SOURCE: "Eutropius: His Life and Career," Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views, Vol. 32, n.s., No. 7, 1988, pp. 51-60.

[In the essay that follows, Bird attempts to reconstruct the details of Eutropius's life, particularly his career as a Roman administrator.]

In spite of the confident assertions of many modern scholars,¹ what we know for certain about the life and career of Eutropius, the author of the once popular Breviarium ab urbe condita, is extremely limited. What follows, therefore, is a considered, but tentative, reconstruction.

Eutropius, like his contemporary and fellow-abbreviator, Sextus Aurelius Victor, was born soon after A.D. 320,² for he is called a contemporary of the Emperors Valens (b. 328?) and Julian (b. 331)³ and must have been at least in his mid- to late thirties when he was magister epistularum of Constantius prior to 361,⁴ and somewhat older in 369 when he served in the senior position of magister memoriae under Valens.⁵ It is possible that he was born in Italy,⁶ but his name and the fact that he owned estates in Asia⁷ and certainly spent most of his career in the East may indicate that his family had connections in Asia. At any rate, it is highly unlikely that he was a medical man from Bordeaux, as some modern scholars believe.⁸

His family was apparently well-to-do but not of senatorial rank for, although Eutropius must have received a good education to gain entry into the sacra scrinia, these offices were not regarded as fashionable by senatorials. As a consequence, they attracted men of the middle classes.⁹ Furthermore, it seems likely that Eutropius knew Greek reasonably well in view of his prominent position in the Eastern bureaucracy. Indeed, although this may have been common knowledge, he realized that Julian was extremely well-versed in Greek literature.¹⁰ There are three other possible indications. He notes that Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were very learned in Greek, describes how Lucius Verus was "struck with a rush of blood which the Greeks call apoplexis" and informs us that Constantine's death was foretold by a "crinita stella which the Greeks call a comet."¹¹ He would also have studied law since his posts entailed much legal work, he shows a distinct fondness for Numa Pompilius, Rome's first lawgiver,¹² and he was able to give a concise but shrewd critique of the laws enacted by Constantine.¹³

At least part of Eutropius' education probably took place at Rome. In 370 Valentinian enacted a law which put the urban prefect in charge of students at Rome.¹⁴ The prefect was responsible for maintaining order among the students, for ensuring that they did not evade their responsibilities in their home towns, and for drawing up a list of the best students for the emperor, so that they might have suitable employment found for them in the administration.¹⁵ A similar system almost certainly existed under Constantius II when Eutropius was completing his education, and the future historian was presumably among those bright young students at Rome who gained entry into the sacra scrinia in ca. 345.

His first post may well have been that of clerk (exceptor) in the scrinium epistularum, which was under the magister epistularum and employed, at least under Leo 1 (456-474), thirty-four clerks all told.¹⁶ Promotion was strictly by seniority, each clerk rising step-by-step until he became melloproximus and finally proximus, the senior member of his scrinium. Progress at first must have been slow as the proximi served three years.¹⁷ On the other hand, death, early retirement and the fluctuating political scene between 340 and 355 may have accelerated the process. At any rate, it seems reasonable to accept that Eutropius had risen to be magister epistularum by 361. Among his various functions in the scrinium, he would have handled judicial petitions and relationes and drafted rescripts, checked the judicial records of provincial governors, received all manner of petitions and read out in the consistory the requests of provincial and diocesan delegations. He would also have dealt with military and grain supply reports and issued probatoriae to officials of the praetorian and urban prefects, proconsuls and vicars.¹⁸ During this period he would presumably have become acquainted with Constantius II and a number of his officers, for his curt description of the emperor's defeats by the Persians, especially the one in 348 near Singara, gives the impression that it derived from the account of an eyewitness.¹⁹

When Constantius died at Mopsucrenae, the last station in Cilicia between that province and Cappadocia, on November 3, 361, Eutropius was, in all likelihood, still on the imperial staff. His statement that Constantius "enriched his friends and allowed none whose active service he had experienced to go unrewarded" (10.15) has the distinct appearance of a personal comment. Furthermore, Ammianus maintains that under Constantius "no one who was to hold a high position was appointed to a post at the palace suddenly or untried, but a man who after ten years was to be magister officiorum or comes largitionum or appointed to any similar position, was thoroughly known."²⁰

