Zosimi (historian): Dallime mes rishikimesh
[redaktim i pashqyrtuar] | [redaktim i pashqyrtuar] |
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Rreshti 5:
Zosimus' ''[[Historia Nova]]'', "New History", ështe shkruar ne greqisht ne 6 vellime. For the period from 238 to 270, he apparently uses [[Dexippus]]; for the period from 270 to 404, [[Eunapius]]; and after 407, [[Olympiodorus of Thebes|Olympiodorus]]. His slavish dependence upon his sources is made clear by the change in tone and style between the Eunapian and Olympiodoran sections, and by the muddled gap left in between them. In the Eunapian section, for example, he is pessimistic, vague, and critical of Stilicho; in the Olympiodoran section, he offers precise figures and transliterations from the Latin, and favors Stilicho. The work breaks off abruptly in the summer of 410 at the beginning of book 6.
As [[Polybius]] had narrated the events by which the Roman empire had reached its greatness, so Zosimus undertook the task of developing the events and causes which led to its decline (i. 57). Though the decline of the Roman empire was the main subject which Zosimus selected, it was perhaps his ambition to imitate Polybius which led him to introduce various matters connected with Persian, Grecian, and Macedonian history, which are not very intimately connected with his main design. It is clear that Photius and [[Evagrius Scholasticus|Evagrius]] had not more of the work than we have. Yet it seems likely on some accounts, either that a part of the work has been lost or, what is more likely, that Zosimus did not live to finish it; for as we now have it, it does not embrace all that Zosimus himself tells us he intended to take up (iv. 59. §4, 5, i. 58. §9, iv. 28. §3). There does not seem 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 body were to be more especially touched upon (v. 23. §8; Harles. ad Fabr. vol. viii. p. 65; comp. Voss. de Hist. Gr. p. 312). 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 manuscripts ''Historia 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.
|