By Alexander Larrow

 

The New History of Zosimus has frequently been neglected and disdained by modern historians, with assessments of his work typically ranging from mediocre to incompetent or even malicious. Despite this, I believe that Zosimus provides a unique and valuable perspective, and his work needs to be reassessed. Zosimus positions himself as an anti-Polybius, seeking to explain the rapid decline of the Roman empire as opposed to its equally rapid rise. In this paper, I aim to evaluate Zosimus’ work on his own terms, specifically looking at how his invective against Constantine in Book 2 fits within his broader historical project. Contrary to prominent medieval and modern receptions, I argue that Zosimus is largely successful and coherent in crafting his arguments to support his project through the narrative arc of Constantine’s reign.

Before discussing these issues, it is necessary to provide some background information about this relatively obscure author and his work.¹ Zosimus lived in Constantinople and worked as a legal advocate for the imperial treasury before writing his history.² As with many late antique historians, little else is known with certainty about Zosimus’ life.³ Considering what is known about other early Byzantine historians, it is probable that Zosimus was highly educated and came from a wealthy background given his position as a bureaucrat and the amount of leisure time required to write such a history.⁴ Based on the sympathies expressed in his work, in which he laments the abandonment of pagan rituals, Zosimus was likely a pagan devotee.⁵ Zosimus’ status as a member of a pagan minority under a Christian emperor shaped his writing, which strongly criticizes earlier Christian emperors.⁶ The New History thus reflects the views and biases of a late pagan and of an individual with political experience.⁷

The date of Zosimus’ writing has been the subject of some debate.⁸ For example, Edward Gibbon, in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, incorrectly believed that Zosimus wrote in the early fifth century, repeating earlier errors.⁹ More recent scholars have concluded that Zosimus wrote between 498 and 502 CE, or perhaps as late as 518 CE, based on references to contemporary events in his text.¹⁰ These date Zosimus’ work during the reign of Anastasius I.¹¹ This means that Zosimus wrote after the nominal collapse of the Roman empire in the west, marked by the sacks of Rome in 410 and 455 CE, as well as the deposition of the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, in 476 CE.¹² This collapse of the empire is central to Zosimus’ work, as will be explored later.

The New History, which survived in a single, damaged, sixteenth-century manuscript, is divided into six books.¹³ The first book rushes through Greek and Roman history, starting from the Trojan War, before slowing down and providing more detail about the third century CE. The ending of the first book, which would have covered the time of Diocletian, has been lost as several pages are missing in the manuscript.¹⁴ The second book starts from Diocletian’s abdication and ends during the reign of Constantius II around 350 CE, although its primary focus is Constantine. The third book focuses on Julian the Apostate. The fourth book starts with Valentinian and ends with Theodosius in 395 CE. The fifth book discusses the joint reign of Honorius and Arcadius. The sixth book focuses on the war against Alaric, abruptly breaking off shortly before the sack of Rome in 410 CE.¹⁵ The reason for this apparent incompleteness is unclear; Zosimus may have intentionally stopped before the sack, or he may have died before completing his work.¹⁶

Let us now turn to some of the prominent negative, but flawed, receptions of Zosimus. The first was written by Photius, a patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century. In his Bibliotheca, Photius provides summaries of numerous works that he has read, including many historical writings.¹⁷ His accounts range from a single sentence to several lengthy paragraphs. Photius’ review of Zosimus is brief, comprising two short paragraphs. On the one hand, Photius, being a Christian leader, criticizes Zosimus as an “impious heathen” who “frequently yelps at those of the true faith,” referring to Zosimus’ attacks on Christian emperors. On the other, he praises Zosimus’ style as “concise, clear, and pure, and not devoid of charm.”¹⁸ After a summary of the work, Photius asserts that Zosimus did not write his own history but merely copied Eunapius, though more clearly and concisely.