Julian reached Constantinople on December 11, 361 and soon afterwards set up an investigatory committee, comprising Mamertinus, Arbitio, Agilo, Nevitta and Jovinus, under his new praetorian prefect, Salutius Secundus. The committee met at Chalcedon, in the presence of the commanders and tribunes of Joviani and Herculiani, and ultimately banished Palladius (exmagister officiorum), Taurus (ex-praetorian prefect), Florentius (the magister officiorum), Satuminus (ex cura palatii), Euagrius (comes rei privatae) and Cyrinus (exnotarius), and ordered the execution of another Florentius (consul and expraetorian prefect), Ursulus (comes largitionum), Apodemius (ex-agens in rebus), Paulus (notarius) and Eusebius (cura thalami).²¹ Eutropius was probably also investigated, but clearly was exonerated of any wrong-doing or antipathy towards Julian, for he informs us that he was with Julian on the Persian campaign in 363 (10.16), probably as a senior administrator and perhaps even as magister epistularum. Whenever any emperor died his administrators went on with their business unless replaced.

The new emperor would invariably have to keep the government functioning, reward his friends and supporters, and try to conciliate those who could be won over, in addition to retaining the support of the army. Julian did, indeed, make numerous attempts to improve the bureaucracy, cutting out many notaries and agentes. His appointments were made on the grounds of proven competence and his senior officials were generally professional administrators and intellectuals from whom Julian demanded honesty and hard work. As Browning put it: "None pursued this policy as systematically as Julian."²²

Eutropius was perhaps also among the military and court officials who met after Julian's death in June, 363 to choose his successor. He would have belonged to the residui e palatio Constanti under Arintheus and Victor who vied with the military faction of Nevitta and Dagalaifus in selecting a new emperor.²³ In view of his subsequent career, however, it seems hardly likely that he did or said anything to offend either party. Nevertheless Eutropius may not have been with Jovian when that emperor died suddenly at Dadastana on the Bithynian-Galatian border on February 17, 364. Three differing accounts of the emperor's death are given, yet the author comes to no personal conclusions (10.18). Eutropius was perhaps left at Antioch in early 364 to deal with administrative matters there when Jovian decided to hurry back to Constantinople.

At the end of February, 364 Valentinian, also a Pannonian officer like Jovian, and recently promoted by the latter to be tribune of one of the scholae, was unanimously elected emperor by the chief civil and military leaders. In view of the argument above, it would appear that Eutropius did not take part in the election, but he does observe that Jovian "was deified through the kindness of the emperors who succeeded him, for he was inclined to equity and liberal by nature."²⁴ These positive remarks about Jovian and the implicit praise of Valentinian and Valens, in addition to the statement by Ammianus that Jovian. made few promotions and was rather selective,²⁵ probably indicate that Eutropius had served as a senior official in the administration of Jovian and had been kept on by Valens.

