Read the new edition of the continuation of the _Chronicle_ of
Dexippus[374] by Eunapius,[375] in fourteen books. It begins with
the reign of Claudius Caesar, when the history of Dexippus ends,
and goes down to the time of Honorius and Arcadius, the sons of
Theodosius. The work actually ends at the time when Arsacius, after
the banishment of John Chrysostom, was raised to the archbishopric
of Constantinople,[376] and the wife of Arcadius died of a
miscarriage. This Eunapius was a native of Sardes in Lydia, and an
impious heathen. He slanders and abuses in every way and without
restraint all who have adorned the empire by their piety, especially
Constantine the Great; on the other hand, he extols the impious,
above all Julian the Apostate. Indeed, it almost seems as if the work
was written as an elaborate panegyric upon him.
His style is elegant, if one cuts out terms and expressions such
as “fowl-like,” “more deer-like,” “more swine-like,” “hawk-like,”
“crow-like,” “ape-like,” “a tear like a river,” and so on, which
vitiate and debase the nobility of the rest of the language. He
also makes use of figures of speech capriciously, a fault which the
rule of historical writing forbids, but in general his forcible
style combined with urbanity palliates the offence. His method
of composition, his clearness and his use of periods are exactly
suited, and appropriate to historical narrative; sometimes,
however, the style is wordy with a tendency towards forensic rather
than historical language. In construction he introduces numerous
innovations, but not so as to cause unpleasantness nor to afford an
excuse for attacking his methods.[377]
He wrote two volumes, covering the same period. In the first, he
bespatters with abuse the pure faith of us Christians, glorifies the
heathen superstition, and attacks many pious emperors. In the second
volume, which he calls a “new edition,” he has cut out the insults
and brutal abuse which he had showered upon Christian piety, and,
having connected the rest of the body of the work, calls it, as we
have said, a “new edition,” although it still shows considerable
traces of the original frenzy. We have come across old copies of both
editions, both in separate volumes and combined, and, having read
both, are in a position to estimate the difference. The result is
that in the new edition many passages, owing to the omissions, are
mutilated and obscure, although generally the author shows a great
regard for clearness. Somehow or other in this second edition he has
not connected the narrative with due regard to the omissions, and so
has spoiled the meaning.