proclaimed Christian dogma in advance (Bibl. 170). The Souda’s short entry on Zo ̄simos
(Z-168) calls him a philosopher of Alexandria, perhaps indicating, against the general opin-
ion that he was a Pano ̄polite, that he was a resident of the me ̄tropolis. The Souda says that
Zo ̄simos wrote chemical works in 28 (sic) books, arranged alphabetically, addressed to his
“sister” Theosebeia, and called by some the Kheirokme ̄ta (Things Wrought By Hand; elsewhere
Kheirotme ̄ta). Although Zo ̄simos himself mentions a work of his thus titled and addressed to
Theosebeia (Mertens 1995, §4.2), and treatises entitled with letters of the alphabet survive
and are referred to in his extant works, it is difficult to judge which, if any, of these texts were
part of the Kheirokme ̄ta. Finally, the Souda says that he wrote a biography of P, entirely lost.
The date of Zo ̄simos’s lifetime is broadly bounded by two points: a) his citation of I
A (CAAG 2.169) provides a terminus post quem in the first half of the 3rd c. CE,
while b) his reference to the Serapeion at Alexandria as still existent (Mertens 1995, §1.8)
allows a terminus ante quem at the destruction of that temple in 391 CE. Thus, most scholars
date him to the late 3rd or early 4th c., although Hammer Jensen (1921: 99) dated him to
ca 500 CE. Letrouit (1995: 46) would tighten these boundaries, noting that Zo ̄simos’ veiled
anti-Manichaean polemic (Mertens 1995, §1.14) would only have been appropriate between
the introduction of Manichaeism into Egypt (ca 268 CE) and the death of Mani (278 CE).
Zo ̄simos was a fervent follower of M whose descriptions of furnaces and other
chemical apparatus he elaborates and whose alchemical maxims he preserves (Mertens
1995: -). Likewise he followed H T, A,
-D and other early alchemical authorities. Aside from discussions of
earlier alchemical works and their instruments, ingredients and procedures, Zo ̄simos’ writ-
ings also occasionally took the form of allegorical dream-visions (Mertens 1995, § 10 – 12),
discussions of material similar to that found in the Corpus Hermeticum (e.g. in Mertens 1995,
§1) and spiritual advice to Theosebeia (Festugière 1950: 366–368).
M. Berthelot and C. E. Ruelle (CAAG 2.107–252) edited his extant Greek works, but the
inclusion in this edition of texts full of later interpolations, texts that are in fact by later
authors merely citing Zo ̄simos, as well as numerous errors due to the obscurity of the
subject matter and problems surrounding the manuscript tradition, have rendered the
edition untrustworthy. Mertens is re-editing Zo ̄simos’ Greek works; see also Letrouit (1995:
22 – 37) for a list of his known Greek works and discussion of those falsely attributed to him
in the CAAG.
Texts attributed to Zo ̄simos are extant in Syriac (partial paraphrased translation in
Berthelot and Duval 1893: 203–266) and Arabic, much of which appears to be authentic
and some of which, in the case of the Arabic, are translations of extant Greek texts (Hallum
2008: 114–192). However, the gnomic sayings preserved in early Arabic literature and men-
tioned by Ullmann (1972: 160–161) do not derive from Zo ̄simos (Hallum 2008: 34–87).
Ed.: Mertens (1995) 1–49.
M. Berthelot and R. Duval, La Chimie au moyen âge 2: L’achimie Syriaque (1893); I. Hammer Jensen, Die
älteste Alchymie (1921); DSB 14.631–632, M. Plessner; M. Mertens, “Project for a New Edition of
Zosimus of Panopolis,” in Z.R.W.M. von Martels, ed., Alchemy Revisited (1990) 121–126; Dictionary of
Gnosis and Western Esotericism 2 (2005) 1183–1186, A. de Jong; NDSB 7.405–408, M. Mertens; Bink
Hallum, Zosimus Arabus: the Arabic/Islamic Reception of Zosimos of Panopolis (Diss. London, 2008).
Bink Hallum
ZO ̄SIMOS OF PANO ̄POLIS