 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Zosimus" historian – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(December 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Zosimus (Ancient Greek:Ζώσιμος[ˈzosimos];fl. 490s–510s) was a Greek historian who lived inConstantinople during the reign of the easternRoman EmperorAnastasius I (491–518).[1] According toPhotius, he was acomes, and held the office of "advocate" of theimperial treasury.[2] Zosimus was also known for condemningConstantine’s rejection of thetraditional polytheistic religion.[3]
Little more is known about the life of Zosimus except that he was Greek and apagan.[4] He was not a contemporary of the events of his books.[5]
Zosimus'Historia Nova (Ἱστορία Νέα, "New History") is written in Greek in six books and covers the period from 238 to 410 A.D.[6] It was written at the end of the fifth century.[7] For the period from 238 to 270, he apparently usesDexippus; for the period from 270 to 404,Eunapius; and after 407,Olympiodorus.[citation needed] His dependence on his sources is made clear by the change in tone and style between the Eunapian and Olympiodoran sections, and by the gap left in between them. In the Eunapian section, for example, he is pessimistic and critical ofStilicho; in the Olympiodoran section, he offers precise figures and transliterations from the Latin, and favors Stilicho.[8]
The first book sketches briefly the history of the earlyRoman emperors fromAugustus toDiocletian (305); the second, third and fourth deal more fully with the period from the accession ofConstantius Chlorus andGalerius to the death ofTheodosius I;[2] the fifth and sixth cover the period between 395 and 410, whenPriscus Attalus was deposed; for this period, he is the most important surviving non-ecclesiastical source. The work, which breaks off abruptly in the summer of 410 at the beginning of the sixth book, is believed to have been written in 498–518.
The style is characterized by Photius as concise, clear and pure.[2] The historian's object was to account for thedecline of the Roman Empire from a pagan point of view. Zosimus is the only non-Christian source for much of what he reports.
In contrast toPolybius, who had narrated the rise of the Roman Empire, Zosimus documented the events and causes which led to its decline.[9] Though the decline of the Roman Empire was Zosimus' primary subject, he also discussed events connected with Persian and Greek history, perhaps in imitation of Polybius. It is clear that Photius andEvagrius did not have any more of Zosimus' work than what survives today. Yet it is likely that either a part of the work has been lost or, more likely, that Zosimus did not live to finish it; for it does not cover all the areas that Zosimus himself tells us he intended to discuss.[10] There does not seem to be much probability in the conjecture that the monks and other ecclesiastics succeeded in suppressing that portion of the work in which the evil influences of their bodies were to be more especially touched upon.[11] If the work was thus left incomplete, that circumstance would account for some carelessness of style which is here and there apparent. There may appear some difficulty at first sight, however, in the statement of Photius, that the work, in the form in which he saw it, appeared to him to be a second edition. But it would seem that Photius was under some misapprehension. It is called in the manuscriptsHistoria Nova (in what sense is not quite clear). This may perhaps have misled Photius. He himself remarks that he had not seen the first edition.
Zosimus was a pagan, and is by no means sparing of the faults and crimes of the Christian emperors. In consequence of this his credibility has been fiercely assailed by several Christian writers. The question does not, as has sometimes been supposed, turn upon the credibility of the historians whom Zosimus followed, for he did not adhere in all cases to their judgment with respect to events and characters. For instance, although Zosimus followed Eunapius for the period 270–404, he entirely differed from Eunapius in his account ofStilicho andSerena. Of post-medieval writers,Caesar Baronius,Lelio Bisciola,Kaspar von Barth,Johann Daniel Ritter,Richard Bentley, andG. E. M. de Ste. Croix, have taken the derogatory side. Bentley in particular speaks of Zosimus with great contempt.[12] On the other hand, his historical authority has been maintained by Leunclavius,G. B. von Schirach, J. Matth. Schrockh, and Reitemeier. Due to pagan leanings, Zosimos is said to have lost hisadvocatus fisci position in the imperial treasury,[13] explaining his bitterness in his accounts.[7]
The history of Zosimus wasfirst printed in the Latin translation ofLeunclavius, accompanied by a defence of the historian (Basel, 1576, fol.). The first two books, in Greek, with the translation of Leunclavius, were printed by H. Stephanus, in his edition of Herodian (Paris, 1581). The first complete edition of the Greek text of Zosimus was that by F. Sylburg (Scriptores Hist. Rom. Min., vol. iii., Frankfurt, 1590). Later editions are those published at Oxford (1679), at Zeitz and Jena, edited by Cellarius, with annotations of his own and others (1679, 1713, 1729). The next edition is that by Reitemeier, who, though he consulted no fresh manuscripts, made good use of the critical remarks of Heyne and other scholars (Leipzig, 1784). Bekker produced a reliable edition in 1837 at Bonn. There is a German translation by Seybold and Heyler, and also an English and a French translation. (Schöll, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. vol. iii, p. 232 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 62.)
The single good manuscript, in the Vatican Library (MS Vat. Gr. 156), was unavailable to scholars until the mid-19th century, although it lacks the conclusion of the first book and the beginning of the second.Ludwig Mendelssohn (Leipzig 1887) edited the first dependable text. The modern standard edition is F. PaschoudZosime: Histoire Nouvelle (Paris 1971) which has a French translation, introduction and commentary. A later edition in English,Zosimus: New History a translation with commentary by Ronald T. Ridley, was published in 1982 by the Australian Association of Byzantine Studies.
Zosimus’ work contains multiple errors, some of them not found in any other extant source, such as wrongly reporting that all three of Constantine’s successors were not the sons of his wifeFausta.[14]Edward Gibbon judged him as “unworthy of esteem and trust,” “poor in judgment,” and “a disingenuous liar.”[15] Ludwig Mendelssohn observed that, “The more familiar one becomes with Zosimus, the more one learns to distrust him.”[15]
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Zosimus (historian)".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 28 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 1044.
