bird

The senatorial elite of the fourth century, to which Eutropius belonged, was not concerned with justifying autocracy. They accepted it as the natural order of things and fully realized that the imperial system, when not fragmented by usurpations, created an environment within which their personal property, prerogatives and security were adequately protected. Naturally the conduct of the emperors had a profound impact upon them and their interests, consequently they were intent on fostering good relations between themselves and their rulers. The emperors, in turn, though they could intimidate the aristocracy by force if they enjoyed the loyalty of the army, generally preferred a comfortable cooperation. Among other considerations, senators or their adherents still controlled the writing of history and many emperors, like their modern counterparts, kept an eye on posterity.

Eutropius, as a senator and a fervid supporter of the senatorial cause, was fully aware that it was Julius Caesar who had sounded the death knell of the republic. The subject must have been debated endlessly at the schools over the years. For some contemporaries like Aurelius Victor, Caesar may have been an object of admiration, but not for Eutropius whose criticism of the dictator is manifest at the end of Book Six.¹ Furthermore, it was Caesar’s supporter, Antony, who tried to crush the senate and Caesar’s nepos and heir, Octavian, who marched on Rome at the head of an army and forcibly extorted a consulship for himself at the age of nineteen. It was Octavian again who proscribed the senate and seized the state by force of arms, in company with Antony and Lepidus. Through these three even Cicero was killed and many other nobles, too (7.1-2). There seems little doubt from Eutropius’ wording that he held Octavian chiefly responsible for the ultimate demise of the senate and, with it, of the republic.

Nonetheless, after the Battle of Actium and the death of Antony and Cleopatra, when Egypt had been added to the Empire (7.7) and warfare had been ended throughout the world, a new Octavian Augustus emerges: Vir qui non inmerito ex maxima parte deo similis est putatus (7.8). At no time before him had the state been more flourishing. Eutropius then proceeds to list Augustus’ extraordinary additions to the empire (including, significantly, his recovery of Armenia from the Parthians [sic] and the fact that the Persians gave him hostages, which they had not given to anyone previously).² Moreover even the Scythians and Indians, who had not known of the Romans before, sent him gifts and ambassadors, the barbarians (i.e. northern peoples) loved him, and allied kings founded cities in his honour or even left home to attend him and adopt Roman dress (7.9-10). Eutropius concludes his summary of Augustus’ reign with the observations that the emperor was deified and left rempublicam beatissimam to his successor, Tiberius.

What is remarkable here is that the author, looking back more than four centuries, plainly distinguished between the young military upstart, who had used naked force to usurp power and eliminate opposition, and the subsequent statesman who had ruled forty-four years and demonstrated what were, to Eutropius, the most cherished imperial qualities. The use of superlatives is significant and meant, I am sure, as a hint to Valens if he wished to obtain a similar reputation and bequeath a similar legacy.

As a corollary Eutropius indicts Tiberius and Caligula for their socordia, gravi crudelitate, scelesta avaritia, turpi libidine (7.11) or ingenti avaritia, libidine, crudelitate (7.12). Caligula was even worse than Tiberius and in his case the author employs negative superlatives; sceleratissimus ac funestissimus. Nero and Domitian are similarly impugned. The former was just like his uncle, Caligula. He was guilty of extraordinary luxury and extravagance, killed a great proportion of the senate and was an enemy to all good men. Moreover, he prostituted himself by appearing in public on the stage, killed his brother, wife and mother and burned Rome to see the spectacle. He lost Armenia and even allowed the Parthians to send Roman legions under the yoke. In fact, in military affairs he attempted nothing and almost lost Britain. Detested by the whole Roman world for these actions he was declared an enemy by the senate and finally committed suicide (7.14-15).

Domitian is also likened to Nero, Caligula and Tiberius (the order perhaps indicates Eutropius’ ranking in enormity), and again the typical tyrannical qualities of pride, licentiousness, cruelty, rage and avarice are assigned to him. He, too, is guilty of executing senators and family members and, in addition to this, he was the first to demand that he be addressed as Lord and God. Universally hated, like his ignominious predecessors, he was assassinated (7.23).

Claudius, however, fares somewhat better. He ruled reasonably well, doing many things with gentleness and moderation, only a few with cruelty and folly. Apart from conquering Britain and the Orkneys he was so civil to certain of his friends that he even accompanied Plautius at the latter’s triumph. The quality of civilitas is stressed, the result was that he was consecrated and acclaimed a god (7.13). Possibly, as den Boer suggests,³ there was a lively senatorial tradition which differed from that of Tacitus and respected Claudius for his favours to the senate.

