No Voice of Reason: Socrates of Constantinople's Adaptation of Athanasius of Alexandria as a Source for his Ecclesiastical History

This article explores Socrates of Constantinople's literary strategies in his use of Athanasius of Alexandria as a source for his Ecclesiastical History against the contemporary ecclesiastical and political background. Contrary to the prevailing view which sees Socrates as a blind copyist of Athanasius, this article argues that Socrates deliberately abandoned or altered aspects of his source as a criticism of Athanasius's depiction of the fourth-century "Trinitarian Controversy." Focusing on two case studies—the Melitian Schism and the Council of Serdica—I suggest that Socrates was unsettled by the way in which Athanasius had dealt with dogmatic disputes and dogmatic conflict. Athanasius exemplified the same irreconcilability that Socrates deemed responsible for the severity and longevity of the divisions caused by the "Trinitarian Controversy." Accordingly, Socrates adjusted Athanasius's narrative, investing his (often hostile) interpretations of events with a new, irenic message which he hoped would serve as a clarion call for conciliation at a time when ecclesiastical unity and peace were again threatened by the simmering "Nestorian Controversy."

Introduction

In his proem to the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, Socrates of Constantinople does something exceptional for the standards of antique historiography. Socrates admits that he had based major parts of the first draft of his Ecclesiastical History on a source which later proved to be erroneous. When initially writing the first two books of his work, the church historian had relied on Rufinus of Aquileia as the main witness for the intricate history of the "Trinitarian Controversy." It was only after finishing all seven volumes of his Ecclesiastical History that Socrates discovered the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria. Upon reading bishop Athanasius's own eyewitness account of the events, Socrates realized that Rufinus was not a reliable witness but rather seriously mistaken with regard to the chronology of events.¹ Socrates decided that "it was needful to believe the one who had suffered (τῷ πεπονθότι) and the actors of the events (τοῖς γινομένων τῶν πραγμάτων παροῦσιν) more than those who had made conjectures about them and therefore had erred."² In his search for "truth (ἀλήθειαν)," Socrates revised the first two books of his Ecclesiastical History on the basis of contemporary documents and Athanasius's own testimony, relying upon Rufinus only where it was clear that "he did not deviate from the truth (οὐκ ἐκπίπτει τοῦ ἀληθοῦς)."³

This proem to the second book forms the locus classicus in modern scholarship to describe Socrates's working method. The length at which Socrates was willing to go in his search for historical ἀλήθεια earned him the reputation as a diligent historian who carefully weighed the credibility of his sources.⁴ The deciding factor in Socrates's heuristic method was proximity of a source to the reported historical events: Athanasius exceeds Rufinus as a witness to the "Trinitarian Controversy" because he was an active participant in the ongoing disputes, synods, and intrigues of his time. Rufinus, by contrast, was no contemporary witness to most of the events, let alone an eyewitness to any of them.⁵ Because of his reputation as a truth-loving historian, scholarship for a long time assumed Socrates to be a mere compiler of sources with no literary agenda of his own.⁶ This axiomatic view has been challenged only by a recent shift in scholarship. It is increasingly recognized that Socrates acted deliberately in his selection and incorporation of sources into his historical narrative. However, the appreciation of Socrates as a more cunning writer has been limited mostly to his adaptation of sources from outside the Nicene literary tradition. Not only has the "orthodox" church historian accused "heretical" and pagan sources of partiality; it has been shown that he sometimes even distorted their original meaning to fit the narrative of his Ecclesiastical History.⁷

This shift in the scholarly appreciation of Socrates's own literary agenda has not yet led to a critical re-evaluation of his relationship with the writings of Athanasius. Owing to his own affiliation with Nicene "orthodoxy," Socrates is expected to have admired Athanasius for his courageous defense of "true doctrine." Assuming that Socrates must have felt the same respect also towards Athanasius the author, scholars have long assumed the church historian to have fully adopted the narrative of the "orthodox" champion without ever questioning his emphatically partisan report on the "Trinitarian Controversy."⁸ The proem to Socrates's second book seems to corroborate this assumption. The church historian deemed Athanasius so trustworthy that he even rewrote the first two books of his Ecclesiastical History, just to include his writings. So far, only Socrates's deviation from Athanasius with respect to chronology has been acknowledged. Writing some seventy years after Athanasius's lifetime, Socrates seems to have struggled sometimes to create a coherent picture of the course of events, thus accidentally confusing the correct sequence of some or incorrectly conflating others.⁹

It is undeniable that Socrates's own account of the "Trinitarian Controversy" is heavily influenced by the writings of Athanasius. Making use of the bishop's extensive writings, Socrates for the most part followed Athanasius's view of history, together with his clear distinction between friend and foe. The church historian also adopted the bishop's derogatory rhetoric, including the use of the polemical term Arian to stigmatize all those deviating from Nicene "orthodoxy" as "heretics."¹⁰ The work used most extensively by Socrates is Athanasius's Apologia Secunda (also known as the Apologia contra Arianos), a collection of documents, with commentary, connected to the "Trinitarian Controversy."¹¹ Socrates also reveals a close familiarity with some of the other apologetic writings of the vast Athanasian corpus, like the De Synodis: he often remembers even minor details from one of Athanasius's works and tries to incorporate them into the wider narrative structure taken either from one of the bishop's other writings or from a completely different source.¹² As we shall see, Socrates's knowledge of the minutiae of the Athanasian writings he had at hand and his habit of combining different versions of the same event into a single coherent account give particular importance to those instances where he deviated from the Athanasian narrative.

In what follows, I aim to show that it was not by mere mistake or inability that Socrates, at certain points of his Ecclesiastical History, deviated from the writings of Athanasius. Focusing on the two case studies of the Melitian schism and the Council of Serdica, I will argue that some of these deviations are instead the result of Socrates's deliberate abandonment or rewriting of the Athanasian narrative of events. Socrates acted this way, I argue, because he strongly disagreed with the Alexandrian bishop on the important question of how to handle internal divisions within the church. I suggest that it was especially with a view to the disturbance of church unity by the contemporary "Nestorian Controversy" that Socrates deemed Athanasius's irreconcilable attitude towards his opponents to provide an inappropriate example for conflict resolution within the ecclesiastical sphere.

