All we learn from the
Zendavesta
is that Diog.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - c
160.
)
an old Latin inscription in Gruter's Inscript. p. 635.
3. The Thracian, a slave of Pericles, was ap- $ 7. (See Fabric. Bibl. Gracc. vol. xiii. p. 455,
pointed by the latter the Paedagogus of Alcibiades. ed. ret. ; Sprengel's Gesch. der Arzneik. vol. i. ed.
(Plut. Alcib. i.
P. 122. )
1846. )
(W. A. G. )
4. The Physiognomist, attributed many vices to ZOPYRUS, is mentioned by Pliny as one of
Socrates in an assembly of his disciples, who laughed the eminent silver chasers who flourished in the
at him and at his art in consequence ; but Socrates time of Pompey the Great. Two cups of his, re-
admitted the truth of his remarks, and said that such presenting the trial of Orestes by the Areopagus,
were his natural propensities, but that they had were valued at twelve thousand sesterces. (Plin.
been overcome by philosophy. (Cic. Tusc. iv. 37, de H. N. xxxiii. 12. s. 55: Zopyrus, qui Areopagitas
Fato, 5; Alex. Aphrodis. de Fato, c. 6, p. 48, ed. et judicium Orcstis in duobus scyphis (caclavilj 11. S.
Orelli. )
XII. acstimatis. )
[P. S. )
ZOPYRUS (Zárupos), literary. 1. Of Ta- ZOROASTER or ZOROASTRES (Zwpok-
rentum, a Pythagorean philosopher. (lambl. Vit. otpns), the ZARATHUSTRA of the Zendavesta, and
Pyth. extr. )
the Zardusht of the Persians, was the founder of
2. Of Clazomenae, a rhetorician, was a contem- the Magian religion. The most opposite opinions
porary of Timon. (Quintil. i. 6. 3; Diog. have been held both by ancient and modern writers
Laërt. ix. 114. )
respecting the time in which he lived. In the
3. Of Byzantium, an historian (Plut. Parall. Zendavesta itself, as well as in the writings of the
Min. c. 36), was probably the author of Mahtuu Parsees, Zoroaster is said to have lived in the reign
ktions, the fourth book of which is cited by the of. Vitaçpa (as he is called in the Zendavesta) or
Scholiast on Homer (II. x. 274). He is perhaps the Gushtasp (as the Persians name him), whom most
baine person as the Zopyrus mentioned by Marcelli- modern writers identify with Dareius Hystaspis.
nus (Vit
. Thuc. $ 32). Stobaeus quotes two verses According to this view the system of Zoroaster
from Zopyrus (Floril. Ixiii. 8), and likewise makes was not promulgated till the time of the third Per-
an extract from a work entitled Theseis, also by sian monarch, and he must therefore be looked
Zopyrus, but it is impossible to determine whether upon as the reformer and not the founder of the
this Zopyrus was the same as the Byzantine, or Magian religion, which was of much higher anti-
whether Stobaeus quotes from the same or from quity. This opinion was maintained by Hyde and
two different persons. There are some other persons Prideaux, who also attempted to prove that Zoro-
of the name. (See Vossius, de Hist. Graec. p. 511, aster was a pupil of Daniel, and learnt from the
ed. Westermann. )
prophet all those parts of his system which re-
ZOPYRUS (Žúrupos). 1. A surgeon at Alex. semble the tenets of the Sacred Writings. But
andria, the tutor of Apollonius Citiensis and although this opinion has been adopted by An-
Posidonius (Apoll. Cit. ap. Dietz, Schol. in Hippocr. quetil du Perron, Kleuker, Malcolm, and many other
et Gal. vol. i. p. 2) about the beginning of the first modern writers, it will be found to possess no
century B. C. He invented an antidote, which he other evidence in its favour but the identification
recommended to Mithridates, king of Pontus, and of Gushtasp with Dareius Hystaspis ; for the testi-
wrote a letter to that king, begging to be allowed mony of the later Greek and Roman writers, who
to test its efficacy on the person of a criminal place Zoroaster at this period, is of no value in
(Galen, De Antil. ii. 8, vol. xiv. p. 150). Another such an inquiry, and is counterbalanced by the
somewhat similar composition he prepared for one statements of other classical writers who assign to
of the Ptolemies. (Cels. v. 23. § 2. p. 94. ) Some him a much earlier date. Moreover, while this
of his medical formulae are quoted and mentioned supposition has such a slender amount of evidence in
by various ancient authors, viz. Caelius Aurelianus its farour, it is open to the most serious objections.
