SOURCE: "Eutropius: In Defence of the Senate," Cahiers des Études anciennes, No. 20, 1987, pp. 63-72.

[In the following essay, Bird explores Eutropius's treatment of Roman governments as a response to the then-strained relations between the Emperor Valentinian and the senate.]

When Eutropius was composing his Breviarium of Roman history in ca. A.D. 369 he held senatorial rank'. It seems likely that he had attained this status ten years or so earlier when Constantius II promoted him to the post of magister epistularum². His rank is important because it would significantly affect his point of view and one of the main political issues of the day was the influence of the senate³ Although this had long been a major concern, the accession of Valentinian and Valens in 364, both military men from Pannonia, exacerbated the situation. Apparently Valentinian "hated the well-dressed, the learned, the rich and the high-born⁴". Pannonians and others of humble origin were promoted to positions of power⁵ as Valentinian reorganized Italy and Rome. Senators, on the other hand, were excluded from many of their customary offices, especially the vicariate and prefecture of Rome, while most of the consulships went to generals and senior administrative posts were generally assigned to tried and trusted professionals. Consequently relations between Valentinian and the senate grew strained and in the later years of his reign, amid a series of investigations and trials, many senators were exiled or even executed⁶.

In the late sixties it seems that Eutropius was with Valens in the area along the lower Danube as the emperor battled against the Visigoths. Indeed, he demonstrates precise knowledge of the tribes who inhabited the region, the Thaiphali, Victohali and Thervingi. He also knew that the old province of Dacia was a thousand miles in circumference and that Aurelian was killed on the old paved road between Constantinople and Heraclea⁷ Evidently, as magister memoriae, he enjoyed the emperor's favour, but he could still sympathize with the plight of his fellow senators at Rome.

From the time of Augustus the emperor had become the focal point of all state activities and accordingly the political importance of the senate had dwindled. Nevertheless, it continued to play a significant role under the Julio-Claudians, Flavians and Antonines until 193. In that momentous year various contingents of the Roman army supported four contenders for the throne and thereafter it was generally the army which selected the emperor. The point was missed by both Eutropius and his contemporary, Aurelius Victor.

By the fourth century, following the autocratic tendencies of Diocletian and his successors, the emperor was no longer primus inter pares but rather the orbis totius dominus (or regnator), the rector gentium^8. He had become responsible for whatever befell the state, good or ill, and the history of the empire had consequently become the history of the emperors. Nevertheless the senate of the fourth century still regarded itself as the pars melior humani generis⁹; its prestige and power continued to be potent factors which successive emperors could not ignore. It, in turn, accepted autocracy as inevitable, the only means of ensuring stability. None the less the conduct of the emperor towards it was crucial. As a senatorial spokesman, then, Eutropius endeavoured to demonstrate what the relations between the emperors and the senate should be¹⁰. His deceptively simple account of republican history underlined the senate's significant role in overseeing Rome's emergence as a world power. In the imperial period he diligently noted its good relations with the army and the popular emperors down to the reign of Quintillus. The material he selected was frequently chosen with a purpose and not simply copied slavishly from the sources. Its inclusion was intended to persuade an emperor, who was not particularly perspicacious or well-read", of the role of the senate in Rome's history and to plead its cause for the future.

Eutropius' preoccupation with the senate is evident throughout the first four books which end with the triumphs of Metellus and Marius over Jugurtha. The senate is mentioned fifteen times¹², but only once (1.13) negatively:

Sixteen years after the expulsion of the kings, the people of Rome rebelled on the grounds that they were being oppressed by the senate and consuls. Then they created for themselves tribunes of the people as their own particular judges and defenders, by whom they might be protected against the senate and the consuls.

Otherwise Eutropius emphasizes the way the senate governed the growing state with wisdom, honour and patriotism. He especially notes that the senate repudiated the ignominious peace treaties with the Samnites, Numantines and Numidians¹³, a theme to which he will revert in his penultimate chapter of Book Ten, when he indignantly denounces Jovian's shameful peace with the Persians in 363.

Throughout his description of the republican period Eutropius discusses many social, political or economic affairs, often with balanced judgement. Nonetheless, he completely omitted mention of those two important second-century figures, the Gracchi. One has to question this glaring omission. Den Boer believes that the author was not interested in their socioeconomic importance or the political and constitutional significance of their activities¹⁴. 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 War¹⁵. The campaigns of L. Calpumius 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, Comelius 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 Republic¹⁶.

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 death¹⁷.