The caretaker emperors of 68/69 are treated according to tradition. Galba was a distinguished senator of noble lineage whose only fault was that he was inclined to severity (7.16). Otho is criticized for his effeminacy and familiarity with Nero, but he behaved differently as emperor and is praised for his voluntary death to avoid civil war (7.17). Vitellius is stigmatized as a cruel glutton (7.18).

As one might expect, Vespasian and Titus are highly praised. They were both good soldiers who extended the empire yet remained gentle, aimiable and generous. Vespasian never willingly inflicted a punishment severer than banishment even on persons convicted of treason against himself, while his son punished no one, even those who conspired against him. Small wonder that both were loved by the senate and, of course, enrolled among the gods. In Titus’ case the actions of the senate after his death are dwelt upon at length as Eutropius emphasized its affection for the emperor (7.19-22).

What is immediately evident in Eutropius’ discussion of the first-century emperors is his constant stress on certain virtues and vices and on the emperors’ relations with the senate. Most of these virtues and vices appear in the tradition, formed by Suetonius, which both Aurelius Victor and Eutropius generally followed.⁴ The latter, however, retained an independence of purpose which influenced his use of the traditional material. Accordingly he accentuated the importance of loyalty to friends, and repeatedly demonstrated that good emperors enjoyed good relations with the senate and did not put senators to death.⁵ Finally, he believed that it was an emperor’s duty to extend, or at least to consolidate, the empire. Further evidence of this is manifested throughout his discussion of succeeding emperors not subject to the Suetonian tradition.

Eutropius commences a new era with Book Eight and the accession of Nerva.

“In the eight hundred and fiftieth year from the foundation of the city, in the consulship of Vetus and Valens, the empire was restored to a most prosperous condition, being entrusted, with great good fortune, to the rule of meritorious princes.”

The mention of the consulship of Valens at this juncture is artful, not gratuitous. Only in one other instance in the imperial period is a consulship noted, in the final chapter of the Breviarium. Eutropius is flattering his emperor.

For Nerva, as for Augustus, Vespasian and Titus, superlatives are employed: that emperor showed himself to be aequissimus et civilissimus and provided for the state with divine foresight by adopting Trajan. He was, of course, enrolled among the gods.

It soon becomes apparent that Trajan was Eutropius’ most revered emperor. No matter that his family was more ancient than eminent or that he came from Italica in Spain. He ruled in such an exemplary manner that he was deservedly preferred to all other emperors, a man of extraordinary civility and courage. The Roman empire which, after Augustus, had been defended rather than nobly expanded, he enlarged far and wide (8.2). After listing Trajan’s military accomplishments and additions to the empire he observes that the emperor surpassed these with his civility and moderation. He behaved as an equal to all at Rome and in the provinces, often visited friends who were sick or celebrating a feast, and invited them to banquets in return, while making no distinction in rank. Never did he harm any senator or act unjustly to augment the treasury, but rather he enriched and honoured all publicly and privately. Throughout his reign only one senator was condemned, and that occurred through the senate without Trajan’s knowledge. Consequently he was universally regarded as almost a god and both while alive and when dead he deservedly received nothing but veneration (8.2-4). Indeed, when rebuked by his friends for being too courteous to everyone he allegedly stated that he was such an emperor to his subjects as he had wished the emperor should be to him as a subject. Finally, Eutropius remarks that the respect for Trajan was so great that even in his day the senate’s acclamation to the emperor remained Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano. Trajan’s reputation for goodness had prevailed to such a degree that it afforded the most outstanding example to those who would flatter or those who would praise sincerely (8.5).

No other individual is accorded such an extensive and laudatory description in the Breviarium. Even his solitary fault, vinolentia, noted by Cassius Dio (68.7.4), Aurelius Victor (13.4), the Epitomator (13.4) and the Historia Augusta (Hadr. 3.3; Sev. Alex. 39.1), is omitted. Trajan is, of course, praised effusively by the other writers of the fourth century but Eutropius goes to extreme lengths to make him the prime exemplum for Valens to follow. The reasons are both geopolitical and domestic. Trajan had conquered Dacia and had also defeated the Parthians and seized Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia. At the time when the Breviarium was being composed Valens was fighting in Dacia against the Visigoths. At the same time Sapor, the Persian king, had disrupted the setttlement he had made with Jovian in 363 by placing a Persian puppet on the Armenian throne. Valens (and Eutropius) realized that a Persian campaign would have to be mounted as soon as the Visigothic problem had been settled. In part, therefore, the section on Trajan was written to persuade Valens to adopt an aggressive eastern policy. The author underlines this message by reverting to it in the following chapter, when he relates that Hadrian gave up Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia because he envied Trajan’s glory. Hadrian allegedly had even thought of giving up Dacia, but had been dissuaded by his friends because so many Roman citizens would be left in the hands of the barbarians. Eutropius had seen this sort of thing happen when Jovian had given up the eastern provinces, even though the emperor forcibly relocated the population of Nisibis at Amida.⁶ Quite possibly he hoped that Valens would “liberate” those left behind and bring them back within the empire.