(De Morb. Chron. ii. 14, v. 10. pp. 425, 592), First, Zoroaster is universally represented as the
Oribasius (Coll. Medic. xiv. 45, 50, 52, 56, 58, 61, founder of the Magian religion both by the Ori-
64, pp. 478, 481, 482, 483, 485, 487), Aëtius (ii. entals and the Greeks, and it is unnecessary to
4. 57, iii. 1. 31, iv. 2. 74, pp. 417, 476, 732), prove that this religion was of greater antiquity
Paulus Aegineta (vii. 11, p. 660), Marcellus Em- than the commencement of the Persian empire,
piricus (De Medicam. c. 22, p. 312), and Nicolaus and that it had been previously the national reli-
Myrepsus (i. 291, p. 420): and Pliny (H. N. xxiv. gion of the Medes. The first Greek writer who
87), and Dioscorides (iii. 99. vol. i. p. 446) mention mentions Zoroaster is Plato, who says that the
that a certain plant was called zopyron, perhaps Persian youths were taught the Mageia of Zoro
after his name. Nicarchus satirizes in one of his aster, the son of Horomazes, which he interprets
epigrams (Anthol. Gr. xi. 124), a physician named to mean the worship of the gods (o per uayelav
Zopyrus, who appears to have lived in Egypt, and διδάσκει την Ζωροάστρου του Προμάζου –ίστι
who may possibly be the person mentioned by è TOūTO SEWV Sepanela, Plut. Alcib. i. p. 122, a).
Apollonius Citiensis and Celsus ; in which case Secondly, if Zoroaster had been the reformer of the
Nicarchus must have lived earlier than is commonly Persian religion in the reign of Dareius Hystaspis,
supposed. [NICARCHUS. )
he would certainly have been mentioned by Hero-
2. An acquaintance of Scribonius Largus in the dotus. The silence of the historian is a conclusive
first century after Christ (Scrib. Larg. De Compos. argument to us against Zoroaster being a contem-
Medicam. c. 171, p. 222), a native either of porary of Dareius. Thirdly, the king Gushtasp,
Gordium in Phrygia (Gordiensis) or of Gortyna under whom Zoroaster lived, is said in the Zenda-
in Crete (Gortynensis), may perhaps have been the resta to be the son of Auravataçpa, the Lohrasp of
same physician who is introduced by Plutarch as the modern Persians, while Hystaspes, the faiher
one of the speakers in his Symposiaca (iii. 6) and of Dareius, was never king, and was the son of
said to have belonged to the Epicurean school of Arskama or Arsames. It would therefore seem
philosophy.
that the Gushtasp, the contemporary of Zoroaster,
of h
furt
relis
froti
this
the
enti
SOC!
as a
i
P-
no
and
the
mer
It
and
hea
and
che
fror
ii.
Ina
ast
not
he
ral
fer
dia
an
lo
th.
CO
th
## p. 1333 (#1349) ##########################################
ZOROASTER.
1333
ZOSIMUS.
8
ad
:P
was an entirely different person from Dareius equal discrepancy in the Greek and Roman writers
Hystaspis.
respecting the time at which he was said to have
Other dates have likewise been assigned to lived. Thus Aristotle and Eudoxus stated that he
Zoroaster by modern scholars ; but sound criticism lived 6000 years before the death of Plato (Plin.
compels us to come to the conclusion that it is H. N. xxxi. 1. s. 2), and Hermippus that he lived
quite impossible to determine the time at which he 5000 years before the Trojan war (Plin. l. c. ;
lived.
All we learn from the Zendavesta is that Diog. Laërt. i. 2); while others assign to him a
he was the subject of a king named Gushtasp, who much later date, making him a contemporary of
belonged to the dynasty of the Kávja, or as they Cyrus (Arnob. i. 52) or Pythagoras (Clem. Alex.
are called in the modern Persian, the Kayanians. Strom. i. p. 357; Appuleius, Florid. ii. p. 231).