The Plots of the Melitians, or How Not to Solve a Schism

The first case study will concern Socrates's account of the Melitian schism. The Melitians derived their name from Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis in Upper Egypt. Probably in late 305 ce, during the time of the "Great Persecution," Melitius had performed ordinations in four vacant dioceses whose bishops had recently been imprisoned.¹³ Ordaining outside of his own diocese, Melitius undermined the authority of the Alexandrian bishop, who traditionally claimed supremacy over all Egyptian churches. It was therefore not long before Peter, then bishop of Alexandria, felt himself forced to act. At Easter of the following year, Peter first excommunicated Melitius by letter before convoking a synod to confirm the verdict.¹⁴ To complicate the situation, Melitius had taken a rigorist stance against the readmission of lapsed Christians that was at odds with Peter's more lenient attitude in this matter.¹⁵ Following his excommunication, Melitius continued to perform ordinations, thus creating a separate ecclesiastical hierarchy and causing a schism within the Egyptian church.

In this situation, the debate concerning the controversial teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius arose. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 ce Arius was sent to exile and his Christological views were condemned, whereas the Melitians were received back into communion on conditions that ranked them inferior to their peers of the main church. The Melitians were not the only ones who were dissatisfied with the decisions made at Nicaea. A considerable number of bishops under the guidance of Eusebius of Nicomedia—polemically labelled by Athanasius as Eusebians—felt that Arius had been treated unfairly, and they supported a readmission of the presbyter into church.¹⁶ Without sharing Arius's theological sentiments, the Melitians found in the Eusebians welcome allies against a common foe: the newly elected bishop of Alexandria and leader in the fight against Arian sympathizers, Athanasius.¹⁷ Constantly plotting against the Alexandrian bishop, this partnership of convenience ultimately resulted in Athanasius's being deposed and exiled to Gaul at the Council of Tyre in 335 ce.¹⁸

One of the charges brought forward against Athanasius at the Council of Tyre involved the so-called Ischyras affair. Just as Socrates's knowledge of the Melitians depended exclusively on Athanasius's Apologia Secunda, so did his report on the Ischyras affair.¹⁹ The story begins in Mareotis, a district to the west of Alexandria. It is here that Ischyras perpetrated an act that, in the eyes of Socrates, was "deserving of many deaths (πολλῶν θανάτων ἄξιον)."²⁰ Without ever having received a lawful ordination, Ischyras had assumed the title of presbyter and had performed sacred rites.²¹ When bishop Athanasius heard about this audacious assumption of authority, he sent the presbyter Macarius to investigate this matter. His fraud discovered, Ischyras fled to Nicomedia and "took refuge with those around Eusebius (προσφεύγει τοῖς περὶ Εὐσέβιον)."²² Trying to take advantage of the incident for their own power struggle with Athanasius, the Eusebians bribed Ischyras into accusing Macarius of some fictitious crime. In exchange, the Eusebians promised Ischyras a position as bishop. Ischyras accepted this deal and fabricated a story of Macarius attacking his church in the Mareotis. During this attack, Macarius supposedly knocked over the altar, broke the chalice, and burned the Holy Scriptures. These allegations defamed bishop Athanasius who was thought to have ordered Macarius to vandalize Ischyras's church.²³

Pierre Maraval has pointed out that Socrates's account of the events surrounding Ischyras differs from that of the Athanasian original in one regard:

La source de Socrate, sur l'affaire d'Ischyras, est bien Athanase, Apol. sec. passim, mais il ne l'a pas lue avec beaucoup de précision. Athanase dit qu'Ischyras trouva refuge auprès des Mélitiens (63,3), mais pour ajouter aussitôt que ceux-ci s'associèrent aux Eusébiens (4).²⁴

In his Apologia Secunda, Athanasius had explicitly stated that Ischyras "fled to the Melitians (καταφεύγει πρὸς τοὺς Μελιτιανούς),"²⁵ not τοῖς περὶ Εὐσέβιον, as claimed by Socrates. The church historian's subsequent insertion of Nicomedia as Ischyras's getaway spot is also owed to this addition, with Nicomedia being the episcopal see of Eusebius. Maraval tries to explain this anomaly by suggesting that Socrates had simply misread his source Athanasius, who mentions the names of both groups in quick succession. This explanation, I argue, fails to appreciate the distinct intentions Socrates had when rewriting the story of the Ischyras affair for his Ecclesiastical History. It is important to stress that although the main plot of the Ischyras affair had already been laid out by Athanasius in a single coherent chapter,²⁶ Socrates also took the trouble of searching the rest of the Apologia Secunda for scattered information on the related events. This enabled him to incorporate some additional details: the Eusebians promise of episcopal office, Macarius's alleged knocking over of the altar, and his burning of the Holy Scriptures.²⁷ Given his great diligence in offering as complete an account of the events as possible, Socrates's alleged carelessness in confusing who it was that Ischyras had taken refuge with seems odd, particularly as this would mean that Socrates had also overlooked the second reference to the Melitians as protectors of Ischyras which can be found in a letter quoted elsewhere by Athanasius.²⁸

Maraval's hypothesis is rendered even less plausible by the fact that Athanasius emphasizes the Melitians' involvement in the plot not just once but throughout his entire narrative of the Ischyras affair. In the same passage of the Apologia Secunda that Socrates built his own narrative on, Athanasius attests that it had been the Melitians who first recognized the potential of using the issue against him.²⁹ The Eusebians had no active share in concocting this scheme. Athanasius only mentions that the Melitians "held communion (κοινοῦνται) with those around Eusebius."³⁰ Athanasius even asserts that Ischyras had admitted "to have been suborned by the Melitians to fabricate such a slander (πλάσασθαι τοιαύτην λοιδορίαν)."³¹ This claim is substantiated by an attached confession of Ischyras. In this, Ischyras affirms that he was compelled "under the use of violence (βίαν ἐπιτίθεντες)" by some Melitian bishops to make false allegations.³² Athanasius leaves no doubt that although associated with the Eusebians, the Melitians were the driving force behind the Ischyras affair. The fact that Socrates's adaptation of the story lacks any hint of the Melitians' involvement strongly suggests that he sought to conceal their leading role in the conspiracy against Athanasius, blaming it solely on the Eusebians instead.³³

