As the title of the work (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ ῾Ιστορία) indicates, the subject is chiefly the vicissitudes and experiences of the Christian Church; but the author finds various reasons for interweaving with the account of ecclesiastical affairs some record also of the affairs of the state. His statement66 of these reasons puts first among them the relief his readers would experience by passing from the accounts of the perpetual wranglings of bishops to something of a different character; second, the information which all ought to have on secular as well as ecclesiastical matters; and third, the interlacing of these two lines, on account of which the understanding of the one cannot be full without some knowledge of the other. ‘By a sort of sympathy,’ says he, ‘the church takes part in the disturbances of the state,’ and ‘since the emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church have become dependent on them, and the greatest synods have been held and are held at their bidding.’ It cannot be said, however, that Socrates either thoroughly realized or attempted any systematic treatment of his subject from the point of view of the true relations of church and state; he simply had the consciousness that the two spheres were not as much dissociated as one might assume. On the general character of Socrates’ History it may be said that, compared with those produced by his contemporaries, it is a work of real merit, surpassing in some respects even that of his great predecessor, Eusebius. The latter has confused his account by adopting, under the influence of his latest informant, differing versions of facts already narrated, without erasing the previous versions or attempting to harmonize or unify them. Compare with this feature Socrates’ careful and complete revision of his first two books on obtaining new and more trustworthy information.67 In the collection of his facts Socrates everywhere tried to reach primary sources. A great portion of his work is drawn from oral tradition, the accounts given by friends and country- men, the common, but not wild, rumors of the capital, and the transient literature of the day. Whenever he depends on such information, Socrates attempts to reach as far as possible the accounts of eye-witnesses,68 and appends any doubts he may have as to the truth of the statements they make. Of written works he has used for the period where his work and that of Eusebius overlap the latter’s Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine;69 for other events he follows Rufinus,70 abandoning him, however, in his second edition, whenever he conflicts with more trustworthy authorities. He has also made use of Archelaus’ Acts,71 of 66 V. Int. 67 II. 1. The new information here referred to is drawn from the works of Athanasius, which had come into the hands of the author. Cf. II. 17. 68 I. Int.; V. 19; VI. Int. 69 I. 8. 70 I. 12, 19; II. 1; III. 19; IV. 24, 26. 71 I. 22. 15 Socrates' Ecclesiastical History.