and the untrue. He made no pretence to be a searcher of hearts and frequently declines to analyse motives. He has made frank confession of his nescience, and in certain passages his critical judgment and sober sense and circumspection are quite striking. He writes a plain and unadorned style and shuns superfluous words. Occasionally even there are touches of humour and of trenchant satire—always the sign of an honest writer. In short, his learning and knowledge can be trusted little, but his goodwill and straightforwardness a great deal. Considering the circumstances under which he wrote, it can only be matter for congratulation that such a man should have become our informant and that his work has been preserved to us.

Finally, it looks as if Socrates was either himself originally a Novatianist who had afterwards joined the Catholic Church, or stood, through his ancestors or by education, in most intimate relations with the Novatianist Church. In his History he betrays great sympathy with that body, has gone with exactness into its history in Constantinople and Phrygia, and is indebted for much of the material of his work to Novatianist tradition and to his intercourse with prominent members of the sect. Both directly and indirectly he has declared that Novatianists and Catholics are brothers, that as such they ought to seek the closest relations with one another, and that the former ought to enjoy all the privileges of the latter. His efforts, however, had only this result, that he himself afterwards fell under suspicion of Novatianism.

.—Socrates' History has been edited by Stephanus (Paris, 1544; Geneva, 1612), Valesius (Paris, 1659 sqq.), Reading (Cambridge, 1720), Hussey (Oxford, 1853, reissued by Bright, 1878). It is also to be found in volume lxvii. of Migne's Patrologia, and there is an Oxford school edition (1844) after Reading. The latest English translation, revised by Zenos, is published in the Nicene and post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. ii. There are Testimonia veterum in Valesius and more fully in Hussey; and Nolte's paper in ''Tübing. Quartalschr. (1859, p. 518 seq.), contains emendations in Hussey's text, and notes towards the history of the text and editions; see also Overbeck, in Theol. lit. Ztung.'' (1879), no. 20.

Special studies have been made by Baronius, Miraeus, Labbé,

Valesius, Halloix, Scaliger, Ceillier, Cave, Dupin, Pagi, Ittig, Tillemont, Walch, Gibbon, Schroeckh, Lardner. See also Voss, ''De histor. graecis; Fabricius-Harless, Biblioth. gr., vol. vii.; Rössler, Bibliothek d. Kirchenväter; Holzhausen, De fontibus quibus Socr., Soz., ac Theod. in scribenda historia sacra usi sunt (Göttingen, 1825); Stäudlin, Gesch. u. Lit. d. K.-G. (Hanover, 1827); Baur, Epochen (1852); Harnack, “Socrates u. Sozomen” in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencykl.'', 2nd ed.; Loeschke, “Sokrates,” ibid., 3rd. ed. Detached details are given also in works upon Constantine (Manso), Julian (Mücke, Rode, Neumann, Rendall), Damasus (Rade), Arianism (Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, which gives a severe but trustworthy criticism of Rufinus and discusses the manner in which Socrates was related to him), the emperors after Julian (De Broglie, Richter, Clinton, the Weltgeschichte of Ranke, the Gesch. d. oströmischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arcadius u. Theod. II. (1885) of Güldenpenning, and the Kaiser Theodosius d. Gr., Halle (1878) of Güldenpenning and Iffland, the last-named work discussing the relation of Socrates to Sozomen), the barbarian migrations (Wietersheim, Dahn), the Goths (Waltz, Bessel, Kauffmann and Scott's Ulfilas, 1885). Lastly, reference may be made to Sarrazin, De Theodoro Lectore, Theophanis fonte praecipuo (1881, treats of the relation between Socrates and Sozomen, and of the completeness of the former's work) Jeep, ''Quellenuntersuch. z. d. griech. Kirchenhistorikern (1884); Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus'' (1898).

 SODALITE, a group of rock-forming minerals comprising the following isomorphous species:— They are thus sodium (or calcium) aluminium silicates, with chloride, sulphate or sulphide. In their orthosilicate formulae, as above written, and in their cubic crystalline form they present a certain resemblance to the members of the garnet group. Crystals usually have the form of the rhombic dodecahedron, and are often twinned with interpenetration on an octahedral plane. They are white, or often blue in colour, and have a vitreous lustre. The hardness is 5, and the specific gravity 2.2-2.4. These minerals are characteristic constituents of igneous rocks rich in soda, and they also occur in metamorphic limestones.

The species sodalite (so named because it contains soda) occurs as well-formed, colourless crystals in the ejected limestone blocks of Monte Somma, Vesuvius, and in the sodalite-syenite of Julianehaab in south Greenland. Massive blue material is common in the elaeolite-syenites of southern Norway, Gyergyo-Ditró in Transylvania, Miyask in the Urals, Litchfield in Maine, Dungannon in Ontario, Ice river in Kootenay county, British Columbia, &c.; at the three last-named localities it is found as large masses of a bright sky-blue colour and suitable for cutting as an ornamental stone. Recently, large masses with a pink colour, which quickly fades on exposure to light, have been met with in elaeolite-pegmatite at Kishangarh in Rajputana. Haüynite, or haüyne (named after R. J. Haüy), occurs as bright blue crystals and grains in the lavas (phonolite, tephrite, &c.) of Vesuvius, Rome, the Eifel, &c. Noselite, or nosean, is found as greyish crystals in the sanidine bombs of the Eifel. Lazurite is an important constituent, together with some haüynite and sodalite, of (q.v.).

 SODEN, a town and spa of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, pleasantly situated in the valley of the Sulzbach under the southern slope of the Taunus range, 10 m. from Frankfort-on-Main and 4 m. N. from Höchst by rail. Pop. (1905), 1917. The chief interest of the place centres in its brine springs which are largely impregnated with carbonic acid gas and oxide of iron, and are efficacious in chronic catarrh of the respiratory organs, in liver and stomach disorders and women's diseases. The waters are used both internally and externally, and are largely exported. Soden lozenges (Sodener Pastillen), condensed from the waters, are also in great repute. Soden has a large and well-appointed Kurhaus, an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and a hospital for indigent patients.

See Haupt, Soden am Taunus (Würzburg, 1902); and Köhler, Der Kurort Soden am Taunus and seine Umgebungen (Frankfort, 1873)

 SODEN, HERMANN, (1852–  ), German biblical scholar, was born in Cincinnati on the 16th of August 1852, and was educated at the university of Tübingen. He was minister of Dresden-Striesen in 1881 and in 1887 became minister of the Jerusalem Church in Berlin. In 1889 he became privatdozent in the university of Berlin, and four years later was