The example of the Ischyras affair is representative of Socrates's overall handling of the Melitians in his Ecclesiastical History. Athanasius reports that following the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia "sends for the Melitians and bribes them with many promises (ὠνεῖται τοὺς Μελιτιανοὺς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἐπαγγελίαις)."³⁴ Eusebius soon contacts the Melitians in order to devise the first plot against Athanasius:

after searching for a long time, and finding nothing, they [the Melitians] at last, with the consent (μετὰ γνώμης) of those around Eusebius, framed and invented a first accusation (συντιθέασι καὶ πλάττονται πρώτην κατηγορίαν) through Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus.³⁵

The Melitians' plan provides that three of them (Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus) approach the emperor Constantine and falsely accuse Athanasius of having unlawfully imposed a tax on linen. When this accusation is debunked, "they again accuse (κατηγοροῦσι πάλιν)" Athanasius, this time of treason. Called to the imperial court, Athanasius also refutes this charge, and Constantine instead passes sentence on the Melitians present.³⁶

In retelling this story, Socrates shifts the focus from the Melitians as the authors of the specific διαβολαί to the Eusebians as the masterminds behind the plot. He first lists the ringleaders of the Eusebian party before describing how "these (οὗτοι) hired some of Melitius's heresy (τινας τῆς Μελιτίου αἱρέσεως) and set in motion various accusations (διαφόρους κατηγορίας) against Athanasius."³⁷ Different from their active role in the Apologia Secunda, the Melitians in Socrates's narrative remain completely passive. Socrates emphasizes that it had only been τινες τῆς Μελιτίου αἱρέσεως—not all of them, as suggested by Athanasius—whom the Eusebians had bribed. It is then also not the Melitians but the Eusebians who come up with the διάφοροι κατηγορίαι against the Alexandrian bishop. While Socrates at least acknowledges that it was through the three Melitians around Ision that the Eusebians first denounced Athanasius with respect to the alleged tax on linen, he did not do so in the case of the second allegation of treason.³⁸ Instead, the church historian makes it clear that "those around Eusebius added yet another (ἑτέραν ἐπισυνάπτουσιν) to the previous accusation."³⁹ Socrates is again successful in minimizing the Melitians' involvement in the plots against Athanasius at the expense of the Eusebian faction.

Socrates reports similarly also on the alleged murder of the Melitian bishop Arsenius. According to Socrates, the faction of Eusebius concealed Arsenius and presented a severed hand, claiming it to be that of the Melitian bishop. After faking Arsenius's murder, they then accuse Athanasius of having used the bishop's hand in magic practices. The emperor Constantine thereupon orders an investigation of the matter and finally convokes a synod in Tyre to administer justice.⁴⁰ After leaving his hideout, Arsenius is detected in Tyre and taken into custody. Arsenius first denies his identity but is ultimately identified by Paul, the bishop of Tyre.⁴¹ During the ensuing trial, Arsenius, who had been presumed dead by most of the assembled bishops, is presented in court. After Athanasius has proven Arsenius to be alive, he goes on to demonstrate to the amazed audience that the bishop is also in full possession of both his hands.⁴² This unexpected turn of events is enough to clear Athanasius of the false charge.⁴³

While Socrates also incorporates elements found in Rufinus's Ecclesiastical History, his main narrative of events is again built on Athanasius's Apologia Secunda.⁴⁴ It is therefore interesting to note that the Melitians are once more conspicuously underrepresented. According to Athanasius's report, it was the Melitians who had hidden Arsenius and spread the rumor of his death.⁴⁵ He further relates that, following the revelation of Arsenius's faked death, "the Melitians, after being dishonored, backed down (καταισχυνθέντες ἀπεστράφησαν)," indicating that it was they who had pressed charges against him.⁴⁶ Socrates must have known of both of these references, since he draws on the very passages in which they are found at other points of his narrative building up to the Council of Tyre.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, he chose to remain silent about the Melitians' role in this embarrassing affair. Socrates identifies only the "undead" bishop Arsenius as a Melitian.⁴⁸ Apart from this single Melitian involved, Socrates depicts the whole conspiracy as the sole invention of the Eusebians.⁴⁹ Socrates's report of how Athanasius was eventually deposed at the Council of Tyre over the broken chalice in the Ischyras affair fits this overall picture. Athanasius had emphasized that "the Melitians […] and the Arians were those who took part in this plot (οἱ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν μερισάμενοι). While the one side assumed for itself the right of accusing (τὸ κατηγορεῖν), the other [assumed] that of judging (τὸ δικάζειν)."⁵⁰ Socrates suppresses the bipartite nature of Athanasius's complaint. According to the church historian, Athanasius had "demurred against those around Eusebius as his enemies (τοὺς Εὐσέβιον ὡς ἐχθροὺς παρεγράφετο)."⁵¹ The Melitians find no mention.

As we have seen, Socrates systematically erased or at least minimized the Melitians' role in the intrigues against Athanasius. This deviation from the Athanasian model seems to have been noted also by Socrates's contemporaries. Sozomen of Gaza, who wrote his church history shortly after Socrates, possessed both the Ecclesiastical History of his predecessor and Athanasius's Apologia Secunda.⁵² Wherever Socrates had cut the Melitians out from his historical record, Sozomen made sure to paste them back in. In chronological order, Sozomen highlights that it was the Melitians who invented the specific allegations against Athanasius: first they accuse him of unlawfully imposing a tax on linen and plotting against Constantine, next they come up with the Ischyras affair and the alleged murder of Arsenius, before finally standing side by side with the Eusebians when pressing charges against Athanasius at the Council of Tyre.⁵³ Sozomen's comment that Athanasius "was made most famous by the adherents of Arius and Melitius who were always plotting but never seemed able to lawfully catch him" appears therefore almost of programmatic character.⁵⁴ Closely adhering to the narrative he found in the Apologia Secunda, Sozomen's narrative of the Melitians' constant plotting is markedly different from that of the more passive and partial involvement described by Socrates.