The author’s second purpose, the domestic one, was to persuade Valens that outstanding military accomplishments need not preclude civil ones. And, of course, Trajan had been on extremely good terms with the senate and had displayed loyalty and liberality to his friends.

Of Hadrian Eutropius has little good to say, but he makes the most of it. That emperor was eloquent in Latin, learned in Greek, attentive to the treasury and military discipline but had no great reputation for clemency. As a consequence the senate refused him divine honours and had to be compelled by Antoninus Pius to consecrate him. What is significant here is that the author prudently suppresses the story that Hadrian had imprisoned a number of senators in order to execute them.⁷ Victor (14.11-13) has the story, as does the Historia Augusta (Hadr. 24.4, 25.8; Pius 2.4), and the Epitomator (14.9) states that he actually did kill many senators.

Doubtless Eutropius felt that such a notice would not sit well with what he had so recently stated, that the empire had been entrusted bonis principibus ingenti felicitate (7.1). The next two emperors, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, are naturally regarded as exemplary rulers and both are connected with Numa Pompilius.⁸ Pius defended rather than enlarged the provinces but he chose honest men for his administration, respected the good and disliked the bad, though he did not treat the latter severely. He enriched his friends and gained the epithet Pius for his clemency. Marcus Aurelius, whose colleague, Verus, won major victories over the Parthians, accepted his elevation with humility, and behaved to all at Rome as an equal. This, of course, refers to the aristocracy. Again we are treated to a paragon for whom superlatives may be used. In addition to his great learning he was outstandingly peaceful and liberal and ruled the provinces with great kindness and moderation. In warfare he defeated the Marcomani, Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians and Suevi and freed Pannonia from slavery. (Valens would be pleased to read this.) He even sold off his personal effects to avoid taxing the provinces and the senate. That Eutropius considered Marcus Aurelius another imperial exemplum is clearly demonstrated in 10.16: Julian was not unlike him and even endeavoured to emulate him.

Unfortunately Commodus was utterly unlike his father, except for his German successes. The author accuses him of luxury and licentiousness, and, indirectly, of pride, for he tried to have September named after himself. He died execrated by all and was called hostis generis humani (8.15), a neat reversal of Titus’ epithet, amor et deliciae humani generis (7.21). In the Breviarium, however, Commodus is treated quite leniently. Victor (17) is much more scathing in his surprisingly lengthy disquisition and the Epitomator (17) gives him all the trappings of a stereotypical tyrannus. A possible reason for this gentler treatment may be that Gratian, Valentinian’s young son, had been proclaimed Augustus in 367. If Eutropius had echoed Victor’s comments that Commodus had corrupted his family name this may have been construed as an implied criticism of hereditary rule. Probably the same reasoning, in addition to the fact that Caracalla was undertaking an expedition against the Parthians, caused Eutropius to treat that emperor with equal leniency while, at the same time dismissing his brother, Geta, with the simple statement that he was declared a public enemy and immediately put to death (8.19-20).⁹

Septimius Severus, the only African to become emperor, fares well in the Breviarium, particularly on account of his eastern conquests and defeat of the Parthians. But he had also made his way up to the throne via a series of offices beginning with that of advocatus fisci, a fiction apparently created by the Kaisergeschichte, which appealed to both Victor and Eutropius as self-made men (8.18), and to the Historia Augusta, which drew it from the former.¹⁰

Furthermore, the emperor was accomplished in literature and philosophy (8.19): his only two faults were parsimony and a natural harshness. Pesc. Niger is simply dismissed as a rebel, as is Clodius Albinus, who allegedly assisted Julianus in the murder of Pertinax (8.18).

Eutropius has little to say about the last three emperors mentioned in Book Eight. Elagabalus is dismissed as a shameless pervert (8.22). Alexander, however, did fight the Persians and defeated their King, Xerxes, with great glory. Furthermore he was a military disciplinarian and employed Ulpian, the iuris conditor, as his magister scrinii and was a favourite at Rome (8.23).

