SOURCE: "Eutropius" in Some Minor Roman Historians, E. J. Brill, 1972, pp. 114-72.

[In the following excerpt, Den Boer examines the possible source materials for Eutropius's works, what his histories reveal about ancient topography and chronology, and his attitudes toward Roman politics, especially domination of the barbarians, deification of emperors, and Constantine's conversion.]

Eutropius the Man

There are many gaps in our knowledge of Eutropius which will be impossible to fill. Modern scholars tend to identify him with a number of high-ranking officials of the same name who worked between the years 360 and 390. Caution must still, however, be observed. According to his praefatio, a dedication to emperor Valens, he was a magister memoriae. The dedication gives the emperor the titles Gothicus Maximus, so that 369 or 370 would seem to be the most likely date.

The validity of the identification of the historian with the proconsul of Asia in 371, who bore the same name, is most important.¹ If this official is the same man as the historian,² a terminus ante quem is set for the breviarium. After all, had he already been installed in this post, the author would not have failed to mention the fact in his dedication to the emperor. But some doubt remains as to whether the Eutropius known to have been Asiam proconsulari tunc obtinens potestate is the same man as the historian. If we assume this to be the case, many of our uncertainties are removed. We are then in a position to know that the historian was suspected of treason and acquitted, but held no more offices until the accession of Gratian. He then held the office of praefectus of Illyricum³ in 380 and 381, and that of Eastern consul in 387. In that case, he should also be identified with Eutropius the friend of Symmachus, who was among the most successful imperial servants of his time.

Marcellus Empiricus mentions a Eutropius who is sometimes, though without a shred of evidence, identified with the historian. The reference to this man states that 'aliique nonnulli etiam proximo tempore illustres honoribus viri, cives ac maiores nostri, Siburius Eutropius atque Ausonius' wrote about medical matters; this Eutropius was a Burdigalensis, and lived in the middle of the fourth century.⁴

It is amazing how easily modern scholars are tempted to draw far-reaching conclusions from an instance of identical names. One should realize that there is insufficient support in the sources both for Seeck's proposed identification of Eutropius with Symmachus' correspondent,⁵ and for that with a nephew and pupil of the rhetor Acacius of Caesarea. Hence the modern scholar who portrays Eutropius as in the following quotation oversteps the limits of what can be justified by reasonable arguments. However, his summary is sufficiently interesting to merit our attenti on, since it reflects the communis opinio of many modern students. 'One of these highly placed contacts was Eutropius, the historian and medical writer of Bordeaux. Earlier he had held the proconsulship of Asia, but he had gone into retirement when he was suspected of involvement in a plot against the Emperor Valens. He then reemerged under Gratian, to take his place with so many of his Aquitanian countrymen at the Court. At some time in this period, Eutropius met Symmachus at Rome, but soon, after the accession of Theodosius in early 379, he returned to the East with the new Emperor, and became prefect of Illyricum in the crucial years of campaigning 380 and 381.⁶ How fortunate it would be if we could accept this biographical sketch as correct. But it is impossible to be sure. As far as Eutropius is concerned, we still have little other to go by than his work—the few scraps of external information carry very little weight.

Sources

Eutropius' sources involve the same problems as Eutropius the man. Most of the time we simply do not know where he gets his information. The same uncertainty, moreover, arises when Eutropius is discussed as a source for later historians.⁸ There are two passages which require particular attention in discussing Ammianus Marcellinus, for instance, and the extent of his borrowings from Eutropius.

1. Diocletian's adoratio is described by both authors i n rouighly similar detail.⁹ Eutropius says: 'Diligentissimus tamen et sollertissimus princeps et qui imperio invexerit adorarique se iusserit, cum ante eum cuncti salutarentur'.

   If we compare this passage with Ammianus, we see that the latter places the statement in an entirely different context. He is concerned not so much with court ceremonial, as with the fact that Ursicinus must submit to it when he appears before Constantius; he goes on to relate the origin of this custom, which was probably known to the entire civil service. The possibilities of handing down certain spectacular facts to succeeding generations are often underestimated. Diocletian's adoratio was such a spectacular fact. Ammianus has the following to say: 'Diocletianus enim Augustus omnium primus, extemo et regio more instituit adorari, cum sernper antea ad similitudinem iudicum salutatos principes legerimus'.

2. Ammianus' account of Diocletian's attitude towards Galerius, after the latter's defeat by the Persians, is likewise sometimes thought to be derived from Eutropius. However, the facts were familiar enough, and are mentioned by Jerome and Festus besides Ammianus and Eutropius.

Hieron. Chron. 227 c:

Galerius Maximianus victus a Narseo ante carpentum Diocletiani purpuratus cucurrit

Eutr. IX 24:

pulsus … tanta insolentia a Diocletiano fertur exceptus, ut per aliquot passuum milia purpuratus tradatur ad vehiculum cucurrisse

Festus 25,1:

pulsus … tanta a Diocletiano indignatione susceptus est, ut ante carpentum eius per aliquot milia passuum cucurrerit purpuratus

Ammianus 14,11,10:

Augusti vehiculum irascentis per spatium mille passuum fere pedes antegressus est Galerius purpuratus

The main point of the description is that Galerius has to submit to this humiliation wearing full ceremonial dress, purpuratus, an emphasis that is characteristic of civil servants, who live in a world of insignia. This, in all likelihood, is the source of the four above passages, all of which stress the word purpuratus.¹⁰

At first sight one tends to link Jerome with Festus on account of the words ante carpentum, which they have in common. It would be as incorrect, however, to attach too much importance to this as a mark of 'derivation', as it would be to draw a similar conclusion from use of the word vehiculum, which occurs in both Eutropius and Ammianus.

It is significant that Helm, according to whom Jerome used Eutropius as a source on many other occasions, dismisses any connection between Jerome and Festus on this. His reasoning, unfortunately, is weak: he maintains that Jerome did use Eutropius, and that no-one could therefore believe that he also consulted Festus as well. To my mind, the other solution, namely, that Jerome's use of the word carpentum is fortuitous, is quite possible. Helm's dismissal of this idea, however, obliges him to assume the existence of a 'source' of which, incidentally, nothing is known. I feel that, in this case, the use of a single word should not be considered decisive. All the stories in circulation at the time mentioned a waggon, i.e. carpentum or vehiculum. The thread tracing both words to a single written source is somewhat tenuous. And if one persists in one's theory of derivation it seems odd that no-one defends the theory that Jerome derived his rendering directly from Festus.¹¹ Helm is against this, because he does not expect a man working as hurriedly as Jerome to consult the possible sources thoroughly. This realistic attitude is praiseworthy, but should be taken still further. Considering the situation in civil service circles everywhere and in every age, one should assume that there was a lively oral tradition—certainly as regards facts as well-known as Diocletian's adoratio and the humiliation of Galerius.

Galerius' victory in the East was equally well known, and could not but affect all those who desired to write edifying histories. Galerius was, of course, extremely suitable as an example of deed humiliation followed by great honours.¹²

Hieron.:

Galerius Maximianus superato Narseo et uxoribus ac liberis sororibusque captis a Diocletiano ingenti honore suscipitur

Eutr.:

pulso Narseo castra eius diripuit: uxores sorores liberos cepit … ad Diocletianum … regressus ingenti honore susceptus est

Festus: superato rege Narseo, uxore eius ac filiabus captis …

I feel that these passages permit of no definite conclusions as to Jerome's dependence, either on Festus or on Eutropius.

The same futile textual comparison has been applied to the Epit. de Caes. One example must suffice,¹³ the death of the emperor Julian.

Hieron.:

lulianus in Persas profectus.… a quodam simulato perfuga ad deserta perductus … ab obvio forte hostium equite conto ilia perfossus.

Epit.:

in Persas proficiscitur … a transfuga quodam in insidias deductus … ab uno ex hostibus et quidem fugiente conto percutitur

Festus: … ab obvio hostium equite conto per ilia ictus.

We have here a certain degree of 'correspondence' (Helm), which I propose to analyse. The authors of rhetorical school textbooks took great pains to describe the death of Julian in resounding periods. These were learned by heart and often declaimed at school. The correspondence in the above descriptions is paralleled in Continental history textbooks: 'Philippe le Beau took a cool drink and died.' The only connection this has with the use of any particular source is that at some point a school master expressed the facts in terms that subsequently became popular. The terms presumably used at court and in religious circles to describe the death of Julian were taken over by the Establishment a generation later.

It is so easy to be misled by similarities of expression, even when they correspond word for word. In the following instance the phrasing is identical and the facts are mentioned in the same order, but, even so, there is no reason whatsoever to consider direct derivation. This is the description of the death of Caesar Gallus and the insurrection of Silvanus.¹⁴

Hieron.:

Gallus Caesar sollicitatus a Constantio patrueli, cui in suspicionem ob egregiam indolem venerat Histriae occiditur.

Silvanus in Gallia res novas molitus XXVIII die occisus est.

Eutr.:

Gallus Caesar occisus est, vir natura ferus et ad tyrannidem pronior, si suo iure imperare licuisset.

Silvanus quoque in Gallia res novas molitus ante diem tricesimum extinctus est.

Even a casual glance at the above shows a number of differences. In the first place, Eutropius does not tell us where Gallus died; secondly, he does not give the exact number of days of Silvanus' reign; and thirdly and, in my opinion, most important, Jerome's opinion of Gallus is decidedly favourable, as opposed to that of Eutropius. Here we have a good example to show how little word-for-word correspondence or the same order of presentation of the facts sometimes helps to establish interdependence. The twenty-eight days are also given by Aurelius Victor (42,16) and the Epit. (42,10). There is as little reason to consider derivation here as in the case of Napoleon's hundred days, which no school textbook fails to mention.

Ab uno disce omnes: the many studies of Eutropius' sources are listed by Schanz, among others. They are seldom relevant to an understanding of the author as an individual.¹⁵

Topography

Eutropius provides at least one complex of data not found in any other summary of Roman history. He repeatedly mentions the number of milestones (miliaria) that indicate the distance to Rome.

Very frequently these details are regarded as derivations from some handbook, which assumption is then used to explain away the phenomenon.¹⁶ Now we know absolutely nothing of the existence of such a handbook, but this, of course, does not necessarily mean that there never was one. However, even if it were true that Eutropius used conveniences of this kind, the question remains why he is the only one to supply these details. The answer is most probably that since at this time the barbarian threat to the peace and security of Rome was increasing, a lively interest developed in other situations and periods in which Rome was threatened, and by enemies much nearer to the City. Eutropius catered to this interest. The following nine passages, all of which are concerned with the history of Rome prior to Hannibal,¹⁷ will illustrate this.

I 8,3 Ita Romae regnatum est per septem reges annis ducentis quadraginta tribus, cum adhuc Roma, ubi plurimum, vix usque ad quintum decimum miliarium possideret.

I 15,2 (Coriolanus) Romanos saepe vicit, usque ad quintum miliarium urbis accessit, oppugnaturus etiam patriam suam.

I 17 Sequenti tamen anno cum in Algido monte ab urbe duodecimo ferme miliario Romanus obsideretur exercitus, L. Quintius Cincinnatus dictator est factus.

I 19 Fidenae sexto, Vei octavo decimo miliario (absunt).

I 20 Statim Galli Senones ad urbem venerunt et victos Romanos undecimo miliario a Roma apud flumen Alliam secuti etiam urbem occupaverunt.

II 5 T. Quintius dictator adversus Gallos, qui ad Italiam venerant, missus est. Hi ab urbe quarto miliario trans Anienem fluvium consederant.

II 8 lam Romani potentes esse coeperunt. Bellum enim in centesimo et tricesimo fere miliario ab urbe apud Samnitas gerebatur, qui medii sunt inter Picenum, Campaniam et Apuliam.

II 12,1 Postea Pyrrus coniunctis sibi Samnitibus, Lucanis, Brittiis Roman perrexit, omnia ferro ignique vastavit, Campaniam populatus est atque ad Praeneste venit, miliario ab urbe octavo decimo.

III 14,1 Decimo anno postquam Hannibal in Italiam venerat, P. Sulpicio Cn. Fulvio consulibus Hannibal usque ad quartum miliarium urbis accessit, equites eius usque ad portam.

As we know, under the kings, Roman territory extended up to the fifteenth milestone. If we bear this in mind, the importance of Coriolanus' treachery becomes quite clear: he came up to the fifth milestone, and was therefore almost as dangerous as the Gauls and Hannibal, who later pushed as far as the fourth milestone. When the Cincinnati defended Rome, the enemies first came as far as the twelfth (the Aequi) and later to the fourth milestone (the Gauls). Similarly, readers are reminded that Rome was saved on various occasions by members of one and the same family. The Quintii set an example for the emperors of the author's own time. The threats presented by Fidenae and Veii were serious, as their geographical nearness will confirm. When Rome first became mistress of Italy, one severe military threat remained within the peninsula itself: the Samnites.¹⁸ After the Samnite Wars, the power of Rome extended up to the hundred-and-thirtieth milestone. Even temporary disasters such as the wars against Pyrrhus could not overthrow her, even though the king advanced up to the eighteenth milestone; immediately afterwards, 'terrore exercitus qui eum cum consule sequebatur, in Campaniam se recepit'.¹⁹ The war against Hannibal ended almost as well. After Cannae, no distance from Rome is mentioned until eight years later, ten years after the beginning of the war.²⁰ By that time the danger had waned somewhat, as the following sentence shows: 'mox consulum cum exercitu venientium metu Hannibal ad Campaniam se recepit'.²¹

References to the miliaria are a striking characteristic of Eutropius' Breviarium and not of others, such as that of Festus. There are a number of reasons for this, for instance, the fact that Festus had a more restricted task.²² There is more to it than this, though. Eutropius first mentions the miliaria when he wishes to indicate the modest extent of Roman territory under the kings.²³

Here speaks the proud Roman, who knows how powerful Rome eventually became. Herein, too, lies the point of departure for the discussion of those periods in which the existence of Rome was threatened. A description of such dangerous times might arouse a sense of danger in the mind of both writer and reader of the Breviarium. Eutropius projects the tensions of his own time onto the earlier history of Rome, and even onto the time of the kings. Topographical indications by means of miliaria in historiography can not, of course, have antedated the use of these stones in road construction. The oldest surviving milestone dates from the first Punic War,²⁴ while the first reference to such stones in historical literature is to be found in Polybius (III, 39,8) in his account of the construction of the via domitia by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus in 118 B.C.²⁵ Nevertheless, this does not mean that Eutropius introduces an anachronism in order to give an historially ignorant public a certain impression of the past. After all, this, the presentation of a certain point of view, became the objective of historians such as Livy, and of Florus with Justin in his wake.²⁶ Increased activity in the field of road construction probably stimulated their use, as did the erection of the miliarium aureum²⁷ by Augustus in 29 B.C. From Augustus onwards the use of miliaria became widespread, distances were usually indicated in 'miles', notably for the main roads running through the Empire. The custom thus developed of reckoning distances almost exclusively according to the number of milestones: ad lapidem primum, secundum, etc.²⁸

This clear and useful retrospective method of indicating distances did not always have the same connotations. When Livy mentions distances from Rome, he usually has a straightforward piece of information to impart which very rarely directly concerns Rome herself. He merely wishes to give a relative indication of the distance between places A and B, which are so many miliaria apart. Eutropius, however, in discussing barbarians or rebellious citizens²⁹ threatening the city, almost always mentions their distance from Rome. Florus before him also did so with some emotion: 'Quid ergo miramur moventi castra a tertio lapide Hannibali iterum ipsos deos—deos inquam, nec fateri pudebit—restitisse?' Although this emotion also occurs in Livy, it is exceptional.³⁰

We did Eutropius no injustice when we said that he projects the tensions of his own time (in 369 Valens defeated the Goths) onto an earlier period in the history of Rome, in this case the time of the kings. His contemporary, Aurelius Victor, is not free from such fears either. Their study of the history of the past century had taught these officials to recognize the dangers constantly threatening the Danubian and far Eastern borders of the Empire. Victor refers to a commune Romani malum orbis, a wide-spread evil, threatening the Roman world.³¹ Their own career must also have awakened these two civil servants to the fear that a catastrophe might take place. Indeed, they did not have to wait for the battle at Adrianople, where Valens fell, for the temporary nature of apparently permanent political and military institutions such as the Roman Empire to be brought home to them.