There can be little doubt that Eutropius' sympathies were entirely pro-Sullan and decidedly pro-senatorial¹⁸. 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 Historia Augusta 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 Plain¹⁹. 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 Saturninus' agrarian law. Recalled soon afterwards, he never regained his political prominence. Neither Catulus nor Metellus was 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 Velleius²⁰. 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) ²¹.

Here den Boer seems to be correct in observing 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 illustribus²². 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. It was on that account (ergo), Eutropius asserts, that the Republic was thrown into confusion and Antony, who was committing many crimes, was declared a public enemy. Unfortunately Octavian was reconciled to Antony through Lepidus and the three proceeded to proscribe the senate and put to death Cicero and many others of the nobility (7.2). Even more, including Cassius and Brutus, perished subsequently at Philippi and the republic was divided up among the conquerors (7.3). In effect that battle signified the end of the republic and of the senate's dominant role in politics. Eutropius was well aware of the fact; he makes no further mention of the senate until the reign of Nero and henceforth it is only its relationship with the emperors which is discussed.

Two of Rome's most "unpopular" emperors, Nero and Domitian, were guilty of putting to death many of the senators, and came to sticky ends²³. In fact the senate went so far as to declare Nero a public enemy (7.15). "Good" emperors, however, such as Vespasian and Titus, were beloved and respected by the senate (7.20; 7.22), and Trajan, who stands preeminent in this list, did nothing unjust to any senator (8.4). Marcus Aurelius refused to lay taxes on the provinces or the senate, preferring to auction off his own and his wife's property (8.13). All were naturally deified²⁴. Eutropius thereafter notes the senate's role in acclaiming several of the succeeding emperors, adding brief comments in a few instances²⁵. The comments themselves are intriguing. Elagabalus arrived in Rome amid the great expectations of both the army and the senate. He behaved with such obscenity and utter shamelessness, however, that he was killed in a military revolt together with his mother (8.22). Aurelius Alexander succeeded him, acclaimed Caesar by the army, Augustus by the senate (8.23). This linkage of the army and the senate appears deliberate, though historically inaccurate in the latter case, since the senate actually proclaimed him Caesar in June, 221²⁶. Indeed, the Historia Augusta criticizes and corrects Eutropius on this point²⁷. Eutropius' objective here seems to be an attempt to show Valens that the army and the senate could and should work together.

The author then commences Book Nine with the telling statement that Maximinus succeeded Alexander:

The first emperor who was elected from the military solely by the will of the soldiers since no authorization of the senate had been given and he himself was not a senator²⁸.

Eutropius' disapproval is evident, though not as explicit as that of Aurelius Victor²⁹.

Finally Eutropius informs his readers that Claudius succeeded Gallienus, chosen by the soldiers and declared emperor by the senate (9.11)³⁰. Upon his death two years later the senate accorded him extraordinary honours, by deifying him and erecting a gold shield to him in the senate house and a gold statue on the Capitol. This felicitous harmony between the army and the senate continued into the next reign when the army elected an emperor Quintillus, Claudius' brother, vir unicae moderationis èt civilitatis (9.12). It was with the consent of the senate that he was acclaimed Augustus. Unfortunately, at least for Eutropius (and Aurelius Victor), the co-operation between the army and the senate was not to recur and Eutropius probably assumed that at this juncture the senate lost its role in conferring legitimacy on the appointees of the army³¹". At any event the author makes no further mention of the august body, although he continues to register the consecration of the emperors down to Jovian, and this, according to den Boer³²", was the most important senatorial prerogative. One can only presume that Eutropius felt that he had made his case in the earlier chapters for the harmonious co-operation of the emperor, the army and senate, the three essential elements of the empire. Den Boer has also observed that Eutropius, unlike Victor, "keeps silent on the pusillanimity of the senate³³". This is to be expected. The political climate had changed in the decade since the appearance of the de Caesaribus and by 369 the senate was more in need of support than criticism. Six years later, with the accession of Gratian to the throne, the pendulum had swung again. Within a brief period the supporters of Valentinian had been removed (some were even executed) and the senate became reconciled with the court. Its members once more served in their accustomed offices of state and criminal cases involving them now went before the urban prefect and his special court, the iudicium quinquevirale. The following year clarissimi were no longer subject to torture. No wonder Symmachus could rejoice over the beginnings of a new saeculum³⁴.

Under such circumstances the carefully crafted defence of the senate in the Breviarium would not have been necessary and the work may have been quite different. The Emperor Gratian had by then reassured the senatorial aristocracy of its three points of concern: the protection of property, personal security and social standing.