Unfortunately, Photius’ claims are difficult to evaluate, since Eunapius’ history has been lost. While Eunapius appears to have been Zosimus’ main source and the extensive similarities between Zosimus and Eunapius identified by Photius after reading both histories cannot be dismissed, it is evident that Zosimus did not base his entire history on that of Eunapius. Photius’ account points to one of the main issues: he notes that Zosimus was less hostile to Stilicho, an early 5th-century western Roman general, than Eunapius was. This is because Zosimus turned to a different source, the history of Olympiodorus.¹⁹ As Zosimus switched from one source to another, his view of Stilicho shifted from negative to positive, although Photius did not mention this pivot. Similarly, in Book 2, Zosimus portrays Constantine rather positively in his war against Licinius before pivoting to a negative account of Constantine as an evil emperor.²⁰ The discrepancy can be explained by Zosimus’ use of Praxagoras rather than Eunapius for this section.²¹ Additionally, Zosimus’ references to events of his time, such as Anastasius’ abolition of a tax in 498 CE or the banning of pantomime in 502 CE, cannot have come from Eunapius who wrote several decades earlier.²² Based on this evidence, Photius must have exaggerated; Zosimus did not lazily copy Eunapius’ history but instead employed multiple sources and added his own perspective.

Another harsh critic of Zosimus was the eighteenth-century historian Edward Gibbon, who labeled Zosimus as a prejudiced, malicious, ignorant, lying bigot without providing much justification.²³ Nevertheless, Zosimus provides the first narrative history of Constantine’s reign, compelling Gibbon to rely on it.²⁴ Ironically, Gibbon fully accepts Zosimus’ arguments against Constantine, undermining his attacks on Zosimus.²⁵ In fact, Gibbon’s historical project is quite similar to that of Zosimus: both seek to explain the decline of Rome, as will be discussed later.²⁶

Building on previous criticisms and on each other, historians of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have tended to describe Zosimus as lacking competence but fail to satisfactorily explain this judgement. In his 1968 book, Walter Kaegi described Zosimus’ arguments as “shallow, inconsistent, and superstitious.”²⁷ Walter Goffart’s 1971 article referred to Zosimus as “hardly a historian of the first rank.”²⁸ In the same year, Francois Paschoud wrote that Zosimus’ history was a confused retelling of a flawed source.²⁹ His 1997 article repeated Photius’ claim that Zosimus wrote little more than a hasty and negligent summary of Eunapius.³⁰ Warren Treadgold’s 2007 book listed Zosimus as a mediocre compiler.³¹ Dimitris Krallis’ 2014 article discussed Zosimus as thoughtless and incompetent in handling sources.³² Referring to Photius’ criticism, Krallis noted, “It must be admitted that this medieval Byzantine verdict is not necessarily harsher than modern readings of Zosimus’ work.”³³ Perhaps rather than accepting past negativity, it is finally time for a thorough reexamination of this thousand-year-old verdict.

Michael Roberts’ 2010 book on literary history describes late antiquity as “a period of continuity and change, of transition and transmission.”³⁴ Zosimus exemplifies this idea, building on the works of his predecessors while providing a new perspective. As previously mentioned, his main literary sources were Eunapius and Olympiodorus.³⁵ Like other late antique historians, Zosimus models his work on those of his predecessors while aiming to outdo them.³⁶ As a result, Zosimus effectively transmits large portions of their histories, allowing their narratives to survive within his own work.³⁷ Aside from literary sources, he may have conducted other research in the archives, although their disorganization would have hindered such efforts.³⁸ However, historians of this period tended to focus on literary excellence more than thorough research.³⁹ Zosimus seems to be no exception: Photius praised his style, and more recent literary historians have viewed his work favorably.⁴⁰ His style may explain why his history survived, since later Byzantines tended to copy and thus preserve better-written works.⁴¹ In this way, Zosimus likely succeeded in outdoing his immediate predecessors.

More broadly, Zosimus’ history marks the continuation of a pagan literary and historical tradition that began before Eunapius or Olympiodorus.⁴² His attacks on Christian emperors, primarily Constantine, transmit the views of earlier western pagan authors on the events of previous centuries.⁴³ He simultaneously captures the viewpoints of late eastern paganism by discussing the events of his own time.⁴⁴ Moreover, Zosimus’ work holds greater significance as the final surviving pagan history as pagans formed a vanishing minority by the early sixth century.⁴⁵

