Zosimus
Byzantine historian of the fifth and sixth century; dates of birth and death unknown. Nothing further is known of the circumstances of the life of this writer, to whom we owe a history of the era of the Roman empire up to 410, than that he was a lawyer connected with the treasury at Constantinople and was an upholder of Paganism. The era in which he lived is also uncertain. Formerly he was assigned to the first half of the fifth century, but now it is generally assumed that he was a contemporary of the Emperor Anastasius I (491-518). There are two chief reasons for this opinion. The later chronographer, Eustathius of Epiphania, who made use of the work of Zosimus, carries his history up to 503; consequently it is inferred that Zosimus must have lived at this period. More weight is attached to another argument drawn from the history of Zosimus itself; this work refers (II, xxxviii) to the suppression of the oppressive tax laid by Chrysargyron in the Byzantine Empire, and this tax was abolished in 501. Therefore the historian was still at work on his history shortly after 501. Perhaps he is identical with the Sophist Zosimus of Gaza, or Ascalon, mentioned by Suidas in his lexicon; opposed to this view, however, is the fact that Suidas mentions no historical work written by this Sophist. Zosimus is the author of a history of the Roman emperors (“Historia romana” or “Historia novae”) in six books. It begins with Augustus, and sketches briefly the period up to 270 (I, i-xxxvi); from this date the work is more copious and detailed. It closes with the negotiations which preceded the conquest of Rome in 4`10. It is evident that the author intended to continue the history, and was prevented from carrying out his purpose by some circumstance, perhaps his death. The work is one of the chief authorities for Roman history of the fourth century, and individual statements concerning the preceding period are also of importance. The work does not lack sensible criticism, and shows the philosophical acuteness of the author. He was a heathen and devoted to the worship of the old Roman gods. He describes, in particular, the gradual decay of the Roman Empire, and attributes this to the fact the Romans had ceased to worship the ancient gods (II, vii). He also adhered to heathen superstitions, i.e. as the influence of the stars on man’s life and pagan sooth-sayings. The last editions of the history were edited by Immanuel Becker, in “Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae” (Bonn, 1837), and by Ludwig Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1867).
———————————–
CHRIST, Gesch. der griechisten Literatur (4th ed.) in Handbuch der klass. Alterumswiss. (Munich, 1905); HOFLER, Kritische Bemerkungen uber den Zosimus in Sitzungsbericht der Wiener Akademie, Phil.-histor. Klasse (1879), 521-65; JEEP, Die Lebenzeit des Zosimus in Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie (1882), 425 sqq.; MENDELSSOHN, Ueber die Zeit wann Zosimus lebte, loc.cit. (1887), 525 sqq. ; RUHL, loc. cit. (1891), 146 sqq.; RANKE, Weltgeschichte, IV, pt. II (Leipzig, 1884), 264 sqq.
J.P. KIRSCH Transcribed by Michael T. Barrett
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Zosimus
pope in A.D. 417418, successor to Innocent I, was by birth a Greek and is noteworthy as a participant in the doctrinal controversies of his time, in which he first endorsed and then rejected doctrines regarded as heretical, and also for his assertion of authority and his energetic labors in behalf of the supremacy of the Roman see. He countermanded the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelstids, denounced by Innocent and the African synods; and in a letter to bishop Aurelius of Carthage and others he censured the treatment they had received declared them orthodox, and warned the bishops against, sophistries in speculation. He also cited before his bar Paulinus, the accuser of Pelagius. The African bishops however, held another synod 418, which defined their course and censured Zosimuis for a reopening a settled case, besides forbidding the departure of Paulinus for Rome. Zosimus, endeavored to fortify his position by a reference to the ecclesiastical authority derived by his see from Peter; but when tithe, Africans obtained a sacrum rescriptum against the Pelagians from the emperor Hoisorius, he gave way, and, for his art pronounced the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius in an Epistola Tractatoria. This time he was opposed by eighteen Italian bishops whom he at once declared deposed. The deposition of the presbyter Apiarius of Sicca, in Numidiaand his appeal to Zosimus against his bishop, Urbaitus, led to fresh disputes with the Africans. Zosimus refused to recognize the deposition, and sent three delegates to a synod convened at Garthage to demand the restoration of Apiarius.
