|
Stili ështe i karakterizuar nga [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius]] as concise, clear and pure; other historians have judged his accounts confused or muddled, and valuable only because he preserves information from lost histories. The historian's object was to account for the [[decline of the Roman Empire]] from the pagan point of view. Zosimus is the only non-Christian source for much of what he reports.
As Kur[[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.
Zosimus waska aqene nje 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, and has been sometimes defended merely because his history tended to the discredit of many leading persons in the Christian party. [[Evagrius Scholasticus|Evagrius]] (iii. 40, 41) and Nicephorus (xvi. 41, &c.) speak in the most unfavourable terms. 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 of [[Stilicho]] and [[Serena (Roman)|Serena]]. Of modern writers, [[Caesar Baronius|Baronius]], [[Lelio Bisciola|Laelius Bisciola]], [[Kaspar von Barth|C. v. Barth]], [[Johann Daniel Ritter|J. D. Ritter]], R. Bentley, and St. Croix, have taken the derogatory side. Bentley in particular (Remarks upon a late Discourse of Freethinking, Part. ii. p. 21) speaks of Zosimus with great contempt. On the other hand, his historical authority has been maintained by Leunclavius, G. B. von Schirach, J. Matth. Schrockh, and Reite-raeier. There are no doubt numerous errors of judgment to be found in the work, and sometimes (especially in the case of Constantine) an intemperate expression of opinion, which somewhat exaggerates, if it does not distort the truth. But he does not seem fairly chargeable with deliberate invention, or wilful misrepresentation. It is not to be wondered at that one who held to the old faith should attribute the downfall of the empire in great part to the religious innovations attendant upon the spread of Christianity.
=== Editions ===
|
