SOURCE: "Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate," The Classical Journal, Vol. 81, No. 3, February-March, 1986, pp. 243-48.

[In this essay, Bird contends that the Breviarium's treatment of Roman rulers reveals that "what was primarily important for Eutropius was how they interacted with the senate."]

Eutropius was the Emperor Valens' magister memoriae in A.D. 369/370 and had accompanied the Emperor Julian on the ill-fated expedition against the Persians in 363. His Breviarium of Roman history from Rome's foundation to the death of Jovian in 364, written in clear, unaffected Latin, quickly become popular. It was soon translated into Greek and in its original Latin form became a school textbook for the middle ages and beyond. One of my own copies was published in Glasgow in 1783 and presented as a school prize to Moses Brown, a student in the fourth grade of Glasgow Grammar School in 1796.

In his preface Eutropius informs the reader of his general plan of composition: to arrange briefly from the foundation of Rome to his own day those particulars in war or peace most worthy of note with the concise additions of such matters in the lives of the emperors that were remarkable. The present article focuses upon Eutropius' repeated use of Numa Pompilius as an exemplum and his attitude towards the senate and certain republican personages who affected its status.

Numa Pompilius

Among the kings, and despite his obvious interest in Rome's early expansion, Eutropius seems to have been particularly fond of Rome's second ruler, Numa Pompilius. According to the breviarist Numa waged no wars but was of no less service to the state than Romulus. He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome (Eutrop. 1.3). Such a description might not be unusual in itself, as a comparison with De Viris Illustribus 3, De Caesaribus 14.2 or Historia Augusta, Carus 2.6 demonstrates, but subsequently Eutropius tells us that after the First Punic War and the triumph over the Sardinians Rome had no war on its hands for the first time since the reign of Numa Pompilius (3.3). More striking is his chapter on Antoninus Pius, "a remarkable man, deservedly compared with Numa Pompilius":¹

Ergo Hadriano successit T. Antoninus Fulvius Boionius, idem etiam Pius nominatus, genere claro. sed non admodum vetere, vir insignis et qui merito Numae Pompilio conferatur, ita ut Romulo Traianus aequetur. vixit ingenti honestate privatus, maiore in imperio, nulli acerbus, cunctis benignus, in re militari moderata gloria, defendere magis provincias quam amplificare studens, viros aequissimos ad administrandam rem publicam quaerens, bonis honorem habens, inprobos sine aliqua acerbitate detestans, regibus amicis venerabilis non minus quam terribilis, adeo ut barbarorum plurimae nationes depositis armis ad eum controversias suas litesque deferrent sententiaeque parerent. hic ante imperium ditissimus opes quidem omnes suas stipendiis militum et circa amicos liberalitatibus minuit, verum aerarium opulentum reliquit. Pius propter clementiam dictus est.

(Eutrop. 8.8)

This whole section reads more like a list of necessary imperial virtues than anything else.

Again, in the very next chapter (8.9), Eutropius mentions Numa as the agnate ancestor of that imperial paragon, Marcus Aurelius,² ostensibly deriving this information from Marius Maximus. No other king, including Romulus, is accorded such treatment.

In a similar vein, the Historia Augusta (Pius 2.2) also lists Pius' many good qualities, then states that he was well deserving of comparison with Numa in the opinions of all good men. Even more telling is the last section of the same Vita (Pius 13), which is a eulogy of the emperor. It concludes: "qui rite comparetur Numae, cuius felicitatem, pietatemque et securitatem caerimonias semper obtinuit."

Numa was likewise an object of admiration to Ammianus Marcellinus. The king's reign was legendary for its tranquility (14.6.6), and he and Socrates are cited as models of truthfulness (16.7.4). He is set among such figures as Socrates, Pythagoras, Scipio the elder, Marius and Octavius, who had gained fame through reliance on their guardian spirits (21.14.5). Finally Numa is mentioned as a man of principle like Cato and contrasted with that utter scoundrel, Maximus, the praefectus praetorio executed by Gratian in 376 (28.1.39). It should cause no surprise, therefore, that Eutropius, like his fourth-century contemporaries, found Numa extremely useful as an exemplum. The king enjoyed a remarkably high reputation in the fourth century, and by his repeated reference to Numa in the Breviarium Eutropius seems to have been intent on transmitting to the emperor Valens those essential qualities of a good ruler which go beyond being successful in war.³ Eutropius apparently hoped that Valens would see Numa (and Pius) as examples to follow.