At the same time, Zosimus’ perspective departs from earlier pagan writers. While Eunapius and others viewed corruption and invasions as signs of decay but did not mention a fall, Zosimus centers his narrative around the decline and fall of the Roman empire.⁴⁶ In his time, there was no longer a western emperor; the western provinces, including Italy and Rome itself, had been lost. For Zosimus, the empire was not merely decaying; it had already fallen, overrun by barbarians, and he was living in a successor state.⁴⁷ From a remote vantage point, Zosimus observed the ruins of the empire and sought to explain the reasons for its decline, much as Gibbon would do centuries later.⁴⁸ Zosimus and Gibbon essentially share the same project of illuminating this decline.⁴⁹ Zosimus frequently refers to the present state of affairs as miserable but never bothers to elaborate, as he assumes that the fall of the empire was obvious to his readers and needed no explanation.⁵⁰ Subsequent historians, including Procopius, shared this premise of a fallen empire, indicating that Zosimus was expressing a common viewpoint for his time.⁵¹ Emperor Justinian, too, believed that the empire had declined, and this idea motivated him to attempt to restore imperial greatness through military campaigns in the western provinces a few decades after Zosimus.⁵²

From this changed perspective, Zosimus looks further back beyond the pagan tradition of the fourth and fifth centuries CE. Most other late antique historians modeled their works on recent authors, believing ancient writers to be too great and too distant.⁵³ Yet Zosimus, at the start of the New History, positions himself next to Polybius who wrote in the second century BCE.⁵⁴ He emulates Polybius by writing in koine Greek, breaking from Eunapius’ Attic Greek.⁵⁵ However, he does not attempt to employ Polybius’ specific framework of political theory, instead using Polybius as a general source for inspiration.⁵⁶ 

The New History opens with a summary of Polybius’ history, which explains how the Romans rapidly gained control of the entire Mediterranean.⁵⁷ Zosimus believes that purely human causes are insufficient to explain this ascendence and attributes Rome’s flourishing to divine favor. Conversely, when the Romans lost this divine favor, “their affairs decline[d] to a state resembling that which now exists.”⁵⁸ Later in Book 1, Zosimus more concisely explains his relation to Polybius: “For as Polybius informs us by what means the Romans in a short space of time attained a vast empire, it is my purpose to show on the other hand, that by their ill management in as short a time they lost it.”⁵⁹ Shortly afterward, he repeats the idea of the fallen empire: “In this manner was the regard of heaven shown to the Romans, as long as they kept up their sacred rites. But it is my lot to speak of these times, wherein the Roman empire degenerated to a species of barbarity, and fell to decay. I shall display the causes of such misfortunes.”⁶⁰

These passages from Book 1 identify Zosimus’ historical project. Zosimus presents himself as an anti-Polybius: while Polybius wrote about the rise of Rome, Zosimus writes about its fall. Furthermore, he is not only describing the events; rather, he is crafting an argument about why and how the empire fell to ruin. Zosimus provides two main reasons: first, the Romans lost the favor of the gods; and second, the Romans managed their empire poorly, allowing barbarians to take control.⁶¹ The rest of Book 1 concerns what Zosimus considers a more prosperous time for the Romans before the decline.⁶² He views the transition from an aristocratic government to a monarchy under Augustus unfavorably. He criticizes monarchs as vulnerable to tyranny and flattery, resulting in some negative developments. Nevertheless, Augustus’ reign does not mark the start of the decay, which Zosimus thought to have happened over only a few decades.⁶³ 

Instead, Zosimus points to the reign of Constantine, described in Book 2, as the beginning of the decline that would ultimately destroy the empire.⁶⁴ Zosimus writes, “To speak in plain terms, he [Constantine] was the first cause of the affairs of the empire declining to their present miserable state.”⁶⁵ This sentence essentially serves as Zosimus’ thesis statement for Book 2. How Zosimus supports his argument and how it fits into his broader project, outlined in Book 1, demands further investigation through a close reading of Book 2.

Zosimus begins Book 2 with a lengthy description of the Secular Games, a pagan festival held roughly every century.⁶⁶ According to Zosimus, while these games were properly observed, the empire was secure. By contrast, when Constantine was in power, the games were neglected; consequently, the empire “fell to decay, and degenerated insensibly into barbarism.”⁶⁷ This episode adheres closely to Zosimus’ overall argument about divine favor and links the neglect of rituals directly to Constantine.⁶⁸