Socrates's attempted whitewash of the Melitians is all the more remarkable when considered against his initial portrayal of the schismatic group. Closely following his source Athanasius, Socrates narrates how Melitius had been deposed by Peter of Alexandria "for many reasons (δι' ἄλλας πολλὰς αἰτίας), and especially because, during the persecution, he had renounced his faith and sacrificed (ἀρνησάμενος τὴν πίστιν ἐπέθυσεν)."⁵⁵ Rallying his "many followers (πολλούς τοὺς ἑπομένους)," Melitius subsequently declared himself "heresiarch (αἱρεσιάρχης)" and began a smear campaign against Peter and his successors in the episcopal office, Achillas and Alexander.⁵⁶ At this point, Socrates goes beyond his source Athanasius in depicting the Melitians as early adherents of Arius. Even prior to Nicaea, Socrates indicates, "Melitius and those with him rallied to (συνελαμβάνετο) Arius, conspiring with him against the bishop [Alexander]."⁵⁷ Athanasius dated the beginning of this unholy alliance only to after the Council of Nicaea and the death of bishop Alexander.⁵⁸ Socrates therefore ascribed the coalition between Melitians and Arians to an earlier date than even Athanasius had insinuated.⁵⁹

It seems difficult to square Socrates's unflattering depiction of the Melitians at the beginning of the Ecclesiastical History with his later rewriting of source material in their favor. I argue that the key to understanding this dichotomy lies in the decision made by the Council of Nicaea on how to deal with the Melitian schism. Socrates knew of the council's decrees from a synodal letter to the Egyptian church which he quotes in extenso.⁶⁰ The Council of Nicaea had adopted hard measures against Melitius and his followers: while the Melitian bishops remained in office, they effectively took second rank within their dioceses behind the respective bishop from the main church. It was only upon the death of his new colleague that a Melitian could hope to become the sole bishop of his diocese. But even then, his succession to the episcopal throne had to be sanctioned by both the Alexandrian bishop and the people of his diocese.⁶¹ Melitius's sentence was even harsher: he was to remain in Lycopolis and was allowed only the nominal title of bishop, and Melitius was explicitly denied the right to ever ordain by himself or to propose any cleric for ordination.⁶² This was done "because of his former indiscipline (ἀταξίαν), and because of the rashness and levity of his character, in order that no power or authority (ἐξουσία ἢ αὐθεντία) should be given to him, as a man who was able to create once more the same disorder (ἀταξίας)."⁶³

As far as Athanasius was concerned, these measures were nothing more than appropriate. If anything, it had been a mistake to allow Melitius back into church at all.⁶⁴ The Melitians should have "remained quiet and been thankful (χάριν ἔχειν) that they were received [into church] altogether (ὅλως ἐδέχθησαν)."⁶⁵ Socrates saw things a little differently. On the decision to readmit Melitius to the church solely under the obligation of divesting him of all episcopal power, he comments: "It is for this reason, I think, that until the present time (ἄχρι νῦν) the Melitians in Egypt are separated from the church, because the council deprived Melitius of his power (ὅτι περιεῖλεν ἡ σύνοδος Μελιτίου τὸ δύνασθαι)."⁶⁶ Socrates disagrees with his source Athanasius in thinking that the measures adopted against the Melitians had been too severe. It is especially the clampdown on the αἱρεσιάρχης Melitius which Socrates makes responsible for having caused a permanent schism within the Egyptian church lasting to his own day.⁶⁷ The bishops at Nicaea had therefore missed a unique chance of permanently reintegrating the Melitians into the church.

Their divergent attitudes towards the Council of Nicaea's specific ruling on the Melitians seem to underlie the different views that Athanasius and Socrates held on the wider issue of making concessions to schismatics for the greater good of ecclesiastical unity. While Athanasius expected the schismatics to be grateful for being readmitted into church at all, no matter the imposed restrictions, Socrates drew attention to the dire consequences which an excessively harsh course of action—irrespective of the schismatics' previous affiliation—could have in the long run. This message gains a universal meaning exactly because of the negative first impression that Socrates gives of the Melitians, especially of their leader. Even though Melitius was guilty of causing a schism and conspiring with the "arch-heretic" Arius, it had been a grave mistake "stripping him of the power to act himself as a bishop (τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πράττειν αὐτόν τινα ὡς ἐπίσκοπον περιελόντες)."⁶⁸ At the end of the day, granting a former accomplice of "heretics" some power within the church was a relatively small price to pay, if it meant preventing the risk of a lasting division.⁶⁹ Following these admonitory words, Socrates must have felt it detrimental to his irenic message to dwell upon the Melitians' entanglement in the sinister machinations against Athanasius. It is for this reason, I suggest, that the church historian avoids mentioning the Melitians whenever possible, limiting their complicity only to certain individuals, like Arsenius, and thereby covering the group as a whole.

The Council of Serdica, or How Not to Win an Ecclesiastical Conflict

The second case study will focus on Socrates's report of the Council of Serdica where Athanasius was once more the center of attention. Following his deposition at the Council of Tyre in 335 ce, Athanasius had spent almost two years in exile in Trier before returning to his see at the emperor Constantine's death. When driven from Alexandria for the second time in 339 ce, Athanasius took refuge with bishop Julius of Rome.⁷⁰ Rome soon became the haven of other deposed bishops from the Roman east, as well, such as Marcellus of Ancyra, who had lost his episcopal chair over his controversial theological views. During the winter of 340/341 ce, Julius convoked a council in Rome which received both Athanasius and Marcellus back into communion: while Athanasius was declared innocent of the accusations brought against him at Tyre, Marcellus was acquitted of the charge of "heresy."⁷¹ The eastern bishops, who had not been present at the Council of Rome, refused to accept this decision and in turn reaffirmed their sentence on Marcellus at the Council of Antioch in the summer of 341 ce. Eventually, the western emperor Constans took up the cause of Athanasius and Marcellus and pushed his brother Constantius II into agreeing to convoke an ecumenical council. Most likely in autumn of 343 ce, bishops from across the empire came together at Serdica with the aim of putting an end to the ongoing disputes over the legitimacy of Athanasius's and Marcellus's deposition.⁷²

But things did not work out as planned. Upon arrival in Serdica, the western bishops held communion with Athanasius and Marcellus and proclaimed that both bishops would attend the upcoming council. Presented with this fait accompli, the eastern bishops declared themselves unwilling to participate in an ecumenical council unless Athanasius and Marcellus would be excluded from the proceedings. When the western bishops turned down this demand, the eastern bishops retreated to the imperial palace of Serdica. The Council of Serdica was over before it began. Bishops of east and west each held synods on their own, re-emphasizing their own perspectives on the conflict and condemning members of the opposite party. The Council of Serdica left behind a church that, for the first time in its history, was officially divided between east and west.⁷³

