Zosimus and his sources

[Colonel Chabert]

It is generally accepted that the principle source for Zosimus' Historia Nova in its coverage of the 4th century is the Universal History of Eunapius. This doesn't seem to have provided him with much in the way of detail; both Argentorate and Adrianople are dealt with in a couple of lines, the only specific piece of information about the former being a ludicrously exaggerated figure for German losses. Given that Ammianus had already written his account, partly first hand, of the years 353-378, why did Zosimus not make use of this? The only reason I can think of is that he did not have access to Ammianus' history or was unaware of it. Is this the general belief? It seems surprising to say the least. Would there not have been copies of Ammianus in Constantinople in Zosimus' time? My impression was that libraries, both public and private, were quite numerous in the major cities of the Empire and, even allowing for the damage sustained by the Imperial Library in a fire a few decades before Zosimus wrote, I would have thought that there would be other copies of his work in Constantinople. 

Your thoughts/information on this would be most appreciated!

Cordialement

Le Colonel

[Nathan Ross]

Given that Ammianus had already written his account, partly first hand, of the years 353-378, why did Zosimus not make use of this?

If we are to believe Photius, Zosimus was less an original writer than a copyist: "Zosimus did not himself write the history, but... copied that of Eunapius, from which it only differs in brevity and in being less abusive of Stilicho. In other respects his account is much the same, especially in the attacks upon the Christian emperors." (Myriobiblion, 98)

As for Ammianus, the most obvious reason could be that Zosimus was writing in Greek, as had Eunapius, and Ammianus's history was written in Latin. While Zosimus may have been fluent in Latin as well, he would have had to translate anything he used from that language into Greek, and if he was as bald a copyist as Photius alleges he may have been unwilling to go that far in the pursuit of additional detail.

[Colonel Chabert]

Thanks for the reply, Nathan.

If Zosimus was some sort of civil servant then even at that late date he must necessarily have been fluent in Latin musn't he? Maybe, to paraphrase what you said, he just couldn't be arsed!

On the other hand, some intensive research on the internet (Wikipedia) indicates that the other Greek language historians of the time (Sozomen, Socrates) didn't use Ammianus as a source either so perhaps his work wasn't as readily accessible as I imagined. There is a suggestion that Olympiodorus, Zosimus' main source for the latter part of his history, had read Ammianus because of similarities in their narrative style but that is about as far as it gets.

[Nathan Ross]

the other Greek language historians of the time (Sozomen, Socrates) didn't use Ammianus as a source either so perhaps his work wasn't as readily accessible as I imagined.

Yes, possibly. Or perhaps they just didn't rate him all that highly, for some reason?

Olympiodorus was a bit of a polymath, and a well travelled man. He almost certainly went to the western empire himself, perhaps in AD425 as part of the eastern expedition against the usurper Ioannes, so he could plausibly have read Ammianus's history in Rome.

[ValentinianVictrix]

It may well be the case that Ammianus originally lodged a copies of his work in Rome and perhaps Antioch and not in Constantinople, therefore zosimus, Sozomen and Socrates may not have had access to his works. Isn't there a suggestion Libanius knew Ammianus?