A most important point which emerges in his discussions of the emperors Antonius Pius to Alexander Severus is the emphasis on the Antonine connection. Pius is called Titus Antonius Fulvius Boionius, Marcus Aurelius is entitled Marcus Antoninus Verus and his coemperor (falsely) Lucius Antoninus Verus. Their successor is styled Lucius Antoninus Commodus. Caracalla is named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Bassianus, Elagabalus is Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Only Severus Alexander (called Aurelius Alexander) does not assume the nomen Antoninorum. As Syme affirms, “Antoninus had become a potent name.”¹¹ Dynastic attachments were especially important for usurpers, whether successful, like the Severi, or not.

Both Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, independently following the Kaisergeschichte, were impressed by the series of Antonine emperors which each traced down to 235 and the end of an era in Roman history. Both reflected on this. Victor notes the ingens amissi principis desiderium which caused Macrinus to name his son Antoninus, and he then waxes eloquent on the watershed of Roman history when Alexander Severus died. Eutropius, too, saw Alexander’s death as a turning point for this is the juncture at which he ends Book Eight. Nevertheless, unlike Victor, he seems to have felt uneasy about associating Macrinus’ son or even worse, the loathsome Elagabalus with the charismatic dynasty and quite deliberately he states that the latter was only “thought to be the son of Antoninus Caracalla: on the other hand he was a priest of the temple of Heliogabalus” (8.22).

Book Nine introduces a new era. Maximinus was the first man to be elected emperor by the army without the authorization of the senate and, even worse, he was not a senator. This was important to Eutropius; to Victor the fact that he was litterarum fere rudis was of deeper significance.¹² Similarly remarkable differences are instructive in the accounts of Eutropius and Victor concerning the Gordians and Philip, although it is evident that each followed the same circumscribed source, the Kaisergeschichte. Victor dwells upon events in Africa, upon moral issues, portents and prophecies, the greed of the soldiers. He also observes Gordian III’s revival of the Capitoline Games and Philip’s drainage schemes at Rome and is more detailed on the 1000th anniversary celebrations at Rome (26-28). In his far briefer account Eutropius’ only emphatic point is that Gordian made war on the Parthians and severely defeated the Persinas in major battles. He adds these further details: Gordian, while just a young boy, married Tranquillina at Rome. He was deified and buried at Rome, and “the soldiers built him a tomb twenty miles from Circessus, which is now a Roman fortress overlooking the Euphrates” (9.2-3). The precision of these last details certainly implies autopsy. Eutropius knew the area from his participation in Julian’s expedition and the subsequent withdrawal. But what is most significant is that again Eutropius underlines a Roman victory over the Persians.

After discussing Decius¹³ and his immediate successors in a few lines Eutropius hastens on to the important reign of Valerian and Gallienus. The latter received the title of Caesar from the senate.¹⁴ But their joint rule was destructive and almost fatal to Rome because of their misfortune or lethargy. Indeed, the Germans even reached Ravenna and Valerian was defeated and captured by Sapor, the Persian King, and grew old in shameful servitude (9.7). Gallienus ruled well at first, acting decisively in Gaul and Illyricum, but subsequently his reign deteriorated and while he behaved with total licentiousness his reign was characterised by inactivity and desperation.¹⁵ Eutropius observes (as does Victor) the massive onslaughts on so many parts of the empire during these years (9.9) but he also notes that Postumus saved Gaul and Odenathus not only defended Syria and recovered Mesopotamia but even penetrated the Persian realm as far as Ctesiphon (9.10). Victor could not bear to mention this. He curtly states that “bandits or a woman (Zenobia) were in control of the East.” For him it was more important to sketch the cunning venality of the actuarii and Gallienus’ shameful enjoyment of games and feasts at Rome (33.3, 13, 15).

After proclaiming that Postumus and Odenathus had saved the empire in the West and in the East, Eutropius then happily declares that Claudius was chosen by the soldiers and acclaimed Augustus by the senate. This frugal, modest and just man, reipublicae gerendae idoneus, drove the Goths out of Illyricum and Macedonia. Upon his death, two years later, the senate voted him singular honours (9.11). Eutropius’ short, positive account again differs from the long, tendentious, moralizing disquisition of Victor, who berates both the senate and the army for their particular vices.

Quintillus, a man of unique moderation and civility, was also elected by the soldiers and acclaimed Augustus by the senate, but was killed seventeen days later (9.12). Aurelian, a fine soldier but hot-tempered and inclined to cruelty, followed him on the throne. He did, indeed, restore Roman rule to its former limits, recovering both the eastern parts and the western ones. Nonetheless, he was severe, both in his suppression of the mint workers and in his execution of many of the nobility. Thus, although he was a military disciplinarian and corrector of dissolute morals he was not an example to follow, since he was also:

“Saevus et sanguinarius ac necessarius magis in quibusdam quam in ullo amabilis imperator. Trux omni tempore, etiam filii sororis interfector.” (9.14)

Tacitus, on the other hand, a man of outstanding morality, was, just like Claudius, reipublicae gerendae idoneus (9.16). Nothing more could be said of this short-lived emperor, and information was similarly scanty for Probus who succeeded him.¹⁶ Still Eutropius could inform his readers (with exaggeration) that Probus equalled Aurelian in military reputation but surpassed him morum civilitate (9.17). Persia is again on the author’s mind when he discusses Carus’ reign. That emperor performed notable exploits against Rome’s eastern foe, defeated them in battle, captured Coche and Ctesiphon and pitched his camp overlooking the Tigris (9.18). Even in the following chapter Eutropius could not refrain from mentioning the army returning victorious from Persia (9.19).