Socrates comments on these mutual excommunications by saying that "in their own opinion (γνώμῃ), both [parties] believed to have acted righteously (δικαίως πεποιηκέναι ἐνόμιζον)."⁷⁴ Pierre Maraval has called attention to the irenic nature of Socrates's statement: "On notera cette appréciation irénique des intentions des deux partis, sans doute antérieure à l'utilisation par Socrates des sources athanasiennes."⁷⁵ Maraval claims that Socrates's comment must date to the time before his discovery of Athanasius's writings. What underlies Maraval's assertion are two implicit presuppositions: first, that Socrates blindly followed the Athanasian narrative of any historical event, and second, that Socrates did not bother to delete obsolete passages when revising the first two books of his Ecclesiastical History. Both presuppositions are as much expressions of how little trust scholars have traditionally put in Socrates's own abilities as an original author, as they are mutually exclusive. Socrates cannot have been a diligent copyist of Athanasius while at the same time holding on to his own balanced judgement on the Council of Serdica. While there is no way to determine whether the comment was already part of the first draft of the Ecclesiastical History, the simple fact that it is included in the final version should be indicative of Socrates's complicated relationship with his source, Athanasius, at this point of his narrative.

We know that Socrates revised his report on the Council of Serdica after familiarizing himself with Athanasius's writings. Socrates names Athanasius as his source for the number of western bishops participating in the council: "from the western parts [of the empire] about 300 bishops assembled, as Athanasius reports (ὥς φησιν Ἀθανάσιος)."⁷⁶ As with his report on the Melitians, Socrates relies here again on Athanasius's Apologia Secunda.⁷⁷ For the number of eastern bishops coming to Serdica, Socrates relied on a different witness: "from those of the east only 76 [bishops attended], as Sabinus says (ὡς Σαβῖνός φησιν)."⁷⁸ Sabinus of Heraclea had been bishop of the homoiousian sect of the Macedonians and was editor of a now lost collection of documents relating to various synods of the time between 325 and, most probably, the early 370s ce. Just like other contemporary document collections—for example Athanasius's Apologia Secunda or De Synodis—Sabinus's work was no neutral source of information. Instead, Sabinus's document collection must have betrayed a strong anti-Nicene bias.⁷⁹ Socrates harshly criticizes Sabinus for his manipulative use of sources: "Some things he willfully passed over (ἑκὼν παρέλιπεν), others he altered (παρέτρεψεν), and he understood everything favorable to his own views."⁸⁰ Similar criticism of Sabinus's partiality is voiced throughout the Ecclesiastical History.⁸¹ Scholars have tried to attribute certain passages within the Ecclesiastical History to Socrates's use of Sabinus's collection. While most of these attributions remain hypothetical, Socrates's report on the Council of Serdica is exceptional in that it is one of the few instances in which Socrates explicitly mentions Sabinus as his source.⁸²

For the proceedings at Serdica, Socrates had not just one but two different sources at his disposal. The choice of whom to follow should have been an easy one for Socrates. After all, it was the choice between the "orthodox" champion Athanasius, whose writings had prompted Socrates to revise his Ecclesiastical History, and the "heretic" Sabinus, whom the church historian had repeatedly blamed for distorting the truth. It is therefore surprising to find that Socrates abandoned Athanasius's narrative almost entirely. According to Athanasius, the Eusebians—the bishop persists in using this term, despite the death of Eusebius in 341 ce—never actually intended to participate in the Council of Serdica. They had initially planned to rely on military support in order to get their way by force, but they soon realized that they could not bring soldiers with them to the council.⁸³ This caused consternation among the Eusebians. Fearing that they would be held accountable for their wrongdoings against Athanasius and his supporters, the Eusebians "were ashamed to appear (ἠσχύνθησαν ἀπαντῆσαι), thus bringing proof of their recurrent and baseless calumny."⁸⁴ Athanasius condemns this retreat from the council as an "indecent and suspicious flight (ἀπρεποῦς καὶ ὑπόπτου φυγῆς)" and interprets it as a clear confession of guilt.⁸⁵

Following his own account of the events at Serdica, Athanasius attached the synodal letter of the western bishops.⁸⁶ While the synodal letter does not speak of Eusebians but rather of Arians,⁸⁷ it otherwise corroborates Athanasius's version of the story. By refusing to participate in the council, the Arians had admitted their guilt.⁸⁸ The withdrawal of the Arians is repeatedly branded as flight.⁸⁹ The Arians had never intended to take part in the council. Too great was their fear of facing their victims—not only Athanasius and Marcellus but also those whom they had imprisoned, tortured, or even attempted to kill.⁹⁰ They came to Serdica only to keep up the appearance but already had the intention of withdrawing before the start of the council. Those eastern bishops who wanted to participate were placed under house arrest by the Arian ringleaders.⁹¹

Compared with Athanasius's report of the synodal letter, Socrates's own account of the failure of the council is strikingly sober. After coming to Serdica,

the eastern [bishops] (οἱ ἀνατολικοὶ) were unwilling to come to the presence of the western [bishops] (τῶν ἑσπερίων), asserting that they would not enter into discussion (φάσκοντες μὴ ἄλλως εἰς λόγους ἐλθεῖν) [with them] unless they excluded those around Paul [of Constantinople] and Athanasius from the synod.⁹²

It is only when this condition remains unfulfilled that the eastern bishops "withdrew (ἀπεχώρουν)" from the council.⁹³ Neither does Socrates report of a planned military coup, nor of any bishops under house arrest. Even more importantly, Socrates also refrains from echoing the key message that both Athanasius and the synodal letter tried to get across: the eastern bishops' departure from the council as proof of their guilty conscience.⁹⁴ Such an interpretation would have been at odds with Socrates's irenic comment that both parties believed to have acted δικαίως. Instead of adopting the polemically loaded term φυγή from the Apologia Secunda, Socrates uses the more neutral verb ἀποχωρεῖν. As a result, the eastern bishops in Socrates's narrative do not flee from the council in fear of a conviction. Rather, they withdraw in orderly fashion after failing to agree with their western colleagues on whether Athanasius should be excluded from the meetings.⁹⁵