In discussing this matter I should like to present the question of Quellenforschung in an entirely new light. It must have been evident to writers in the third century, whose writings have not survived, that the very existence of Rome was, to say the least, assailable. Indeed, this must have become clear to many when Valerian was taken prisoner by the Persians. Now if writers like Eutropius were familiar with these older writings, as we may assume with some confidence, it is to be expected that something of the third-century mentality, of its insecurity, doubts and disquiet, coloured their own work. It is curious, to say the least, that for more than a century scholars have been diligent in attempting to trace verbal derivation from writings that are no longer extant, whereas derivation of moods, which is plausible enough where the events in question are sensational, is ignored. Then as now, man had the ingrained habit of comparing the present to the past. This common human tendency alone is enough to lead us to expect derivation of moods. In the second century A.D., Florus' history quotes distances that come very close to Eutropius' alarming reports.³² This work, written two centuries earlier, had become a standard textbook in the course of time, which suggests yet another possible influence: the rhetorical stories taught at school. These had perhaps as important an effect as the authors' personal experiences in the imperial service, or comparisons with whatever dreadful events had taken place a century earlier. Reading, personal experience, and the desire to find a reflection of the past in the present are three of the factors that influenced Eutropius in writing as he did.³³

Chronology

The chronology in Eutropius' Breviarum is not entirely consistent, but it is practical. It is also entirely conventional.

To start with I shall give a list of the various dating methods used. (A): Triple datings, dates calculated from or for the time of the kings; (B): Double datings based on the consular years and a.u.c.; (C): A.u.c. datings (the relatively large number of datings based exclusively on the years of consuls are not included); (E): Three passages in (C), indicated by an asterisk, which will be discussed separately; (D): Datings according to the month calendar, and one synchronism (with Alexander the Great); these will also be discussed separately.

A.

1 1,2 Is (Romulus) cum inter pastores latrocinaretur, decem et octo annos natus urbem exiguam in Palatino monte constituit, Xi Kal. Maias, Olympiadis sextae anno tertio, post Troiae excidium, ut qui plurimum minimumque tradunt, anno trecentesimo nonagesimo quarto.

IV 10,1 Tertium deinde bellum contra Carthaginem suscipitur, sexcentesimo et altero ab urbe condita anno, L. Manlio Censorino et M. Manilio consulibus, anno quinquagesimo primo postquam secundum Punicum transactum erat.

I 11,1 Secundo quoque anno iterum Tarquinius ut recipereretur in regnum bellum Romanis intulit, auxilium ei ferente Porsenna, Tusciae rege, et Romam paene cepit. Verum tum quoque victus est.

I 11,2 Tertio anno post reges exactos Tarquinius cum suscipi non posset in regnum neque ei Porsenna, qui pacem cum Romanis fecerat, praestaret auxilium, Tusculum se contulit, quae civitas non longe ab urbe est, atque ibi per quattuordecim annos privatus cum uxore consenuit.

I 15,1 Octavo decimo anno postquam reges eiecti erant expulsus ex urbe Q. Marcius, dux Romanus, qui Coriolos ceperat, Voiscorum civitatem, ad ipsos Voiscos contendit iratus et auxilia contra Romanos accepit.

B.

11 15 C. Fabio Licino C. Claudio Canina consulibus anno urbis conditae quadringentesimo sexagesimo primo legati Alexandrini a Ptolomaeo missi Romam venere et a Romanis amicitiam, quam petierant, obtinuerunt.

X 18,3 Is status erat Romanae rei loviano eodem et Varroniano consulibus anno urbis conditae millesimo centesimo et octavo decimo.

IV 22,1 Anno sexcentesimo vicesimo septimo ab urbe condita C. Cassius Longinus et Sex. Domitius Calvinus consules Gallis transalpinis bellum intulerunt.

IV 23,1 M. Porcio Catone et Q. Marcio Rege consulibus sexcentesimo tricesimo et tertio anno ab urbe condita Narbone in Gallia colonia deducta est.

VI 6,1 Anno urbis conditae sexcentesimo septuagesimo sexto L. Licinio Lucullo et M. Aurelio Cotta consulibus mortuus est Nicomedes, rex Bithyniae, et per testamentum populum Romanum fecit heredem. Mithridates pace rupta Bithyniam et Asiam rursus voluit invadere.

VI 8,1 Sexcentesimo octogesimo primo anno urbis conditae, P. Comelio Lentulo et Cn. Aufidio Oreste consulibus duo tantum gravia bella in imperio Romano erant, Mithridaticum et Macedonicum.

VI 15 M. Tullio Cicerone oratore et C. Antonio consulibus, anno ab urbe condita sexcentesimo octogesimo nono, L. Sergius Catilina, nobilissimi generis vir, sed ingenii pravissimi, ad delendam patriam coniuravit cum quibusdam claris quidem, sed audacibus viris.

VI 16 Sexcentesimo nonagesimo anno urbis conditae D. lunio Silano et L. Murena consulibus Metellus de Creta triumphavit, Pompeius de bello piratico et Mithridatico. Nulla umquam pompa triumphi similis fuit. Ducti sunt ante eius currum filii Mithridatis, filius Tigranis et Aristobulus, rex ludaeorum; praelata est ingens pecunia et auri atque argenti infinitum. Hoc tempore nullum per orbem terrarum grave bellum erat.

VIII 1,1 Anno octingentesimo et quinquagesimo ab urbe condita, Vetere et Valente consulibus res publica ad prosperrimum statum rediit bonis principibus ingenti felicitate commissa. Domitiano enim, exitiabili tyranno, Nerva successit.

C.

X 17,2 Annis mille centum et duobus de viginti fere, ex quo Romanum imperium conditum erat.

^* V 4 Anno urbis conditae sexcentesimo sexagesimo secundo primum Romae bellum civile commotum est, eodem anno etiam Mithridaticum.

^* 11 18,1 Anno quadringentesimo septuagesimo septimo, cum iam clarum urbis Romae nomen esset, arma tamen extra Italiam mota non fuerant … census est habitus.

III 10,1 Quingentesimo et quadragesimo anno a condita urbe L. Aemilius Paulus P. Terentius Varro contra Hannibal em mittuntur.

^* VI 7,1-2 Anno urbis Romae sexcentesimo septuagesimo octavo Macedoniam provinciam Marcus Licinius Lucullus accepit … Et in Italia novum bellum subito commotum est. Septuaginta enim quattuor gladiatores ducibus Spartaco Crixo et Oenomao effracto Capuae ludo fugerunt, et per Italiam vagantes paene non levius in ea quam Hannibal moverat paraverunt.

VI 17,1 Anno urbis conditae sexcentesimo nonagesimo tertio Gaius lulius Caesar qui postea imperavit cum Lucio Bibulo consul est factus.

VI 18,1 Anno urbis conditae sexcentesimo nonagesimo septimo M. Licinius Crassus … contra Parthos missus est.

VII I Anno urbis septingentesimo fere ac nono interfecto Caesare civilia bella reparata sunt.

D.

II 27,1-2 Numquam in mari tantis copiis pugnatum est … Contra Lilybaeum civitatem Siciliae pugnatum est ingenti virtute Romanorum … Pugnatum est VI Idus Martias.

X 16,2 (lulianus) hostili manu interfectus est VI. Kal. imperii anno septimo, aetatis altero et tnicesimo.

X 18,2 (lovianus) decessit imperii mense septimo, tertio decimo Kal. Mart., aetatis, ut qui plurimum vel minimum tradunt, tertio et tricesimo anno.

II 7,3 (Latini … superati sunt; ac de his perdomitis triumphatum est) Statuae consulibus ob meritum victoriae in Rostris positae sunt. Eo anno etiam Alexandria ab Alexandro Macedone condita est.

A

Very important dates are given in three forms (cf. Thucydides, whose system of dating is to give the year of office of the Athenian archons, Spartan ephors and of Hera's priestess in Argos).

The date of the foundation of Rome (I 1,2) is given as follows:

1. XI Kal. Maias. According to the monthly calendar, in keeping with tradition (21 April);
2. the third year of the sixth Olympiad, i.e. 753 B.C.;
3. 394 years after the fall of Troy (1148 B.C.), i.e. 754 B.C.

The point is that Varro's reckoning of 753 is retained here. Eutropius or his source was aware that there were various systems of time-reckoning in use (ut qui plurimum minimumque tradunt),³⁴ and that these yielded different dates. Those best known for the fall of Troy are 1184/83 or 1148/47. The latter is that used by Eutropius. If we count from the fall of Troy up to (and excluding) the foundation of Rome, then we arrive at the date 754. It was the vivid Greek imagination, shared by historians, that insisted on bridging the gap of four centuries between Aeneas (whose dates are known from the date of the conquest of Troy) and the year of the foundation of the city. However, if we base our calculations on the history of Alba Longa with its thirteen kings, at a rate of three kings per century (Herodotus similarly counted in generations) we arrive at a total of 430 years, which means that Troy fell in 1184 and not in 1148.

For the Third Punic War (IV 10,1) he also gives three dates, but these are not established in the same way as the dates for the foundation of Rome:

1. ab urbe condita;
2. consular year;
3. number of years between the Second and Third Punic Wars.

He has learned from experience. Method c. is most suitable for a breviarium, and, indeed, a quite obvious one to use. His relative dating from the Second War, is emotive in effect: 'Thus long did our forefathers tolerate Carthage!' In terms of formal calendars, however, one might say that only two systems, that of the fasti consulares and that which reckoned a.u.c., were employed.

Up to I 15 he follows a different, equally practical, system: the dates traditionally assigned to the kings. He continues to use this method for the eight years following their expulsion. From I 16 onwards, he uses the consular years. Throughout the history of the republic, this method of dating was, of course, generally followed, but it was still used in imperial times. In adhering to it, Eutropius follows the example of such illustrious predecessors as Tacitus.

B

We often find the use of consular years and dates a.u.c. combined. The beginnings of overseas relations: the first embassy to Rome from Ptolemy II, and the request for a treaty. Rome, represented as the mightier power, complies (II 15) (273 B.C.).

The end of the Breviarium is also marked by a double dating (X 18,3) and these two examples would seem to indicate that other double datings may have a particular significance.

The beginning of the conquest of Gallia Transalpina (IV 22,1) and the foundation there of Narbo as a colony six years later (IV 23,1). In the first case he gives, though not as part of his dating method (perhaps an irrelevant distinction) the names of the consuls in office (124 and 118 B.C.). This civilian colony is mentioned with remarkable emphasis.³⁵ Eutropius might have spoken in the words of Cicero, 'specula populi Romani ac propugnaculum istis ipsis nationibus oppositum et obiectum'³⁶ and he must have remembered Postumus' Gallic Empire and others who had saved the Imperium Romanum (in spite of their rebellion).³⁷

Another year of sufficient importance to merit double dating is that marking expansion in the East: the year 74 B.C., when Bithynia fell to Rome (after the death of the Bithynian king) and the last Mithridatic War began (VI 6,1); this was to last much longer owing to the events that took place three years later (VI, 8,1).³⁸ The degree of interest aroused by Mithridates is shown a third time in VI 16, which in a way rounds off the account of Roman overseas expansion: 'Hoc tempore (62 B.C.) nullum per orbem terrarum grave bellum erat'.

Events within the country had meanwhile taken a less favourable tum. To Eutropius, the conspiracy of Catilina was of sufficient significance to merit double dating (VI 15). One should not, however, infer that the single dating method is reserved for minor events. Rather, the writer applies more than one method of dating when he introduces a break in the composition of the narrative or for particular emphasis.³⁹

C

It is apparent from those places where the author uses only dates a.u.c. that events which are given no more than a single date can be of historical importance, even though they receive no particular emphasis within the framework of the Breviarum:

X 17: It was necessary, though humiliating, for Jovian to abandon his plans for further expansion. The year of this decision deserved to be remembered as a waming, and is here expressed, most fittingly, a.u.c.: 'pacem cum Sapore, necessariam quidem, sed ignobilem, fecit multatus finibus ac nonnulla imperii Romani parte tradita. Quod ante eum annis mille centum et duobus de viginti fere, ex quo Romanum imperium conditum erat, numquam accidit';

V 4 the civil war between Marius and Sulla;⁴⁰

VI 7 the war against Spartacus, a novum bellum;

VI 17 Caesar's consulship;⁴¹

VI 18 Second consulship of Crassus and Pompey (55 B.C.).

The inclusion of the latter two circumstances is important, for, after mentioning Carrhae, Eutropius says, 'Hinc iam bellum civile successit exsecrandum et lacrimabile, quo praeter calamitates, quae in proeliis acciderunt, etiam populi Romani fortuna mutata est' (VI 19). This ominous date is in perfect accord with the civil war that broke out after the death of Caesar, counting from the foundation of the city; but how long by would she continue to exist? The date of the civil war is indicated a.u.c., as was the year of disasters, 216 B.C. (III 10,1). In one other instance does an a.u.c. dating mark the conclusion of a period of war within Italy (dated fairly arbitrarily as 477 a.u.c.): this was the first war outside Italy (II 18).⁴²

It is a notorious fact that not all historians have given the date of the foundation of Rome the same place in their chronological systems. We find, for instance, 751/0 (Cato-Polybius), 753 (Varro), 752 (Fasti Capitolini).⁴³ Judging by the frequency of correspondence, we may assume that Eutropius' source, or sources, follows the Fasti.

D

Now and then he dates an event according to the month calendar, but these instances are largely, to my mind, a matter of chance. For instance, the battle of Lilybaeum, VI Idus Martias (II 27,1-2), and the death of Julian and Jovian which were, perhaps, still fresh in people's memories (X 16,2 and 18,2). Furthermore, the latter date marks the conclusion of the Breviarum, as XI Kal. Maias, the foundation of Rome, marked its beginning (I 1,2).

There are seventeen dates for which Eutropius used the fasti consulares, naturally for the history of the Republic. In doing so he followed the example set by the old histories, and presumably also oral tradition.⁴⁴ He proves himself a worthy heir of a tradition of writing senators, in that he does not refer to the regnal years of the emperors⁴⁵ except in connection with their death, and not even always then. He never indicates an event as having taken place during a particular regnal year. It is typical of him that when he does wish to date an event occurring during the reign of Augustus, he does so with reference to his consulship (VII, 8,1: 'duodecimo anno quam consul fuerat').

Synchronisms, i.e. dating by events occurring other than in Rome, play a very minor part. Eutropius gives only one (II, 7,3): the Latins were defeated in the same year as that in which Alexander the Great founded Egyptian Alexandria. For the sake of completeness, it should be observed that, in recounting a series of events, he sometimes dates subsequent occurrences from the beginning of Hannibal's invasion (III 14,1; 23).

The following conclusion may be drawn from the chronological data. The practice of double dating, of dating according to the persons in consular office, and the use of dates a.u.c., point to a system (introduced either by Eutropius himself or by his source) which he followed quite deliberately. This method is conventional in its adherence to the Fasti Capitolini and is not influenced by the custom of placing events according to regnal years. Eutropius was a conventional historian, but he was, first and foremost, a senator. As regards the accuracy of his dates, considering that this concise Breviarium covered more than 1000 years of Roman history, one can only agree with what has been said of a historian much greater than he: 'Exact chronology was often impracticable—and often superfluous.'⁴⁶ The division into periods is comparatively easy to follow. Only one point marking such a period remains ambiguous (II 18,1), unless one assumes that the words arma… extra Italiam mota non fuerant contain an allusion to a fact considered of such importance as to be regarded as a turning point in the history of Rome.