This theme recurs in Eutropius’ account of the tetrarchy. Galerius’ initial defeat by Narses is carefully explained. His small army was bested by a huge host of the Persians and Galerius is faulted for fighting in an ill-advised rather than cowardly manner (9.24). Subsequently, however, when forces had been gathered from Illyricum and Moesia, Galerius won a great victory in Armenia against Narses, the grandfather (Eutropius is emphatic) of Hormisda and Sapor. Planning and courage prevailed. Galerius destroyed Narses’ camp, captured his sisters, his children, a vast number of the Persian nobility and huge amounts of treasure. The king himself was forced to flee to the remotest deserts of his realm. Successes against the Carpi, Bastarni and Sarmatians are appended for good measure (9.25).

When Eutropius sums up the characters of Diocletian and Maximian he is remarkably candid. Diocletian behaved cruelly in Egypt and afflicted the provinces with severe proscriptions and massacres. Nevertheless he made many provident and judicious arrangements which were still in effect in Eutropius’ day (9.23). He was cunning but sagacious and shrewd and ready to shift responsibility for his own severity onto others. Moreover he was a most diligent and able emperor, but it was he who introduced royal usages and dress at court which were out of step with the customs of Roman liberty. On the other hand, he demonstrated extraordinary virtus by retiring voluntarily from his imperial position so that although he died a private individual, he was still enrolled among the gods. This had never happened to anyone before since men were created (9.26; 9.28). Eutropius is so struck by this (as is Victor), that he makes it the conclusion to his ninth book.

By contrast Eutropius’ criticism of Maximian is unremitting and scathing. The latter was:

“Propalam ferus et incivilis ingenii, asperitatem suam etiam vultus horrore significans. Hic naturae suae indulgens Diocletiano in omnibus est saevioribus consiliis obsecutus.” (9.27)

Even after he had unwillingly resigned he tried to regain power, first by attempting to overthrow his son, Maxentius, and subsequently by treacherously plotting to subvert his son-in-law, Constantine. His death was well-deserved for he was:

“vir ad omnem acerbitatem saevitiamque proclivis, infidus, incommodus, civilitatis penitus expers.” (10.3)

Even in 10.1 Eutropius cannot refrain from noting Maximian’s sanguinaria temeritas. Victor judges Maximian far less harshly. He bemoans the emperor’s lack of cultivation and humanitas but adds that both he and Diocletian understood the hardships of rural and military life and were the best rulers for the state. Moreover Maximian was a loyal friend, of good character and great military experience, and was treacherous only to Constantine.¹⁷ Though both writers followed the same source Eutropius, unlike Victor, could in no way forgive Maximian’s cruelty and faithlessness and deliberately chose to ignore his positive qualities. By contrast those of Constantius and Galerius are prominently displayed (10.1-2).

It has been asserted by den Boer that Eutropius’ discussion of Constantine’s reign:

“Most clearly shows the degree to which an abbreviator’s working methods were influenced by politics....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.”¹⁸

This observation is more pertinent to Aurelius Victor than to Eutropius. Victor was writing under Constantius II and his curt criticisms of Constantine, for his excessive ambition and for allowing unworthy men into public office, is extremely muted (40.2, 15; 41.20), particularly if compared with his fulsome praise of that emperor (40.2, 14, 26ff.; 41.4, 12, 17, 19, 20). Eutropius, on the other hand, writing under and for Valens, is far more even-handed. He gives his readers a balanced if somewhat bitty description of the first Christian emperor.

Constantine’s rule in Gaul met with the approval of both the soldiers and the people of the province (10.3). He overthrew Maxentius when the latter was spreading death among the nobility with every possible kind of cruelty (10.4). Furthermore, he was assuredly a great man, set on effecting whatever he had in mind (10.5). At the beginning of his reign he was to be compared with the best of princes, for he possessed innumerable good qualities of mind and body, was extremely ambitious for military glory and had great successes in war, successes which were proportionate to his exertions. Even the Goths, whom he defeated, remembered his kindness. He was attached to civil arts and liberal studies, desired honourable popularity which he sought by all means of liberality and docility. Finally, though he was hesitant towards some of his friends, he was exceptionally kind to the rest and never missed an opportunity to enrich and honour them (10.7).