Socrates's deviation from the Athanasian narrative goes even deeper. It is manifested in the neutral terminology that he uses. While the Apologia Secunda polemically labelled the eastern bishops as Eusebians or Arians, Socrates exclusively refers to them as οἱ ἀνατολικοὶ, according to their geographical provenance. He proceeds in similar fashion with the western bishops whom he calls οἱ ἑσπέριοι.⁹⁶ Socrates abandons the clear-cut image of good and evil in which the righteous supporters of Athanasius were opposed once again by the despicable Arians under the Eusebian party. Instead, he depicts the two opposing factions of western and eastern bishops as closely resembling one another. Not only do they share matching designations, but both sides also act in strikingly similar ways. Socrates stresses this parallelism when detailing both parties' respective conciliar decisions: the eastern bishops "openly anathematize (φανερῶς ἀναθεματίζουσιν) consubstantiality and, having inscribed (ἐγγράψαντες) the anomoean opinion into letters, they send it everywhere (πανταχοῦ διαπέμπονται)."⁹⁷ The western bishops

having confirmed the definition of faith of Nicaea and banished (ἐκβαλόντες) the [term] anomoean, very publicly publish (φανερώτερον ἐκδιδόασιν) [the dogma of] consubstantiality and having inscribed (ἐγγράψαντές) it [into letters] they too send it everywhere (καὶ αὐτοὶ πανταχοῦ διαπέμπονται).⁹⁸

In employing the same vocabulary and narrative sequence to describe the conciliar decisions of both parties, Socrates renders symmetrical structure: eastern and western bishops both make their theological differences publicly known (φανερῶς/φανερώτερον); they both condemn (ἀναθεματίζουσιν/ἐκβαλόντες) the views of their opponents; and they both put down in writing their respective dogmatic position to disseminate it throughout the empire (πανταχοῦ διαπέμπονται).

Socrates follows through with this symmetrical juxtaposition when explaining why eastern and western bishops alike thought to have acted δικαίως:

those of the East (οἱ μὲν ἀνατολικοί) because the western [bishops] had received back those who they had deposed (τοὺς ὑπ'αὐτῶν καθαιρεθέντας), those of the West (οἱ δὲ ἑσπέριοι) because those who had deposed (καθελόντες) escaped before examination and because they themselves guarded the faith of Nicaea, which they [the eastern bishops] had dared to falsify.⁹⁹

Although it would have been easy for the "orthodox" Socrates to inveigh against the demeanor of the eastern bishops at Serdica, he refrains from doing so. Rather than judging who actually acted righteously and who was to blame for the council's failure, Socrates shifts the focus to the parties' intrinsic motivations. Neither western nor eastern bishops had come to Serdica with the plan of sabotaging the council, but both sides arrived with clear expectations and ambitions. In Socrates's Ecclesiastical History there is no sole culprit for the failure of the council. It fails because both parties are unwilling to compromise.

I suggest that Socrates's intention in depicting the Council of Serdica in this way is best understood against the background of the serious consequences of its collapse. Socrates relates that after the bishops of east and west "having each done what they deemed necessary (τὰ δοκοῦντα αὐτοῖς ἑκάτεροι πράξαντες),"¹⁰⁰ this put an end to the empire-wide unity of the church: "the East was then separated from the West (διεσπᾶτο οὖν ἡ ἀνατολὴ ἐκ τῆς δύσεως)." Socrates continues to dwell on this separation, describing the geographical border between the two ecclesiastical spheres:

As far as this mountain [of Succi] there was indiscriminate communion (τούτου ἀδιάφορους ἦν ἡ κοινωνία), because the faith also happened to be indiscriminate (ἀδιαφόρου τυγχανούσης καὶ τῆς πίστεως); but beyond it they did not commune with one another (ἀλλήλοις οὐκ ἐκοινώνουν).¹⁰¹

Despite the ongoing disputes over dogma, the Christian communities of the main church of the Roman Empire had held κοινωνία with each other since the time of the emperor Constantine.¹⁰²

Socrates had already called attention to these circumstances in the prelude to the Council of Serdica. Following Athanasius's flight to Rome, the emperor Constans had asked his brother Constantius to send three bishops who would explain the reason for Athanasius's deposition. When these bishops arrived at the imperial court, they declared "not to enter in any form into a discussion with those around Athanasius (τοῖς περὶ Ἀθανάσιον οὐδαμῶς εἰς λόγους ἐλθεῖν)" and instead read out the creed composed at the Council of Antioch.¹⁰³ While this meeting in Rome in many ways foreshadows the later events at Serdica, the apparent parallels between both events are the result of a careful literary construction by Socrates. This becomes apparent when comparing Socrates's report on the events in Rome with that of his source for this story, Athanasius's De Synodis. In the De Synodis it is not the emperor Constans who takes the initiative in asking his brother to send a delegation of bishops so they could justify Athanasius's deposition. Instead, Athanasius only relates that, following the Council of Antioch, three eastern bishops were sent to emperor Constans to inform him of the newly promulgated creed.¹⁰⁴ Consequently, the De Synodis includes no mention of the eastern bishops' alleged refusal to meet with the partisans of Athanasius. Socrates therefore deliberately deviated from Athanasius's report in order to construct the meeting at the imperial court on the model of what should happen later at Serdica.¹⁰⁵ Socrates also linguistically parallels both stories: at both times the eastern bishops refuse to εἰς λόγους ἐλθεῖν in the presence of τοῖς περὶ Ἀθανάσιον.¹⁰⁶

Judging from the (constructed) experiences of the meeting in Rome, the Council of Serdica was doomed to fail. According to Socrates, in Serdica it was not for the first but for the second time that the eastern bishops declined a discussion with Athanasius and instead promulgated a new creed. Given this dark outlook on future events, it is interesting that Socrates ends the episode in Rome on a positive note. He points out that despite their differences, "there still happened to be an indiscriminate communion between those of the East and those of the West (ἀδιαφόρου τοίνυν ἔτι τυγχανούσης τῆς μεταξὺ δυτικῶν καὶ ἀνατολικῶν κοινωνίας)."¹⁰⁷ Although this episode reveals the growing discord between the churches of east and west—both concerning the case of Athanasius and with regard to right dogma—Socrates emphasizes that there still existed κοινωνία between them. This persistent κοινωνία would only come to an end at Serdica.

