[1] H. Wagner's edition of Guthe's _Lehrbuch der Geographie_ (5th
ed., Hanover 1882).
[2] At the summit of each of the Trans-Ural railways (Perm-Tyumen and
Ufa-Chelyabinsk) and that of the road across the Caucasus from
Vladikavkaz to Tiflis, sign-posts, with the name Europe on one side,
Asia on the other, mark this boundary.
[3] Fifth edition, vol. ii. pp. 24-25.
[4] Pt. i. pp. 11-12.
[5] Griesbach, on the strength of Middendorff's observations, remarks
that, in addition to European fruit trees, oak, maples, elms, ashes
and the black alder do not cross the Urals, while the lime tree is
reduced to the size of a shrub (_La Vegetation du globe_, translated
by Tchihatchef, i. p. 181).
[6] On the history of the boundary between Asia and Europe see F.G.
Hahn in the _Mitteilungen des Vereins fuer Erdkunde zu Leipzig_
(1881), pp. 83-104. Hahn, on the ground that true mountain systems
must be regarded as forming geographical units, pronounces against
the practice of making "natural boundaries" run along mountain
crests, and assigns the whole of the Caucasus region to Europe as all
belonging to such a system, but orographically quite different from
the Armenian plateau (p. 103). But surely it is no less different
from the European plain.
[7] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), p. 91.
[8] See Supan's _Physische Erdkunde_, 4th ed., pp. 376-377, and the
authorities there quoted.
[9] "Kustenveranderungen im Mittelmeergebiet," in _Ztschr. der Ges.
fuer Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1878).
[10] See _Mitteil der Wiener Geog. Gesellschaft_ (1890), p. 333.
[11] See R.T. Gunther, _Contributions to the Study of Earth-Movements
in the Bay of Naples_ (Oxford, 1903), and "Earth-Movements in the Bay
of Naples," in the _Geog. Journ._ vol. xxii. pp. 121-149, 269-285.
[12] See _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1891), Pl. 8.
[13] _Ib._ (1893), Pl. 12.
[14] See Ed. Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, translated by H.B.C.
Sollas, vol. i. (Oxford, 1904); J. Milne, _Seismology_ (London,
1886); R. Hoernes, _Erdbebenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1893).
[15] _Die mittlere Hoehe Europas_ (Plauen, 1874).
[16] _Traite de geologie_ (Paris, 1883).
[17] _Scot. Geog. Mag._ (1888), p. 23.
[18] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1889), p. 17.
[19] _Trans. (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc._ (1889), p. 113.
[20] _Die mittleren Erhebungsverhaltnisse der Erdoberflaeche_, pt. i.,
in Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. (Vienna, 1891).
[21] _Morphologie der Erdoberflaeche_, vol. i.
[22] The equivalent of the figures given in _Superficie de l'Europe_.
A later measurement by Strelbitsky yielded a result equal to 2215
English miles.
[23] General von Tillo, in _Transactions (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog.
Soc._ vol. xix. (1883), pp. 160-161.
[24] Dr Al. Bludau in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1898), pp. 185-187,
has given new calculations of the areas of the basins of certain
European rivers, namely, the Tagus, 31,250 sq. m.; Ebro, 32,810 sq.
m.; Guadalquivir, 21,620 sq. m.; Po, 28,800 sq. m.; Guadiana, 25,810
sq. m.; and Jucar, 8245 sq. m.
[25] St Martin, _Dict. de geog. univ._
[26] In other parts of this work areas of river-basins and lakes, and
other measurements, may be observed to conflict in some degree with
those given here. Various authorities naturally differ, both in
methods of estimating and in standards of precision.
[27] Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. pt. iv. (Vienna,
1894); noticed in _Geog. Journ._ vol. vi. p. 264.
[28] Including L. Pskov as well as the connecting arm known as
Teploye.
[29] _Sweden, its People and its Industry_ (Stockholm, 1904).
[30] See Ascherson, "Die Austrocknung des Neusiedler Sees," in _Z.
der Ges. fuer Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1865).
[31] See Suess, _The Face of the Earth_; M. Bertrand, "Sur la
distribution geographique des roches eruptives en Europe," _Bull.
Soc. Geol. France_, ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1887-1888), pp. 573-617. A
translation of a lecture by Suess, giving a short summary of his
views on the structure of Europe, will be found in the _Canadian
Record of Science_, vol. vii. pp. 235-246.
[32] Vesselovski, as quoted by Voeikov, _Die atmosphaerische
Circulation_.
[33] Plate 1 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1903).
[34] See a paper on "Das regenreichste Gebiet Europas," by Prof.
Kassner, Berlin, in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1904), p. 281.
[35] London, 1901 (one of the publications of the Royal Geog.
Society).
[36] Plate 21 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1900).
[37] _Nova Acta Leop. Karol. d. deutschen Akad. d. Naturforscher_,
vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle, 1896).
[38] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), pl. 11 (text pp. 137-145).
[39] _Ib._ (1887), pl. 10 (text pp. 165-172).
[40] Berlin, 3 vols. (one made up of maps), 1898-1899.
[41] By this term (_Getreideflaeche_) Engelbrecht designates the area
occupied by wheat and other varieties of triticum, rye, oats and
barley.