Valentinian had little liking for the men of letters favoured by Julian or for Roman aristocrats.²⁶ Two successive magistri officiorum of Valentinian, Remigius and Leo, both of humble origins, began their careers as financial clerks in the office of one of the magistri militum. Maximinus, son of a cohortalis, practiced at the bar, became praeses of Corsica and of Sardinia, corrector of Tuscia, praefectus annonae at Rome, vicar of Rome and praetorian prefect.²⁷ Valens, the Eastern Emperor, had less to do with the Roman aristocracy, and seems to have enjoyed a better reputation than his brother.²⁸ He was loyal to his friends, rarely changed his officials and was strict in maintaining discipline in the army and in civil life.²⁹ Eutropius' dedication of his work to Valens is itself a sign of the author's gratitude and loyalty to the emperor. He presumably expected favourable treatment from the emperor in return. In addition, Eutropius refers several times throughout the Breviarium to those notable Roman generals or emperors who restored or maintained military discipline.³⁰ This, too, would have flattered Valens. Finally, the statements of both Ammianus and the Epitomator, that Valens was slow to replace his officials, also indicate that Eutropius was probably kept on by Valens. If so, where did Eutropius meet Valens? It has been suggested that in 364 Eutropius was at Antioch, the imperial residence from 362 when Julian was mounting his Persian expedition. Valentinian and Valens parted company at Sirmium in August, 364 and Valens spent the winter at Constantinople. At the end of winter, possibly in March 365, Valens hastened to Antioch, and it was probably here that he made the acquaintance of Eutropius. In the meantime Procopius had seized the opportunity offered by Valen's departure from Constantinople to make a play for the throne.³¹ He won over Constantinople, Thrace, Nicaea Chalcedon and Bithynia, but by mid-winter of that year he had been deserted by his followers and executed by Valens.³² Many of his followers or suspected followers were put to death, exiled or demoted.³³ Clearly Eutropius was not among them, so he could hardly have been at Constantinople or in any of those areas controlled by Procopius. He had been fortunate.

In the period 367-369 Valens was fighting in the region of the lower Danube against the Goths who had sent aid to Procopius.³⁴ It appears that Eutropius had accompanied the emperor, for he demonstrates items of precise information about the region. He knew the names of the tribes living there in 369 (the Thaiphali, Victohali and Thervingi), as well as the fact that the old province of Dacia was a thousand miles in circumference (8.2). In addition, he seems to have seen the exact place where Aurelian was assassinated, on the "old paved road between Constantinople and Heraclea, in a place which is called Caenophrurium" (9.15). Thus it was during these years (367-369) that Eutropius was promoted to the position of magister memoriae of the East, since he held this position in 369 when he dedicated his work to the emperor. Indeed, it is quite possible that the writing of the Breviarium was Eutropius' way of expressing his gratitude to Valens for his promotion to the largest and most important of the three scrinia.³⁵ Valens clearly held Eutropius in high esteem even prior to the composition of the Breviarium. The careful wording of the dedication (i.e., "that your Serenity's divine mind may rejoice to learn that it has followed the actions of illustrious men in governing the empire") and some of the contents of the work will have given the emperor further cause to favour its author. There are also hints throughout the Imperial section of the work that Eutropius regarded the emperors' loyalty and generosity towards their friends as very significant imperial virtues.³⁶ As a corollary to this he emphatically criticizes Maximian and Constantine for their cruelty and faithlessness towards their friends and, in the case of Constantine, even towards his relatives.³⁷ Eutropius' own loyalty and competence had paid off. He had successfully served these emperors and could look forward to further service and even further promotion.

This apparently occurred soon afterwards, in 371, when Ammianus informs us that a Eutropius was proconsul of Asia.³⁸ It would be reasonable to assume that Valens' loyal administrator (and eulogizer in the Breviarium) had been suitably rewarded with a senior Eastern position for which he was clearly well-equipped.³⁹ Asia, like Africa, was a special province, standing outside the official hierarchy inasmuch as it was not under the disposition of the Vicar of Asiana or of the praetorian prefect.⁴⁰ This gave Eutropius direct access to the emperor, yet another privilege for the author. While governing his province, he received a constitution on the restoration to the cities of Asia of part of their civic lands and he restored buildings at Magnesia on the Maeander.⁴¹ Unfortunately his proconsulship was not to have a happy ending. Caught up in a vast web of deceit when a plot against Valens was discovered, Eutropius was summoned to Antioch on the charge of complicity. Although the philosopher Pasiphilus was cruelly tortured to force him falsely to implicate Eutropius, he bravely refused to do so, and Eutropius escaped the mass of executions of both inniocent and guilty alike.⁴² His career, however, suffered as a result. He was replaced as proconsul of Asia by Festinus of Tridentum, who may probably be identified with Festus, the author of yet another and even shorter Breviarium dedicated to Valens in ca. 370. Festus had also succeeded Eutropius as magister memoriae.⁴³