E

There are a number of dates that are difficult to place within the chronological framework. For instance, the year 477 a.u.c. (II 18,1), in which a census was held. The only explanation that will fit the latter piece of information is That Eutropius held the date of the foundation of Rome to be 752 B.C.; we then arrive at 275 B.C., a census year.⁴⁷ Subsequently, in 18,3, he mentions the opening of hostilities against the Carthaginians: Ap. Claudio Q. (this should be M.) Fulvio consulibus. Again, if the year 752 is taken to mark the beginning of the Roman era, then the census presents no problems, but we do find ourselves in difficulties as regards the end of the wars that were previously restricted to Italy. Now Eutropius does not in so many words connect these two facts, but the words arma … extra Italiam mota non fuerunt suggest that the Romans were soon after waging war outside Italy. The passage continues, et contra Afros bellum susceptum est (§ 3), which could point to activities outside Italy before 264 B.C.⁴⁸ Hence the idea that the census in question is that of 265/4 B.C. It must be admitted that this year would be satisfactory for two reasons. Firstly, because it would meet the requirement that, as Eutropius' text implies, this census took place just before the beginning of the First Punic War, and secondly because in this year C. Marcius Rutilus enjoyed the unique honour of a second term of office as censor. Nevertheless, this unprecedented honour is not mentioned in the breviaria, and if it had been a reason for mentioning this census, then surely Eutropius would at least have hinted at it.⁴⁹

The census of 275 B.C., however, would seem the most likely in the light of other events given special attention in the breviaria. If in the entire book only one census is mentioned at all, there must be a special reason why it was remembered. For the year 275 B.C. such a reason is not hard to find. It was noted for the actions of the plebeian censor C. Fabricius Luscinus. He it was who had proved incorruptible in the struggle against Pyrrhus; consul in 282, wounded at the battle of Asculum, consul again in 278, twice triumphator, he was eminently suitable for the office of censor. He it was who expelled the patrician P. Cornelius Rufinus from the senate—although opinions differ as to his motives. In any case he was considered the censor par excellence.⁵⁰ As early as the second century A.D. he was being mentioned in the breviaria.⁵¹

V 4: the year 662 a.u.c. was remarkable for a number of events:

1. the outbreak of the first Civil War;
2. the outbreak of the Mithridatic Wars;
3. Marius' sixth consulship.

If we take the foundation of Rome to have occurred in 752 B.C., which dating is given in Eutropius' chronology somewhat more frequently than any other, 662 years a.u.c. would correspond to the year 90 B.C. Yet this date cannot be regarded as the year of outbreak of the Civil War, or of the Mithridatic Wars, or indeed of Marius' sixth consulship, which we know him to have held in 100 B.C. Nor would it help to consider the years 663 or 664 a.u.c. If we are to make any sense of the information given (though it should always be borne in mind that the minor historian did not necessarily select his material with due care, so that any attempt at coordination is to overrate him) then we should read, 'Anno urbis conditae sexcentesimo sexagesimo sexto', instead of secundo and '… C. Marius septiens', instead of sexiens. For 666 years a.u.c. is in our terms 86 B.C., the year of Marius' seventh consulship, and a year to which both the bellum civile and the bellum Mithridaticum may plausibly be dated.⁵² The events in question are already sufficiently involved, and, to add to the confusion, the readings are inconclusive, to say the least, the word sexagesimo being lacking in FGLO, only occurring in PD. Presumably his failure to find this word prompted Paianios to conduct his own research. Unfortunately, his conclusion was incorrect. His calculations resulted in a dating of 672 a.u.c., i.e. 80 B.C., which is impossible.

VI 7 taken together with VI 8 and 10 contains information about M. Licinius Lucullus, known after his adoption as M. Terentius Varro Lucullus. He was the younger brother of L. Licinius Lucullus, who is here erroneously referred to as his consobrinus. M. Lucullus was consul in 73 and proconsul of Macedonia in 72 and 71. In 71 he was ordered to help Crassus in the war against Spartacus.

VI 7 gives 678 a.u.c. as the date of the beginning of his proconsulship. This would place it in the year 74, which is two years too early, unless we accept a chronolgy starting from 750 B.C.—which is unlikely in view of VI 8.

VI 8 gives 681 a.u.c. which, if we take 752 as the year of foundation, tallies with 71 B.C. and the consuls mentioned, P. Cornelius Lentulus and Cn. Aufidius Orestes.

The most likely explanation of the discrepancies in these chapters is that Eutropius' account of the Luculli as military commanders places their generalship between the years 74 and 70 B.C., and that no further chronological specification within that period was considered necessary.

Ut qui plurimum minimumque tradunt

The expression 'ut qui plurimum minimumque tradunt' occurs twice, in I 1,2 and X 18,1. We can find the former, but not the latter, in Paianios' Greek translation. … This rendering, 'as those historians (say, who) recount the longest and shortest time', needs an explanation. Is it the author's intention to indicate a mean? Or should the sentence be understood as follows: ut (eos praeteream) qui … tradunt?⁵³ A third possibility is that Eutropius is saying that both parties, those who assign the earliest and those who assign the latest possible date to the fall of Troy, agree that a period of 394 years elapsed between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome. If the latter interpretation, which comes closest to the text, is correct, then Eutropius was guilty of a very serious blunder, for in that case there must have been a tradition stating that Rome was founded in 790 (1184 - 394 = 790). In fact, he probably subscribed to the view that Troy fell in 1148 and Rome was founded (394 years later) in 754. The third interpretation could then be paraphrased as follows: 'as regards the time from the destruction of Troy to the foundation of Rome, I am inclined to compromise, and to find a position between the two extremes'. But this still does not help us to find the correct translation of the above phrase.

One could try to find a parallel for the words plurimum minimumque in Greek usage, though this is not a very profitable line of approach, either.… This must be a case of two groups of people holding different opinions: one considers the Araxes to be larger, the other thinks it is smaller than the Istros. The explanation given by Ed. Meyer, that this indicates a 'median', is unsatisfactory.⁵⁴

… If we follow the text as it has survived rather than Wil.'s reconstruction, 'both less and more' means 'able to cope with'. According to Meyer this is 'eine durchaus unanstössige, dem fünften Jahrhundert geläufige Redensart'. This is undoubtedly putting it too strongly, for he cannot name a single parallel.

However interesting such speculations may be, common Greek usage of the fifth century B.C. still proves nothing for common Latin usage of the fourth century A.D. I could not find a single Greek parallel for Eutropius' words. Comparing them with the expression uno mense aut altero, 'hardly (or 'at most') two months' in A.V. de Caes. 37,10, merely confuses the issue. Perhaps, however, A.V. de Caes. 41,22 can be of use: Statimque triennium post minimum fatali bello Constantinus cadit. This can only mean 'about three years later'.

X 18,2 concerns the age at which Jovian died. Eutropius says that he was 33 years of age, but we know that there was at least one other account according to which he died at the age of 40: annos gerens proxime quadraginta (Epit. 44,4). It does not seem likely that Eutropius went to such lengths to establish a median from among varying accounts of Jovian's age at his death to arrive at the age of 33, even in speaking of contemporary history.⁵⁵ It is much more probable that he wrote down his own estimate of the emperor's age. Six or seven years' difference between the emperor's actual age (if the Epitomist is right) and Eutropius' estimate of his age is still, after all, a possible margin of error. Thirty-three as a median age means that some people thought that he died at 26 years of age, and others at 40. A difference of as much as fourteen years, if the emperor was never considered to have lived past forty, is a very curious margin even for a fragmentary traditional history to leave.

It would therefore seem most likely that the words ut qui plurimum minimumque tradunt in both cases indicate no calculated median but an estimate.

NOTE

On p. 131, note 42, I noted that Eutropius' a.u.c. dates are not reliable. Apparently he cannot make up his mind when Rome was founded. A list of the dates he uses, converted into dates B.C., follows below.

Year of the foundation of Rome

750 B.C.: VI 6,1.⁵⁶

751 B.C.: IV 22,1; 23,2.

752 B.C.; VI 7; 8,1; 15; 16; 17,1; 18; VII 1. V 4 probably also belongs in this group.⁵⁷

753 B.C.: I 1,2

754 B.C.: X 17,2; 1118 years a.u.c. corressponds to 364 A.D. I.e., the date of the foundation of Rome is here 754 B.C.

756 B.C.: III 10,1.

Personal Experience

References to contemporary events are to be found in various places. The best known is that in which Eutropius recounts that he took part in Julian's expedition in the East (X 16,1): 'hinc Iulianus rerum potitus est ingentique apparatu Parthis intulit bellum, cui expeditioni ego quoque interfui.' However, he seldom mentions himself even when he refers to his own time. IX 13,2: 'Zenobia autem posteros, qui adhuc manent, Romae reliquit.' The term used has become stereotyped, e.g. for the reconstruction of Carthage: 'quae nunc manet' (IV 21). The general knowledge of his audiernce was apparently such that they knew Mogontiacum, but had difficulty in distinguishing the various Drusi of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. He therefore mentions that Claudius was the son of Drusus, qui apud Mogontiacum monumentum habet. This is no flosculus culled from Suetonius, but a helpful reference to a monument that was apparently still extant.⁵⁸

Inevitably he addresses the emperor in the introduction. He addresses him on one other occasion, and it is no coincidence that he does so in comparing emperorship and dictatorship. Moreover, this is the only point (I, 12,2) at which he interrupts his own narrative: 'Neque quicquam similius potest dici quam dictatura antiqua huic imperii potestati, quam nunc tranquillitas vestra habet, maxime cum Augustus quoque Octavianus, de quo postea dicemus, et ante cum C. Caesar sub dictaturae nomine atque honore regnaverint.' It seems a curious way of explaining this republican office. Is this 'aside' evidence of abysmal ignorance or didactic ingenuity? Perhaps both: the ignorance is then mainly the readers' or the listeners', the ingenuity Eutropius'. The divided emperorship was, in his own time and immediately before, a controversial military and political issue, to which he alludes in his discussion of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. XIII 9,2: 'Tumque primum Romana res publica duobus aequo iure imperium administrantibus paruit, cum usque ad eos singulos semper habuisset Augustos.' One can well imagine that the writer was longing to produce better work, though forced to mention these trivial details. The end of his Breviarium may be read as an expression of his desire to write a greater historical work, although perhaps too much importance has been attached to this statement.⁵⁹

On a number of occasions Eutropius makes good use of his knowledge of contemporary military affairs. One of the best examples of this is his treatment of war-elephants, particularly as used by Pyrrhus and Hannibal.

Florus had already paved the way with an obviously rhetorical discursiveness quite different from, for instance, Appian's sober account. Although he knew and used Florus' work, Eutropius imposed certain limitations on his own work, which is perhaps why he does not refer to the greatest battles. In a way, he was fortunate in that his patron, the emperor himself, had no time to read extensive rhetorical accounts à la Florus. Eutropius thus avoids falling into the same pitfalls as his predecessor, who knew the elephant only as big game. In Florus' time the elephant was no longer used in battle; in Eutropius' age the Romans were once again confronted with these awe-inspiring animals in the wars against the Persians, so this subject was sure to be of general interest. Eutropius knew what was expected of him; the elephant had become part of the stock repertoire of history and Eutropius could not therefore leave him out. But his account is sober, as is that of Appian—with whom, incidentally, he has little else in common. The explanation for his matter-of-fact rendering is obvious. He could not afford to speak of a well-known phenomenon with high-flown rhetoric. He is restrained because he and his contemporaries, officers and civil servants alike, know all about battle elephants. Ammianus Marcellinus uses the same technique, and for the same reasons, in his exposé of Julian's expedition against the Persians.⁶⁰ On the other hand, if one compares the relevant passages in Florus and Eutropius, the differences are quite unmistakable.

Florus I 13,8-10.

Actum erat, nisi elephanti, converso in spectaculum bello, procucurrissent, quorum cum magnitudine tum deformitate et novo odore simul ac stridore constemati equi, cum incognitas sibi beluas amplius quam erant suspicarentur, fugam stragemque late dederunt. In Apulia deinde apud Asculum melius dimicatum est Curio Fabricioque consulibus. lam quippe terror beluarum exoleverat, et Gaius Numicius quartae legionis hastatus unius proboscide abscisa mori posse beluas ostenderat. Itaque in ipsas pila congesta sunt, et in turres vibratae faces tota hostium agmina ardentibus ruinis operuerunt.

I 13,12

Nam provectis in primam aciem rursus elephantis, unum ex eis pullum adacti in caput teli gravis ictus avertit; qui cum per stragem suorum recurrens stridore quereretur, mater agnovit et quasi vindicaret exiluit, tum omnia circa quasi hostilia gravi mole permiscuit. Ac sic eaedem ferae, quae primam victoriam abstulerunt, secundam parem fecerunt, tertiam sine controversia tradiderunt.

I 13,28

Sed nihil libentius populus Romanus aspexit quam illas, quas ita timuerat, cum turribus suis beluas, quae non sine sensu captivitatis summissis cervicibus victores equos sequebantur.

Eutr. I 11,3

Commissa mox pugna, cum iam Pyrrus fugeret, elephantorum auxilio vicit, quos incognitos Romani expaverunt. Sed nox proelio finem dedit; Laevinus tamen per noctem fugit, Pyrrus Romanos mille octingentos cepit et eos summo honore tractavit, occisos sepelivit. Quos cum adverso vulnere et truci vultu etiam mortuos iacere vidisset, tulisse ad caelum manus dicitur cum hac voce: se totius orbis dominum esse potuisse, si tales sibi milites contigissent.

11 14,3

Curius in consulatu triumphavit. Primus Romam elephantos quattuor duxit.

II 24

L. Caecilio Metello C. Furio Placido consulibus Metellus in Sicilia Afrorum ducem cum centum triginta elephantis et magnis copiis venientem superavit, viginti milia hostium cecidit, sex et viginti elephantos cepit, reliquos errantes per Numidas, quos in auxilium habebat, collegit et Romam deduxit ingenti pompa, cum (CXXX) elephantorum numerus omnia itinera compleret.

IV 27,3

(Q. Caecilius Metellus) lugurtham variis proeliis vicit, elephantes eius occidit vel cepit …

As we said, Ammianus Marcellinus does not need many words to weave the war-elephants into his story. Nevertheless, there are lingering echoes in his words of the fear this awesome weapon inspired: 'Post hos elephanti gradientium collium specie, motuque immanium corporum, proprinquantibus exitium intentabant, documentis praeteritis formidati' (24,6,8).

Appian's account of the battle at Thapsus is entirely different.⁶¹ Scipio took the field against Caesar with sixty elephants, provided by King Juba. The news of the presence of these animals made a great impression on Caesar's soldiers, even before the battle. … When Juba subsequently withdrew, leaving only half his elephants with Scipio, 'Caesar's men plucked up courage to such a degree that the fifth legion begged to be drawn up opposite the elephants, and it overcame them valiantly. From that day to the present this legion has borne the figure of an elephant on its standards'.⁶² Is is easy to understand why, after this historic event, elephants held no more terrors for the Roman legions for several centuries.

Rome and the Barbarians⁶³

The writers of breviaria write about foreign policy under the republic with intense national pride, as when Egypt actually requests an alliance (II 15). Eutropius refuses to be intimidated by the past glory of famous adversaries; the way in which Athens is referred to as a civitas Achaiae (V 6) is simply insulting to this glorious city: ab Aristone Atheniensi Mithridati tradita est. Jerusalem, though also conquered, fares better: quae fuit urbs nobilissima Palaestinae (VII 19,3). It goes without saying that this official favoured the city of Rome, but it must have made many people bitter (though probably not Eutropius) to think that the eternal city, like other cities, had become dependent on the whims of the emperor: Alexander Severus Romae quoque favorabilis fuit (VIII 23). Athens, Jerusalem, even Rome, whatever their past fame, had ceased to present any political or military problems.

