|
Zosimus ((ギリシア語:Ζώσιμος) (:ˈzosimos); also known by the Latin name Zosimus Historicus, i.e. "Zosimus the Historian"; fl. 490s–510s) was a Byzantine historian who lived in Constantinople during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I (491–518). According to Photius, he was a ''comes'', and held the office of "advocate" of the imperial treasury. == ''Historia Nova'' == Zosimus' ''Historia Nova'' (Ἱστορία Νέα, "New History"), is written in Greek in six books. For the period from 238 to 270, he apparently uses Dexippus; for the period from 270 to 404, Eunapius; and after 407, Olympiodorus. His dependence upon 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 of Stilicho; in the Olympiodoran section, he offers precise figures and transliterations from the Latin, and favors Stilicho. The first book sketches briefly the history of the early Roman emperors from Augustus to Diocletian (305); the second, third and fourth deal more fully with the period from the accession of Constantius Chlorus and Galerius to the death of Theodosius I;〔 the fifth and sixth, the most useful for historians, cover the period between 395 and 410, when Priscus 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;〔 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 polytheistic point of view. Zosimus is the only non-Christian source for much of what he reports. In contrast to Polybius, who had narrated the rise of the Roman Empire, Zosimus documented the events and causes which led to its decline.〔i. 57〕 Though the decline of the Roman Empire was Zosimus' primary subject, he also discussed events connected with Persian, Greek, and Macedonian history, perhaps in imitation of Polybius. It is clear that Photius and Evagrius 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.〔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 was a polytheist, 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. 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. Of modern writers, Baronius, Lelio Bisciola, C. v. Barth, J. D. Ritter, Richard Bentley, and G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, have taken the derogatory side. Bentley in particular speaks of Zosimus with great contempt.〔Bentley, ''Remarks upon a late Discourse of Freethinking'', Part. ii. p. 21〕 On the other hand, his historical authority has been maintained by Leunclavius, G. B. von Schirach, J. Matth. Schrockh, and Reitemeier. 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. It is not to be wondered at that one who held to the old faith should attribute the downfall of the Roman Empire in great part to the religious innovations attendant upon the spread of Christianity. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Zosimus」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|