The Senate

In 1972 it was pointed out by den Boer that "one burning political issue [of Eutropius' day] was that of the influence of the senate,"⁴ and subsequently Momigliano remarked that what defined a man writing in Latin at Rome in the fourth century was what he thought about Christianity, the Germans and the senate.⁵ Any reader of the Breviarium will quickly notice that Eutropius was certainly preoccupied with the senate. He discussed many domestic affairs, social, political or economic, and those responsible, often with balanced judgements. Nonetheless he completely omitted mention of those two important second-century figures, the Gracchi. One has to question this glaring omission. Den Boer (p. 166) believes that the author was not interested in their socioeconomic importance or the political and constitutional significance of their activities. That is, of course, possible, but I am convinced that the main reason was Eutropius' disapproval of their anti-senatorial stance. This is borne out by his treatment of Marius, Sulla and Q. Caecilius Metellus, the one-time patron and subsequent enemy of Marius. In the post-Gracchan period the Caecilii Metelli were one of the dominant families at Rome, and its members are frequently mentioned by Eutropius prior to his discussion of the Jugurthine War.⁶ The campaigns of L. Calpurnius Bestia and Sp. Postumius Albinus had been ignominious for the Romans in the opinion of Eutropius (4.26). He then gave the credit to Q. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 109) for restoring the Roman army to its former discipline "with great severity and restraint but without cruelty to any one" (4.27). Metellus, after defeating Jugurtha in various battles, killed or captured his elephants and caused many towns to surrender. He was, it would seem, just on the point of putting an end to the war (finem bello positurus esset) when he was succeeded by Marius. The latter actually finished the war through his quaestor, Cornelius Sulla, "ingentem virum," who had Bocchus betray Jugurtha. Both Metellus and Marius celebrated triumphs over Jugurtha, even if it was before the chariot of the latter that Jugurtha was led (4.27). Eutropius' favour for Metellus and implicit depreciation of Marius is evident later at the beginning of Book Six, where he writes of "Quintus Caecilius Metellus, the son of that Metellus who had subdued Jugurtha."

This bias is even more manifest at the beginning of Book Five. Marius was made consul a second time after the victory over Jugurtha and the imminent threat of the Cimbri and the Teutones. A third and fourth consulship were granted him as the wars were protracted.

But in the fourth consulship he had as a colleague Quintus Lutatius Catulus. Consequently [itaque] he joined battle with the Cimbri and in two battles killed 200,000 of the enemy, took 80,000 prisoners with their general Teutobodus and for this service he was elected consul a fifth time in his absence (5.1.4)

The itaque seems to be deliberately inserted to enhance the role of Catulus, as we shall see. Immediately afterwards Eutropius describes a second battle against the Germans fought by Marius and Catulus. The author emphasizes the greater success of Catulus. Their armies were of equal size, but Marius took only two standards, while Catulus captured thirty-one (5.2). Absolutely no mention is made of Marius' momentous army reforms, which helped to bring about the victories over the German invaders and, in the long run, to transform the history of the Late Republic.⁷

In the Social War, which Eutropius discusses next, it is Sulla who is on prominent display. Among other outstanding exploits he so thoroughly routed Cluentius' numerous forces that he allegedly lost only one man of his own. The conflict lasted four years; in the fifth it was terminated by Sulla, who had greatly distinguished himself on many occasions as praetor in the same war (5.3).

In the Civil War which followed, Marius, then in his sixth consulship, is charged with instigating the conflict through his ambition to be appointed commander against Mithridates. Sulla, the first to enter the city in arms, is exonerated because he was driven by Marius to take that action (5.4).