The foremost contemporary problem was Rome's relationship to the 'barbarians'. Eutropius, as a typical member of the senatorial class, combines humanity with a profound conviction of the rightness of Roman domination. He was apparently, or preferred to seem, oblivious of the fact that this situation gave rise to tension among the subjected peoples. His manner of taking Rome's power for granted sometimes strikes us as cynical, although it probably springs rather from a naive consciousness of superiority. He is entirely unaffected by the doubts that plagued Tacitus, as the following two passages show.

Samnites (II 9,1-3):

Postea Samnites Romanos T. Veturio et Sp. Postumio consulibus ingenti dedecore vicerunt et sub iugum miserunt. Pax tamen a senatu et populo soluta est, quae cum ipsis propter necessitatem facta fuerat … Neque ullus hostis fuit intra Italiam, qui Romanam virtutem magis fatigaverit.

Corinth (IV 14,1):

Corinthiis quoque bellum indictum est, nobilissimae Graeciae civitati, propter iniuriam legatorum Romanorum.⁶⁴

Moreover, criticism of the murder of the enemy com mander Viriathus is implied rather than stated: 'Et cum interfectores eius (sc. Viriathi) praemium a Caepione consule⁶⁵ peterent, responsum est numquam Romanis placuisse imperatores a suis militibus interfici' (IV 16,3).

The behaviour of Q. Servilius Caepio certainly did not live up to this hypocritical assurance.⁶⁶ One can scarcely imagine that Eutropius did not know the true story of how Caepio bribed Viriathus' men to betray him. The writer of De viris illustribus certainly did know what happened, which shows that the perfidious part played by the Roman commander must have been familiar to many, indeed that the popular history books had helped to make the facts common knowledge.⁶⁷ Livy's periocha also exposes the betrayal and its instigator, and devotes some words of praise to the brave opponent, for whom Eutropius feels nothing but contempt ('pastor primo fuit, mox latronum dux').⁶⁸ Valerius Maximus termed the deed a perfidia on both sides, the Spanish traitors and Caepio.⁶⁹ Even Velleius Paterculus could not pass over it in silence, and wrote that Viriathus was killed fraude magis quam virtute Servili Caepionis.⁷⁰

It would seem that Eutropius is alone in his opinion. Yet the Christian authors also remain unmoved by the perfidity of the Roman commander. Orosius has only a glancing reference to the murder of Viriathus,⁷¹ and, like Eutropius, creates the impression that the Romans had dissociated themselves from the murder. Nevertheless, it would oversimplify the case to assume that the two versions arise from different sources. Eutropius despises the latrones.⁷² His attitude can be traced back to that of Florus, which need not necessarily entail direct derivation: 'vir calliditatis acerrimae, qui ex venatore latro, ex latrone subito dux et imperator'.⁷³ And here lies the reason for the Romans' lack of chivalry and implacable hatred: Viriathus had indeed constituted a serious threat, and might well have become the Romulus of Spain. As always, magnanimity towards the enemy petered out as soon as this enemy became, or seemed to have become, a serious threat to the safety of Rome. Eutropius' humaneness, like Florus', is severely limited.

The author took great pleasue in detailing the numbers of soldiers mobilized and the booty amassed in the wars of conquest. Sometimes, as in the case of the size of the fleet in the First Punic War, such information is fairly reliable; compared to Polybius' numbers, those given by Eutropius are 'slight variants due to careless transmission'.⁷⁴ Sometimes, too, the information supplied by Eutropius (and Florus, for that matter) is more or less fictitious.⁷⁵ One may well ask to what purpose, then, these figures are included in a breviarium. Eutropius tells us, I think, in his introduction. He sees his task as a per ordinem temporum brevis narratio. The story is told, recited, in order to please the emperor ('ut … possit … laetari'). He has no intention of providing the emperor with a piece of scholarship that he would have to read attentively ('cognoscerat lectione').

Every time major decisions are mentioned, numbers serve to illustrate the narratio. When Rome goes to Africa during the First Punic War, when she subsequently wages war with Hannibal, when the Empire is torn by the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, the numbers of troops and details of the losses bring home the gravity of the situation.⁷⁶

Plunder is taken completely for granted, as it was at the time the wars of conquest were conducted,⁷⁷ but it is only after the Third Macedonian and the Third Punic Wars that booty is mentioned frequently. The emphasis placed on the honesty of the Romans after the latter war is most significant (IV 12,2): 'Spolia ibi inventa, quae variarum civitatum excidiis Carthago collegerat, et ornamenta urbium civitatibus Siciliae, Italiae, Africae reddidit, quae sua recognoscebant.'

The richest booty of all was that gained by Aemilius Paullus after Pydna,⁷⁸ but Eutropius shifts the emphasis to accentuate the magnanimity of the conqueror towards King Perseus: 'nam et volentem ad pedes sibi cadere non permisit et iuxta se in sella conlocavit.⁷⁹

The benevolence of the conqueror had two main aspects. On the one hand he liberates the oppressed (IV 7,3): 'Macedonibus et Illyriis hae leges a Romanis datae: ut liberi essent et dimidium eorum tributorum praestarent, quae regibus praestitissent, ut appareret, populum Romanum pro aequitate magis quam avaritia dimicare.' It is no coincidence that Eutropius adduces this particular task of the Romans whilst placing Macedonia and Illyria, which had gained prominence by his own time, in historical perspective. The breviarium thus disseminates propaganda to discourage desertion to the barbarian side, and the imperial conquests in Pannonia were represented as having liberated the inhabitants from slavery.⁸⁰

On the other hand, the Romans acted in a humane manner towards those they had conquered, as the example of Perseus was supposed to prove. Rome's mildness was all the more remarkable seeing that Perseus' activities could be construed as a rebellion.⁸¹ Nor, after the First Punic War, did the Carthaginians have any cause to complain of the harshness of their Roman conquerors (II 27,2): 'Etiam Carthaginienses petiverunt, ut redimi eos captivos liceret, quos ex Afris Romani tenebant. Senatus iussit sine pretio eos dari, qui in publica custodia essent; qui autem a privatis tenerentur, ut pretio dominis reddito Carthaginem redirent atque id pretium ex fisco magis quam a Carthaginiensibus solveretur.'

The Second Punic War is used to illustrate the high standard of Roman military honour and the difference between the morality of the Romans and that of the Carthaginians (III 11,1): 'Hannibal Romanis obtulit, ut captivos redimerent, reponsumque est a senatu eos cives non esse necessarios, qui cum armati essent, capi potuissent.' The difference between the Romans, who refused to recognize their countrymen as citizens once they had been taken prisoner by the enemy, and the Carthaginians, who were glad to take back their men after the first war, is characteristic. The Roman's humaneness is limited, particularly towards his own fellow soldiers; he knows no greater bitterness than when confronted with what he considers cowardice. Yet this attitude is not consistent, as we see when Hannibal takes the proud Romans at their word, and feels at liberty to treat his prisoners accordingly (III, 11,2): 'ille omnes postea variis suppliciis interfecit et tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quos ex manibus equitum Romanorum, senatorum et militum detraxerat.' This reaction of Hannibal's was always severely condemned by the Romans even though, according to the Roman code of honour, soldiers who surrendered were disgraced. Now, however, the Roman code of honour was conveniently ignored—naturally. The fact that the Romans had certain standards of permissible military behaviour did not mean that they would overlook the offence if another party, and the enemy at that, put the dishonoured soldiers to death.

We shall not discuss the accuracy of Eutropius' account, although it was probably not far from the truth. But if we try to analyse the personality of the historian as revealed in his work, we are struck by the curious combination of the stern morality (which is much praised) of the Roman republican leaders on the one hand, and its Carthaginian repercussions, which can only be seen as wanton cruelty, on the other.⁸² Both the story and the dual attitude are characteristic of Eutropius, and perhaps also of his time. The solidarity of imperial subjects had to be perfect, in the fourth century A.D. as in other times; anyone who did not live up to these standards was condemned to be cut off from society. Nevertheless, the enemy who took this to mean that he could with impunity kill those who were no longer welcome in Rome, was the cruel barbarian and always would be, in harsh contrast to Rome's humane attitude in Spain (III 17): 'regem Hispaniarum magno proelio victum in amicitiam accepit et primus omnium a victo obsides non poposcit'.

In III 21-22, Eutropius makes it quite clear what he means by Carthage's perfidia. The actual terms of the peace are immaterial here.⁸³ The estimated cost of a war often increases as protracted negotiations drag on, to the irritation of the victor. In this case, the length of the negotiations is interpreted as a nova perfidia, for which the Carthaginians were made to pay.⁸⁴ Here again our investigation is not concemed with the accuracy of the account, but with the information considered relevant for his breviarium by an official who likes to see quick results. Eutropius must have known what wars cost, but in his time no barbarian nation was as rich in spoil as were the wealthy Carthaginians centuries before. He was well aware of the fact that, in his own time, wars were an expensive business, and he deplores the civil war waged against Magnentius ten years earlier (X 12,1): 'ingentes Romani imperii vires ea dimicatione consumptae sunt, ad quaelibet bella externa idoneae, quae multum triumphorum possent securitatisque conferre.'

Time and again we see that what he admires in the terms for peace set by previous generations of Romans is the self-restraint which governed their treatment of a conquered enemy. He notes this attitude in discussing the conditions of the peace set Antiochus III, quamquam victo (IV, 4,3). His accounts of conquests of barbarians are therefore seldom if ever provocative.

The enemies of old, now members of the Imperium Romanum, cannot have taken exception to this textbook, which perhaps partly explains its popularity. Moreover, the retailing of honours accorded generals in the past must have gratified the upper classes. Here again, Eutropius knew what would interest his public: military distinctions, and the triumph as ultimate ideal. Indeed, triumphs are described in disproportionate detail. In the case of the Syrian war, Scipio's triumph (Scipio Romam rediit, ingenti gloria triumphavit) had long lost its sting, even for Syrian Roman readers.

As we have seen, there are limits to mildness when the interests of the state are at stake. The historian decides for himself if clementia, which he believes should be the rule, is rightly abandoned. It is likewise his personal opinion if he says that the behaviour of individual Roman citizens is not consonant with the interests of the state. Indeed, it is with surprising severity that he condemns the Civil War, thus also censuring C. Julius Caesar⁸⁵ (IV 19,1): 'hinc iam bellum civile successit exsecrandum et lacrimabile, quo praeter calamitates, quae in proeliis acciderunt, etiam populi Romani fortuna mutata est.' The tears that Caesar later wept at the news of Pompey's death (V 21,3) do not, however, absolve him from his grave responsibility. Eutropius' attitude towards Caesar is nevertheless ambiguous. He refers to Caesar's return from Gaul, yet without taking sides in the conflict between the general and the senate (VI 19,2): 'Caesar enim rediens ex Gallia victor coepit poscere alterum consulatum atque ita, ut sine dubietate aliqua ei deferretur.' At the same time, the opposition of Marcellus and others is termed iniuria; this is in connection with the senate's demand that Caesar disband his troops, which Eutropius, consciously or unconsciously following the lead of his source, apparently considers an 'injustice'. Yet Eutropius makes no attempt to exonerate the man who adversum patriam cum exercitu venit. He also criticizes Caesar's last years: 'agere insolentius coepit et contra consuetudinem Romanae libertatis' (VI 35).

Of all kinds of wars, he considers civil war the most reprehensible. Eutropius was the first fourth-century writer to blame Constantius II for causing such a war. Later, Ammianus, Orosius and the Epitomist were to agree with him.⁸⁶

The Romans themselves had realized this early on, and their historians followed a fairly general mode of thought. Therefore, even if a war had started inside the country, it had to look as if it were waged outside. The struggle against Sertorius had to be a foreign war, which it was certainly not. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to attribute this attitude to the war in Spain to moral disapproval of civil war. It had to be comouflaged as a hostile encounter with Spaniards, no doubt because the Roman conqueror could celebrate a triumph only if he were the victor in a foreign war.⁸⁷

The writings of Florus and Eutropius have one element in common. They have no illusions, either about the republican senators during the civil war, or about the enormous significance of the battle of Actium,⁸⁸ though Florus surpasses Eutropius by far in that he sometimes tries to trace the causes of a war, a refinement which one need not expect of Eutropius.⁸⁹

The views of Eutropius and of his contemporaries on the limits of imperial tolerance are perhaps best summed up in the paragraph on the actions of Titus, which he describes with apparent approval. Rebellions by conquered nations are effectively and severely countered, but he turns a blind eye to criticism of the emperor in high places in Rome itself, which was likewise a form of rebellion (VII 21,2): 'in oppugnatione Hierosolymorum sub patre militans duodecim propugnatores duodecim sagittarum confixit ictibus. Romae tantae civilitatis in imperio fuit, ut nullum omnino punierit, convictor adversum se coniurationis dimiserit vel in eadem familiaritate, qua antea, habuerit.'

It was the tolerant emperors, especially Augustus and Trajan, who enjoyed the highest esteem. Their conquests are listed, their failures practically ignored. Augustus' good fortune (VII 9-10) is not so highly praised as Trajan's goodness. This has often been overlooked, because the best-known expression in the breviarium, felicior Augusto, melior Traiano (VIII 5,3), has stuck in people's memories and given the impression that the emperors were equally appreciated. This impression, however, is incorrect. Trajan is the favourite. The four chapters in his praise (VII 2-5) are unique in Eutropius' work.

This is what he had in mind when he promised Valens that he would tell his tale plainly and concisely, but 'additis etiam his, quae in principum vita egregia extiterunt'. It has been said,⁹⁰ in my opinion erroneously, that he writes in greater detail of these, his two favourite emperors, in order to explain and justify the expression 'more fortunate than Augustus, better than Trajan'—a phrase with which the senate later greeted emperors at their investiture. If such had been his intention, he would not have created so obvious a distinction in his account of their periods of rule. There is no doubt that Eutropius preferred Trajan even to Augustus. Moreover, the policy of conquest adhered to by the former was of greater relevance than ever in the fourth century.

The breviarium is a book about people. Names are given, but issues are seldom explained; as he promised the emperor, his inspiration was to be the inlustrium virorum facta. He rarely describes battles, except those of the Second Punic War, and even then he omits all reference to Zama, to name but one. Marius and Metellus, and later Sulla (ingentem virum) are mentioned in connection with the war against Jugurtha.

The causes of the conflict, or the course of the military undertakings, enter the picture very briefly, if at all. It may well be true that, to us, Roman history is sine nominibus, but the fourth-century senator at any rate went to some trouble to avoid this situation. Unfortunately his efforts were not crowned with success. His work was too short—indeed, it had to be, after all, its chief objective was brevity. Meanwhile, the imperial biographies (including, surely, the Historia Augusta), which are roughly contemporary with the breviaria, were eagerly read. They provided the reading public with material which was not to be found in the breviaria.

The biographies were also better qualified than any breviarium to satisfy the public demand for exciting anecdotal detail. However, this is not to say that such anecdotes are lacking in Eutropius' work.

For instance:

II 5,1: How L. Manlius acquired the cognomen Torquatus; and

II 6,2-3: How Valerius acquired the cognomen Corvinus. The account of the wars against Pyrrhus is enlivened by much circumstantial detail:

II 11,3: Pyrrhus' well-known comment on the courage of the Romans;

II 12,3 and 14,1: C. Fabricius Luscinus;

II 13,3: Cineas, Pyrrhus' envoy, and his opinion of the Romans;

II 21-25: The customary account of the heroism of M. Atilius Regulus in 256 B.C. brightens the discussion of the First Punic War;⁹¹ and

IV 8,1: Perseus' ship.

It has been wrongly suggested that Eutropius adopted the fashion of including anecdotes in his narrative specifically for his account of imperial times,⁹² i.e., in only five instances: VII 18,3: Vitellius' banquet; VII 21: Titus; IX 13,1: Aurelian and Tetricus IX 18,2: the removal of the body of Numerian, a detail that is also to be found elsewhere; X 18,1: particulars about Jovian's death. The above list, however, disproves this suggestion.