The history of the dynasty has come down to us in We only quote these statements as instances of
a mutilated form ; but it would appear thit the the discrepancies in the Greek and Roman writers
kings of this race reigned in eastern Iran, and respecting the age and country of Zoroaster, and
more particularly Bactria, at a period anterior to of showing the hopelessness of attempting to con-
that of the Median and Persian kings. The Bac- struct any theory from such contradictory accounts.
trian origin of Zoroaster is alluded to by several of There were extant in the later Greek literature
the Greek and Roman writers, who obtained their several works bearing the name of Zoro:18ter, and
information from Oriental sources. Thus Ammia- which are quoted under the titles of noria, lepol
nus Marcellinus (xiii. 6. 8 32) calle Zoroaster a | λόγοι, αποκαλύψεις, βίβλοι απόκρυφοι Ζωρο-
Bactrian, and his testimony is of considerable in-άστρου, περί φύσεως, περί λίθων τιμίων, αστερο-
portance because he must have received the in- KOTIKO, STOTENEO Matid, &c. Some of these
formation from the Persians themselves, when he works were in existence as early as the time of
attended the emperor Julian in his campaign Pliny, who relates that Hermippus wrote commen-
against the Parthians. Ctesias likewise, who re- taries on two million lines of Zoroaster. (Plin. l. c. ;
sided long at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, Suidas, s. v. Zwp. ) These writings however must
calls Zoroaster a king of Bactria (Ctesias, pp. 79, not be regarded as translations from the Zenda-
91, ed. Lion, copied by Justin, i. 1); and the same vesta, to which they bore no resemblance, as is
statement occurs in Moses of Chorene (i. 6). The evident from the extracts preserved from them by
tradition which represents Zoroaster of Median Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and others.
origin sprang up at a later time, when the chief seat (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14, p. 710; Euseb. Praep.
of his religion was in Media, and no longer in the | Ev. i. 10; Dion Chrysost. Or. 36. ) They were,
further East. We may therefore conclude that the on the contrary, forgeries of a later age, and belong
religion of Zoroaster first appeared in Bactria, and to the same class of writings as the works of
from thence spread eastward; but further than Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, &c. There is still
this we cannot venture to go. As the founder of extant a collection of oracles ascribed to Zoroaster,
the Magian religion he must be placed in remote which were published for the first time with the
antiquity, and it may even be questioned whether commentaries of Gemistus Pletho [Genistus),
such a person ever existed. Niebuhr regards him under the title of Mayırà régla tv ånd TOU
as a purely mythical personage (Kleine Schriften, vol. Zwpokot pou Máywv, by Tiletanus, Paris, 1538,
i. p. 200); but it is worthy of remark that we find 4to. They have also been edited by Patricius in
no trace in the Zendavesta of the various wonders his Nora de Universis Philosophia, &c. , Ferra-
and miracles which are connected with his name in riae, 1591, and Venet. 1593, foll. ; by Morell,
the Persian and Greek and Roman writers. It is Paris, 1595, 4to. , and also in Latin; by Obsopaeus,
unnecessary to repeat these stories, but we may Paris, 1507, 8vo. , and by others. It would be
mention as a specimen two tales related by Pliny. ridiculous in the present day to enter into any
It is said that he laughed on the day of his birth, argument to prove the spuriousness of these oracles.
and that his brain palpitated so violently as to Every thing known respecting the reputed works
heave up the hand that was placed upon his head ; of Zoroaster is collected by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec.
and that he lived in the desert for twenty years on vol. i. p. 304, foll. ).
cheese, in consequence of which he was preserved An account of the religious system of Zoroaster
from feeling old age. (Plin. H. N. vii. 16. s. 15, does not fall within the scope of the present work ;
xi. 42. 6. 97. ) It would be idle to attempt to but the reader will find abundant information on
make even an approximation to the date of Zoro- the subject in the works quoted below. Mr. Mil-
aster from the statements of the Greek and Roman man has given an excellent summary of the leading
writers; for the most learned among them could tenets of the Zoroastrian system. (Hyde, Veterum
not come to any agreement as to the time at which Persarum et Magorum Religionis Historia, Oxford,
he lived, and many supposed that there were seve- | 1700 and 1760; Prideaux, Connection of the His-
ral persons of this name, who lived at widely diftory of the Old and New Testament, Part i. vol. i.
ferent times and in very different countries. Thus p. 299, foll. ; Anquetil du Perron, Zendavesta ;
we find him called not only a Bactrian, but a Me Kleuker, Zendavesta ; Rhode, Die Heilige Sage des
dian (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 399), a Chaldaean Zendrolks ; Heeren, Historical Researches, &c.