 Next, Zosimus turns to the conflict between co-emperors Constantine and Maxentius. Both are portrayed as jealous of each other, seeking war and greater power.⁶⁹ In particular, Maxentius “conducted himself with cruelty and licentiousness” in Italy.⁷⁰ Constantine assembled an army of barbarians from Britain and Germany to march on Rome, while Maxentius gathered an Italian army to stop him.⁷¹ In the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine emerged victorious, and the people of Rome welcomed him with joy, as he freed them from the tyranny of Maxentius.⁷² Afterward, Constantine, being unfaithful “in his usual manner,” broke his agreement with Licinius, another co-emperor, and started a war against him.⁷³ Constantine commanded a Greek naval force against Licinius, who assembled ships from various eastern provinces.⁷⁴ The details of Constantine’s naval victory mirror the Athenian victory over the Persians at Salamis, thus positively associating Constantine with Greek civilization and negatively associating Licinius with Persian despotism.⁷⁵ Following his defeat, Licinius surrendered to Constantine, who again broke his oath and ordered Licinius to be executed.⁷⁶ Zosimus’ accounts of these civil wars create a mixed, complex picture of Constantine, demonstrating that Zosimus is not mindlessly yelping at Christian emperors. Constantine is shown as hungry for power and quick to break his word, but he liberates Rome from his rivals, Maxentius and Licinius, who are depicted as cruel tyrants.

At this point, Zosimus returns to his argument about divine favor and initiates a stream of invective against Constantine, writing, “Now that the whole empire had fallen into the hands of Constantine, he no longer concealed his evil disposition and vicious inclinations.”⁷⁷ According to Zosimus, Constantine followed pagan practices and listened to soothsayers merely as a tool for power, not out of genuine piety. Moreover, he committed acts of impiety by ordering the deaths of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta under murky pretenses. For these crimes, along with his frequent oath-breaking, Constantine sought absolution from pagan priests, who refused, believing that his actions were too heinous for purification. However, Constantine encountered a Spanish Christian named Aegyptius who promised forgiveness for his sins if he followed the Christian doctrine. Here Zosimus, who otherwise avoids discussing Christian beliefs, implicitly criticizes Christianity as immoral for absolving Constantine of his crimes and as a foreign religion contrasting with the ancient Roman rituals.⁷⁸ Zosimue writes that, upon hearing Aegyptius’ promises, Constantine abandoned paganism and embraced Christianity. He performed further acts of impiety by refusing to attend an important pagan festival.⁷⁹ As a result, Constantine “incurred the hatred of the senate and people.”⁸⁰

The next section discusses Zosimus’ other reason for decline: poor management. Having alienated the Romans, Constantine decided to build a new city as large as Rome.⁸¹ After a failed project near Troy, he began expanding Byzantium with a new wall, marketplace, and palace. New pagan temples were built, but Constantine defaced some of the statues due to his “contempt of religion.”⁸² While fixated on the city, he ignored barbarian incursions, allowing Scythians to plunder Roman territory unopposed. He wasted public money on pointless buildings that were soon demolished, and he made significant changes to the magistracies, disrupting the balance of power and producing “great injury to public affairs.”⁸³ Worse still, he withdrew soldiers from the frontiers of the empire, allowing barbarians to invade and burdening towns with unnecessary soldiers, who then became weak from watching public spectacles.⁸⁴ Zosimus then identifies Constantine as the first cause for the fall of the empire, embodying the two main reasons the empire fell to ruin.

Zosimus grapples with a difficult topic for pagans of his time: the prosperity of Constantinople, despite its foundation by Constantine and the decline of the western part of the empire.⁸⁵ Zosimus criticizes Constantine’s motives for moving the capital, his wasteful expenditures in building the city, and its subsequent overcrowding.⁸⁶ Still, he admits that it became greater than any other city, but he mentions a pagan oracle that supposedly predicted the rise of Constantinople.⁸⁷ For Zosimus, this oracle allows the status of Constantinople to serve as additional evidence for his broader argument about divine favor, rather than creating a contradiction.⁸⁸ This brief section of the New History demonstrates Zosimus’ efforts to build a comprehensive argument and tackle potential weaknesses.

Afterward, Zosimus resumes his explanation of Constantine’s harmful policies, specifically targeting issues related to the treasury. He claims that Constantine wasted large sums of tax revenue on useless gifts, “for he mistook prodigality for magnificence.”⁸⁹ To fund his extravagance, Constantine levied extremely burdensome taxes on the rich and poor alike, creating “lamentations and complaints” throughout the empire.⁹⁰ These taxes, which persisted until 498 CE, drained all the money from many cities, leading to their abandonment.⁹¹ Finally, Constantine died having “oppressed and tormented the people in these various modes.”⁹² The remainder of Book 2 follows Constantine’s sons, who mirror their father’s actions. They divided the empire among themselves but soon began killing each other, “not to fall short of [their] father in impiety.”⁹³ Constans hired an army of barbarians and “exercised every species of cruelty toward his subjects, exceeding the most intolerable tyranny.”⁹⁴ Ultimately, Constantius emerged victorious and continued killing his relatives.⁹⁵