Notes

¹ In the dedication of his work he describes himself as vir clarissimus.

² For the evidence vid. the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1971, 317.

³ W. den Boer, Some Minor Roman Historians, Leiden, 1972, 150; A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Oxford, 1977, 174.

⁴ Ammianus, 30.8.10; cf. Epit. 45. According to Procopius, Valens was a Pannonius degener (Ammianus, 26.7.16).

⁵ A. H. M. Jones, the Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, 141; J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court A.D. 364-425, Oxford, 1975, 35-41.

⁶ A. Alfoldi, a Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire; the Clash between the Senate and Valentinian I, Oxford, 1952, 48ff; E. A. Thompson, the Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus, Cambridge, 1947, 101-102; C. Schuurmans, "Valentinien I et le senat romain", Antiq. class., 18, 1949, 25. But cf. Matthews, loc. cit.

⁷ Eutrop., 8.2; 9.15.

⁸ Ammianus, 15.1.3; 29.5.46; Victor, de Caes., 5.4; 8.8; Festus, 26; 28.

⁹ Symm., Ep., I, 52.

¹⁰Vid., the telling statement in the dedication: "that your Serenity's divine mind may rejoice to learn that it has followed the actions of illustrious men in governing the empire …"

¹¹ Ammianus describes Valens as "subagrestis ingenii, nec bellicis nec liberalibus studiis eruditus" (31.14.5) and "inconsummatus et rudis" (31.14.8).

¹² Eutrop., 1.2; 1.6; 1.13; 2.5; 2.9; 2.23; 2.25; 2.27; 3.10; 3.21; 4.4; 4.17; 4.20; 4.21; 4.24.

¹³ Eutrop., 2.9; 4.17; 4.24.

¹⁴Op. cit., p. 166.

¹⁵ Eutrop., 4.13; 4.14; 4.16; 4.21; 4.23; 4.25. On their importance vid. E. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 149-78 B.C., Cambridge, Mass., 1968, ch. IV.

¹⁶ 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 professionals romano da Mario ad Augusto", Athenaeum, 29, 1951, 171-272; R. E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army, Manchester, 1958, 9ff; G.R. Watson, the Roman Soldier, Bristol, 1969, 21-22; H. Last, C. A. H., IX, 1932, 133-137, 146-147.

¹⁷H. A. Comm., 8.1; Pesc. Nig., 6.4. For other negative impressions of Sulla in the Historia Augusta, vid., Carac., 2.2; 4.10; 5.4.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ Vid., T. F. Carney, "Marius' Choice of Battlefield in the Campaign of 101", Athenaeum, 36, 1958, 229-237.

²⁰ Sallust., Cat., 2; Jug., 17; Vell. Pat., 2.57.118; cf. Aur. Victor, de Caes., 24.11.

²¹ Cf. 10.12, where the Battle of Mursa in A.D. 351 is similarly described.

²²Op. cit., p. 155.

²³ Eutrop., 7.14-15; 7.23.

²⁴ For the consecration of the emperors vid. den Boer, op. cit., 151-158. He observes that Eutropius is unique "in recording the consecratio (or its omission) of nearly all the emperors".

²⁵ Eutrop., 8.16; 8.23; 9.7; 9.11; 9.12.

²⁶Fer. Dur., II, 16/17; H. A. Alex., 1.2; Heliog., 1.5; S. Dusanic, "Severus Alexander as Elagabalus' Associate", Historia, 13, 1964, 487-498.

²⁷H.A. Heliog., 64.4-5; T.D. Barnes, the Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition", B.H.A.C. 1968/69, 1970, 38.

²⁸ Cf. Victor, de Caes., 25.1; H.A. Max. Duo, 8.1.

²⁹De Caes., 25.2.

³⁰ Cf. Victor, de Caes., 34.1; H. A. Gall., 15.3; Claud., 1.1-2; Zos., 1.46; Oros., 7.23.1; Syn Sathas, p. 39. Victor here applauds what he considers to be the one positive action of a generally corrupt and venal army.

³¹ Victor (de Caes., 36) believed that the senate won back from the army its right to select emperors when it chose Aurelius' successor, Tacitus. The H. A. concurred; "quam gravis senatus auctoritas fuit" (Tac., 2.2).

³²Op. cit., p. 151. Den Boer also suggests (p. 161) that "the hostility between the soldiers and senate largely determined Eutropius' view of the past and particularly of the previous century. He must have agreed with Victor …".

³³Ibid.

³⁴Ep., I.13. For a sound account of this period vid. Matthews, op. cit., 64-87.