For Socrates, the failure of the Council of Serdica primarily signified the tragic loss of church unity. It is from this point of view, I argue, that Socrates's irenic comment on the decisions made by the bishops from east and west is to be understood. Although both sides thought to have acted δικαίως, the consequences that resulted from their decisions were no less divisive. This comment should not be dismissed as stemming from a time before Socrates had read Athanasius, as done by Maraval. As we have seen, the comment rather forms only one part of a greater conciliatory message that Socrates tried to convey with his account of the events in Serdica. It was for this reason, I suggest, that Socrates made the deliberate choice to distance himself from the triumphal narrative that he had found in Athanasius's Apologia Secunda.¹⁰⁸ Athanasius and the western bishops' synodal letter had both depicted the Council of Serdica as a decisive victory over the Eusebians and Arians, whose guilt had been conclusively proven. But in the eyes of Socrates, there were no winners at Serdica, only losers. The council was a memorial of the grave consequences that insistence on an irreconcilable course of action could have on church unity.

Socrates and His Time, or How to Learn from Past Mistakes

The two preceding case studies have revealed Socrates to have had a much more complex relationship with Athanasius's writings than has been hitherto assumed. Although Athanasius was Socrates's prime witness for the first two books of his work, the church historian by no means blindly adopted the bishop's view of history. As we have seen with respect to his accounts of the Melitian schism and the Council of Serdica, Socrates appropriated the Athanasian narrative to his own needs, if necessary. These findings are of crucial importance to our understanding of what literary ambitions Socrates had in writing his Ecclesiastical History. They reveal that some scholarly assumptions about Socrates's use of his source material outlined in the introduction to this article need to be amended: it was neither the quest for historical truth alone that moved Socrates to disregard some sources nor did he suppress or amend only those sources that were of "heretical" or pagan origin. Athanasius was nothing short of an "orthodox" hero, and owing to his status as eyewitness, Socrates thought him to be so reliable a source that he even rewrote the first two books of his already finished Ecclesiastical History, just to include his writings. The fact that Socrates nevertheless strayed at times from the Athanasian model, illustrates just how far he was willing to go to pursue his own literary agenda. In both of our case studies, Socrates objected to Athanasius's irreconcilable attitude and therefore decided to re-narrate the events from a more irenic perspective.¹⁰⁹

This perspective is in line with the tolerant stance on the treatment of "heretics" also displayed by Socrates throughout the rest of his Ecclesiastical History. Socrates repeatedly condemns the use of violence or coercion in situations of ecclesiastical conflict, be it at the hands of a "heretic" like Macedonius or at those of an "orthodox" like John, both bishops of Constantinople.¹¹⁰ This is also reflected in his portrayal of good emperors: Jovian is praised because, despite his "orthodox" faith, he "behaved peacefully towards everyone (πᾶσιν εἰρηνικῶς προσεφέρετο)."¹¹¹ Similarly, the "orthodox" Valentinian I is said to have "behaved peacefully and [to have] troubled no sect (ἡσύχως διάγοντος καὶ οὐδεμίαν σκύλλοντος αἵρεσιν)."¹¹² Refreshingly for an "orthodox" church historian, Socrates goes to great length to defend the existence of diverse church customs, and with regard to dogma, he appeals to the incomprehensibility of God, arguing that God is beyond any human attempts at definition.¹¹³

One common explanation for Socrates's striking promotion of religious coexistence is the church historian's alleged ties to the Novatian church. Owing to Socrates's thoroughly positive portrayal of Novatians, both individuals and the community as a whole, it has been suggested that he might have been a Novatian himself.¹¹⁴ Even if such speculations might go too far, Socrates was at least an outspoken sympathizer of this church. As such, he had witnessed how imperial legislation had recently labelled the Novatians as a "heretical" sect and how the Novatian churches throughout the empire had increasingly become the target of assaults by "orthodox" authorities. This increased pressure might explain Socrates's advocacy of a more lenient treatment of non-"orthodox" groups in his Ecclesiastical History.¹¹⁵ But this does not satisfactorily explain Socrates's reworking of Athanasius's accounts we have discussed.¹¹⁶ In these cases, Socrates is not operating as the spokesman of a religious minority pleading for toleration but as a critical observer warning against the dire consequences that intransigent and vengeful behavior in situations of ecclesiastical conflict could have for the peace and unity within the church.¹¹⁷

I argue that in order to fully understand Socrates's motivation for departing from Athanasius's narrative of the Melitian schism and the Council of Serdica, it is necessary to look at the Ecclesiastical History against the background of the acute ecclesiastical upheavals during its time of composition. Finishing in or around the year 440 ce, Socrates penned his Ecclesiastical History in the immediate aftermath of the turbulent first phase of the so-called Nestorian Controversy.¹¹⁸ The Nestorian Controversy started when bishop Nestorius of Constantinople openly questioned the divine motherhood of Mary, rejecting her honorary title of Θεοτόκος and instead proposing to use that of Χριστοτόκος.¹¹⁹ This kicked off a wider debate on the exact relationship between the divine and the human nature of Christ that revealed the existence of two opposed "schools" of Christology. The Antiochene "school," led by John of Antioch, firmly divided the two natures of Christ; the Alexandrian "school," under the leadership of Cyril of Alexandria, saw the two natures of Christ as inherently united and put special emphasis on his divinity. While John and the majority of bishops from the Roman Near East supported Nestorius, Cyril and most of the bishops from the rest of the empire, including Celestine of Rome, bitterly opposed the Constantinopolitan bishop.¹²⁰