We then find Sulla fighting in Greece, having killed Sulpicius and driven Marius out of Rome. At the Piraeus Sulla defeated Archelaus, Mithridates' general, and his army of 120,000. Only ten thousand were left, while the Romans had only fourteen men killed (5.6). Sulla next proceeded to reduce some of the Dardanians, Scordisci, Dalmatians and Maedi and won over the rest. Peace with Mithridates was granted on Roman terms, after which Sulla was compelled to hasten to Rome because, while he was busy winning victories over Mithridates in Greece and Asia (i.e. over a foreign foe), Marius and Cinna had recommenced hostilities at Rome, put to death the noblest of the senate and various ex-consuls and proscribed many. The rest of the senate quit Rome and fled to Sulla, begging him to save his country. He defeated Norbanus near Capua, killed seven thousand of Norbanus' men, captured six thousand and lost only 124 himself. Scipio's army came over to him without a fight (5.7). Against Marius junior he killed 15,000 and lost only 400. At the battle of the Colline Gate he cut down 58,000 and captured the remaining 12,000 (5.8). Eutropius accords Sulla the honour of having composed the troubles of the state, namely those two most lamentable wars, the Social and the Civil (5.9 and 6.1), in which more than 150,000 men had been killed, 24 consulars, 7 praetorians, 60 of aedile rank, and nearly 200 senators. Marius, by implication, is left as the villain of the piece. By contrast a brief, eminently fairer synopsis of the careers of Marius and Sulla is given by the unknown author of the De Viris Illustribus (67 and 75). Another fourth-century writer, the author of the Historia Augusta, compares Commodus with Sulla as a mass-murderer and stigmatizes Septimius Severus as a Punic Sulla or a Punic Marius for putting countless senators to death.⁸

Den Boer (151) is probably correct in taking Eutropius' statement regarding Trajan (8.4.5), "In my position as emperor I treat the common citizen as I should wish to be treated by the emperor if I were a common citizen," to imply his ideal of cooperation between the senate and emperor. There can be little doubt that Eutropius' sympathies were entirely pro-Sullan and decidedly prosenatorial.⁹ It is most unlikely that he was ignorant of the Gracchi and their activities: the author of the De Viris Illustribus has chapters on both (64-65), the author of the H.A. drags them in as alleged ancestors of the Gordians (Gord. 2.2), and Ammianus Marcellinus plainly knew of them (30.4.19). It appears that Marius and the Gracchi were, even in the fourth century, accepted as opponents of the senate, and the senatorial Eutropius deliberately chose to belittle the former while totally ignoring the latter. Sulla emerges as the hero of those difficult days with decidedly positive roles assigned to Q. Caecilius Metellus and Q. Lutatius Catulus, both members of the Roman nobility. In fact Catulus had been badly beaten by the Cimbri near Tridentum in 102 and had been compelled to give up the Po valley to the invaders. Marius joined him the following year and together they won the great victory over the Cimbri at the Raudine Plain.¹⁰ Metellus, as censor in 102, tried to expel Saturninus and Glaucia from the senate; but this merely resulted in mob violence, and his colleague, Caprarius, would not back him. In 100 he was exiled for refusing an oath to observe Satuminus' agrarian law. Recalled soon afterwards, he never regained his political prominence. Neither Catulus nor Metellus were as significant in Roman history as the Gracchi or Marius, but to Eutropius they represented "the right stuff," the proper exemplars to set before the emperor Valens and other fourth-century readers.

Caesar also comes in for a good deal of criticism. In 6.19 Eutropius observes that the Civil War caused by Caesar's demand for a second consulship was truly execrable and deplorable, for, besides the havoc occurring in the various battles, the very fortune of the Roman people was changed: Romani populi fortuna mutata est. This phrase was regularly used when the state of things changed for the worse, as can be seen in Sallust and Velleius.¹¹ The consuls and the whole senate, according to Eutropius, left Rome and joined Pompey. At Pharsalus in 48 B.C. Eutropius tells us:

Never before had a greater number of Roman forces assembled in one place or under better generals, forces which would easily have subdued the whole world, had they been led against barbarians. (6.21)¹²

Once again den Boer seems to be correct in observing (155) that Eutropius does not subscribe to Victor's oblique praise of Caesar or share the admiration felt for him by Victor and the author of the De Viris Illustribus. Indeed, according to Eutropius, Caesar, after terminating the civil wars, returned to Rome and began to conduct himself with excessive arrogance, contrary to the usages of Roman liberty. He personally disposed of those positions of honour which the people had previously conferred, did not even rise when the Senate approached him, and exercised regal and almost tyrannical powers. The natural consequence of this was the conspiracy led by the two Bruti, of the family of that Brutus who had expelled the kings—a conspiracy which culminated with the assassination of Caesar. Book Seven begins with the renewal of the civil war because the senators favoured the assassins and Antony attempted to crush them. The Republic was thrown into confusion: Antony, of Caesar's party, committed many crimes, and the senate declared him a public enemy (7.1). All this, we are led to infer, was the legacy of Caesar.