(Porphyr. Vit
. Pythag. 12), a Persomedian (Suidas, Asiatic Nations, rol. i. p. 367, foll. ; Gibbon, De
8. v. Zwpokotons), a Persian (Ding. Laërt. Praef. ), cline and Fall, vol. i. c. 8; Milman, History of
an Armenian (Arnob. i. 12), a Pamphylian (Aruob. Christianity, vol. i. p. 65, foll. ; Georgii, in Reul-
1. c. ), and even a native of Proconnesus. (Plin. Encyclopädie des classichen Alterthumswissenschuft,
H. N. xxx. 1, s. 2. ) Many of these various state- 8. 1. Mlugi; Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde,
ments probably arose from the circumstance that vol. i. p. 75? , foll. )
the Magian religion was introduced into these ZORZINES, king of the Siraci, a people in the
countries and places ; and it is only in this way neighbourhood of the Caucasus, in the reign of the
that we can explain the strange account in Pliny emperor Claudius. (Tac. Ann. xii. 15, 17, 19. )
that he was a native of Proconnesus. We find ZO'SIMUS (Zúrijos). 1. A learned freedman
07
JS
TA
K Z
01-43
ܘܠܐܐ ܨܶ ܐ ܬܶ
می دم
4 Q3
La the Lund
435,78 E 67
de was the
kX20J of
## p. 1334 (#1350) ##########################################
1334
ZOSIMUS.
ZOSIMUS.
of the younger Pliny, remarkable for his talents as / altogether) an abridgment or compilation of the
a comediau and musician, as well as for his ex- works of previous historians. As far as the 41st
cellence as a reader. (Plin. Epist. v. 19. ). chapter of the first book he follows Herennius
2. Prefect of Epeirus under Valentinian and Dexippus. From that point to the 17th chapter or
Valens. He is mentioned in connection with some the fifth book Eunapius is his guide, though he
laws promulgated in a. D. 373. (Cod. Theodos. nowhere makes mention of him. Photius remarks
6. tit. 31, 12. tit. 10. )
in general terms of the work that it was not s0
3. A Greek historian, who lived in the time of much a history as a compilation from Eunapius.
the younger Theodosins (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. iii. After Eunapius he follows Olympiodorus, sometimes
41). He is described by Photius (Cod. 98, p. 84, ed. copying from him whole chapters. The style of
Bekker) as kóuns kai SAOPIO KOO Urhyopos (comes Zosimus is fairly described by Photius as concise,
et exadrocatus-fisci). He may possibly have been clear, pure, and not unpleasing. His chief fault as
the son of Zosimus, the prefect of Epeirus, who is an historical writer is that he neglects to notice
mentioned in the Theodosian Code, Zosimus was the chronology.
the author of a history of the Roman empire in six Zosimus was a pagan, and is by no means sparing
books, which is still extant. This work must have of the faults and crimes of the Christian emperors.
been written after the year 425, as an event is | In consequence of this his credibility has been
mentioned in it (v. 27) which took place in that fiercely assailed by several Christian writers, and
year. How long after cannot be determined with has been sometimes defended merely because his
certainty ; but his description of the condition of history tended to the discredit of many leading
the Greek empire at the time he wrote accords persons in the Christian party. Photius thus ex-
with the state of things in the latter part of the presses his opinion: έστι την θρησκείαν ασεβής
fifth century.
Further biographical particulars και πολλάκις εν πολλοίς υλακτών κατά των ευσε
have not come down to us.
6wv (l. c. ). Evagrius (iii. 40, 41) and Nicephorus
As Polybius had narrated the events by which (xvi. 41,
&c. ) also speak in the most unfavourable
the Roman empire had reached its greatness, so terms. The question does not, as has sometimes
Zosimus undertook the task of developing the been supposed, turn upon the credibility of the
events and causes which led to its decline (Zosim. historians whom Zosimus followed, for he did not
i. 57). As the commencement of this decline, he adhere in all cases to their judgment with respect
goes back to the change in the constitution of to events and characters. For instance he entirely
Rome introduced by Augustus. The first book differed from Eunapius in his account of Stilicho
comprises a sketch of the history of the early em- and Serena. Of modern writers, Baronius, Laelius
perors, down to the end of the reign of Diocletian Bisciola, C.
an old Latin inscription in Gruter's Inscript. p. 635.