Senate and Emperor⁹³

Eutropius was a conscientious, restrained writer, who was by no means indifferent to the problems of his time. One burning political issue was that of the influence of the senate, to which he himself belonged. In his preoccupation with this matter, he is at one with Aurelius Victor. Both quote the year 235 as marking the end of the collaboration between emperor and senate. They describe Maximinus Thrax in almost identical terms:⁹⁴ the military proclaim him emperor 'cum nulla senatus intercessisset auctoritas'. Eutropius, a prouder man than Victor, keeps silent on the pusillanimity of the senate; nor does he refer to the humble origins of this emperor, although he often does so in other cases. To my mind, there is no doubt that the extreme brevity with which Eutropius writes of Maximinus is inspired by contempt. His ideal of cooperation between senate and emperor is that achieved by Trajan: 'In my position as emperor, I treat the common citizen as I should wish to be treated by an emperor if I were a common citizen.⁹⁵ What he admired in Trajan was the fact that he respected the prerogatives of the senate, the most important of which was the consecratio of the deceased emperor. It is of great interest to note that Eutropius is alone in recording the consecratio (or its omission) of nearly all the emperors.

The passages in which he mentions the consecratio of deceased emperors may be placed in five categories. The first category (A) contains straightforward statements of the usual course of events. The second is an isolated case; in C, as we shall see, the wording has been varied intentionally. In the fourth group, it was not, if Eutropius' phrase is taken literally, the senate who carried out the consecration. The last group (E) lists the names of emperors who were not thus honoured.

Once again, the accuracy of Eutropius' statement whether an emperor was or was not consecrated is not here at issue.⁹⁶ The point is to see what he says about the events in question.

The terminology used in this context is most revealing, and has never, to my knowledge, been studied thoroughly.⁹⁷ There is a large group of emperors whom the senate deified as a matter of course. The terms customarily employed by Eutropius are 'Divus apellatus est' or 'inter Divos relatus est'.⁹⁸ He goes on to give a meticulous account of deviations from the usual ritual of deification. Trajan, whom he admired so much, was accorded the honour of having his remains buried within the city; Diocletian was consecrated even though, having abdicated, he was no longer emperor at his death; Claudius II was further honoured with the erection of a golden statue and shield.⁹⁹ Where Eutropius himself was particularly strongly in favour of the honour conferred, for instance, in the cases of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, he says so.¹⁰⁰ He also tells us if there were any difficulties attendant upon the consecration, as in the case of Hadrian, Gordian I and Jovian.¹⁰¹ The well-known instances in which this honour was withheld are also mentioned: Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Domitian;¹⁰² Eutropius further states that Commodus and Geta were not consecrated either. His statement about Commodus is in conflict with Victor, who recounts that this emperor was finally consecrated thanks to the efforts of Septimius Severus, and on account of his father's merits.¹⁰³ Here again Eutropius (if, that is, he agreed with Victor) proves rather uncommunicative: he makes no reference to this occasion on which the senate was overruled. Geta never was consecrated; his damnatio memoriae was never repealed, despite his brother and murderer Caracalla's witticism, 'sit divus, dum non sit vivus': let them deify him, as long as they do not revive him.¹⁰⁴ Eutropius is equally reticent about the deification of Gallienus. The earliest surviving version of this event, which was most humiliating for the senate, is Victor's: Claudius II compelled the senators to consecrate his predecessor: subacti a Claudio.¹⁰⁵ Eutropius suppresses the event altogether; coming from this emperor it was too profound a mortification to be borne. He does, however, mention the fact that Antoninus Pius also demanded his predecessor's consecratio.¹⁰⁶ Another notable omission in Eutropius' account is a story of Victor's to the effect that, towards the end of his life, Hadrian had a number of senators imprisoned in order to have them put to death. This rumour was proved false after the emperor's death. And the senators were so happy about their return that they were swayed by the request of the new emperor.¹⁰⁷

Eutropius is incapable of demeaning himself by providing history with a happy ending.¹⁰⁸ Perhaps the fact that he does not subscribe to Victor's oblique praise of Caesar underlies his bluntness, which sometimes makes him appear implacable. Like the anonymous author of De viris illustribus, Victor is filled with admiration for Octavian's 'magnus avunculus'.¹⁰⁹ Eutropius' tone is different—he speaks of Caesar's 'shameless conduct, that contravened the traditional Roman idea of freedom'."¹¹⁰ Brutus the assassin was in his eyes a hero inspired by his great ancestor, L. Iunius Brutus, who drove out Tarquinius Superbus.¹¹¹

Both Bruti, ancestor and descendant, were laid to rest in a mausoleum of harmless rhetorical verbiage. There was no question of republican, let alone revolutionary, aspirations among officials like Eutropius. He was a loyal servant of his emperor. Yet it is significant that in the decade in which Victor and Eutropius were writing, it was possible for the central figure of the Roman revolution, Gaius Julius Caesar, to inspire two interpretations as different as theirs. A study of the sources that equates these two abbreviators and assumes their dependency on a single source, as is so often done, defeats its own purposes. Quellenforschung is useless in this connection, and what is more, it obstructs our view of two personalities—both admittedly 'minor' historians, but nevertheless entirely dissimilar in all other respects. Their personality is revealed, more than anywhere else, in their attitude to Caesar. Caesar's consecration, described in many surviving sources, is omitted by Eutropius. Once again, his silence is significant.

The most interesting cases are those in which Eutropius is in favour of the consecration, but where the ritual of apotheosis could not be observed because, for instance, the body could not be found. This happened in the case of Decius. Aurelian managed to arrange his consecration, but there are indications that his name was often erased from inscriptions. The Christian emperors, such as Constantine the Great and Constantius II, also presented difficulties, in that the pagan rites could not be performed in their entirety. It is quite clear why the consecratio of both Constantine and his son were incomplete according to pagan beliefs: the body had not been burned, and the apotheosis was thus not carried out in accordance with the prescribed ritual.¹¹² It is understandable that a pagan senator, who respected tradition, cannot in such cases say that an emperor inter Divos relatus est.

It is thus no coincidence that Eutropius uses a different terminology for each of these four emperors, preferring to say meruit inter Divos referri. I am inclined to feel that this is an unusually subtle instance of senatorial theology; mereo means to deserve; it also means to be rewarded, to be given a claim to, to be promised."¹¹³ This ambiguous term was most convenient for the senate. I think it probable, although it is not capable of proof, that the terminology is not Eutropius' own, but that it originated in senatorial practice. The subtlety of the phrasing employed in connection with precisely these four emperors, all of whom should have been consecrated, but for some circumstance that made regular deification impossible in each case, can be no accident. Such subtlety of expression occurs nowhere else in Eutropius.

These nuances escaped his Byzantine translators. They cannot be blamed for this, since the consecratio was a pre-Byzantine and pre-Christian custom.¹¹⁴ Eutropius did not restrict the use of the second phrase, 'meruit inter Divos referri', to the Christian emperors, he also uses this expression for Decius and Aurelian. As a rule, he handles the controversy between paganism and Christianity with the utmost restraint. Many scholars have been surprised to note that he does not even mention Constantine's conversion to Christianity. His only reference to Christianity is when he condemns Julian for his persecution of Christians, even though the persecution was bloodless.¹¹⁵ Generally speaking, this may be a diplomatic silence; on the other hand, his repugnance to bloody persecution bears out the humanity characteristic of Eutropius, though very Roman in type.¹¹⁶

Before imperial times, apotheosis was an exceptional distinction. Tradition has it that Romulus was honoured in this manner (I 2,2): 'ad deos transisse creditus est et consecratus'. Camillus, who had saved the city from the Gauls, was regarded as a second Romulus 'quasi et ipse patriae conditor' (I 20,3), and was consequently deemed worthy of the same honour as Romulus (II 4): 'honor ei post Romulum secundus delatus est'. But these were the only two to be consecrated, for such honours accorded ill with the spirit of the Republic. In imperial times, however, consecratio was a matter to be handled by the senate, and thus constituted a problem with which Eutropius was also confronted.

The Emperor during his Lifetime

There was a connection between the living, reigning emperor and his successor, which sometimes led the successor to insist on deification against the will of the senate. This is said even of Antoninus Pius (VIII 7,3), and Victor says the same of Claudius II with respect to Gallienus (De Caes. 33,27). Although the senators must have resented imperial interference as undermining their own authority, it did not affect the general principle that Victor expressed as follows (33,30): 'adeo principes atque optimi mortalium vitae decore quam quaesitis nominibus atque compositis, quantum coniciatur, caelum adeunt seu fama hominum dei celebrantur modo.'

The policies of the living nearly always affected the honours accorded the dead. This need not surprise us. The form of worship granted after his death was a continuation of the homage the living emperor enjoyed in Eutropius' time; and it is an established fact that the living emperor was worshipped as a god. The historian proclaims this worship, in a sense, in his dedication to Valens: 'tranquillitatis tuae … mens divina'. Scipio Africanus was another who was already considered a privileged being who spoke with the gods during his lifetime (III 20,2): 'cui viro divinum quiddam inesse existimabatur, adeo ut putaretur etiam cum numinibus habere sermonem'. Augustus was considered almost divine, even before his death (VII 8,4): 'vir, qui non inmerito ex maxima parte deo similis est putatus'. Trajan, too, was granted near-divine status before he died (VIII 4): 'per orbem terrarum deo proximus … et vivus et mortuus'.

The honours showered on the emperor did not, however, mean that the historian did not feel at liberty to pass value judgements on many emperors, based on their deeds. If we compare Eutropius' approach with the usual historical view, determined chiefly by Tacitus, of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, we see that his attitude is only in part conformist. Tiberius (VII 11,1), Caligula (VII 12) and Nero (VII 14 and especially 15) are treated unfavourably. It would seem as if subtlety were out of the question: the 'simple' listener did not want subtlety.

All the more surprising, then, the chapter on Claudius (VII 13). Admittedly, Eutropius does not conceal quaedam crudeliter et insulse, but it is abundantly clear that he admired the emperor's moderation as a ruler. The question inevitably arises, where this view originated, for it is completely opposed to the traditional view of the despot dominated by his wives and freedmen. The answer is not hard to find. In spite of Tacitus, there was a flourishing senatorial tradition that remembered past honours bestowed on its class. Eutropius draws on this when he says, 'tam civilis autem circa quosdam amicos extitit, ut etiam Plautium, nobilem virum, qui expeditione Brittanica multa egregie fecerat, triumphantem ipse prosequeretur et conscendenti Capitolium laevus incederet' (§ 4). The importance Eutropius attached to this imperial honour emerges from the fact that he had just (§ 2) called Cn. Sentius and A. Plautius (illustres ac nobiles viros. The two references to Plautius as a vir nobilis (repetition is unusual in a breviarium) underline both his importance and that of Claudius' gesture. It is the senator who speaks here.

The same senatorial sense of honour determines the historian's valuation of many emperors in yet another way. Finance and territorial expansion are tasks of the greatest importance in which Vespasian excelled and for these he is highly praised; but he is also praised for his restraint—which should always be interpreted to mean being on good terms with the senate (cf. VII 19,12).

Those who transgress the code of values set forth by Eutropius come to a bad end. This happened to Domitian, who committed the major sins of libido, iracundia, crudelitas, avaritia and superbia, basides the murder of senators, arrogation of divine honours, financial excesses (a golden statue), and almost consistently unsuccessful attempts at territorial expansion. No other fate was possible for an emperor who thus became the exact opposite of his father and brother than to be murdered by his own servants and be buried like a dead cur or beggar. He has gone down in history as a prime example of the exitiabilis tyrannus (VII 23; VIII 1).¹¹⁷ Conversely, the example of liberality is Titus whose life, described in two chapters (VII 21-22), is in sharp contrast with that of his younger brother. The words used to characterize his rule are familiaritas, facilitas and liberalitas—terms that reflect the emperor's relationships with highly-placed men in his direct surroundings. Eutropius probably stresses this particular case quite deliberately, having learned, during his term of office, how important was a satisfactory relationship between the emperor and his government officials. The very fact that neither Vespasian nor Titus allowed themselves to listen to delatores restored the atmosphere of co-operation between the emperor and the upper ordines.

The events of the year 68/69 are also discussed in unexpected detail, perhaps in view of later usurpations, such as those in the third century. He is particularly interested in the origins of the emperors. For Galba, antiquissimae nobilitatis senator suffices. Otho's background requires more extensive treatment, in itself no good sign.¹¹⁸ Vitellius needs still more space—and all this serves as a prelude for Vespasian, obscure quidem natus sed optimis comparandus.¹¹⁹ His interest in the emperors' origins, lively though it is, is not as intense as that of Aurelius Victor.¹²⁰ Not for nothing were the emperors who succeeded the Julio-Claudian dynasty often scrutinized as to their background, and frequently judged on that basis. The emperors of 68/69 are no exception. Nerva: nobilitatis moderatae; Trajan: familia antiqua magis quam clara, with a description which also serves to 'place' Hadrian, consobrinus suae filius; Antoninus: genere claro sed non admodum vetere; Marcus Aurelius is the first about whose background he has no reservations: haud dubie nobilissimus, quippe cum eius origo paterna a Numa Pompilio, materna a Solentino rege penderet.¹²¹ The next interesting case, much later, is Septimius Severus, whose humble origins we have seen pointed out by Victor. The fact that he was a self-made man also emerges clearly enough from Eutropius' account: he tells us that the emperor came from Africa and gives details of his career, but he does not mention the humble social position of the family. The military anarchy produced a long series of family trees notable chiefly for their obscurity: obscurissimo genere (Maximinus Thrax), obscurissime natus obscurius imperavit (Aemilius), obscurissime natus (Postumus), vilissimus opifex (Marius), obscurissime natus (Diocletian), villissime natus (Carausius).¹²² Eutropius does not allow such considerations to cloud his judgement of their rule. Postumus and Diocletian come off particularly well, as does Carausius.

The closer a historian gets to his own time, the more cautiously must he proceed. Yet even Constantine the Great's origins are weighed in the balance when Eutropius says that he succeeded his father, ex obscuriore matrimonia eius filius (X 2,2).

The emperor's acclamatio by the senate was an important occasion. If it did not take place, the author does not fail to say so (IX 1: Maximinus, IX 7: Valerian, IX 11,1: Claudius II). The senate was deprived of this 'right' by the soldiers. Of Pertinax the author says, 'ex senatus consulto imperare iussus' (VIII 16), nor is the fact omitted that Tetricus was a senator, and had to put up with many mutinies on the part of the soldiers who elected him (IX 10). The hostility between soldiers and senate largely determined Eutropius' view of the past, and particularly of the previous century. He must have agreed with Victor (37,5): 'abhinc militaris potentia convaluit ac senatui imperium creandique ius principis ereptum ad nostram memoriam, incertum, an ipso cupiente per desidiam an metu seu dissensionum odio'.

According to the Suda, Eutropius was an Italian.¹²³ His origin did not, however, preclude Eutropius' acceptance of emperors from elsewhere. Sometimes he even gives the impression that he regards the non-Italic origins of many leaders as a symbol of the universality of the Empire. He displays not a trace of dissatisfaction with Trajan's background, although he does stress the fact that the emperor's father was the first of his line to achieve the heights of consular dignity (VIII 2,1). No more is Severus' African origin held against him. Nevertheless, the author likes to include information of this nature: Decius, e Pannonia inferiore; Aurelianus Dacia Ripensi oriundus; Carus Narbone natus in Gallia; Maximianus Galerius in Dacia haud longe a Serdica natus; Licinius Dacia oriundus.¹²⁴ These little details must have been important to Eutropius. We can understand him better if we assume, and there are ample grounds for such an assumption, that his readers and listeners liked to read about a fellow-countryman who succeeded in becoming the leader of the empire. It must be admitted that a painful contrast is thus created between the insignificant details supplied and the important facts he sometimes omits. Constantine may serve as an example. His rule is praised, but our pagan author makes no reference whatsoever to the emperor's conversion to Christianity.