To summarize, Book 2 supports Zosimus’ overall arguments and fits well into his stated project. Zosimus blames Constantine for starting the decline of the empire and provides two main reasons. The first is his impiety, evident in his neglect of pagan festivals, his frequent oath-breaking, and the executions of his family members, a practice continued by his sons. According to Zosimus, Constantine’s impious behavior causes the empire to lose its divine protection and rapidly deteriorate. The second and more tangible reason is his ill management of the empire. He is strongly associated with barbarians, who eventually destroy the empire; Constantine marches against Maxentius with an army of barbarians, he allows a barbarian incursion while he is occupied with the construction of his new city, and he opens all the frontiers to barbarians by repositioning soldiers. He is also associated with exorbitant spending and the imposition of oppressive taxes, devastating the treasury and the people. Zosimus also contemplates Constantine’s two main successes: his victory in the civil wars and his construction of Constantinople, which continued to flourish despite the collapse of the western empire. For the first, Zosimus initially portrays Constantine in a less negative light, suggesting that he became evil only after his power was secure. For the second, Zosimus attributes the prosperity of Constantinople not to Constantine but to a pagan oracle, resolving the apparent contradiction.

In conclusion, Zosimus is consistent and thoughtful in his arguments and his overarching historical project, contrary to the standard assessments of his work. Of course, this does not mean that his assertions should be accepted. Zosimus’ history is heavily biased by his religious views, so modern scholars must remain skeptical about his claims and carefully scrutinize his evidence. At the same time, if all biased sources are to be discarded, there would be no sources left to study. Rather, Zosimus’ subjectivity provides unique insight into the perspective of late eastern paganism. For this reason, his work deserves further recognition, exploration, and examination in future discussions of late antiquity.

 

Alexander Larrow is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Classical Studies and Economics. He is the lead research editor and deputy editor-in-chief of Discentes. 

 

Photo Caption Credits: Johann Heinrich Fussli, The Artist’s Despair Before the Grandeur of Ancient Ruins, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/FuseliArtistMovedtoDespair.jpg. 

 

