Scanned text contains errors.
Histoire des Empereurs, vol. iv. pp. 130, 244; Eckhel, vol. viii. p. 27.)
2. Grand-daughter of the foregoing, being the daughter of Constantius Chlorus and Flavia Maxi- miaria Theodora, and therefore the sister of Delma- tius, Julius Constantius, Hannibalianus, Constan- tia, and Anastasia, and half-sister of Constantine the Great. (See the genealogical table prefixed to gonstantinus I.) She is believed to have been the wife of Nepotianus, who was consul A. d. 301; but at all events she was certainly the mother of that Nepotianus who assumed the purple on the 3rd of June, a. d. 350, and she perished in the proscription which followed his death twenty-eight days afterwards. (nepotianus.] (Aurel. Vict. Epit. xlii.; Zosim. ii. 43; Athanas. Apoloq. vol. i. p. 677, ed. Paris, 1627.) [W. R.] EUTRO'PIUS, the eunuch. [arcadius.] : EUTRO'PIUS, a man of high rank in that portion of Upper Moesia which was called Darda- nia, married Claudia, daughter of Crispus, the bro ther of Claudius Gothicus, and by her became the father of Gonstantius Chlorus. See the genealogi cal table in vol. i. p. 831. [W. R.]
EUTROPIUS, a Roman historian who has been styled Flavius Eutropius by Sigonius and some of the earlier scholars without the slightest authority from MSS. of any ancient source for such an addition. Considerable doubts are entertained with regard to the native country of this writer. The only positive witness is Suidas, who terms him a learned Italian ('IroA^s (roc^iarrijs) j but these words have been interpreted to signify merely that he wrote in Latin. The arguments of certain French writers, who have sought to prove from Symmachus that he was the countryman of Ausonius, and those of Vinetus, who endeavours from various considerations to demonstrate that he must have been a Greek, are singularly feeble and frivolous. We know from his own statements, taken in combination with various passages in the Byzantines, that he held the office of a secretary (EpistolaristETttarTo\oypd(j)os} under Constantine the Great, that he was patronised by Julian the Apostate, whom he accompanied in the Persian expedition, and that he was alive in the reign of Valen-tinian and Valens, to the latter of whom his book is dedicated. To these particulars our certain information is limited. That he is the same individual with the Eutropius who, as we learn from Ammianus Marcellinus^ was proconsul of, Asia about a.d. 371, and who is spoken of by Libanius and Gregory Nazianzen, or. with the Eutropius who, as we gather from the Codex Theodosianus, was praefectus praetorid in a.d. 380 and 381, are pure conjectures resting upon no base save the identity of name and embarrassed by chronological difficulties. In no case must he be confounded with the ambitious eunuch, great chamberlain to the emperor Arcadius, so well known from the invective of Claudian^ and still less could he have been the disciple of Augustjn, as not a few persons have fancied, since, if not actually dead, he must have reached the extreme verge of old age at the epoch when the bishop of Hippo was rising into fame. The only other point connected with the personal career of this author which admits of discussion, is his religion. It has been confidently asserted that it can be proved from his own words that he was a'Christian. But how any one could, by any possible stretch of ingenuity, twist such a
conclusion out of the passage in question (x. 116, sub fin.), even if we retain the reading " Nimius religionis Christianae insectator," it is very hard for an unprejudiced reader to imagine ; and it is equally difficult to perceive upon what grounds we can reject or evade the testimony of Nice-phorus Gregoras, who insists that the praises bestowed by Eutropius upon Constantine are peculiarly valuable, because they proceed from one who cherished hostile feelings towards that prince in consequence of differing from him in religion (8ta re r6 ri}S OpyffKeias &Koivd>vviTov) and of being the contemporary and partizan (r)\iKi<uTriv Kal a!p€<ncir7)v^ of Julian; moreover, as if to leave no room for doubt, he declares that the observations of Eutropius, inasmuch as he was a gentile professing a different faith from Constantine ("EAA^i/ tf&v Kal d\\o<f>i!i\ov OpyffKfias rp^zjuos), are tainted with heathen bitterness (farogovcrw 'EAAij-viKrjs 7rz/c/>fas), and then goes on to adduce some examples of unfair representations.
The only work of Eutropius now extant is a brief compendium of Roman history in ten books, extending from the foundation of the city to the accession of Valens, by whose command it was composed, and to whom it is inscribed. The author, at the conclusion of the last chapter, promises a more detailed and elaborate narrative of the events in which his imperial protector was the chief agent, but we know not whether this pledge was ever redeemed. Suidas indeed records that Eutropius wrote "other things," but without specifying what these were; and Priscian quotes from some Eutropius as a grammatical authority upon the sound of the letter x, but drops no hint that this personage is the historian.
In drawing up the abridgment which has descended to us, the compiler appears to have consulted the best authorities, although not always with discrimination, and to have executed his task in general with care, although manifest errors may occasionally be detected in facts as well as in chronology, and all occurrences likely to reflect dishonour on the Roman name are sedulously glossed over or entirely omitted. 'The style is in perfect good taste and keeping with the nature of the undertaking. We find a plain, clear, precise, simple, familiar narrative, in which the most important events are distinctly brought out without ostentation and without any pretensions to ornament or to rhythmical cadence in the structure of the periods. The language is, for the most part, exceedingly pure, although, as might be expected, the critical eye of modern scholarship has detected several words and combinations not sanctioned by the usage of the purest models. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that this little work should have become exceedingly popular at a period when the taste for deep learning and original investigation was on the decline, and that for many ages it should have been extensively employed as a school-book. We find the substance of it copied into the chronicles of Ilieronymus, Prosper, Cassiodorus, and many others: it is closely followed by Rufiis, Orosius, aud by a host of monkish annalists; while it is incorporated verbatim, with many additions, in the well-known His-toria Miseella, a sort of historical farrago, which is commonly, but erroneously, supposed to have been compounded by Paul, son of Warnefrid ud Theo-dolinda, at one time deacon of Aquileia, and