Eutropius' high opinion of the emperor deserves further analysis. He points out that Constantine was very popular in the provinces, mainly because of his military successes; the author refers more particularly to the conquests in Gaul, where Constantine defeated the Alamanni and the Franks. Chapters X 4-8 are decidedly unequal in their appreciation of the emperor and his deeds. Good deeds and bad are placed side by side, with no attempt at unification. The emperor's origins, of interest to Eutropius, are also pointed out here.¹²⁵ There are evil deeds, committed for political reasons: the death of Licinius was contra religionem sacramenti; Crispus' name is avoided, the murders neither concealed nor condoned (X 6,3): 'verum insolentia rerum secundarum aliquantum Constantinus ex illa favorabili animi docilitate mutavit. primum necessitudines persecutus egregium virum filium et sororis filium, commodae indolis iuvenem, interfecit, mox uxorem, post numerosos amicos'. However, the following chapter appears to have been designed to eliminate the unfavourable impression: it is a continuous flow of praise.

Constantine's reign most clearly shows the degree to which an abbreviator's working methods were influenced by politics. As we have seen, Eutropius did not succeed in shaping the relevant chapters into a coherent whole, a failing to be attributed, not to his sources, but to the delicate nature of the subject. Christian tradition had rendered this emperor's position unimpeachable, and had become a force which the pagan had to take into account. Nevertheless, he was quite at liberty to criticize the emperor's conduct in matters upon which he, an experienced civil servant, was an expert: the emperor's legislation (X 8,1) included unnecessary details and severe decrees for which Eutropius could apparently muster no admiration, though we do not know exactly at which measures his criticism was directed.¹²⁶ The struggles for the succession, both before and after Constantine, are discussed in greater detail than we would expect from a breviarium. His discursiveness is understandable if we remember the importance the senator-historian attaches to legitimacy. The acclamatio had always, after all, been essentially a matter for the senate. It would be foolish to attack Eutropius on the score of his diplomatic treatment of the greatest of Christian emperors. His analysis is more than capable of standing comparison with the efforts of others. Victor also refers to the death of Crispus, but he also glosses over the fact that he was murdered with the words incertum qua causa (de Caes. 41,11). Although this smacks of servility, we should not underestimate Victor. Having mentioned the execution of Crispus and the punishment of a vulgar rebel on Cyprus, he goes on to say: 'quo excruciato, ut fas erat, servili aut latronum more, condenda urbe formandisque religionibus ingentem animum avocavit, simul novando militiae ordine'. Eutropius was incapable of such masterly irony, which casually mentions the transfer of the capital, conversion to Christianity and military reforms all in one breath.

In this summary of Roman history women are virtually ignored. Of course, the Sabine virgins, Lucretia and Virginia, are part of the stock repertoire, even for those who do no more than summarize the earliest history of Rome (I 7,8-10, 18); no historian writing about Hadrian's accession could ignore Plotina's influence (VIII 6); no more could Cleopatra (VI 22, VII 6,7) or Zenobia (IX 13) be disregarded. But this is the sum of the abbreviator's interest in the subject. Those who stress Suetonius' influence on Eutropius will not find a trace of it here, at any rate.¹²⁷ No Livia, no Aggripinas, no Julias. The magister memoriae had no time for frivolous matters.

One thread that runs throughout the book, whether the author is discussing the time of the Kings, the Republic or the Empire, is the dignity of war. War was always better than peace without honour. Hence the open criticism of Jovian (X 17,1): a necessary but dishonourable peace. So much, at least, he could afford to say soon after the emperor's death—it goes without saying that it would have been impossible while the emperor was still alive.¹²⁸

Economic Problems

Eutropius barely touches upon economic problems. Slaves are mentioned only on the occasion when they were used for the defence of Rome during the Second Punic War (III 10). Roman politicians often argued that the conquests in the provinces enabled the Roman legions to 'liberate' the people from slavery to their previous masters. Eutropius interprets the facts in this manner only once (VIII 13,1): '[Marcus Aurelius] Pannoniis servitio liberatis … triumphavit'.¹²⁹

One particular passage (IX 14) is always quoted in connection with the debasement of the coinage which took place in Imperial times: 'hoc (Aureliano) imperante etiam in urbe monetarii rebellaverunt vitiatis pecuniis et Felicissimo rationali interfecto'. Victor also mentions this event (35,6): 'neque secus intra urbem monetae opifices deleti, qui, cum auctore Felicissimo rationali nummariam notam corrosissent, poenae metu bellum fecerant'. Its gravity illustrates the independence and power attained by the monetarii; it also shows the extent to which the process of devaluation, which had been going on for a long time, was aggravated by these officials.¹³¹ The full-scale war that it precipitated claimed seven thousand victims among the imperial troops. To be sure, the abbreviators did not mention events such as these for their economic interest, but because of their serious military repercussions. Their interest in the provinces was likewise determined by other than economic considerations.

The fact alone that an emperor came from the Danubian territories was enough to stimulate an interest in that province. Eutropius caters to this interest, but in moderation.¹³² We are told no more about specific measures in the Danube region (except, of course, for military exploits) until Probus, who repealed Domitian's prohibition of viticulture in Gaul and Pannonia.¹³³ In comparing Eutropius and Victor, we find that the latter sometimes takes slightly more interest in economic matters, such as the reclamation of virgin soil in Pannonia, in which connection he refers to Galerius (de Caes. 40.9). Eutropius does not mention this project, but he does tell us of the dangers that threatened the area in the form of marauding bands of Sarmatians and Quadi (IX 8,2).

Abridged histories have always been spiced with particularly picturesque details. Here we see Marcus Aurelius faced with the realization of the gravity of the rebellions at the Danube front. In order to combat these difficulties he made a personal sacrifice: the sale of his most precious possessions (VIII 13,2). Such incidents look well in a textbook. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to think that the author is quite oblivious of economic considerations. Aurelian's reform of the coinage (IX 14) was certainly no picturesque detail, but an extremely serious undertaking. However, one would not expect the hasty reader of a breviarium to go to the trouble of gathering all the relevant information. Besides, it is doubtful whether Eutropius himself had access to these particulars.¹³⁴ Economics were not his strongest point, nor of other classical historians. This is linked with the fact that economic history has little popular appeal; the few economic measures that did catch the fancy of the public, such as Probus' measures for the advancement of viticulture in Gaul and Pannonia, are infallibly recorded (IX 17,2). Of the details of Aurelian's monetary reforms, little is known; at any rate, they met with scant enthusiasm in Gaul and Britain. There are indications that Eutropius was told of the matter by Gallic informants who were more than likely to contrast Aurelian's attempted reforms with Julian's successful financial measures. These had been all the more welcome after the devastation and complete exhaustion left in the wake of Magnentius' insurrection (X 10,2), in which Gaul, too, had been deeply involved.¹³⁵ Julian is praised for his provincial policies on account of his deeds in Gaul—his economic reforms as well as his military exploits (X 16,3). It even looks as if Eutropius is rather vague about the difference between aerarium and fiscus (X 16,3; 1,2). He does not mention the Gracchi; their socio-economic importance did not interest him. No more, it seems, was he interested in the political and constitutional significance of their activities, even though it is precisely in these matters that he sometimes wishes to educate his readers.¹³⁶

A study of his comments on provincial administration shows that Gaul, Africa and Asia are referred to most frequently; his information about Gaul is in general of greater importance than that given for the two other provinces. However, this need have no connection with Eutropius' alleged Gallic origin,¹³⁷ but rather with the dramatic course of events in Gaul in the third and fourth centuries.

There is little point in searching for written sources of his information on provincial affairs. Schanz,¹³⁸ though apt to be somewhat dogmatic, is right in assuming that this modest work owed little to extensive study of the available sources. Every conquest had its legend, and scraps of the story, correct or otherwise, were passed on, usually by word of mouth, in official circles.

Christianity

Eutropius does not mention Constantine's conversion. A possible reason for this omission is that he did not wish to sow or to aggravate religious dissension, an explanation that accords well with his disapproval of Julian's handling of religious matters (X 16,3): 'religionis Christianae nimius insectator, perinde tamen, ut cruore abstineret'. These words may be interpreted as a denunciation only of Julian, but they certainly also contain an indirect criticism of all Christian rulers who stooped to violence. Nevertheless this passage (and, indeed, his treatment of Constantine generally), in spite of its somewhat haphazard composition, bears the stamp of a considered opinion, which has allowed the emperor's many excellent qualities to outweigh other consideration. The passage in question is directly followed by the remark that Julian modelled himself on Marcus Aurelius, a choice which must have satisfied Eutropius, who greatly admired this emperor (VIII I1).

It is no coincidence, I feel, that many people were dissatisfied with the end of the breviarium. Nor does it seem hazardous to venture the hypothesis that the Anonymus Valesiani was among them, and that he himself supplied an ending which in his opinion placed the facts in a more accurate historical perspective than did Eutropius' account. Julian's words (6,33, ed. Moreau) reveal the Anonymus to be a Christian, indeed a fanatic, whose severe criticism is elsewhere derived from Orosius. It is worth investigating the differences between Eutropius and the Anonymus.

1. An. Val. is hostile to barbarians. He credits Constantine with an heroic action which Eutropius would never have recognized as such and indeed does not even consider worth mentioning (1,3): 'ferocem barbarum capillis tentis raptum ante pedes Galerii imperatoris adduxerat'.
2. As a corollary, their description of Constantine's character is based on different material. Both, indeed, represent him as ambitious, but the striking particulars adduced by An. Val. are lacking in Eutropius (X 5; 7). The killing of the post horses in order to avoid capture by Severus (2,4) is one example; Victor also mentions this incident (40,2).
3. The tradition that Philippus Arabs was a Christian (6,33) may throw some light on An. Val.'s sources. Orosius (7,28) also refers to Philippus Arabs as a Christian, which is not to say that An. Val. based his writings on Orosius, though this is likely. The tradition itself owes its existence to primitive retrospective wishful thinking: Would it not be wonderful if Rome's thousandth anniversary had been celebrated under a Christian emperor? No doubt this pipe dream gave rise to the crude historical fabrication. Be this as it may, and though no direct dependence of the one on the other can be proved, An. Val. and Orosius must have had a common source. That there is at least a link between the two is confirmed by the following.
4. An. Val. and Orosius condemn Licinius in the same terms¹³⁹ for expelling the Christians from court—another incident not mentioned by Eutropius, who prefers to avoid referring to the persecutions as much as possible.
5. Eutropius actually condones Licinius' action. The agressor was Constantine (X 5): 'Licinio bellum intulit, quamquam necessitudo et adfinitas cum eo esset; nam soror Constantia nupta Licinio erat' and again (X 6): 'postremo Licinius victus apud Nicomediam se dedidit et contra religionem sacramenti occisus est'. The feeble excuse given by An. Val., 'ne iterum depositam purpuram in pernicie rei publicae sumeret', is unsatisfactory. Hence his reiteration of the arguments set forth in 5,20; this persecutor was another who deserved no better: 'quamvis omnibus iam ministris nefariae persecutionis extinctis, hunc quoque in quantum exercere potuit persecutorem digna punitio flagitaret'. In this character, and similarly denounced by Orosius, Licinius went down in Christian history. Understandably, since passions ran so high, Eutropius' moderate opinion lost its effect. He did not take sides clearly enough, it was thought, and it was tempting to exaggerate matters even more. 'Licinius scelere avaritia libidine saeviebat, occisis ob divitias pluribus, uxoribus eorum corruptis' (5, 22).
6. It is not surprising that Galerius (3,8) was also unpopular with An. Val., and that the dreadful suffering accompanying his sickness is interpreted as a divine punishment.¹⁴⁰ Eutropius takes a very different view, 'vir et probe moratus et egregius re militari', and also speaks of his humiliation at the hands of Diocletian. An. Val. passes over this matter in silence, and has nothing to add to the breviarium in this respect.¹⁴¹
7. An. Val. also has the professed aim of presenting edifying information, albeit for a different section of the public—the Christians. They were no doubt most satisfied with what he said of Constantine: 'iusto ordine et pio vicem vertit. edicto si quidem statuit citra ullam caedem hominum paganorum templa claudi'.
8. Thus the reign of Constantine can be made to look as if it had known no bloodshed. But this it is only possible to do if one suppresses the fact of Crispus' death, as does An. Val. He is nevertheless obliged to mention the military successes of Constantine's discredited son. Eutropius cuts a good figure in the face of this hypocrisy: although he does not mention Crispus by name, he does tell us that he was murdered by his own relatives. Furthermore, his previously quoted favourable opinion of this unfortunate prince implies condemnation of Constantine (X 5,3): 'primum necessitudines persecutus egregium virum filium et sororis filium, commodae indolis iuvenem, interfecit, mox uxorem, post numerosos amicos.'

We need not go into further, less striking, differences, for these are not matters of principle. The chief divergences are based on the Christian and pagan points of view. Victor and the Epit. de Caes. are on the side of Eutropius. The eight points mentioned above exemplify an essential disparity. A world of difference lies between the pagan and the Christian idea of what was relevant and necessary for the edification of an historically ignorant public. An. Val. did not, however, succeed in ousting Eutropius. Perhaps, after all, he was too common, whereas Eutropius maintains his dignity as a senator throughout. His observations about Constantine's legislative labours are extremely suggestive: some laws were good, others severe, but very many were superfluous. He immediately proceeds to refer to the foundation of Constantinople, 'ut Romae aemulam faceret' (X 8,1). It remains uncertain whether the author considered this a good or a superfluous move. An. Val. (6,30) is more effusive.¹⁴²

'Miserable epitomes', says one modern author.¹⁴³ Perhaps so, but there are degrees of 'miserableness', and there is integrity besides, which has survived, for once, to become an historical exception. Eutropius' summary became the textbook of the Middle Ages, of the Byzantine world, and of the humanists.

Appendix

The whole work is very logical in composition and lacks the artificial links created by Victor. Now and then, the connection between three passages is somewhat tenuous, but even then the reader is scarcely ever led astray. For instance, VI 18 has been interpolated between 17 and 19, and 'hinc' (19,1) should, strictly speaking, follow the fighting in Gaul (17, especially the end of § 3). Nevertheless, these passages do not present any problems; indeed, the work as a whole is remarkably straightforward.

Renewed study of the text does not add much to our knowledge of historical events. Of the various editions, that of H. Droysen (1879) is the most valuable in its treatment of the philological aspects. The editions of C. Wagener (1884) and F. Ruehl (1887) are decidedly less satisfactory: of the two the latter, though not as good as the other, is the more widely used.¹⁴⁴ In places where the text is incomplete, the Greek translation can occasionally be used to provide complementary or alternative readings.¹⁴⁵ Unfortunately, though, Paianios is not always equally helpful, as we see in IV 27. Here the Greek is a literal translation of the Latin text as we have it, and thus of little use. The text cries out for improvement, most editors preferring corruptum to correctum.'¹⁴⁶

Various passages could be cited which Ruehl's edition approaches with exaggerated caution. One passage in particular merits individual attention, since it had historical consequences of some significance.

In IX 8,1 Ruehl gives the following text: 'Nam iuvenis in Gallia et Illyrico multa strenue fecit occiso apud Mursam Ingenuo, qui purpuram sumpserat et † Trebelliano'. Victor (de Caes. 33,1) refers to Regalianus besides Ingebus (= Ingenuus¹⁴⁷). The credit for amending Eutropius' text belongs to that 'illustre savante', Anne le Fèvre.¹⁴⁸ A certain amount of significant evidence (including numismatic material) pertaining to the rebellions of Ingenuus and Regalianus has also been preserved.¹⁴⁹

Ruehl's caution in refusing to substitute 'Regaliano' for 'Trebelliano' is undoubtedly (although he does not say so in so many words) inspired by Tyr. trig. 26,2: '[Gallienus acted ruthlessly] in Trebellianum factum in Isauria principem, ipsis Isauris sibi ducem quaerentibus.' Ruehl probably thought that the author of this vita might well have influenced Eutropius in this respect. However, once we know that Eutropius did not come after the Historia Augusta but preceded it, this view is rendered untenable.