On the negative side Constantine grew somewhat insolent from his success and changed from his former mildness of temper. First he persecuted his relatives and then he executed his son, an outstanding man (Crispus is not named), and his sister’s son, a youth of amiable disposition, and subsequently his wife and numerous friends (10.6). In the latter part of his reign he could only be compared with those princes of middling character (10.7), and of the many laws he enacted some were good and equitable but most were superfluous and some severe. Finally, he was the first to try to raise a city named after himself, to such a height as to make it rival Rome (10.8). That Eutropius regarded this last action negatively can be argued from the fact that he does not mention Constantinople by name. Indeed, he cites the eastern capital only once in the whole book, and that en passant (9.15). Aurelius Victor is similarly silent regarding Rome’s eastern rival.¹⁹ There is no doubt that Eutropius had to exercise reasonable caution in discussing Constantine and his reign, but it is equally evident, from a comparison with Victor’s De Caesaribus, that in 369 he did not feel the same constraints as his predecessor had ten years earlier. He expected that his franker portrayal would be welcomed by the aristocracy and many in the administration, but he also believed that Valens and the officers corps would find it acceptable. In view of his rapid promotion in 371 this appears to have been the case.

When he came to discuss the sons of Constantine Eutropius was also candid but fair. He observes that Constantius II sanctioned the murder of his cousin Dalmatius, even if he did not order it (10.9). Constans, whose officers killed Constantine II, at first ruled vigorously and justly, but through ill-health and amicis pravioribus he changed and was guilty of serious vices.²⁰ Thus he became intolerable to the provincials and unpopular with the soldiers and accordingly was assassinated by Magnentius’ faction. Nevertheless he had performed well militarily and had been feared by the army without using cruel methods (10.9).

Constantius’ severe losses at the hands of the Persians are diligently recorded, as are his successes against Vetranio and Magnentius (10.10-12). Regarding his character Eutropius is generally positive. Constantius was a man of outstanding tranquility, peaceful and very moderate at the beginning of his reign. Above all he enriched his friends and allowed none whose active services he had experienced to go unrewarded. This last comment seems to be a personal one: it was presumably Constantius who had promoted Eutropius to the post of magister epistularum.²¹ On the other hand he trusted too much in his friends and courtiers and subsequently in his wives. In addition he was rather inclined to severity if he suspected any design on the throne. Otherwise he was a gentle ruler and deservedly enrolled among the gods (10.15).²²

Julian is credited with having restored the empire, then tottering on the brink of destruction, by driving out of Gaul with only a modest force the vast hordes of Alamanni and restoring the empire to its proper limits (10.14). In the east he captured a number of Persian towns and fortresses either by force or by inducing them to surrender. He devastated Assyria and for a time fixed his camp at Ctesiphon, before mingling rashly in the thick of battle and falling to an enemy (this last item is carefully inserted). Naturally he was deified. What follows is not merely a eulogy of an emperor whom Eutropius greatly admired, but also an exemplum of a near-perfect ruler for Valens to contemplate.

“He (sc. Julian) was a remarkable man who would have governed the empire with distinction if he had been permitted by the fates. He was extremely accomplished in the liberal arts, but more learned in Greek, and to such a degree that his Latin was by no means comparable to his Greek learning. He possessed a great and ready eloquence and a most tenacious memory and was in some respects more like a philosopher. To his friends he was liberal, yet less discriminating than befitted so great a prince, for there were some who damaged his glory. To the provincial peoples he was most just and he lowered the taxes as far as was possible. He was civil to all, only moderately concerned for the treasury, but he was eager for glory and through that for the most part he demonstrated too much courage. He was an excessive persecutor of the Christian religion, yet in such a way that he abstained from bloodshed, and not unlike Marcus Aurelius, whom he even strove to emulate.” (10.16)

There are a few points in this long and glowing eulogy which Eutropius seems deliberately to have introduced to influence Valens. Julian was liberal to his friends (as were all the best emperors) but he showed less discernment than he should for there would always be false friends who would turn on the emperor when given the opportunity. It appears that Eutropius had witnessed this with regard to Julian after his death and the inference may not have been lost on Valens. Eutropius is also arguing for the provincials in the hope of persuading Valens to be frugal in his tax demands. He had seen what Julian had accomplished by efficient administration and had experienced in his job the inequities of the system and the enormous demands placed on the provincials. Finally, he sensibly criticized Julian’s persecution of the Christians, which would please not only Valens but all his Christian ministers and officers, yet he simultaneously (and subtly) encourages his emperor to refrain from bloody persecutions. The comparison with the much admired Marcus Aurelius is a neat final touch.

