Abstract:

This article explores Socrates of Constantinople's literary strategies in his use of Athanasius of Alexandria as a source for his Ecclesiastical History against the contemporary ecclesiastical and political background. Contrary to the prevailing view which sees Socrates as a blind copyist of Athanasius, this article argues that Socrates deliberately abandoned or altered aspects of his source as a criticism of Athanasius's depiction of the fourth-century "Trinitarian Controversy." Focusing on two case studies—the Melitian Schism and the Council of Serdica—I suggest that Socrates was unsettled by the way in which Athanasius had dealt with dogmatic disputes and dogmatic conflict. Athanasius exemplified the same irreconcilability that Socrates deemed responsible for the severity and longevity of the divisions caused by the "Trinitarian Controversy." Accordingly, Socrates adjusted Athanasius's narrative, investing his (often hostile) interpretations of events with a new, irenic message which he hoped would serve as a clarion call for conciliation at a time when ecclesiastical unity and peace were again threatened by the simmering "Nestorian Controversy."

摘要：

本文探讨了君士坦丁堡的苏格拉底在使用亚历山大的亚他那修作为其教会史来源时的文学策略在当代的教会和政治背景下。与将苏格拉底视为亚他那修的盲目抄袭者的主流观点相反，本文认为，苏格拉底故意放弃或改变其来源的某些方面，作为对亚他那修对四世纪“三位一体论争辩”的描述的批评。关注两个案例研究——Melitian 分裂和 Serdica 会议——我认为苏格拉底对亚他那修处理教条争论和教条冲突的方式感到不安。亚他那修 (Athanasius) 举例说明了苏格拉底认为对“三位一体之争”造成的分裂的严重性和持久性负有责任的同样的不可调和。因此，苏格拉底调整了亚他那修的叙述，将他（通常是敌对的）对事件的解释用一种新的、