In order to explain 'Trebelliano' in Eutropius' text, scholars early adduced the fact that the author of the vita calls himself 'Trebellius Pollio', and assumed that Eutropius' use of the name derives from him. As we have seen, this is chronologically impossible. It is more satisfactory to assume that the Historia Augusta got his name from Eutropius,¹⁵⁰ but that does not solve all our problems. For it is not certain whether this error originated with Eutropius, or whether it dates back to an earlier stage of textual tradition. W. Schmid has put forward a strong case for the latter possibility. As we see, these minor historians were often unjustly criticized for errors for which they themselves were not even responsible. There will always be captious critics who refuse to be convinced and who accuse those who rectify Eutropius' text of tampering with it.¹⁵¹ However, since there is no other passage in Eutropius where a fictitious ruler is introduced into the history of Rome, there is every reason to acquit Eutropius of this charge. The Historia Augusta, on the other hand, has a habit of introducing imaginary rulers. Eutropius certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

List of Abbreviations

AHR:

American Historical Review

ALL:

Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik

ARW:

Archiv für Religionswissenschaft

Bull. Comm.:

Bollettino della Commissione Archeologica Communale di Roma

Bull. Inst. Cl. Stud. (London):

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London

BSAF:

Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France

CAH:

Cambridge Ancient History

Class. et Med.:

Classica et Mediaevalia

CPh:

Classical Philology

CQ:

The Classical Quarterly

CR:

The Classical Review

Ec. Hist. Rev.:

Economic History Review

Fleckeis. Jahrb.:

Jahrbüacher für Classische Philologie herausgegeben von Alfred Fleckeisen

Heidelb. Jahrb.:

Heidelberger Jahrbücher

HZ:

Historische Zeitschrift

Jahrb. f A. u. Chr.:

Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

JHS:

Journal of Hellenic Studies

JRS:

Journal of Roman Studies

Mnem.:

Mnemosyne

P.I.R.:

Prosopographia Imperii Romani

Proc. of the Cambr. Philol. Soc.:

Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

RAC:

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum

RE:

Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

REA:

Revue des Études Anciennes

REL:

Revue des Études Latines

Rev. Hist.:

Revue Historique

Rev. Phil.:

Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d 'Histoire anciennes

RFIC:

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica

RhM:

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie

TLL:

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae

ZNum.:

Zeitschrift für Numismatik

Notes

¹ Ammianus Marcellinus 29,1,36.

² See A. Chastagnol in Rev. Phil. 41 (1967), 85, in which the older literature is listed. Cf. J. Matthews, 'Continuity in a Roman Family; The Rufli Festi of Volsinii', Historia 16 (1967), 484-509; esp. 494-5; M. Hauser-Meury, Prosopographie zu den Schriften Gregors von Nazianz, 1960, 80, opposes this view.

³ A. H. M. Jones, 'Collegiate Prefectures', JRS 54 (1964), 78-89; esp. 79, about this particular prefecture; cf. Matthews, art. cit., 495.

⁴ Marcellus, De Medicamentis, pref. (ed. Helmreich, Teubner 1889,1); cf. RE 6, Col. 1520, 'Eutropius' 3. K. F. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien (Tübingen 1948), no. 136 (p. 170), rightly does not identify this Eutropius with the historian, either.

⁵ See 0. Seeck, Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet (Leipzig 1906), 434, 151 ff.; H. F. Bouchery, Themistius in Libanius' brieven (Antwerp 1936), 253 ff.

⁶ Matthews, art. cit., 494-5; R. Syme, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta, 105, note 3, agrees.…

⁸ We agree with W. Seston (Dioclétien et la tétrarchie, Paris 1946, 23) when he says, 'II y a trop de conjecture dans les remarques de quiconque étudia les sources des compilateurs du IV^e siècle, et le plus souvent les conclusions de la Quellenforschung sont trop absolues'. Comparison of a modern discussion of the sources and the survey given by M. Petschenig in Bursians Jahresberichte 72 (1892), 20, shows that nothing has changed in the course of eighty years. This is hardly surprising: research on sources involves too many unknown factors. The student should be prepared to admit that derivations in the breviaria are likely to remain highly speculative.

⁹ See R. Syme, op. cit., 105, with reference to Eutr. IX 26 and Amm. Marc. 15,5,18.

¹⁰ For legislation on the purple, see RE 23 (1959), col. 2013 ff. (K. Schneider).

¹¹ R. Helm, 'Hieronymus und Eutrop', RhM 76 (1927): 'Der Ausdruck ante carpentum und die stärker die Tatsache betonende Ausdrucksweise stimmt zu Festus; aber niemand wird annehmen wollen, dass H. dazu neben E. auch F. eingesehen habe oder dass er zufällig auf dieselbe Fassung gekommen sei'.

¹² For the following see Hieron. 227 ff; Festus 14,6; Eutr. IX 25,1. Also Jordanes, Rom. 301; Oros. VII 25,9; Chron. min. I 643.

¹³ Hieron. 243b; Epit. 43,2. See also Helm, art. cit., 301.

¹⁴ Hieron. 239cd; Eutr. X 13. See also Helm, art. cit., 300. (1914),

¹⁵ M. Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, IV² (1914), 77 ff. Eutropius' significance for later generations need not concern us here. His importance for the SHA has been rightly emphasized once more by W. Schmid, 'Eutropspuren in der Historia Augusta', Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1963 (1964), 123-133. Cf. T. Damsholt, 'Zur Benutzung von dem Breviarium des Eutrop in der Historia Augusta', Class. et Med., 25 (1964), 138-150.

¹⁶ E.g. Schanz, op. cit., 78: 'Angaben über Ortsentfernungen von Rom und chronologische Daten können leicht aus Handbüchern entnommen werden'.

¹⁷ Cf. Mnem. 21 (1968), 270.

¹⁸ See for these wars E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge 1967), which does not, however, discuss the treatment of the wars against the Samnites in the later breviaria (cf. my review in BIOR 27 [1970], 396-397).

¹⁹ II 12,2.

²⁰ III 14,1. In fact, eight years. The year in question is 211 B.C., P. Sulpicio Cn. Fulvio consulibus.

²¹ Contradicted by the defeat of Cn. Fulvius, which the author does not fail to mention; cf. Liv. 26, 9-11.

²² See below, p. 173 ff.

²³I 8,3: adhuc … usque ad quintum decimum miliarium possideret.

²⁴ See Kroll, s.v. 'miliarium', RE, Suppl. VI, Col. 399. The stone was erected by the aediles P. Claudius Pulcher and C. Furius Paulus, presumably in 253 B.C. (see Broughton, Magistrates I, 211). ILS 5801.

²⁵ F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius I (1957), ad. loc.; Kroll (loc. cit.), Col. 400, line 46 ff.

²⁶ E.g. the anachronisms in Livy II 11,17; III 6,7; 69,8; V 4,12; Florus I 22,44; Justin XXII, 6,9.

²⁷Miliarium aureum, see RE, Suppl. IV, Col. 499.

²⁸ The only exceptions, which are not, however, of importance in this case, are VIII 8, 4 and IX 2,3.

²⁹ Useful information in D.S., Dict. des ant., s.v. 'Miliarium'. Cf. Varro, RR. III 2; Plin. NH. 23,159; Quintil. IV 5,22; Plin. Epist. X 24; Tac. Ann. XV, 60; Hist. II 24, 45; IV 11; Amm. Marc. XIX 8.5; XXXI 3,5; and elsewhere.

³⁰ E.g. V 4,12: intra vicesimum lapidem in conspectu prope urbis nostrae …

³¹De Caes. 33,33. In this connection see C. G. Starr, art. cit., 585, on the third century: 'an era in which the Mediterranean world was rent by internal war and grounded by invasions from without'.

³² Florus I 22,44.

³³ Only then can one proceed to ask whence he derived his topographical indications. Schanz' theory that they were taken from a 'handbook' seems acceptable. See above, note 16.

³⁴ For an explanation of these words, see below, p. 135.

³⁵ Cf. for instance Vell. I 15; II 7,8 and Cic. Brut. 43, 160.

³⁶ Cic. pro Font. V 13.

³⁷ IX 9; 11. For Postumus, see N. Jankowski, 'Das gallische Gegenreich (259-274 n. Chr.) und seine soziale Basis im Spiegel der Historia Augusta', Helikon 7 (1967), 125-194.

³⁸ For the bellum Macedonicum and M. Lucullus' activities there between 72 and 70 B.C., see Cic. Verr. II 23 ff., Plut. Caes, 4,1. Besides Eutr. VI 7;8,10, see also Fest. 9,3-4; Amm. Marc. 27,4,11.

³⁹ E.G. VIII 1,1, Nerva.

⁴⁰ This war and the bellum sociale are described as bella funestissima (V 9,2).

⁴¹ VI 17 is indirectly a double time indication, for besides the date a.u.c. Eutropius has written 'C. Iulius Caesar, qui postea imperavit, cum L. Bibulo consul est factus'.

⁴² If the year of foundation is taken to be 752 B.C. here, as it is often elsewhere, the year meant in II 18 is 275, and the census referred to is that of that year. Nevertheless, we may not take Eutropius too literally in this matter since the years a.u.c. do not always tally. (However, 275 B.C. remains the most likely date for this census, see p. 133). For the various dates for the foundation of Rome to be reconstructed from Eutropius' text, see the list on p. 137.

⁴³ See Lexikon der alten Welt (1965, s.v. 'Zeitrechnung', col. 3321 [H. Kaletsch]). E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (London 1968), 77.

⁴ Odd as it may seem, until far into the present century classics students at one of the Dutch universities were expected to know the names of the consuls for the period 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.!

⁴⁵ Cf. R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 390 ff.: 'The Roman senator could not bear to use the regnal years of emperors.'

⁴⁶ Syme, op. cit., 390.

⁴⁷ Broughton, op. cit., gives 479 a.u.c.

⁴⁸ We do not know whether Paianios deliberately took a different line from Eutropius; he has 470 a.u.c. instead of 477 a.u.c. In any event, the year 282 B.C. is unlikely to be historically correct as a date marking the beginning of expansion beyond Italy.

⁴ For C. Marcius Rutilus, see Broughton, op. cit., 179 and 202.

⁵⁰ J. Suolahti, The Roman Censors. A Study on Social Structure (Helsinki 1963), 256 ff., esp. 258-9: 'The mythical glow which formed about him later was such that he was held up as the ideal and model of Roman qualities. He was thus well adapted to become the ideal of censor.'

⁵¹ Florus I 13,22; Liv. Per. 14.

⁵² In general, it is impossible to correct all Eutropius' errors, but I have made an exception in the case of his chronology, for which the systems used are normally readily traced.

⁵³ This interpretation was first suggested by seventeenth-century editors, and was included, for instance, in the Leiden edition of Henricus Verheyk in 1793, and even in 1935, in Q. 0. Polenta's edition: 'per non parlare di quelli che di pia e di quelli che di meno tramandano'.

⁵⁴ B. G. Niebuhr, Kl. Schr. 1 154; Ed. Meyer, Forsch., II 404.

⁵⁵ This opinion was held by many early commentators; it is summed up as follows by Verheyk in his 1793 edition: 'Sunt enim qui plures annos Joviano tribuant. Velut ipse Victor in Epitome. Interiit, inquit, annos gerens proxime quadraginta. Sunt etiam qui pauciores: mediam inter utrosque viam insistit Eutropius.' Not surprisingly, however, Verheyk fails to specify the sources which refer to Jovian as having been still younger, for no such source has ever existed. Amm. Marc. 25,10,13; Eutr. he. cit., and Socrat. 3, 26.5, all give his age as 33 years, whereas only Epit. 44,4 gives it as 40 years.

⁵⁶ For the dating of L. Licinius Lucullus' activities, see Broughton, op. cit., 106 ff., to whose conclusions I have nothing to add. Cf. also Broughton's Supplement to the Magistrates of the Roman Republic (1960), 34-35.

⁵⁷ See above, p. 134.

⁵⁸ Erected by Tiberius after 9 B.C. See Suet. Claud. I; Cass. Dio LV 2,3. For its present state, see M. Besnier in RE 30 (1932), col. 2423.

⁵⁹ X 18,3 (See p. 189): 'Nam reliqua stilo maiore dicenda sunt. Quae nunc non tam praetermittimus, quam ad maiorem scribendi diligentiam reservamus.'

⁶⁰ For Florus' account, see above, p. 16. See also Mnem. 18 (1965), 384; 21 (1968), 272. In addition to the classical evidence listed there, see also the more recent studies quoted in RE 5, Col. 2248/57 (Wellmann); RAC 4, Col. 1001 ff. (Opelt), esp. 1022-3.

⁶¹ B.C. II 96.

⁶² The translation is that of H. White in the Loeb edition of Appian, III, 405. Cf. b. Afr. 83-85.

⁶³ Even before the battle of Adrianople, Rome's relationship with the barbarians betrayed traces of a type of patriotism that was to contribute to developments ensuing immediately after Eutropius. This patriotism has been brilliantly described by F. Paschoud, Roma Aeterna, études sur le patriotisme romain dans l 'occident à l'époque des grandes invasions. Inst. suisse de Rome, 1967, 20. Paschoud discusses high-ranking pagans and Christians, but the seeds of their feelings about Rome had already been sown in the widely-read epitomes, and particularly in Eutropius. M. Fuhrmann's brilliant study, 'Die Romidee der Spätantike' (with its excellent bibliography), HZ, 207 (1968), 529-561, continues Paschoud's work in a discussion on the veneration accorded Rome at a later period.

⁶⁴ Cf. Liv. Perioch. 52. Florus I 32: 'facinus indignum'. See above, p. 7.

⁶⁵ Caepio, consul in 140, proconsul in 139 B.C. See Broughton, Magistrates, 477 ff.

⁶⁶ Esp. App. Ib. 70, 74-75.

⁶⁷De vir. ill. 71,3.

⁶⁸Perioch. 54: 'Viriathus a proditoribus consilio Servili Caepionis interfectus est ab exercitu suo multum comploratus ac nobiliter sepultus; vir duxque magnus et per quattuordecim annos, quibus Romanis gessit, frequentius superior'.

⁶⁹ 'Viriathi etiam caedes duplicem perfidiae accusationem recepit, in amicis, quod eorum manu interemptus est, in Q. Servilio Caepione consule, quia in sceleris huius auctor inpunitate promissa fuit victoriamque non meruit, sed emit.'

⁷⁰ See Vell. 2, 1,3 and the commentary by F. Portalupi (Turin 1967).

⁷¹ V 22,15: 'percussores Sertorii praemium ne petendum quidem a Romanis esse duxerunt, quippe qui meminissent antea Viriati percussoribus denegatum.'

⁷²Latrones are well described in R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1956), 255 ff., 351, note 4; id., Historia 14 (1965), 102, n. 33.

⁷³ Florus I 33,15. Cf. Mnem. 18 (1965), 377 note 1. The facts are also given in P. Jal's edition of Florus I, 1967, p. 138.

⁷⁴ Walbank, Commentary on Polybius I 28,6 on Eutropius II 21,1.

⁷⁵ See for instance Florus I 18,7. Cf. W. W. Tam in JHS27 (1907), 50, note 17.

⁷⁶ II 22; III 8; 9; 10; 11,4-5; VI 20.

⁷⁷ A complete list of the conquests mentioned, numerous as they are for a breviarium, is not necessary. II 21,2-3 and 22,2 discuss the First Punic War. The conditions of the peace with Antiochus III are given in IV 4,3.

⁷⁸ Cf. J. H. Collins, Propaganda, Ethics, and Psychological Assumptions in Caesar's Writings, thesis, Frankfurt a.M. 1956, 43.

⁷⁹ See Liv. 45,34,5 for the booty (cf. Eutr. IV, 8). Eutr. IV 7,2 on the magnanimity of Aemilius Paullus.