In 375 the emperor Valentinian I died of apoplexy and his position in the West was taken by his elder son, Gratian. The latter drove the Alamans out of Gaul and re-established the Rhine frontier. Meanwhile, the Huns had forced the Goths from their homes north of the Danube. Some of the Thervingian Goths were transported into Thrace by Valens in 376, while another group of Greuthungian Goths crossed the Danube by themselves. Thrace became a battleground and the Romans suffered considerable losses, which caused Valens to leave Antioch for Thrace and Gratian to march to his assistance. Before the latter could arrive, however, Valens attacked a force of Goths outside Adrianople on August 9, 378. It was a disaster: the Roman army was cut to pieces and Valens perished, his body vanishing in the mêlée. Still, the Goths failed to capture Adrianople and, though joined by bands of Huns and Alans, were equally unsuccessful when they attacked Constantinople. Gratian swiftly chose as coruler Theodosius, who was proclaimed Augustus in January, 379 at Sirmium. Four years of fighting and negotiating ensued, but finally a peace treaty was struck with the Goths in October, 382. They were settled in vacant lands south of the Danube, retaining their own ruler and laws but bound to Rome by an alliance. In return for annual food subsidies they provided the empire with soldiers.

It appears that sometime after 372 Eutropius travelled to Rome and here he made the acquaintance of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, a distinguished aristocrat and one of the most notable orators and writers of the period, who held the prefecture of Rome in 384 and the consulship in 391.⁴⁴ Again the evidence depends entirely on the coincidence of names, but the historian possessed those necessary qualifications which would permit access to Symmachus' circle. He was a writer whose work was becoming well-known since it was soon to be used by Ammianus, Jerome and Orosius and translated into Greek by Paeanius. Furthermore, he had held senior positions in the civil administration (obtaining thereby the clarissimate), and must have retained powerful and influential friends. Finally, he was a pagan, which would have endeared him to Symmachus (who was the most prominent champion of paganism at that time), and, as his work demonstrates throughout, a convinced supporter of the senatorial cause.

Gratian's court, packed with the friends and relatives of the professor and poet Ausonius, was more kindly disposed towards the aristocracy and those of a literary background. Eutropius evidently benefitted from the new dispensation and found himself in favour with Theodosius. In 379 Symmachus wrote to Eutropius to enlist his support for a friend, Postumianus.⁴⁵ Symmachus would hardly have made such a request if Eutropius had not possessed influence. Postumianus profitted from his friend's assistance. He held offices in the Eastern administration before obtaining the Eastern prefecture in 383.⁴⁶ Theodosius followed the precedent of Valens and other eastern emperors in employing as praetorian prefects those who had proved their efficiency in lower offices.⁴⁷ Eutropius was also to benefit further from the death of Valens in 378. In early January 380, a year after Theodosius had been installed as Augustus of the East, the historian was appointed prefect of Illyricum. Eutropius presumably spent the two years of his tenure at Thessalonica and Constantinople while Theodosius fought and negotiated with the Goths to the north.⁴⁸ During his tenure of office he possibly influenced the enactment of a substantial number of laws, some of which lessened the severe punishment for various crimes.⁴⁹ This conforms with what we know of Eutropius' disposition from his work, for there are numerous indications throughout the Breviarium which indicate that Eutropius was vehemently opposed to cruelty and severity and esteemed justice and moderation.⁵⁰ For example, Maximian's cruelty is twice castigated very sharply,⁵¹ and Constantine is criticized for enacting many superfluous laws, some of them severe.⁵²

After concluding his prefecture in late 381 Eutropius probably stayed on in Constantinople, and certainly continued to enjoy the approval and esteem of the emperor Theodosius and other notables. Symmachus wrote to him in 387 and Libanius in 390.⁵³ Indeed, the crowning achievement of his career came in 387 when he was elected Eastern consul, with the emperor Valentinian II as his Western counterpart.⁵⁴ This was a signal distinction, for the ordinary consulship was still "the one ancient Republican office which retained its glamour untarnished."⁵⁵