3. The Thracian, a slave of Pericles, was ap- $ 7. (See Fabric. Bibl. Gracc. vol. xiii. p. 455,
pointed by the latter the Paedagogus of Alcibiades. ed. ret. ; Sprengel's Gesch. der Arzneik. vol. i. ed.
(Plut. Alcib. i.
P. 122. )
1846. )
(W. A. G. )
4. The Physiognomist, attributed many vices to ZOPYRUS, is mentioned by Pliny as one of
Socrates in an assembly of his disciples, who laughed the eminent silver chasers who flourished in the
at him and at his art in consequence ; but Socrates time of Pompey the Great. Two cups of his, re-
admitted the truth of his remarks, and said that such presenting the trial of Orestes by the Areopagus,
were his natural propensities, but that they had were valued at twelve thousand sesterces. (Plin.
been overcome by philosophy. (Cic. Tusc. iv. 37, de H. N. xxxiii. 12. s. 55: Zopyrus, qui Areopagitas
Fato, 5; Alex. Aphrodis. de Fato, c. 6, p. 48, ed. et judicium Orcstis in duobus scyphis (caclavilj 11. S.
Orelli. )
XII. acstimatis. )
[P. S. )
ZOPYRUS (Zárupos), literary. 1. Of Ta- ZOROASTER or ZOROASTRES (Zwpok-
rentum, a Pythagorean philosopher. (lambl. Vit. otpns), the ZARATHUSTRA of the Zendavesta, and
Pyth. extr. )
the Zardusht of the Persians, was the founder of
2. Of Clazomenae, a rhetorician, was a contem- the Magian religion. The most opposite opinions
porary of Timon. (Quintil. i. 6. 3; Diog. have been held both by ancient and modern writers
Laërt. ix. 114. )
respecting the time in which he lived. In the
3. Of Byzantium, an historian (Plut. Parall. Zendavesta itself, as well as in the writings of the
Min. c. 36), was probably the author of Mahtuu Parsees, Zoroaster is said to have lived in the reign
ktions, the fourth book of which is cited by the of. Vitaçpa (as he is called in the Zendavesta) or
Scholiast on Homer (II. x. 274). He is perhaps the Gushtasp (as the Persians name him), whom most
baine person as the Zopyrus mentioned by Marcelli- modern writers identify with Dareius Hystaspis.
nus (Vit
. Thuc. $ 32). Stobaeus quotes two verses According to this view the system of Zoroaster
from Zopyrus (Floril. Ixiii. 8), and likewise makes was not promulgated till the time of the third Per-
an extract from a work entitled Theseis, also by sian monarch, and he must therefore be looked
Zopyrus, but it is impossible to determine whether upon as the reformer and not the founder of the
this Zopyrus was the same as the Byzantine, or Magian religion, which was of much higher anti-
whether Stobaeus quotes from the same or from quity. This opinion was maintained by Hyde and
two different persons. There are some other persons Prideaux, who also attempted to prove that Zoro-
of the name. (See Vossius, de Hist. Graec. p. 511, aster was a pupil of Daniel, and learnt from the
ed. Westermann. )
prophet all those parts of his system which re-
ZOPYRUS (Žúrupos). 1. A surgeon at Alex. semble the tenets of the Sacred Writings. But
andria, the tutor of Apollonius Citiensis and although this opinion has been adopted by An-
Posidonius (Apoll. Cit. ap. Dietz, Schol. in Hippocr. quetil du Perron, Kleuker, Malcolm, and many other
et Gal. vol. i. p. 2) about the beginning of the first modern writers, it will be found to possess no
century B. C. He invented an antidote, which he other evidence in its favour but the identification
recommended to Mithridates, king of Pontus, and of Gushtasp with Dareius Hystaspis ; for the testi-
wrote a letter to that king, begging to be allowed mony of the later Greek and Roman writers, who
to test its efficacy on the person of a criminal place Zoroaster at this period, is of no value in
(Galen, De Antil. ii. 8, vol. xiv. p. 150). Another such an inquiry, and is counterbalanced by the
somewhat similar composition he prepared for one statements of other classical writers who assign to
of the Ptolemies. (Cels. v. 23. § 2. p. 94. ) Some him a much earlier date. Moreover, while this
of his medical formulae are quoted and mentioned supposition has such a slender amount of evidence in
by various ancient authors, viz. Caelius Aurelianus its farour, it is open to the most serious objections.
