For a study of Socrates as he lived and laboured in Athens, we may compare the very different works of three great artists—the caricatured picture preserved in the Clouds of Aristophanes, the homely delineation in the Memorabilia of the affectionate Xenophon, and the magnificent representation with which we become familiar in the Dialogues of Plato. When we are asked for the "works" of him who has, beyond any other, left a mark behind him on the sands of time, we may point to his life at Athens, and to the writings of those who are directly or indirectly indebted to him for the intellectual and moral strength which have made their writings immortal.—A. C. F.
SOCRATES, called Scholasticus, a church historian of the fourth and fifth centuries—a layman moreover, and an impartial, diligent, and for the most part trustworthy and judicious writer. The seven books of his "Ecclesiastical History" are of very high value, as being the best extant record of the times embraced in them, namely, the hundred and thirty or forty years, extending from the closing years of Constantine to the year 439 in the reign of the younger Theodosius. What may be authentically known of this writer's personal history must be gathered from a very few incidental passages relating to himself that are scattered up and down in his seven books. He was, he says (Ecclesiastical History, v. 16), in boyhood at the time of that tumult at Alexandria between a pagan and christian mob, which occurred in 389, in consequence of which several professors of rhetoric on the gentile side fled from the city and established themselves at Constantinople. On this ground it may be inferred that the birth of Socrates dates about ten years earlier than that time, or say in 379. From a notice occurring at the end of his history (vii. 48) compared with a passage in the first chapter of the second book, it appears that he survived some years after the first publication of his book, which came down to 439; for having discovered errors in his first edition, attributable to the misstatements of the Latin writers whom he had followed, he had revised the whole, rewriting the faulty portions. It is possible, therefore, that he attained to about his seventieth year, or a little short of it. From two Alexandrian teachers, whom he names Ammonius and Helladius, Socrates received, at Constantinople, his education in its usual branches—grammar, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy. How far this teaching had been christianized does not appear. It is, however, certain that his faith as a christian was sincere. He betook himself to a secular calling—that of an advocate in the civil courts—and thus he came to be styled Scholasticus; the term being applied in its later and acquired sense, not as meaning a pedant or sçavan, but "pleader." The calmness and impartiality of this writer, and his freedom from ecclesiastical or theological virulence, may fairly be attributed to his training, and to his position and his habits as a layman; perhaps also in part to the circumstance of his having, in his early years, looked at the christian community and its vehement disagreements from a philosophic and gentile point of view. In his brief preface he declares his purpose to take up the history of the church at the point where Eusebius had brought his work to a close; and he proposes in all plainness of speech "to put the simple truth before his readers." In making this profession he more than intimates his disapproval of his episcopal predecessor, Eusebius, on the ground both of errors in matters of fact, and of flattery toward his imperial master. For himself he had used, he says, all diligence in collecting and collating documents, and in conversing with those who had taken a part in church affairs. He declares also that he was himself a witness to many of the events which he records—thus (v. 24) he affirms his personal knowledge of what had occurred at Constantinople among the disputants in the Eunomian controvery, inasmuch as he was a resident at Constantinople at the time—the city in which he was born and had been brought up. From the fact that Socrates speaks with fairness and temper of the puritan party, the Novatians (vii. 17), and that he records the succession of their bishops, it has been surmised that he himself was attached to the dissenting communion; but this does not follow. The truth is, that a love of candour and truthfulness when dissidents are in question, appears so strange and unaccountable to writers of a certain class, that a writer who is found guilty of justice towards an enemy must be supposed to be guilty also of schism. A digest of the seven books of the "Ecclesiastical History" could not be given to any good purpose within our limits; it must suffice, in the place of any such epitome, to offer an advice addressed to any reader who is wont to inquire what church historian it would be best for him to read; intending, of course, what modern compilation. Let him, we would say, employ whatever time he may have at his command for such purposes in reading a trustworthy and contemporaneous writer like Socrates. In that mode he will come to know what the christianity of the fourth century really was, instead of learning what, in the opinion of a modern writer, you ought to think about it. The standard edition of Socrates is that of H. Valesius, with valuable prefaces and notes. The three folios—including Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, Philostorgius—printed at Paris in 1668, and reprinted at Mentz in 1677, is found in most ecclesiastical libraries. Editions, with and without notes and translations, have been very many; but that of Valesius will be used by any to whom it is accessible, and who wish for just so much guidance as may be needed in such an instance, and who would think more than a little an incumbrance.—I. T.
SOISSONS, Charles de Bourbon, Count de, Grand Marshal of France, was born in 1556, and was the youngest son of the prince of Condé. He was educated by his mother in the Romish faith, and was made a knight of the order of the Holy Ghost by Henry III. in 1587, and attached himself strongly to the cause of that monarch. After the formation of the League, the duke of Guise proposed to substitute the count for the cardinal de Bourbon as the rival of Henry of Navarre, the heir-presumptive to the crown. But the plot was discovered and foiled by Henry, who gained over de Soissons by offering him the hand of his sister. The count contrived to escape from the court, and reached the camp of Henry at the head of fifteen hundred picked men. He fought on the side of that prince with signal courage at the battle of Coutras (1587); but the contrast between their dispositions soon produced alienation of feeling, and in the course of a few months the count once more espoused the cause of Henry III., by whom he was at first coldly received. He gained the king's favour, however, by rendering to him many important services, for which he was rewarded by the governorship of Brittany. After the death of Henry III. de Soissons again joined Henry of Navarre, fought zealously against the League, and distinguished himself greatly at the siege of Paris (1589), where he commanded a body of four thousand English and Scots whom Elizabeth had sent to the assistance of Henry IV., and was rewarded by his appointment to the office of grandmaster of France, and by his subsequent nomination to the governorship of Dauphiny. After the assassination of Henry the count put forth pretensions to the regency, which, however, was conferred upon the queen; but his displeasure was appeased by his appointment to the government of Normandy, with a pension of fifty thousand crowns. He had conceived implacable hatred against Henry's great minister. Sully, and even proposed to assassinate him. He was jealous, too, of his nephew, the prince of Condé, and other leading nobles, and passed his life in perpetual intrigues and struggles for power and privilege. Died in 1612. His son—
Soissons, Louis de Bourbon, Count de, was born in 1604, and succeeded his father in the office of grandmaster and in the government of Dauphiny. At an early age he was initiated into the intrigues of the court, and was a worthy successor of his father in his haughtiness and ambition. Having made some overtures to the Huguenots, which were coldly received, he embraced the royal and Romish cause with great eagerness; displayed conspicuous courage at the siege of Rochelle; and notwithstanding of his youth was nominated commander of the army appointed to blockade that town. Having been disappointed in his ambitious scheme to obtain the hand, first of Henrietta daughter of Henry IV., and then of Mdlle. de Montpensier, the richest heiress in Europe, he became the bitter enemy of Cardinal Richelieu, and was repeatedly implicated in plots against the power and life of that minister. With the hereditary courage of his family, the count fought with signal gallantry in the Italian wars of Louis XIII., with whom he was a great favourite. His bitter enmity to Richelieu, however, induced him to take up arms in 1641 against the government, in conjunction with the Dukes de Bouillon and Guise; and their combined forces completely routed the royal army under Marshal Châtillon on the plain of Bazeille, in Champagne, 6th July, 1642. But at the close of the battle the Count de Soissons was killed by a pistol-shot, accidentally, as some allege, or as others affirm with less probability, at the instigation of Richelieu. The count was not
