Page "Zosimus" Paragraph 5

Zosimus was a 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.

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 St. Croix, have taken the derogatory side.

Bentley in particular 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 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.

But he does not seem fairly chargeable with deliberate invention, or willful misrepresentation.

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.