With the Christological debates gathering pace, emperor Theodosius II convoked an ecumenical council in Ephesus for the time of Easter 431 ce. However, the Council of Ephesus could not solve the theological controversy at hand and only deepened the rift between both factions. Upon arrival in Ephesus both parties separated and subsequently held councils of their own, excommunicating their opponents and condemning their Christological views. Nestorius was condemned in absentia and lost his episcopal see. In the months following the Council of Ephesus, the church was more deeply divided than before. It was only two years later, in 433 ce, that Cyril and John formally made peace and received each other back into communion together with the greater part of their factions.¹²¹ But a minority of bishops still remained loyal to Nestorius. In spring 435 ce, fourteen of these diehard followers—five of whom were from outside the Roman Near East, that is, Greece, Asia Minor, and the Balkans—were deposed. Later that year, Nestorius himself was officially excommunicated and sent into exile in 436 ce.¹²² Although Nestorius had been dealt with, the Christological issue was far from being resolved. It would only be a short time before Nestorius's teachings again became the reason for heated theological debates. This rekindled Nestorian controversy led to two further councils, the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 ce and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 ce, and eventually resulted in a lasting schism in the eastern church.¹²³

While Socrates could certainly not foresee the Nestorian controversy's future developments, he seems to have feared for the stability of the only recently established peace within the church. This fear becomes tangible when he finishes his Ecclesiastical History with the prayer "that the churches everywhere, the cities and the nations, may continue in peace (ἐν εἰρήνῃ διάγειν)."¹²⁴ In the Christological debates of the Nestorian Controversy, Socrates himself had witnessed just how quickly some theological quibble could escalate to cause a serious division within the church.¹²⁵ It is this realization, I argue, that motivated Socrates to abandon Athanasius's narrative when writing about the Melitians or the Council of Serdica. I suggest that Socrates drew parallels between the ecclesiastical strife of his own times and those he found described in the writings of Athanasius.¹²⁶ As we have seen, Socrates saw the clampdown on Melitius as the main reason for the longevity of the Melitian schism. Similarly, Socrates bemoaned the loss of ecumenical communion at the Council of Serdica which he saw as the tragic result of the quarrel between two irreconcilably opposed church factions. With the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, Socrates saw history repeating itself.¹²⁷

His description of the pivotal Council of Ephesus is revealing in this regard. Already during the discussions prior to the start of the council, Cyril tries to agitate against Nestorius because "he was in enmity towards him (ἀπεχθῶς εἶχε πρὸς αὐτόν)."¹²⁸ When Nestorius refuses to participate in the council until John and his followers had arrived in Ephesus, both Cyril and Nestorius hold separate councils: "Those who were present [in Ephesus] divided themselves into two factions (διῃροῦντο οὖν οἱ παρόντες εἰς δύο τμήματα)."¹²⁹ After Cyril's faction "deposed (καθεῖλον)" Nestorius first, Nestorius's faction in return "deposes (καθαιροῦσι)" Cyril and his ally Memnon of Ephesus. When John eventually arrives in Ephesus and criticizes Cyril for "having so rashly performed the deposition of Nestorius (τῷ θερμῶς ποιῆσαι τὴν Νεστορίου καθαίρεσιν)," Cyril "deposes (καθαιρεῖ)" John as well.¹³⁰ It is at this point that Nestorius himself sees reason. Upon realizing that the strife between both parties "led to the rupture of communion (εἰς ἀκοινωνησίαν προβᾶσαν)," he tries to revoke his teaching, announcing: "Let Mary be called Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), and let these troubles (τὰ λυπηρά) cease." But no one is willing to listen to this voice of reason any more (Soc. 7.34.10).

This report on the mutual excommunications at Ephesus betrays a strong resemblance to Socrates's previous account of the Council of Serdica. Socrates again creates a picture of two irreconcilably opposed τμήματα that take an identical—and extremely divisive—course of action. As at Serdica, the line between good and evil is blurred. While Socrates leaves no doubt that Nestorius was responsible for the outbreak of the Christological debates, he also shows that those around Cyril were equally responsible for escalating the situation.¹³¹ In Socrates's report on the Council of Ephesus, there are no winners, only losers. It is again the tragic loss of communion that takes center stage. Socrates puts further emphasis on the tragic nature of this ἀκοινωνησία by reporting that Nestorius had eventually agreed to the use of the term Θεοτόκος. This recantation rendered the whole controversy pointless, let alone the ensuing ἀκοινωνησία between the factions of Cyril and John.

Already prior to his report on Ephesus, Socrates exonerates Nestorius from the charge of "heresy." According to Socrates, it had been Nestorius's lack of education that led him to rashly dismiss the term Θεοτόκος without considering the wider theological consequences of such a rejection. Socrates particularly defends Nestorius against the accusation of entertaining the "heretical" views of Paul of Samosata.¹³² Socrates thereby implicitly contested the legitimacy of Nestorius's condemnation at Ephesus, which in no small part had been based on the claim that the bishop espoused the Christology of Paul of Samosata.¹³³ This objection as well as Nestorius's ultimate acceptance of the term Θεοτόκος called into question the appropriateness of the hard measures adopted against the former bishop of Constantinople. After all, Socrates believed that it had been by divesting Melitius of all his episcopal power that the Melitian schism was perpetuated. Socrates also emphasizes the divisive consequences which the controversy had on both clergy and laymen of Constantinople even after Nestorius's deposition: "the people were divided (διῃρέθη)" and "there was commotion (ταραχὴ) in the churches."¹³⁴ It is telling that although Nestorius is in the end anathematized by the decision of "all the clerics (πάντες οἱ κληρικοὶ)" of Constantinople,¹³⁵ Socrates mentions neither any form of conclusive agreement in the widespread episcopal debates on the theological question at hands nor a final settlement of the public upheavals which had resulted from this matter.¹³⁶

In many ways, Athanasius's writings revealed to Socrates what had gone wrong in past attempts to solve dogmatic disputes and schismatic conflicts. Athanasius propagated the same irreconcilable attitude that Socrates thought responsible for the severity and longevity of the divisions caused by the "Trinitarian Controversy." Socrates therefore introduced some necessary adjustments to Athanasius's narrative, providing his often hostile interpretation of events with a new, irenic message that could serve as a clarion call for reason in a time of a simmering "Nestorian Controversy." The fact that Socrates modelled his report on past church conflicts with regard to contemporary events raises also a more substantial question: Could much of what we know from Socrates about the "Trinitarian Controversy" actually be colored by his views on the "Nestorian Controversy" and should therefore be treated with more caution than has been hitherto done? More research will be needed to disentangle the influence that Socrates's Ecclesiastical History has had throughout the centuries on our understanding of the ecclesiastical conflicts of the fourth and early fifth century ce.