In his concluding chapter Eutropius expatiates at length upon Jovian’s losses to the Persians and his necessary but ignoble peace treaty, drawing upon republican examples to demonstrate that such treaties had never before been kept by the Romans. Only through the kindness of his successors, inclitos principes venerandosque, was Jovian deified (another shrewd insertion), for he was civilitati propior et natura admodum liberalis. Again it was no accident that these particular qualities were ascribed to Jovian. They were two of Eutropius’ favourites.²³

Suetonius was particularly fond of those emperors who performed their administrative functions properly, who accepted the hierarchy and traditions of Roman society and strengthened and enhanced them. But he also judged the emperors according to their ethical behaviour. Were they clement or cruel, liberal, mean or avaritious? Were they civil or arrogant, continent or self-indulgent, luxurious and lustful? Each emperor was measured by these criteria: good emperors showed up well, tryants negatively on the same scale.²⁴ Pliny, too, in his panegyric (2.3), lists thirty-five imperial qualities which were meant to provide charismatic justification of the emperor’s power by representing him as possessing what was deemed necessary for his position.²⁵ Thus, from the reign of Marcus Aurelius onwards, imperial virtues had become clichéd.²⁶ Eutropius, heir to this tradition, reflected in the same way as Suetonius the preoccupations of the class for which he wrote. The general situation had not changed in the intervening two and-a-half centuries. Emperors could still silence opposition by force and enrich and promote their supporters, often by extorting money from their opponents or by blocking their advancement. Naturally the senatorial aristocracy stood most to lose from an unfriendly emperor. It is understandable, therefore, that Eutropius should emphasize the fact that the best emperors were moderate, liberal, civil and clement, with reference, of course, to the senate, whereas bad emperors were cruel, arrogant, greedy and lascivious. Two of his benefactors, Valens and Theodosius, apparently heeded the advice of the senatorial spokesman. Valens was subsequently praised by the Epitomator as a possessoribus consultor bonus...in amicos fidus (46.3); his successor hated perfidos et ingratos (48.12). This is exactly what Eutropius had implicitly suggested in his eulogy of Julian and his descriptions of Augustus and Trajan.

Unlike Aurelius Victor, Eutropius does not appear to have been overly preoccupied with the cultural attainments of the emperors.²⁷ He does, to be sure, mention those of Hadrian (8.7), Marcus Aurelius (8.9-10), Septimius Severus (8.19), Constantine (10.7) and Julian (10.16), though his remarks on Septimius Severus and Constantine are extremely brief and seem merely to be copied from his source. Moral qualities and imperial competence were much more important to him than education and cultural abilities. Yet another major distinction between Victor and Eutropius resides in their attitudes towards the emperors’ military achievements. Victor practically ignored Augustus’ expansion of the empire and gives only cursory attention to Trajan’s conquests.²⁸ Building projects and domestic policy are accorded more space, and Victor seizes every opportunity to vilify the army and castigate the corruption of the bureaucracy. By contrast, Eutropius describes at length the military exploits of the republican generals and of Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan and the other emperors who nobly enlarged the territory of the empire.²⁹ In particular, he dwells upon Rome’s successes against the Persians or Parthians. There seems to be little doubt that he was thereby carefully encouraging Valens, who was at that very time making preparations for another campaign against the Persians.

In conclusion, one can perhaps most readily appreciate what Eutropius expected of his emperors by reviewing what he wrote about Augustus and Trajan. Both emperors were responsible for major expansions of the Empire and both defeated the Parthians. In addition, with reference to Augustus, no one:

“aut in bellis felicior fuit aut in pace moderatior ... civilissime vixit, in cunctos liberalissimus, in amicos fidissimus, quos tantis evexit honoribus ut paene aequaret fastigio suo.” (7.8)

He describes Trajan as an emperor who surpassed his military glory with his civility and moderation:

“nullum senatorum laedens, nihil iniustum ad augendum fiscum agens, liberalis in cunctos, publice privatimque ditans omnes et honoribus augens...per orbem terrarum aedificans multa, immunitates civitatibus tribuens, nihil non tranquillum et placidum agens, adeo ut omni eius aetate unus senator damnatus sit; atque is tamen per senatum, ignorante Traiano.” (8.4)

Eutropius’ manner of composition was deceptively unaffected, and he was not as open as Aurelius Victor in divulging his strongly-held opinions in personal interjections, but for the discerning reader they do become apparent in his treatment of the emperors. He plainly loathed cruelty, excessive severity, greed and ingratitude. On the other hand he admired military ability, efficient administration, moderation, liberality and civility. Friends should be supportive and faithful, and the empeor should reward them both with money and advancement. Finally, senators should be sacrosanct. Thus, within the literary conventions of his day Eutropius still managed to insert his own firmly-held convictions. As a result some of his imperial portraits appear to be just as much propaganda as portrayal.