Eutropius throughout his work demonstrates a horror of civil wars and a repugnance for those who, like Marius and Caesar, cause wars because of their ambition. He probably did little research for his Breviarium³ and preferred, instead, to write his abbreviated history according to his own personal predilections. One of the major issues of his day was the influence of the senate, and like his contemporary, Aurelius Victor, he is preoccupied with this matter.¹⁴ Indeed, as den Boer has argued (159), it seems reasonable to assume that whenever Eutropius writes that an emperor acted with restraint we should interpret this to mean that he was on good terms with the senate. We have already noted that Trajan's proper relationship with his fellow citizens and the senate is heavily stressed (8.2-5). Both Augustus (7.8) and Nerva (8.1) are described as civilissimi, which implies acceptance by the senate, and Vespasian (7.20) and Titus (7.22) are said to have been loved and respected by that body. This is also the case with Nerva (8.1), Antoninus Pius (8.8) and Marcus Aurelius (8.11-14), and even with the ephemeral and practically unknown emperor Quintillus, who allegedly reigned but seventeen days (9.12). The tradition which carefully recorded the attitude of every emperor towards the patres had long been in existence, and Eutropius was heir to that tradition. So he diligently records any imperial mistreatment of the senate as well as the reverse,¹⁵ and it is merely an extension of this attitude when he harks back to republican times and singles out such notables as the Gracchi, Marius and Caesar for omission or criticism and others like Q. Caecilius Metellus and Sulla for exaggerated praise. What was primarily important for Eutropius was how they interacted with the senate.

The Breviarium, because of its conciseness and readability, may well have been the most popular history of Rome in the middle ages and beyond. Nevertheless, it gave its readers a singularly slanted and senatorial perspective.

Notes

¹ The Epitomator (Epit. 15.3) also compares Pius to Numa. den Boer

² So does the Historia Augusta (M. Aur. 1.6).

³ Eutropius writes of Trajan, "Gloriam tamen militarem civilitate et moderatione superavit" (8.4).

⁴ W. den Boer, Some Minor Roman Historians (Leiden 1972) 150.

⁵ A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford 1977) 134.

⁶ Eutrop. 4.13, 4.14, 4.16, 4.21, 4.23, 4.25. On their importarice vid. E. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 149-78 B.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), ch. IV.

⁷ E. Gabba, "Le origini dell'esercito professionale in Roma: i proletari e la riforma di Mario," Athenaeum 27 (1949) 173-209; id. "Ricerche sull'esercito professionale romano da Mario ad Augusto," Athenaeum 29 (1951) 171-272; R. E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army (Manchester 1958) 9 ff.; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (Bristol 1969) 21-22; H. Last, C.A.H. IX (1932) 133-37 and 146-47.

⁸H.A. Comm. 8.1, Pesc. Nig. 6.4. For other negative impressions of Sulla in the H.A. vid. Carac. 2.2, 4.10, 5.4.

⁹ For emphasis on the bad treatment of the senate vid. Eutrop. 7.2, 7.3, 7.14, 9.1, 9.14, 10.11. Cf. 8.4, 8.8, 8.13.

¹⁰Vid. T.F. Carney, "Marius' Choice of Battle-field in the Campaign of 101," Athenaeum 36 (1958) 229-37.

¹¹ Sallust, Cat. 2, Jug. 17; Vell. Pat. 2.57.118; cf. Aur. Victor, De Caes. 24.11.

¹² Cf. 10.12, where the battle of Mursa in A.D. 351 is similarly described.

¹³ M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur IV² (Munich 1914) 77; den Boer 167.

¹⁴ Den Boer 150-51; H. W. Bird, Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984) 24-40.

¹⁵Vid. note 9.