Zosimus also interfered in the affairs of the Gallican bishops by appointing bishop Patroclus of Arelate his vicar in Gaul, and conferring upon him the rights of metropolitan over the province of Vienne. His course excited much opposition; but death put an end to his plans for aggrandizement in 418. See Schrckh, Kirchengesch. (Leips. 1782), 8:148 sq.; Gieseler, Kirchengesch. (4th ed. Bonn. 1845), 1, 2, 111 sq. Herzog, Real Encyklop. s.v.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Zosimus (5)
Zosimus (5), a Byzantine historian worthy of particular attention, not only for his general merits as an historian, but because, as a heathen bitterly opposed to Christianity, he gives the heathen view of the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman empire. There is considerable uncertainty as to when he flourished. The middle of the 5th cent. is a probable date. Zosimus was not a polytheist, for in one passage at least of his history, when referring to an oracle which had predicted the greatness of Old Byzantium, he speaks of the Deity in highly worthy terms (ii. 37). He paid honour, however, to the heathen religious rites, as having come down from former generations (v. 23), complaining of the attempts of various emperors to extinguish them (ii. 29; iv. 59), lamenting that the oracles of the gods were no longer listened to (i. 57), and finding in the abandonment of the old religion one main cause of the decline of the empire (iv. 59). He ridicules Christianity as an unreasonable conglomerate, (iv. 59), sneers at Christian soldiers as only able to pray (iii. 2; iv. 23), and welcomes any opportunity of giving the most false representations of the Christian faith (ii. 29; iv. 59). An historian of such a spirit can hardly be relied on for an account of the events of a time when the old superstitions he venerated were compelled to yield to the advancing power of a religion he abhorred; and even his admirers are constrained to admit that he is not to be trusted where his religious prejudices come into play. Reitemeier, who defends him on the whole, allows that he was too partial to the heathen, too unjust to Christians (Disquis. p. 26); and Gibbon speaks of his “passion and prejudice,” “ignorant and malicious suggestions,” and “malcontent insinuations” (cc. xvii., xx.). His accounts of the conversion of Constantine, and of the character of Theodosius (ii. 29; iv. 26-33) suffer from this prejudice. To the former, as well as to many other of his most scandalous charges against that emperor, Evagrius replied in fierce language, addressing him as a “wicked spirit and fiend of hell” (iii. 41); and for the latter he has been condemned by Gibbon in hardly less emphatic language (c. xxvii.). De Broglie refers, for a full refutation of the story regarding the conversion of Constantine, to the Mm. de lAcad. des Inscrip. 49, p. 470, etc.
The inference must not, however, be hastily drawn that Zosimus is an historian unworthy of our regard. On the contrary, he may be justly described as one of the best historians of these early centuries. Even his views on church matters are highly interesting, as shewing how they were regarded by the more intelligent heathen; nor are they always wanting in truth. In estimating, too, his value as an historian, it must be remembered that he treats more largely of civil affairs than others had done, and we owe to him many facts connected with the condition of the military, their degeneracy, exactions, and dissoluteness, which contributed in no slight degree to the fall of the empire.
There seems indeed no sufficient ground to ascribe intentional bad faith to his history. That he was mistaken in many of his conclusions, and especially in those relating to the influence of Christianity, is unquestionable. That he occasionally gave too easy credence to unfounded statements is not less so; but it has never been proved that he wilfully perverted facts to establish any theory.
He was not in all respects an original historian. His History closes with a.d. 410. Either he had been hindered by death from prosecuting it further or some portions have been lost. He is thus occupied throughout with events before his own day, and in relating these he seems rather to epitomize works of predecessors than to write original narrative. Reitemeier finds that in the first part of his History he followed the Synopsis of Denippus, in the middle and larger part the Chronicon of Eunapius, and in the last part the Silva of Olympiodorus (Disquis. p. 35). Photius charges him with extensive copying of Eunapius (cf. Fabric. vi. p. 232, note). It seems to have been his admiration of Polybius that led him to write. That historian had described the rise of the Roman empire, and Zosimus, beholding everywhere around him its majestic ruins, would describe its fall. Nor will he merely describe the phenomena: he proposes also to investigate their causes. He begins, accordingly, with the reign of Augustus, and, passing hastily over the time till the accession of Constantine, he occupies himself mainly with the reigns of that emperor and his successors. He sets forth as the causes of the fall of the Roman empire: the change of government to its imperial form (i. 5); the removal of the soldiery into cities where they were debased by luxury and vice (ii. 34); the iniquitous exactions of successive emperors (ii. 38; iv. 28, 29, 41; v. 12); above all, the casting aside of the old religion, and the neglect of the responses of the oracles (i. 57). There can be little doubt that he regarded this last as the most important, so frequently does he allude to it (ii. 7; iv. 37, 59; v. 38, etc.). He expresses what was often thought and said at the time, and to the view thus taken we owe, in no small degree, St. Augustine’s immortal work, de Civitate Dei.
The style of the History of Zosimus has been praised by Photius as concise, perspicuous, pure, and, though not adorned by many figures, yet not devoid of sweetness (Cod. 98). (Cf. Heyne, Corp. Ser. H. B., Zosimus, p. 16.) These commendations are deserved. Zosimus is generally free from the ambitious periods of most historians of his age. His narrative is circumstantial, but clear; his language well chosen, and often very nervous and antithetical. He was not free from superstition; and the fact that an historian, generally so calm and so far removed from the credulity of his day, should have put his faith in oracles and recorded without hesitation appearances of Minerva and Achilles to Alaric, and various other miracles (see them in Fabric. vi. p. 610), shews how deep-seated such ideas were in the minds of his contemporaries, and may help to prove that the Christian belief in visions and miracles then prevailing was not inconsistent with sobriety of judgment and sound principles of criticism in other matters.
The History of Zosimus may be consulted for the lives and actions of the emperors between Augustus and a.d. 410, more especially for those of Constantine, Constantius, Theodosius the elder, Honorius, and Arcadius; for accounts of the Huns, Alamanni, Scythians, Goths, and minor barbarous tribes; the war in Africa in the time of Honorius, the campaign of Alaric in Italy, and the taking of Rome; for the right of asylum in Christian churches, and the changes introduced into the army; for an important description of Byzantium, old and new, and of Britain; and finally, for an account of the secular games to which, celebrated only once in 110 years, the people were summoned with the stirring yet solemn cry, “Quos nec spectavit quisquam nec spectaturus est.” Some of the ancient oracles are preserved by him.
The best ed. is by Reitemeier, in Gk. and Lat., with Heyne’s notes (Leipz. 1784); Bekker’s ed. (Bonn, 1837) has Reitemeier’s notes.
[W.M.]