he seems to have gone to Berytus, a city of Phoenicia, to be trained in civil law at its famous school. His education finished, he proceeded to Constantinople, and there entered on his profession (ii. 3).
While thus engaged he formed the plan of his Ecclesiastical History (ii. 3), being attracted to the subject both by his own taste and the example of Eusebius. It appeared in 9 books, extending over the years 323–439, and was dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. It thus covers the same period as that of Socrates, and as both were written about the same time and have many resemblances, the question arises as to which was the original and which not unfrequently the copyist. Valesius, upon apparently good grounds, decides against Sozomen, although allowing that he often adds to and corrects his authority. Like Socrates, Sozomen is habitually trustworthy, and a conscientious and serious writer. In his account of the council of Nicaea, which may be taken as a favourable specimen of his work as a whole, he seems to have drawn from the best sources, to have proceeded with care, and to have made a sufficiently good choice among the apocryphal traditions and innumerable legends which in the 5th cent. obscured the reports of this great council (cf. De Broglie, iv. siècle, ii. 431). But he inserted in his history not a little that is trifling and superstitious. In style he is generally allowed to be superior, but in judgment inferior, to Socrates.
His History is especially valuable for its accounts of the monks, which, though by an admirer, are not therefore to be despised, or we should be equally entitled to set aside accounts by their detractors. It is impossible to read his repeated notices of the monastic institutions of his time or his long account of their manners and customs (i. 12), without feeling that here are statements as to the nature and influence of monasticism which cannot be set aside. He also gives not a few important particulars concerning both the events and men of the time covered by it, particularly of the council of Nicaea, the persecutions, the general progress of the gospel, the conversion of Constantine, the history of Julian, the illustrious Athanasius, and many bishops and martyrs of the age; and also a number of original documents.
The best ed., by Valesius, appeared at Paris in 1668, and was followed by one, with the notes of Valesius, at Cambridge, in 1720. The ed. of Hussey (Oxf. 1860) also deserves mention. An Eng. trans. in Bohn's Eccl. Lib. (1855) deserves high commendation; another was pub. by Baxter in 1847; and there is one in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
[W.M.]
Spyridon, bp. of Trimithus in Cyprus, one of the most popularly celebrated of the bishops attending the council of Nicaea, although his name is not found in the list of signatures. He was the centre of many legendary stories which Socrates heard from his fellow-islanders (Socr. H. E. i. 12). Spyridon was married, with at least one daughter, Irene. He continued his occupation as a sheep farmer after, for his many virtues, he had been called to the episcopate. He is mentioned by Athanasius among the orthodox bishops at the council of Sardica (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 768). His body was first buried in his native island, then removed to Constantinople, and when the Turks captured the city it was transmitted to Corfu, where it is annually carried in procession round the capital as the patron saint of the Ionian isles (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 126). His Life, written in iambics by his pupil, Triphyllius of Ledra, is spoken of by Suidas as "very profitable" (Suidas sub voc. Triphyllius, ii. 947). Rufin. 1, 3–5; Socr. H. E. i. 8, 12; Soz. H. E. i. 11; Niceph. H. E. viii. 15, 42; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. vi. 643, 679, vii. 242–246; Hefele, Hist. of Councils, vol. i. p. 284, Clark's trans.; Stanley, op. cit. pp. 124–126, 132).
[E.V.]
Stagirus (Stagirius), a young friend of Chrysostom, of noble birth, who against his father's wishes embraced a monastic life, joining the brotherhood of which Chrysostom was a member, and continuing there after failure of health compelled Chrysostom's return to Antioch. The self-indulgent life Stagirus had led was a door preparation for the austerities of monasticism, and he proved a very unsatisfactory monk. He found the nightly vigils intolerable, and reading hardly less distasteful. He spent his time m attending to a garden and orchard. He also manifested much pride of his high birth. His health broke down under the strain of so uncongenial a life. He became subject to convulsive attacks, which were then considered to indicate demoniacal possession. He employed all recognised means for expelling the evil spirit. He applied to persons of superior sanctity, often taking long journeys to obtain the aid of those who had the reputation of healing those afflicted with spiritual maladies, and visited the most celebrated martyrs' shrines, and prayed long and fervently both there and at home, but in vain, though his religious character sensibly improved. He rose at night and devoted much time to prayer and became meek and humble. Chrysostom's counsels to him are in the 3 books ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum, or de Divina Providentia (Socr. H. E. vi. 3). What the physical issue was we do not know. Nilus highly commends his piety, humility, and contrition, but uses language which indicates that his attacks did not entirely pass away (Nilus, Epp. lib. iii. 19).
[E.V.]
Stephanus (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Lucius, from May 12, 254, to Aug. 2, 257. These dates are arrived at by Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöf.) after careful examination. Those given by the ancient catalogues are erroneous and conflicting. If Lucius died, as is supposed, on Mar. 5, 254, Stephen was appointed after a vacancy of 61 days.
At the time of his accession the persecution of the church, begun by Decius and renewed by Gallus, had ceased for a time under Valerian. The internal disputes as to the reception of the lapsi, which had given rise to the schism of NOVATIAN, still continued.
In the autumn of 254 a council was held at Carthage, the first during the episcopate of Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, deposed for compliance with idolatry. Basilides had been to Rome to represent his case to Stephen and procure reinstatement in his see; and Stephen