Eutropius' outstanding career, spanning the reigns of the emperors Constantius II to Theodosius, is a clear indication that he was extremely competent and loyal, and probably a shrewd survivor. He must have earned the respect not only of a succession of emperors of diverse character and interests, but also of military leaders, senior civilian officials and leading senatorials, a remarkably difficult task given the nature of the times. Moreover, his successful career, together with that of his close contemporary, Sextus Aurelius Victor, demonstrates that the bureaucracy of the second half of the fourth century contained men of integrity and moderation despite the well-founded strictures of Ammianus. How much the publication of the Breviarium assisted him we cannot say, but it is highly likely that Valens, Gratian, Theodosius, Libanius, Symmachus and others were suitably impressed. Modern critics, such as Sir Ronald Syme, may indeed scorn the work as "a poor and scrappy production."⁵⁶ Nevertheless, it certainly helped to promote the career of a decent and efficient administrator who apparently lived up to the meaning of his name: he was both versatile and of a gentle disposition.⁵⁷

Notes

¹ E.g., A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge 1971) 317 (henceforth cited as PLRE); J. Matthews, "Continuity in a Roman Family: The Rufii Festi of Volsinii," Historia 16 (1967) 494-495; id., Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court A.D. 364-425 (Oxford 1975) 8, 9, 73, 96, 97, 107. For some inconsistencies and errors in the PLRE see T. D. Barnes, Phoenix 26 (1972) 140ff.; Phoenix 27 (1973) 135ff. W. den Boer (Some Minor Roman Historians, [Leiden 1972] 114-115) has some sensible words of caution about drawing "far-reaching conclusions from an instance of identical names."

² H. W. Bird, Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984) 5.

³ Nicephorus Gregoras, Or. in Constant. Magn. (in Lambecius, comm. de bibl. Vindob. VIII.136ff.).

⁴Scr. Orig. Cpl. II.144. The author mistakenly identifies him as epistolographos of Constantine, but this is clearly improbable since Constantine died in 337, his son Constantine II in 340.

⁵ Eutrop. Brev. dedicatio. This and the fact that he was with Julian on the Persian campaign in 363 (Eutrop. 10.16) are the only pieces of totally incontestable evidence for Eutropius' life and career.

⁶Suda s.v. Eutropius, where he is called an Italian sophist.

⁷ Symm. Ep. III.53.

⁸PLRE, loc. cit.; Matthews, loc. cit.; R. Syme, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968) 105, agrees with Matthews. Cf. the strong warning of den Boer, loc. cit.

⁹ A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, vol. II (Oxford 1964) 577-578.

¹⁰ Eutrop. 10.16.

¹¹ Eutrop. 8.7; 8.10; 8.12; 10.8. Epit. 16.5 probably derives from Eutrop. 8.10. There are twenty-two other indications that the Epitomator borrowed material from Eutropius.

¹² H. W. Bird, "Eutroius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate," CJ 81 (1986) 243-244, emphasizes this.

¹³ Eutrop. 10.8. He also notes that Diocletian made many judicious arrangements and regulations still in effect in 369/370 (Eutrop. 9.23), and that Ulpian was the conditor iuris (Eutrop. 8.23).

¹⁴Cod. Theod. XIV.9.1.

¹⁵ H. I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. G. Lamb (London 1956) 310-311.

¹⁶ See n.4 and Jones, LRE, vol. II, 576.

¹⁷ Jones, loc. cit.

¹⁸Ibid. Hence presumably his precise knowledge of many geographical locations throughout the empire, e.g., 10.5; 10.8; 10.9; 10.12.

¹⁹ Eutrop. 10.10. Cf. Ammianus, 18.5.7; Chron. min. 1.236; Festus, 27; Jerome, Chron. 236. See T. D. Barnes, Phoenix 34 (1980) 163-164.

²⁰ Amrnianus 21.16.3.

²¹ Ammianus 22.2.4ff.

²² R. Browning, The Emperor Julian (Berkeley 1976) 128.

²³ Ammianus 25.5.1ff.

²⁴ Eutrop. 10.18.2.

²⁵ Ammianus 25.10.15.

