not entirely satisfactory to him, nor that of older writers.99 Hence his own attempt everywhere at plain, unadorned expression. The criticism of Photius,100 that Socrates’ style ‘had nothing remarkable about it,’ although made in the spirit of censure, is true, and according to Socrates’ standard (which is also that of modern times) amounts to a commendation. Socrates, how- ever, was not lacking in good humor and satire,101 as well as in appreciation of short and pithy utterances; he often quotes proverbs and epigrammatic sayings,102 and knows the influence of the anecdote and reminiscence in interesting the reader. The value of Socrates’ History cannot be overestimated. It will always remain a source of primary importance. Though, as already noted, its ideal as a history is below that set up by Thucydides, Tacitus, and others of an earlier age,—below even that of Eusebius,—yet as a collection of facts and documents in regard to some of the most important events of the church’s life it is invaluable. Its account of the great Arian controversy, its details of the Councils of Nicæa, Chalcedon, Constantinople, and Ephesus, besides those of the lesser, local conventions, its biographical items relative to the lives of the emperors, the bishops, and monks—some of whom are of pivotal importance in the movements of the times, its sketches of Ulphilas and Hypatia, its record of the manner and time of the conversion of the Saracens, the Goths, the Burgundians, the Iberians, and the Persians, as well as of the xviii persecution of the Jews, the paschal controversy, not to mention a vast number of other details of minor importance, will always be read and used with the deepest interest by lovers of ecclesiastical history. 99 VI. 22; VII. 27. 100 Biblioth. Cod. 28. 101 III. 16; IV. 22; VI. 13; VII. 21, 34. 102 II. 8; III. 21; V. 15; VII. 29, 31. 19 Socrates' Ecclesiastical History.