(De Morb. Chron. ii. 14, v. 10. pp. 425, 592), First, Zoroaster is universally represented as the
Oribasius (Coll. Medic. xiv. 45, 50, 52, 56, 58, 61, founder of the Magian religion both by the Ori-
64, pp. 478, 481, 482, 483, 485, 487), Aëtius (ii. entals and the Greeks, and it is unnecessary to
4. 57, iii. 1. 31, iv. 2. 74, pp. 417, 476, 732), prove that this religion was of greater antiquity
Paulus Aegineta (vii. 11, p. 660), Marcellus Em- than the commencement of the Persian empire,
piricus (De Medicam. c. 22, p. 312), and Nicolaus and that it had been previously the national reli-
Myrepsus (i. 291, p. 420): and Pliny (H. N. xxiv. gion of the Medes. The first Greek writer who
87), and Dioscorides (iii. 99. vol. i. p. 446) mention mentions Zoroaster is Plato, who says that the
that a certain plant was called zopyron, perhaps Persian youths were taught the Mageia of Zoro
after his name. Nicarchus satirizes in one of his aster, the son of Horomazes, which he interprets
epigrams (Anthol. Gr. xi. 124), a physician named to mean the worship of the gods (o per uayelav
Zopyrus, who appears to have lived in Egypt, and διδάσκει την Ζωροάστρου του Προμάζου –ίστι
who may possibly be the person mentioned by è TOūTO SEWV Sepanela, Plut. Alcib. i. p. 122, a).
Apollonius Citiensis and Celsus ; in which case Secondly, if Zoroaster had been the reformer of the
Nicarchus must have lived earlier than is commonly Persian religion in the reign of Dareius Hystaspis,
supposed. [NICARCHUS. )
he would certainly have been mentioned by Hero-
2. An acquaintance of Scribonius Largus in the dotus. The silence of the historian is a conclusive
first century after Christ (Scrib. Larg. De Compos. argument to us against Zoroaster being a contem-
Medicam. c. 171, p. 222), a native either of porary of Dareius. Thirdly, the king Gushtasp,
Gordium in Phrygia (Gordiensis) or of Gortyna under whom Zoroaster lived, is said in the Zenda-
in Crete (Gortynensis), may perhaps have been the resta to be the son of Auravataçpa, the Lohrasp of
same physician who is introduced by Plutarch as the modern Persians, while Hystaspes, the faiher
one of the speakers in his Symposiaca (iii. 6) and of Dareius, was never king, and was the son of
said to have belonged to the Epicurean school of Arskama or Arsames. It would therefore seem
philosophy.
that the Gushtasp, the contemporary of Zoroaster,
of h
furt
relis
froti
this
the
enti
SOC!
as a
i
P-
no
and
the
mer
It
and
hea
and
che
fror
ii.
Ina
ast
not
he
ral
fer
dia
an
lo
th.
CO
th
## p. 1333 (#1349) ##########################################
ZOROASTER.
1333
ZOSIMUS.
8
ad
:P
was an entirely different person from Dareius equal discrepancy in the Greek and Roman writers
Hystaspis.
respecting the time at which he was said to have
Other dates have likewise been assigned to lived. Thus Aristotle and Eudoxus stated that he
Zoroaster by modern scholars ; but sound criticism lived 6000 years before the death of Plato (Plin.
compels us to come to the conclusion that it is H. N. xxxi. 1. s. 2), and Hermippus that he lived
quite impossible to determine the time at which he 5000 years before the Trojan war (Plin. l. c. ;
lived.
All we learn from the Zendavesta is that Diog. Laërt. i. 2); while others assign to him a
he was the subject of a king named Gushtasp, who much later date, making him a contemporary of
belonged to the dynasty of the Kávja, or as they Cyrus (Arnob. i. 52) or Pythagoras (Clem. Alex.
are called in the modern Persian, the Kayanians. Strom. i. p. 357; Appuleius, Florid. ii. p. 231).