⁸⁰ Defection to the enemy: see MacMullen, op. cit., 362, note 29, which gives the relevant passages (cf. ibid., 351, note 5). Pavel Oliva, Pannonia and the Onset of Crisis in the Roman Empire (Prague 1962) 287. For the Roman emperors as liberators, see Eutr. VIII 13,1 (under Marcus Aurelius); vita Marci 19,3; Oliva, op. cit., 47,287.

⁸¹Rebellavit should be interpreted as a mutiny (IV 6,1); Florus' expression se erexit is somewhat clearer (I 28,1). Cf. Mnem. 1965, 375.

⁸² For the distinction between runaway slaves and deserters, see Walbank's Commentary on Polybius XV 18,3 (p. 468).

⁸³ In any case, Polybius XV 18 differs in certain details from Liv. 30,37 and App. Lib. 54. Cf. Walbank, Comm., he. cit.

⁸⁴ III 21,3: 'ut quingenta milia pondo argenti darent.' III 22,2: 'additis quingentis milibus pondo argenti centum milibus librarum propter novam perfidiam.' The surviving texts do not agree, which has led to desperate attempts to make the figures correspond to those given by Livy and Pliny the Elder (33,51); commentators in classical times also went to great lengths to try to solve this infinitely complex problem. See the edition of Verheyk, loc. cit.

⁸⁵ See also p. 15.

⁸⁶ Eutr. X 15,2; Amm. Marc. 21,1,2; Epit. 42,18; Oros. 7,29,18. Cf. P. Jal, La guerre civile à Rome (Paris 1963), 460.

⁸⁷ Florus II 9,6; Eutr. VI 5,2. Jal, op. cit., 440.

⁸⁸ Eutr. V. 7,4; Jal, op. cit., 157 (senators). Actium: Florus II 21,11; Eutr. VII 7.

⁸⁹ Causes of war: Florus II 9,6. Jal, op. cit., 361.

⁹⁰ Pichon, Histoire de la litterature latine, 788.

⁹¹ References, s.v. 'Atilius' (51) in RE (v. Rohden) and Broughton, Magistrates I, p. 209.

⁹² Schanz, Geschichte der romischen Litteratur, IV², 78.

⁹³ A summary of the following arguments was given by the present author in 'Rome à travers trois auteurs du quatrieme siecle', Mnem. 21 (1968), 273 ff.

⁹⁴De Caes. 25; Eutr. IX 1. I do not share the negative opinion of Syme, Emperors and Biography, (Oxford 1971), 189. The passage that to my mind best illustrates the importance Eutropius attaches to a thorough cultural grounding is X 10,2, where he judges Vetranio favourably, although he cannot refrain from mentioning his lack of cultural background: 'quem grandaevum iam et cunctis amabilem diutumitate et felicitate militiae ad tuendum Illyricum principem creaverunt, virum probum et morum veterum ac iucundae civilitatis, sed omnium liberalium artium expertem adeo, ut ne elementa quidem prima litterarum nisi grandaevus et iam imperator acceperit.'

⁹⁵ VIII 5; see J. H. Thiel, 'Trajanus', Kon. Akad. V. Wetenschappen, Akademiedagen no. 8 (1955), 20.

⁹⁶ It is difficult, even for modern historians, to be sure about this. In L'Imperatore Probo (Rome 1952), G. Vitucci, for instance, on the basis of the knowledge available at that time, rightly assumed that Probus was not consecrated. An inscription in honour of L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufianus Bassus, which was found not long ago, tells us that he was 'electo a divo Probo ad pre(side)ndum iud(icio) mag(no)'. See G. Barbieri in the Acta des IV. Intern. Kongresses fur griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (1962) (Vienna 1964). However, it would exaggerate the reliability of the epigraphical material to draw the conclusion that this definitely confirms Probus' deification. Eutropius, after eulogizing the emperor, states (IX 17,3) 'interfectus tamen est Sirmi tumultu militari in turri ferrata'. Cf. Victor37,4; Epit. 37,4; vita Probi 21,4. I cannot subscribe to Syme's conclusion (op. cit., 225): 'Clearly drawing on KG'.

⁹⁷ The best summary of Eutropius' treatment of consecration, even though it does not point out the differences in terminology, is that of F. Taeger, Charisma II (1960), 633.

⁹⁸ See the list given above.

⁹⁹ VIII 5,2 (Trajan), cf VIII 4: 'ob haec per orbem terrarum deo proximus nihil non venerationis meruit et vivus et mortuus'; IX 28 (Diocletian); IX 11,2 (Claudius II).

¹⁰⁰ VIII 8,4 (Antoninus Pius); VIII 14,2 (Marcus Aurelius).

¹⁰¹ VIII 7,3 (Hadrian); IX 2,3 (Gordian); cf. S. J. Oost, 'The Death of the Emperor Gordian III' in C. Ph. 53 (1958), 106-7; X 18,2 (Jovian).

¹⁰² VII 11,3 (Tiberius); VII 12,4 (Caligula); VII 15,1 (Nero); VII 23,1 and 6 (Domitian).

¹⁰³ Victor De Caes. 20,30. Cf. Cassius Dio 75,7; Herodian 2,10,3. For further information see J. A. Straub art. 'Commodus' in RAC III, col. 255.

¹⁰⁴Vita Getae 2,9.

¹⁰⁵De Caes. 33,27; 30.

¹⁰⁶ Eutr. VIII 7,3: 'Cum … vehementer exigeret'.

¹⁰⁷De Caes. 14, 13-14.

¹⁰⁸ This attitude is reflected, later, in the H.A.: vita Hadriani 25,8; vita Antonini Pii 6,3. It has been convincingly demonstrated that Eutropius precedes that SHA, e.g. by W. Schmid, 'Eutropspuren in der Historia Augusta', Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1963 (1964), 123-133. For Hadrian's consecratio see F. Vittinghoff, 'Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit', Neue deutsche Forschungen, Bd. 84 (Berlin 1936), 87-89; more recently G. W. Clarke, 'The Date of the Consecratio of Vespasian', Historia 15 (1966), 318-327, esp. 320 ff.

¹⁰⁹De viris illustribus 78; Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 1,1.

¹¹⁰ Eutr. VI 25 (cf. p. 15, above).

¹¹¹Ibid.

¹¹² Cf. the excellent summary by L. Koepp, 'Die Konsekrationsmünzen Kaiser Konstantins und ihre religions-politische Bedeutung', Jahrb. fA.u. Chr. 1 (1958), 94-104, esp. 95.

¹¹³"³ For mereo in the sense of 'to show oneself to be worthy of something' and hence 'to lay a claim to something', see VIII 4 and IV 12,4. This meaning of course occurs frequently on funerary inscriptions: b.m.f. = bene merenti fecit (e.g. C.I.L., VI, 7778, 16450). It is not inconceivable that Eutropius derived his use of mereo from the terminology used on tomb inscriptions.

¹¹⁴IX 4 (Decius); IX 15,2 (Aurelius); X 8,2 (Constantine the Great); X 15,2 (Constantius II). Unfortunately Paianios, the translator, says nothing about the consecration of Constantius II.… See also 'Consecration' RAC III, col. 284 (L. Koepp-A. Herrmann). G. Herzog-Hauser 'Kaiserkult' in RE Suppl. IV, 806-853 gives the history of the consecratio of each emperor. The best study of the ritual is by E. Bickermann, 'Die römische Kaiserapotheose', ARW 27 (1929), 1-31. For the Christian emperors, especially Constantine the Great, see A. Kaniuth, Die Beisetzung Konstantins des Grossen. Unters. zur religiösen Haltung des Kaisers (1941).

¹¹⁵ X 16,3; cf. Ammianus Marcellinus 22,10,7; 25,4,20. Aurelius Victor does mention Christianity (but only in passing) in connection with Constantine (41,12). For Festus see below, p. 178.

¹¹⁶ For other expressions of this sentiment, see: II 27,4; III 17; IV 16,3.

¹¹⁷ Not even Commodus is so thoroughly despised (VIII 5), probably because he also had a number of military successes to his credit, notably against the Germans. In modern works he is also sometimes more favourably judged than formerly, e.g. Oliva, op. cit., 299-300.

¹¹⁸ For Otho, whose ancestry was in fact most distinguished, see F. Klingner, 'Die Geschichte des Kaisers Otho bei Tacitus', Sachsische Akad. der Wiss., 92 (1940), 3-27 (= Wege der Forschung 97 (1969), 388-412).

¹¹⁹ The year of the three emperors: Otho: 'materno genere nobilior quam paterno, neutro tamen obscuro' (VII 17,1). Vitellius: 'familia honorata magis quam nobili. Nam pater eius non admodum clare natus tres tamen ordinarios gesserat consulatus' (VII 18,1). For the actual ties of the emperors with their social environment, see Syme, Tacitus (1958), 150 ff. (Galba), 205 (Otho), 386 (Vitellius).

¹²⁰ See above, p. 21, note 7.

¹²¹ VIII 1,1; 2,1; 6,1; 9,1.

¹²² IX 2,1; 6,1; 9,1; 9,2; 19,2; 21,1. Sometimes these comments are notoriously erroneous. For Septimius Severus see T. D. Barnes, 'The family and career of Septimius Severus', Historia 16 (1967), 87 ff. I should like to stress once more that Eutropius' blunders have been pointed out time and again. My present concern, however, is with his personality and his enormous success.

¹²³ See p. 115.

¹²⁴ IX 4 (cf. RE 29, col. 1250); 13,1 (cf. RE 9, col. 1351); 18,1 (cf. RE 4, col. 2456: including the emperor's wish to have been born a Roman); 22,1 (cf. RE 28, col. 2517); X 4,1.

¹²⁵ Constantine, obscurus on his mother's side, was nevertheless the son of an Augustus, as was Maxentius, and hence of better lineage than Licinius and Maximinus Daia, who were homines novi (X 4,2).

¹²⁶ Some scholars feel that the words plerasque superfluas apply to his religious reforms as described in Sozomen. I 8-9 (Verheyk). Nonnullas severas (leges) implies an evaluation presumably of financial measures, cf. De Caes. 41,20. Praise of his military policy is differentiated by means of the words 'fortuna in bellis prospera fuit, verum ita, ut non superaret industriam' (X 7,1).

¹²⁷ E.g. J. Wight Duff, A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age (London 1927), 643.

¹²⁸ This makes X 17,1 a terminus post quem for publication.

¹²⁹ An ideological controversy has developed around this subject. For instance, Oliva, op. cit., 286, reproaches Alföldi for adopting the point of view of the emperor's biographer (sc. vita Marci 17,3).…

¹³¹ See RE 9, col. 1373-4. L. Homo, Essai sur le règne de l'empereur Aurélien (Paris 1904), esp. 79, 155 ff., for Eutropius 164; K. Gross in RAC I (1950), col. 1006. R. Tuncan, 'Le délit des monétaires rebellés contre Aurélien', Latomus 28 (1969), 948-959.

¹³² Oliva's book is most enlightening on this point. See also 'Illyricum in the Epitomators', in R. Syme, Emperors and Biography, 221-236; also 'Emperors from Illyricum', ibid. 194-207.

¹³³ Already referred to in Victor de Caes. 37,3. Eutr. IX 17,2, later in vita Probi, 18,8 Cf. Oliva op. cit., 171, 315-6, with references to modern studies. T. D. Barnes' 'Three notes on the vita Probi', CQ 20 (1970), 198 ff. represents an attempt to indicate sources for Probus as the promotor of vineyards; cf. Syme, op. cit., 224.

¹³⁴ Even though modern research is full of gaps, the general lines are relatively clear. See A. H. M. Jones, Ec. Hist. Rev., Second Series, vol. 5 (1952-53), 297-8; C. H. V. Sutherland, JRS 51 (1961), 94-5; Jones, Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964), 26.

¹³⁵ Ammianus Marcellinus 16,5 14-15; Epit. 48, 4-8. Ammianus describes the campaign against Magnentius as an 'insuperabilis expeditio' (14,1,1). See Jones, op. cit., I, 120. For the significance of Magnentius' rebellion (X 9,3) see S. Mazzarino, Aspetti sociali del quarto secolo (Rome 1951), 121.

¹³⁶ The position of Egypt in the Empire as a whole is discussed in VII 7: 'Aegyptus per Octavianum Augustum imperio Romano adiecta est praepositusque ei C. Cornelius Gallus. Hunc primum Aegyptus Romanum iudicem habuit'. In his own way, he explains the office of dictator in Republican times in I 12,1-2 (his phrasing is extremely cautious), the people's tribune in I 13, and the military tribune in II I and 3; the joint emperorship of Marcus and Verus clearly means something new in his work (VIII 9,2). He appears to have heard vaguely of the struggle to get a plebeian elected consul, but places it in the wrong context (II 7,1) and finally refers twice to censorship without offering any explanation of the office of censor (I 16 and II 6,1).

¹³⁷ See above, p. 115.

¹³⁸Geschichte der römischen Literatur, IV², 77: 'Für die Abfassung des Schriftchens konnte natürlich ein ausgewähltes Quellenstudium nicht in Frage kommen'.

¹³⁹ An. Val. 5,20, 'repentina rabie suscitatus'. Cf. Oros. 7,28,18. For further similarities between An. Val. and Orosius, see Moreau's Excerpta Valesiana (Teubner 1968²), 5,29 and 5,33-35.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Lact. de mort. 33 and Eus. HE 8, 16,3 ff. See p. 101 ff.

¹⁴¹ Eutr. X 2,1; IX 24 (cf. Amm. Marc. 14,11,10). See p. 117.

¹⁴² Zosimus' attitude is quite different: 111,2, Julian as the great benefactor of Constantinople; cf. Amm. Marc. 22,9,2; Paneg. Lat. XI 24. The question is whether pagan breviaria could be as readily transformed into Christian as some modern historians think. I feel that there is a world of difference between An. Val. and Eutropius, but in point of fact we know next to nothing about this anonymous Christian writer. Cf. Momigliano, Conflict, 87. However, it is doubtful whether we may say that the Christian passages are interpolations derived from Orosius and leave it at that. There is more than an interpretation at stake. For further differences to the pagan breviaria see An. Val. 2,4; 3,7; 4,10; 4,12; 6,30; 6.33.

¹⁴³ Syme, op. cit., 144 and 105 (on Victor, Eutropius and Festus): 'poor and scrappy productions, all three' '… the three epitomators betray the low standard still prevalent in the days of Julian and Valentinian (and an abysmal ignorance about the past history of imperial Rome). Otherwise, who would have made the effort of writing, who would have read these meagre compilations?' Cf. A. Cameron, Hermes 92 (1964), 375-6.

¹⁴⁴ See the review of these three editions by M. Petschening in Bursian, 72 (1892).

¹⁴⁵ III 7 (end); cf. K. Duncker, De Paianio Eutropii interprete, Progr. Greiffenberg 1880.

¹⁴⁶ Petschenig, however, considers this change 'viel zu gewaltsam' (op. cit., 27). I noted excessive caution in V 9; furthermore in IX 7, where the asterisk after Norico is unnecessary, and where one should not assume a lacuna of two words, as Ruehl suggests. In XI 34, it is unnecessary to add the word civitatem.

¹⁴⁷ See W. Schmid, 'Eutropspuren in der Historia Augusta', Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1963 (Bonn 1964), note 10.

¹⁴⁸ See especially the important article by Schmid (esp. 126), who demonstrates that it is Salmasius who suggested this change.

¹⁴⁹ J. Fitz, Ingenuus et Régalien, Collection Latomus, 81 (1966), 49 ff., tacitly assumes, without discussing the text, that IX 8,1 is about Regalianus.

¹⁵⁰ Syme, Ammianus, 48.

¹⁵¹ E. Hohl, most recently in Klio 27 (1934), 157 ff; cf. (against Hohl) Schmid, art. cit., 127. The matter was taken up once more, using Hohl's arguments, by J. Rougé, 'L'Histoire Auguste et l'Isaurie au IV^e siècle, REA 88 (1966), 282, esp. 288 ff., 315.