²⁶ Jones, LRE, vol. I, 141-142; E. A. Thompson, The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge 1947) 102ff.; A. Alföldi, A Conflict of ideas in the Late Roman Empire; the Clash between the Senate and Valentinian II (Oxford 1952) passim.

²⁷ Jones, loc. cit. The similar careers of others are also listed.

²⁸ Jones, LRE, vol. I, 147, citing Ammianus and Themistius; the Epitomator (Epit. 46.3) concurs.

²⁹ Ammianus 31.14.2ff.; Epit. 46.3.

³⁰ Eutrop. 4.19; 4.27; 8.7; 8.23; 9.14.

³¹ Ammianus 26.6.1 0ff.

³² Ammianus 26.9.1ff.

³³ Ammianus 26.10.lff.

³⁴ Ammianus 27.5.1ff.

³⁵ For their relative size, functions and importance see Jones, LRE, vol. II, 576.

³⁶ Eutrop. 7.8; 7.13; 7.19; 7.21; 8.4; 8.5; 8.8; 8.12; 9.7; 10.7; 10.15; 10.16.

³⁷ Eutrop. 10.5; 10.6.

³⁸ Ammianus 29.1.36; Lib. Or. 1.159; Greg. Naz. Ep. 71.

³⁹ Despite the reasoned scepticism of den Boer (loc. cit.), I find it much less likely that Valens would have chosen an otherwise unknown Eutropius for this position at this particular juncture so soon after the appearance of the Breviarium.

⁴⁰ Jones, LRE, vol. I, 275.

⁴¹ Bruns, Fontes⁷, 97; Hell. IV.63, cited in PLRE, 317.

⁴² Ammianus 29.1.lff., esp. 29.2.36; Lib. Or. 1.159.

⁴³ Ammianus 29.2.22; Eunapius 7.6.6-13; Syme, loc. cit. in n.8; PLRE, 317, 334-335; cf. den Boer, op. cit., 178, 181; J. W. Eadie, The Breviarium of Festus, A Critical Edition with Historical Commentary (London 1967) Iff.

⁴⁴ Symm. Ep. III.46-51; Greg. Naz. Ep. 70-71. For Symmachus see PLRE, 865-870.

⁴⁵ Symm. Ep. III.48.

⁴⁶ Matthews, "Continuity in a Roman Family" (see n.1) 495.

⁴⁷ A. H. M. Jones, "Collegiate Prefectures," JRS 54 (1964) 79; LRE, vol. I, 161. Presumably Theodosius appointed him, though perhaps on the recommendation of Gratian. Eutropius' continued appointments in the East, particularly this one, lead me to conclude that he was not an Aquitanian: cf. Matthews, loc. cit. in n.46.

⁴⁸ Jones, LRE, vol. I, 156.

⁴⁹PLRE, 317. His influence with Theodosius is demonstrated by the posts to which the emperor appointed him.

⁵⁰ E.g., Eutrop. 1.3; 1.13; 4.17; 4.27; 7.12; 7.13; 7.16; 7.19; 7.20; 7.21; 8.1; 8.4-5; 8.8; 8.14; 9.14; 9.17; 9.23; 9.27; 10.3; 10.6.

⁵¹ Eutrop. 9.27; 10.3.

⁵² Eutrop. 10.8.

⁵³ Symm. Ep. III.52-53; Lib. Ep. 979.

⁵⁴ For the evidence see PLRE, 317.

⁵⁵ Jones, LRE, vol. II, 531-532. S. Dill (Roman Society in the Last Century of the Roman Empire [London 1899], 145) describes the consulship of the fourth century A.D. as "one of those dignified fictions by which the Romans distinguished the vastness which separated them from the days of freedom."

⁵⁶ Syme, loc. cit. in n.8.

⁵⁷ Regarding the date of the dedication, it seems likely to me that Eutropius would present his work to Valens as a special gift when the emperor celebrated his triumph over the Goths and assumed the title Gothicus Maximus. This probably took place in late 369 at Constantinople. I should like to thank the anonymous referee for several helpful hints.