IV. History of Socrates’ Work. A. Uses made before the First Printed Edition of the Greek Text. Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was used, according to the best authorities, by Sozomen in the composition of his parallel history. 103 It was certainly used by Liberatus, the Carthaginian deacon, in his Breviarium caussæ Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum , and by Theodorus Anagnostes (Lector) in his Ecclesiastical History . 104 It was also quoted in the second Council of Nicæa, under the name of Rufinus, and also under its author’s name. 105 Epiphanius, surnamed Scholasticus, translated the history of Socrates, together with those of Sozomen and Theodoret, under the auspices of Cassiodorus, about the beginning of the sixth century. This translation, under the name of Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Tripartitæ , consists of twelve books, and was printed at Paris, without date, by Regnault in 8vo; afterwards also at Bâle in 1523, 1528, 1533, 1539, and 1568. It was revised by Beatus Rhenanus , and published in Frankfort on the Main in 1588, together with the history of Eusebius, which was translated and continued by Rufinus. It is also found in the new edition of Cassiodorus printed at Rouen by Jo . Garetius in 1679 and in Venice, 1729. It served as a basis for a French translation by Ægidius Gourlinus (Gille Gourlin), published in Paris in 1538 (cited by Cyaneus ), and of a German translation by Caspar Hedio at Strasburg, 1545. B. Editions. There are two independent editions of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History , each of which has served as a basis for reprints, secondary editions, and translations. These are: I. Eusebii Pamphili : Hist. EccI. LL. X.; ejd. de Vita Constantini LL. V.; Socratis Hist. Eccl. LL. VII.; Theodoreti Episc. Cyrensis Hist. EccI. LL. V.; Collectaneum ex hist. eccl. Theodori Lectoris LL. II.; Hermiæ Sozomeni Hist. EccI. LL. IX.; Evagrii Hist. Eccl. LL. VI. Lut. Paris, ex off. Rob. Stephani 1544 pridie Cal. Jul. a. Upon this edition is based a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus , Bâle 1544, 1549, 1557, 1594, and one by J. J. Christophorson , bishop of Chichester, Paris 1571, Cologne 1581, Bâle 1570; with notes by Grynæus and by Henricus Petri 1611 ; incorporated into the Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. Cologne 1618 as Vol. V. and ed. Lyons 1677 as Vol. VII. b. The Greek text of Stephens and the Latin translation of Christophorson were published together in Geneva, 1612. c. An English translation of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was made by Meredith Hanmer , 106 and is contained in his Ancient Ecclesiastical Histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written in the Greek tongue by three learned Historiographers, Eusebius, Socrates and Evagrius. London 1577. [This work also contains Dorotheus’ Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, and Seventy Disciples reprinted in 1585 and 1650.] 2. The second independent edition of Socrates is that which has been received as standard and served as a basis for all subsequent uses, viz.: Historia Ecclesiastica Socratis, Scholastici, Hermiæ, Sozomeni, &c., ed. Henricus Valesius . Paris 1668. Valesius ostensibly revised the text of Stephens, but as a matter of fact he made a new collation of the ms. used by Stephens, and compared this with mss. in the Vatican, so that his edition amounts to an entirely new work. He also made a new Latin translation and appended numerous notes. This edition was reprinted in Mayence in 1677. Its Latin portion was reprinted in Paris also in 1677. The reprint of Mayence was reproduced under a new title, as if in Amsterdam in 1675. a. Gul. Reading appended additional notes, and together with the Latin translation of Valesius, published the work in Cambridge in three vols. 1720. Reading’s edition was reprinted at Turin in 1746. Valesius’ original edition was again reprinted in Oxford by Parker in 1844 and Cura Buckley in London, also in 1844. It was revised and published in Oxford in 3 vols. by R. Hussey in 1853, and again in 1860 and in 1879. Again it was incorporated into Migne’s Patrologia Græca as Vol. LXVII. (Petit Montrouge) in 1859, and finally the Greek text alone was revised and published in a single volume by William Bright in Oxford 1878. b. The translations based on Valesius’ edition exclusive of those in Latin mentioned above are as follows: In French by L. Cousin : Histoire de l’Eglise écrite par Eusèbe, Socrate, Sozomène, Theodoret, &c. 4 vols. Paris 1675, and 6 vols. Amsterdam 1686. [Containing also Photius’ abstract of Philostorgius.] In English by Shorting : 107 The History of the Church as written in Greek by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius [contains also the four books of the Life of Constantine, Constantine’s Oration to the Convention of the Saints, and Eusebius’ speech in praise of Constantine], translated from the edition of Valesius, with a translation also of Valesius’ notes and his account of the lives and writings of those historians. Cambridge 1683, 1692, 1709. By S. Parker : The Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret .… abridged from the originals. London 1707, 3rd ed. 1729. And Anonymously [E. Walford] 108 The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians of the first six centuries of the Christian Era in 6 vols. [Socrates Scholasticus’ History forms Vol. III. of this series]. London, Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1843–46. This translation was reprinted in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library, 4 vols., 1851 and 1888, and by Bagster in 1868. 103    So Harnack and Jeep. Cf. also Hartranft in the present vol., p. 00. 104    Theodorus’ works were two: (1) An epitome of the histories written previous to his time, and (2) an original history continuing the narrative to the days of Justinian I. 105    Cf. Mansi, Concil . XII. Coll. 1035 and 1042. 106    Cf. Woods, Athenæ Oxonienses , Vol. I. p. 326. 107    So Crusè. 108    The volume containing Sozomen in this series bears the name of Walford. The translation of Socrates is anonymous, but generally ascribed to Walford also. This cannot be a matter of inference from the appearance of the two historians in the same series, as Eusebius, also in the same series, is translated by Crusè. Those who attribute the translation to Walford give no reason for doing so.