Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:23:49.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Two Lacunae in Zosimus' New History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David F. Buck
David F. Buck
Affiliation:
University of Prince Edward Island, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The retired Byzantine bureaucrat, Zosimus, wrote his New History in the early sixth century. This work is not only one of the primary sources for the history of the Later Roman Empire in the fourth and early fifth centuries a.d., but it is also the primary witness to the now fragmentary Histories of Eunapius of Sardis (a.d. 347–c. 414) which it faithfully epitomizes. In the last part of the New History which depends upon Eunapius, two lacunae have been detected which are of interest with respect to the original texts of both authors.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 342 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The precise date of composition remains elusive. See the discussion by Paschoud, F., Zosime, Histoire Nouvelle I (Paris, 1971), pp. xii–xviiGoogle Scholar and III, 2 (1989), pp. 80–1.

2 Penella, R. J., Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century A.D. (Leeds, 1990), pp. 2–4.Google Scholar The fragments of Eunapius’ Histories are cited according to the numbering of Müller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum IV (Paris, 1868).Google Scholar

3 On Zosimus as a reliable guide to the content of Eunapius’ Histories, see Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 98; Blockley, R. C., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire I (Liverpool, 1981), p. 2Google Scholar; and Paschoud, Zosime III, 2, pp. 82–4.

4 Paschoud, Zosime, I, p. lxxviii and III, 1 (1986), n. 45, p. 170.

5 Paschoud, Zosime III, 1, n. 37, p. 149; n. 46, pp. 175–6; and ‘Zosime et la fin de l'ouvrage historique d'Eunape’, Orpheus 6 (1985), 54–5.

6 Cameron, A., Long, J., and Sherry, L., Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1993), pp. 234Google Scholarand 240–1.

7 Paschoud, Zosime III, 1, n. 37, p. 149.

8 Paschoud (n. 7), n. 46, p. 175.

9 Cameron et al. (n. 6), p. 236.

10 Cameron et al. (n. 6), pp. 236–52. Strictly speaking, this puts Fravitta's death after the accepted end of Eunapius’ Histories in 404, but, given Eunapius’ regnal dating and rather cavalier attitude towards chronology (cf. fr. 1), as well as the absence of precise dates in Cameron et al.'s evidence, the conflict may be ignored in this discussion. The year 401 is rejected in favour of 404 by Blockley, R. C., ‘The ending of Eunapius’ History’, Antichthon 14 (1980), 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., Barbarians and Bishops (Oxford, 1990), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

11 Cameron et al. (n. 6), pp. 242–5 for the correct interpretation of ༐πι τŵ øραβíθou øóυω as an expression of purpose.

12 Cameron et al. (n. 6), p. 241.

13 L., Mendelssohn (ed.), Zosimi Comitis et Exadvocati Fisci Historia Nova (Leipzig, 1887)Google Scholar, note to 5.25 (p. 248, line 3), and Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 77.

14 Paschoud (n. 7), n. 46, p. 175. The absence of a lacuna in the manuscript is confirmed by Cameron et al. (n. 6), p. 240, n. 180.

15 Paschoud (n. 7), n. 46, p. 175.

16 Paschoud (n. 7), n. 46, p. 174.

17 Blockley (n. 10), p. 173. Because fr. 84 is from the Suda, it is not fixed in a chronological series like those fragments preserved in the Excerpta de Sententiis. See Cameron et al. (n. 6), p. 241.

18 Another example of this type of conclusion can be found in Zosimus (5.12–13.1).

19 Pace Cameron et al. (n. 6), p. 241, who opine that Zosimus did not wish to include Eunapius’ ‘scurrilous biographical material’.

20 Blockley (n. 10), pp. 174–5.