A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

1334 ZOSIMUS. ZOSIMUS.
of the younger Pliny, remarkable for his talents as altogether) an abridgment or compilation of the
a comedian and musician, as well as for his ex- works of previous historians. As far as the 41st
cellence as a reader. (Plin. Epist. v. 19.) chapter of the first book he follows Herennius
2. Prefect of Epeirus under Valentinian and Dexippus. From that point tothe 1lth chapter of
Valens. He is mentioned in connection with some the fifth book Eunapius is his guide, though he
laws promulgated in A.D. 373. (Cod. Theodos. nowhere makes mention of him. Photius remarks
6. tit. 31, 12. tit. 10.) in general terms of the work that it was not so
3. A Greek historian, who lived in the time of much a history as a compilation from Eunapius.
the younger Theodosius (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. iii. After Eunapius he follows Olympiodorus, sometimes
41). He is described by Photius (Cod. 98, p. 84; ed. copying from him whole chapters. The style of
Bekker) as KOc/AS ICac aurfaKoioeuvr,,opoS (comes Zosimus is fairly described by Photius as concise,
et exadvocatus-fisci). He may possibly have been clear, pure, and not unpleasing. His chief fault as
the son of Zosimus, the prefect of Epeirus, who is an historical writer is that he neglects to notice
mentioned in the Theodosian Code. Zosimus was the chronology.
the author of a history of the Roman empire in six Zosimus was a pagan, and is by no means sparing
books, which is still extant. This work must have of the faults and crimes of the Christian emperors.
been written after the year 425, as an event is In consequence of this his credibility has been
mentioned in it (v. 27) which took place in that fiercely assailed by several Christian writers, and
year. How long after cannot be determined with has been sometimes defended merely because his
certainty; but his description of the condition of history tended to the discredit of many leading
the Greek empire at the time he wrote accords persons in the Christian party. Photius thus exwith the state of things in the latter part of the presses his opinion: eao'nrs T1i 5p7orTKesav &eoe-s
fifth century. Further biographical particulars ical 7rohAa'cKcs Ev 7roAhoes vXAaTCvv Kaar rcOv eVeehave not come down to us. Ucvs (1. c.). Evagrius (iii. 40, 41) and Nicephorus
As Polybius had narrated the events by which (xvi. 41, &c.) also speak in the most unfavourable
the Roman empire had reached its greatness, so terms. The question does not, as has sometimes
Zosimus undertook the task of developing the been supposed, turn upon the credibility of the
events and causes which led to its decline (Zosim. historians whom Zosimus followed, for he did not
i. 57). As the commencement of this decline, he adhere in all cases to their judgment wiLh respect
goes back to the change in the constitution of to events and characters. For instance he entirely
Rome introduced by Augustus. The first book differed from Eunapius in his account of Stilicho
comprises a sketch of the history of the early em- and Serena. Of modern writers, Baronius, Laelius
perors, down to the end of the reign of Diocletian Bisciola, C. v. Barth, J. D. Ritter, R. Bentley,
(A. D. 305). The second, third, and fourth books and St. Croix, have taken the derogatory side.
are devoted to the history of the fourth century, Bentley in particular (Remarks upon a lateDiscourse
which is treated much less concisely. The fifth of Freethinking, Part. ii. p. 21) speaks of Zosimus
and sixth books embrace the period from A. D. 395 with great contempt. On the other hand, his histoto A. D. 410, when Attalus was deposed. Though rical authority has been maintained by Leunclavius,
the decline of the Roman empire was the main G. B. von Schirach, J. Matth. Schriickh, and Reitesubject which Zosimus selected, it was perhaps his meier. There are no doubt numerous errors of
ambition to imitate Polybius, which led him to judgment to be found in the work, and sometimes
introduce various matters connected with Persian, (especially in the case of Constantine) an intemGrecian, and Macedonian history, which are not perate expression of opinion, which somewhat exvery intimately connected with his main design. aggerates, if it does not distort the truth. But he
It is clear that Photius and Evagrius had not more does not seem fairly chargeable with deliberate inof the work than we have. Yet it seems likely on vention, or wilful misrepresentation. One passage
some accounts, either that a part of the work has in his history in particular has been fastened upon
been lost, or, what is more likely, that Zosimus as evident proof of his untrustworthiness, where
did not live to finish it; for as we now have it, it (ii. 29) he gives his account of the conversion of
does not embrace all that Zosimus himself tells us Constantine, placing it after the murder of his son
he intended to take up (iv. 59. ~ 4, 5, i. 58. ~ 9, (A. D. 326), whereas Constantine had declared
iv. 28. ~ 3). There does not seem much probability himself a Christian much earlier. (Sainte-Croix,
in the conjecture that the monks and other ecclesi- M1m. de l'Academie des Lnscr. vol. xlix. p. 466).
astics succeeded in suppressing that portion of the But on the other hand, the common story of the
work in which the evil influences of their body conversion of Constantine does not rest on any
were to be more especially touched upon (v. 23. ~ 8; authority that is worth much; and though it is
Harles. ad Fabr. vol. viii. p. 65; comp. Voss. de pretty clear that Zosimus has committed an anaIist. Gr. p. 312). If the work was thus left in- chronism, it is not so gross as has been sometimes
complete, that circumstance would account for supposed; and there is thus much to be said in
some carelessness of style which is here and there excuse for Zosimus, that it was not till the latter
apparent. There may appear some difficulty at part of his life that Constantine received the rite of
first sight, however, in the statement of Photius, baptism; and it appears from Sozomen (i. 3) that
that the work, in the form in which he saw it, a story similar to that told by Zosimus was current
appeared to him to be a second edition (vyas E'Kc3- some time previously, so that the latter is not at
aeces). But it would seem that Photius was under any rate responsible for the origination of the tale.
some misapprehension. It is called in the MSS. It is not to be wondered at that one who held to
irTopia veCt (in what sense is not quite clear). the old faith should attribute the downfall of the
This may perhaps have misled Photius. He empire in great part to the religious innovations
himself remarks that he had not seen the first attendant upon the spread of Christianity.
edition. The history of Zosimus was first printed in the
The work of Zosimus is mainly (though not Latin translation of Leunclavius (Liivenklau), ac