Endnotes

1. Walter Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” The American Historical Review 76, no. 2 (1971): 417–418. https://doi.org/10.2307/1858706.
2. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 412.
3. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 418; Warren Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave, 2007), 351–352. https://archive.org/details/treadgold-early-middle-byz-historians/mode/2up. 
4. Brian Croke, “Historiography,” in Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 417, https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.013.0012; Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 353–356, 380–381.
5. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 418–419.
6. Walter Emil Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1515/9781400879557, 59, 99, 132.
7. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
8. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 412.
9. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 420.
10. Alan Cameron, “The Date of Zosimus’ New History,” Philologus 113, no. 1–2 (1969): 106–110, https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1524/phil.1969.113.12.106; Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 421.
11. Warren Treadgold, A Concise History of Byzantium (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 57. https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00warr/page/56/mode/2up.
12. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 3–8.
13. François Paschoud, “Zosime 2,29 et La Version Paienne de La Conversion de Constantin,” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 20, no. 2/3 (1971): 344, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435199; Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 374; Zosimus, New History, https://topostext.org/work/740, accessed December 19, 2024.
14. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
15. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 418; Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
16.  Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 418.
17. Photius, Bibliotheca, https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm.
18. Photius, Bibliotheca, 98.
19. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 419.
20. Zosimus, New History, 2.22–28.
21. Dimitris Krallis, “Greek Glory, Constantinian Legend: Praxagoras’ Athenian Agenda in Zosimos New History?” Journal of Late Antiquity 7, no. 1 (2014), 110–130, https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.library.upenn.edu/article/556107.
22. Cameron, “The Date of Zosimus’ New History,” 106–107.
23. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 413.
24. David P. Jordan, “Gibbon’s ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome,” History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504190.
25. Jordan, “Gibbon’s ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome,” 77.
26. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 413.
27. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
28. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 413.
29. Paschoud, “Zosime 2,29 et La Version Paienne de La Conversion de Constantin,” 349.
30. François Paschoud, “Zosime et Constantin. Nouvelles Controverses,” Museum Helveticum 54, no. 1 (1997): 13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24821139.
31. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 367–368.
32. Krallis, “Greek Glory, Constantinian Legend,” 122.
33. Krallis, “Greek Glory, Constantinian Legend,” 111.
34. Michael J. Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010), 38. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.7591/9781501729713.
35. Croke, “Historiography,” 419.
36. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 368.
37. Bruno Bleckman, “Sources for the History of Constantine,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. Noel Lenski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 28, https://books.google.com/books?id=cfRTip1qBJcC&pg=PR7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false; Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 362.
38. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 365.
39. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 365.
40. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 413–414; Photius, Bibliotheca, 98.
41. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 362–363.
42. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 102.
43. Paschoud, “Zosime 2,29 et La Version Paienne de La Conversion de Constantin,” 336.
44. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
45. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 101.
46. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 102.
47. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 431.
48. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 426.
49. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 413.
50. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 102–103.
51. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 432.
52. Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 433.
53. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 368.
54. Croke, “Historiography,” 419; Goffart, “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall,” 426, 438; Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 103; Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 368.
55. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, 364; Zosimus, New History, 1.1.
56. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 108.
57. Zosimus, New History, 1.1.
58. Zosimus, New History, 1.1.
59. Zosimus, New History, 1.57.
60. Zosimus, New History, 1.58.
61. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 111.
62. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 108.
63. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 103–107.
64. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 107.
65. Zosimus, New History, 2.34.
66. Zosimus, New History, 2.1–7.
67. Zosimus, New History, 2.7.
68. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 115–116.
69. Zosimus, New History, 2.14–15.
70. Zosimus, New History, 2.14.
71. Zosimus, New History, 2.15.
72. Zosimus, New History, 2.16–17.
73. Zosimus, New History, 2.18.
74. Zosimus, New History, 2.22.
75. Krallis, “Greek Glory, Constantinian Legend,” 115–116.
76. Zosimus, New History, 2.28.
77. Zosimus, New History, 2.29.
78. Kaegi,  Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 133.
79. Paschoud, “Zosime 2,29 et La Version Paienne de La Conversion de Constantin,” 346.
80. Zosimus, New History, 2.29.
81. Zosimus, New History, 2.30.
82. Zosimus, New History, 2.31.
83. Zosimus, New History, 2.33.
84. Zosimus, New History, 2.34.
85. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 135–137.
86. Zosimus, New History, 2.35–36.
87. Zosimus, New History, 2.36–37.
88. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire, 137–139.
89. Zosimus, New History, 2.38.
90. Zosimus, New History, 2.38.
91. Cameron, “The Date of Zosimus’ New History,” 106; Zosimus, New History, 2.38.
92. Zosimus, New History, 2.39.
93. Zosimus, New History, 2.40.
94. Zosimus, New History, 2.42.
95. Zosimus, New History, 2.55.

 

Bibliography

Bleckman, Bruno. “Sources for the History of Constantine.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. Noel Lenski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Cameron, Alan. “The Date of Zosimus’ New History.” Philologus 113, no. 1–2 (1969): 106–110. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1524/phil.1969.113.12.106

Croke, Brian. “Historiography.” In Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford Handbooks, 2012. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.013.0012. Accessed December 19, 2024.

Goffart, Walter. “Zosimus, The First Historian of Rome’s Fall.” The American Historical Review 76, no. 2 (1971): 412–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1858706.

Jordan, David P. “Gibbon’s ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome.” History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 71–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504190.

Kaegi, Walter Emil. Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.1515/9781400879557.

Krallis, Dimitris. “Greek Glory, Constantinian Legend: Praxagoras’ Athenian Agenda in Zosimos New History?” Journal of Late Antiquity 7, no. 1 (2014): 110–130. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jla.2014.0010.

Paschoud, François. “Zosime 2,29 et La Version Paienne de La Conversion de Constantin.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 20, no. 2/3 (1971): 334–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435199.

Paschoud, François. “Zosime et Constantin. Nouvelles Controverses.” Museum Helveticum 54, no. 1 (1997): 9–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24821139.

Photius, Bibliotheca. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#98. 

Roberts, Michael J. The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upenn.edu/10.7591/9781501729713.

Treadgold, Warren. A Concise History of Byzantium. New York: Palgrave, 2001. https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00warr/page/56/mode/2up. 

Treadgold, Warren. The Early Byzantine Historians. New York: Palgrave, 2007. https://archive.org/details/treadgold-early-middle-byz-historians/mode/2up. 

Zosimus. New History. https://topostext.org/work/740.