The history of the dynasty has come down to us in We only quote these statements as instances of
a mutilated form ; but it would appear thit the the discrepancies in the Greek and Roman writers
kings of this race reigned in eastern Iran, and respecting the age and country of Zoroaster, and
more particularly Bactria, at a period anterior to of showing the hopelessness of attempting to con-
that of the Median and Persian kings. The Bac- struct any theory from such contradictory accounts.
trian origin of Zoroaster is alluded to by several of There were extant in the later Greek literature
the Greek and Roman writers, who obtained their several works bearing the name of Zoro:18ter, and
information from Oriental sources. Thus Ammia- which are quoted under the titles of noria, lepol
nus Marcellinus (xiii. 6. 8 32) calle Zoroaster a | λόγοι, αποκαλύψεις, βίβλοι απόκρυφοι Ζωρο-
Bactrian, and his testimony is of considerable in-άστρου, περί φύσεως, περί λίθων τιμίων, αστερο-
portance because he must have received the in- KOTIKO, STOTENEO Matid, &c. Some of these
formation from the Persians themselves, when he works were in existence as early as the time of
attended the emperor Julian in his campaign Pliny, who relates that Hermippus wrote commen-
against the Parthians. Ctesias likewise, who re- taries on two million lines of Zoroaster. (Plin. l. c. ;
sided long at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, Suidas, s. v. Zwp. ) These writings however must
calls Zoroaster a king of Bactria (Ctesias, pp. 79, not be regarded as translations from the Zenda-
91, ed. Lion, copied by Justin, i. 1); and the same vesta, to which they bore no resemblance, as is
statement occurs in Moses of Chorene (i. 6). The evident from the extracts preserved from them by
tradition which represents Zoroaster of Median Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and others.
origin sprang up at a later time, when the chief seat (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14, p. 710; Euseb. Praep.
of his religion was in Media, and no longer in the | Ev. i. 10; Dion Chrysost. Or. 36. ) They were,
further East. We may therefore conclude that the on the contrary, forgeries of a later age, and belong
religion of Zoroaster first appeared in Bactria, and to the same class of writings as the works of
from thence spread eastward; but further than Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, &c. There is still
this we cannot venture to go. As the founder of extant a collection of oracles ascribed to Zoroaster,
the Magian religion he must be placed in remote which were published for the first time with the
antiquity, and it may even be questioned whether commentaries of Gemistus Pletho [Genistus),
such a person ever existed. Niebuhr regards him under the title of Mayırà régla tv ånd TOU
as a purely mythical personage (Kleine Schriften, vol. Zwpokot pou Máywv, by Tiletanus, Paris, 1538,
i. p. 200); but it is worthy of remark that we find 4to. They have also been edited by Patricius in
no trace in the Zendavesta of the various wonders his Nora de Universis Philosophia, &c. , Ferra-
and miracles which are connected with his name in riae, 1591, and Venet. 1593, foll. ; by Morell,
the Persian and Greek and Roman writers. It is Paris, 1595, 4to. , and also in Latin; by Obsopaeus,
unnecessary to repeat these stories, but we may Paris, 1507, 8vo. , and by others. It would be
mention as a specimen two tales related by Pliny. ridiculous in the present day to enter into any
It is said that he laughed on the day of his birth, argument to prove the spuriousness of these oracles.
and that his brain palpitated so violently as to Every thing known respecting the reputed works
heave up the hand that was placed upon his head ; of Zoroaster is collected by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec.
and that he lived in the desert for twenty years on vol. i. p. 304, foll. ).
cheese, in consequence of which he was preserved An account of the religious system of Zoroaster
from feeling old age. (Plin. H. N. vii. 16. s. 15, does not fall within the scope of the present work ;
xi. 42. 6. 97. ) It would be idle to attempt to but the reader will find abundant information on
make even an approximation to the date of Zoro- the subject in the works quoted below. Mr. Mil-
aster from the statements of the Greek and Roman man has given an excellent summary of the leading
writers; for the most learned among them could tenets of the Zoroastrian system. (Hyde, Veterum
not come to any agreement as to the time at which Persarum et Magorum Religionis Historia, Oxford,
he lived, and many supposed that there were seve- | 1700 and 1760; Prideaux, Connection of the His-
ral persons of this name, who lived at widely diftory of the Old and New Testament, Part i. vol. i.
ferent times and in very different countries. Thus p. 299, foll. ; Anquetil du Perron, Zendavesta ;
we find him called not only a Bactrian, but a Me Kleuker, Zendavesta ; Rhode, Die Heilige Sage des
dian (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 399), a Chaldaean Zendrolks ; Heeren, Historical Researches, &c.