Footnotes

1 For the different attitudes of Eutropius and Victor towards Caesar vid. W. den Boer, Some Minor Roman Historians (Leiden 1972) 155-156. Epit. 1.2; 35.2 and De Vir. Illust. 78, unlike Eutropius, are favourable towards Caesar.

2 An obvious hint to Valens: cf. Eutrop. 7.5 and especially 10.17, where Eutropius severely castigates Jovian for giving up territory to the Persians. Valens was contemplating a campaign against the Persians while Eutropius was composing his work.

3 Den Boer, op. cit., 159.

4 For imperial virtues and vices in Suetonius vid. B. Mouchova, Studien zu Kaiserbiographien Suetons (Acta Univ. Carolinae; Phil. et Hist. Monog. xxii, Prague 1968), 42-51; A. Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars (London 1983) 142ff. For Victor vid. H.W. Bird, Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984) 104-105.

5 Both Suetonius and Eutropius held senior imperial secretaryships, but the former was not a senator, nor were relations between the emperor and the senate so critical when he was writing his Lives of the Emperors.

6 Ammianus, 25.9.1-6.

7 Den Boer, op. cit., 155.

8 For the use Eutropius makes of Numa Pompilius as an exemplum vid. H.W. Bird, “Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate,” C.J. 81 (1986) 243-244.

9 For different views on Caracalla and Geta vid. Dio, 77.1.4; 77.2.5; Herodian, 4.3.2-4; H.A. Sev. 21.6-7; Carac. 2.3-4; Victor, De Caes. 20.32-34; Epit. 21.3.

10 Victor, De Caes. 20.30. The H.A. takes it from Victor (Carac. 8.2; Geta 2.4); cf. Sev. 2.1ff. In general vid. T.D. Barnes, “The Family and Career of Septimius Severus,” Historia 16 (1967) 106-107; R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (Oxford 1971) 81-82.

11 Syme, op. cit., 79.

12 Victor, De Caes. 25.1. For Victor’s constant emphasis on cultural values vid. Bird, op. cit. in n. 4, 71-80.

13 Cf. the extended and romanticised account of Victor (De Caes. 29).

14 As Victor also notes (De Caes. 32); it was in the Kaisergeschichte.

15 It is striking that Victor (De Caes. 33.5) uses the term desperatio only once, at this juncture.

16 De Caes. 33.23-34.8.

17 Victor also found the account of the Kaisergeschichte limited and had to resort to a comparison with Hannibal regarding the use of the army for agricultural purposes (De Caes. 37).

18 Den Boer, op. cit., 163.

19 vid. De Caes. 41.12, where Victor remarks that Constantine founded a city (i.e. Constantinople) without naming it.

20 Cf. De Caes. 41.23-24, where he is accused of being arrogant, hot-tempered, avaritious, lustful, homosexual and of employing depraved ministers.

21 P.L.R.E., 317, s.v. Eutropius 2.

22 Cf. Victor, De Caes. 42.23; Epit. 42.18-19; Ammianus, 21.16.1ff. If, as I believe, the Kaisergeschichte continued to 357, it probably ended with a generally laudatory description of Constantius II. Neither the author of the Kaisergeschichte nor Victor could afford to affront an emperor who was cultu genitoris satis pius suique nimis custos (De Caes. loc. cit.). Eutropius was heir to that tradition but chose to ignore Constantius’ accomplishments as an orator and an archer and emphasize his gentle disposition, which he had presumably witnessed at first hand.

23 They were also two of Suetonius’ favourties. The imperial biographer demanded of his emperors, abstinentia, moderatio, liberalitas, civilitas and clementia (A. Wallace-Hadrill, “The Emperor and his virtues,” Historia 30 [1981], 313-314).

24 Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit. in n.4, 144-145.

25 Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit. in n.23, 317.

26 Ibid. 313-314.

27 For Victor vid. Bird, op. cit. in n.4, 71-80. Victor was particularly struck by the literary accomplishments of the Julio-Claudius (De Caes. 8.7-8): Eutropius was not.

28 De Caes. 1.2; 13.3. Victor shrewdly observes that Mesopotamia was a constant cause of war with the Persians (De Caes. 38.2).

29 E.g. vid. Eutrop. 8.2.2.