(Porphyr. Vit
. Pythag. 12), a Persomedian (Suidas, Asiatic Nations, rol. i. p. 367, foll. ; Gibbon, De
8. v. Zwpokotons), a Persian (Ding. Laërt. Praef. ), cline and Fall, vol. i. c. 8; Milman, History of
an Armenian (Arnob. i. 12), a Pamphylian (Aruob. Christianity, vol. i. p. 65, foll. ; Georgii, in Reul-
1. c. ), and even a native of Proconnesus. (Plin. Encyclopädie des classichen Alterthumswissenschuft,
H. N. xxx. 1, s. 2. ) Many of these various state- 8. 1. Mlugi; Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde,
ments probably arose from the circumstance that vol. i. p. 75? , foll. )
the Magian religion was introduced into these ZORZINES, king of the Siraci, a people in the
countries and places ; and it is only in this way neighbourhood of the Caucasus, in the reign of the
that we can explain the strange account in Pliny emperor Claudius. (Tac. Ann. xii. 15, 17, 19. )
that he was a native of Proconnesus. We find ZO'SIMUS (Zúrijos). 1. A learned freedman
07
JS
TA
K Z
01-43
ܘܠܐܐ ܨܶ ܐ ܬܶ
می دم
4 Q3
La the Lund
435,78 E 67
de was the
kX20J of
## p. 1334 (#1350) ##########################################
1334
ZOSIMUS.
ZOSIMUS.
of the younger Pliny, remarkable for his talents as / altogether) an abridgment or compilation of the
a comediau and musician, as well as for his ex- works of previous historians. As far as the 41st
cellence as a reader. (Plin. Epist. v. 19. ). chapter of the first book he follows Herennius
2. Prefect of Epeirus under Valentinian and Dexippus. From that point to the 17th chapter or
Valens. He is mentioned in connection with some the fifth book Eunapius is his guide, though he
laws promulgated in a. D. 373. (Cod. Theodos. nowhere makes mention of him. Photius remarks
6. tit. 31, 12. tit. 10. )
in general terms of the work that it was not s0
3. A Greek historian, who lived in the time of much a history as a compilation from Eunapius.
the younger Theodosins (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. iii. After Eunapius he follows Olympiodorus, sometimes
41). He is described by Photius (Cod. 98, p. 84, ed. copying from him whole chapters. The style of
Bekker) as kóuns kai SAOPIO KOO Urhyopos (comes Zosimus is fairly described by Photius as concise,
et exadrocatus-fisci). He may possibly have been clear, pure, and not unpleasing. His chief fault as
the son of Zosimus, the prefect of Epeirus, who is an historical writer is that he neglects to notice
mentioned in the Theodosian Code, Zosimus was the chronology.
the author of a history of the Roman empire in six Zosimus was a pagan, and is by no means sparing
books, which is still extant. This work must have of the faults and crimes of the Christian emperors.
been written after the year 425, as an event is | In consequence of this his credibility has been
mentioned in it (v. 27) which took place in that fiercely assailed by several Christian writers, and
year. How long after cannot be determined with has been sometimes defended merely because his
certainty ; but his description of the condition of history tended to the discredit of many leading
the Greek empire at the time he wrote accords persons in the Christian party. Photius thus ex-
with the state of things in the latter part of the presses his opinion: έστι την θρησκείαν ασεβής
fifth century.
Further biographical particulars και πολλάκις εν πολλοίς υλακτών κατά των ευσε
have not come down to us.
6wv (l. c. ). Evagrius (iii. 40, 41) and Nicephorus
As Polybius had narrated the events by which (xvi. 41,
&c. ) also speak in the most unfavourable
the Roman empire had reached its greatness, so terms. The question does not, as has sometimes
Zosimus undertook the task of developing the been supposed, turn upon the credibility of the
events and causes which led to its decline (Zosim. historians whom Zosimus followed, for he did not
i. 57). As the commencement of this decline, he adhere in all cases to their judgment with respect
goes back to the change in the constitution of to events and characters. For instance he entirely
Rome introduced by Augustus. The first book differed from Eunapius in his account of Stilicho
comprises a sketch of the history of the early em- and Serena. Of modern writers, Baronius, Laelius
perors, down to the end of the reign of Diocletian Bisciola, C.