[42] Based on Scherzer, _Das wirtschaftliche Leben der Voelker_, p.
12.
[43] From the _Fifth Report of the United States Department of
Agriculture_, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, p. 13.
[44] Based on the _Corn Trade Year-book_ (1904), p. 284.
[45] Exclusive of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the average
production in 1894-1903 was about 21/2 million bushels.
[46] The estimates for Bulgaria, Rumania, Servia and Turkey in Europe
for 1872-1876 are not comparable with those of the two later periods
on account of the territorial changes since that date. Those for
Bulgaria in the period 1881-1890 include Eastern Rumelia.
[47] Including Poland.
[48] Spanish statistics very imperfect.
[49] Based on the same authorities as the wheat table. In the
original, however, the figures for 1894-1903 are given in "quarters
of 480 lb.," while the figures given above are calculated on an
average quarter of 462 lb.
[50] Including Poland, but not Finland, in which the average
production of rye is estimated at about 11,000,000 bushels.
[51] Mainly from or based on the Agricultural Returns for Great
Britain, 1905.
[52] Single years.
[53] Period 1883-1887.
[54] Based on _Mines and Quarries: General Report and Statistics for
1906_, pt. iv. (Cd. 4145), 1908.
[55] Production in the Ural districts only.
[56] See note 11.
[57] A considerable quantity of quicksilver is produced in the
government of Ekaterinoslav.
[58] Dressed.
[59] Cupreous pyrites and cupreous iron pyrites, besides which a
considerable quantity of copper precipitate is produced.
[60] A small quantity of copper ore is produced in Finland, but the
bulk of the Russian production is in the Asiatic provinces.
[61] Mainly cupreous iron pyrites.
[62] Argentiferous.
[63] In 1906 Greece produced 12,308 m.t. of argentiferous pig lead.
[64] Of which 158,424 m.t. argentiferous.
[65] A considerable quantity of manganese ore is produced in the
government of Ekaterinoslav, but the main seat of Russian production
is the Caucasus.
[66] Zinc and lead ore.
[67] In addition to 28,891 m.t. of calcined zinc ore.
[68] Probably the most complete synopsis of the evidence on this
point is to be found in Prince Kropotkin's _Fields, Factories and
Workshops_ (London, 1899).
[69] The total horse-power used in mechanical industries is obtained
by adding 650,000, the estimated total of horse-power in hydraulic
installations given in an article in the _Annales de geographie_ for
January 1904, to the total steam-power in fixed engines officially
given for 1903, and accordingly excludes gas and other engines not
driven by steam- or water-power.
[70] The proportion estimated in the official publication entitled
_Sweden: its People and its Industry_, edited by G. Sundbaerg
(Stockholm, 1904).
[71] Including the installations returned in the Swiss industrial
censuses as electric, most if not all of which are probably driven by
water-power.
[72] See bibliography at the end of the article.
[73] See on the whole subject Hovelacque's _Science of Language_,
Latham's _Nationalities of Europe_, and the same author's
_Philology_.
[74] Taken from a paper by Professor Voeikov on "Verteilung der
Bevoelkerung auf der Erde unter dem Einfluss der Naturverhaeltnisse und
der menschlichen Tatigkeit," in _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1906), p. 249,
where corresponding figures are given for other parts of the world.
[75] Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, Moscow, Yaroslav, Kostromer and
Vladimir.
[76] Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tambov, Voronezh and Penza.
[77] Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and
Astrakhan.
[78] Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Ekaterinoslav and Don Province.
[79] The Austro-Turkish protocol had been signed at Constantinople on
the 5th of March; it was now ratified by the Turkish parliament on
the 5th of April.
EUROPIUM, a metallic chemical element, symbol Eu, atomic weight 152.0 (O
= 16). The oxide Eu2O3 occurs in very small quantity in the minerals of
the rare earths, and was first obtained in 1896 by E, A. Demarcay from
Lecoq de Boisbaudran's samarium; G. Urbain and H. Lacombe in 1904
obtained the pure salts by fractional crystallization of the nitric acid
solution with magnesium nitrate in the presence of bismuth nitrate. The
salts have a faint pink colour, and show a faint absorption spectrum;
the spark spectrum is brilliant and well characterized.
EURYDICE ([Greek: Eurudike]), in Greek mythology, the wife of Orpheus
(q.v.). She was the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and died from the bite
of a serpent when fleeing from Aristaeus, who wished to offer her
violence (Virgil, _Georgics_, iv. 454-527; Ovid, _Metam_. x. 1 ff.).
EURYMEDON, one of the Athenian generals during the Peloponnesian War. In
428 B.C. he was sent by the Athenians to intercept the Peloponnesian
fleet which was on the way to attack Corcyra. On his arrival, finding
that Nicostratus with a small squadron from Naupactus had already placed
the island in security, he took the command of the combined fleet,
which, owing to the absence of the enemy, had no chance of
distinguishing itself. In the following summer, in joint command of the
land forces, he ravaged the district of Tanagra; and in 425 he was
appointed, with Sophocles, the son of Sostratides, to the command of an
expedition destined for Sicily. Having touched at Corcyra on the way, in
order to assist the democratic party against the oligarchical exiles,
but without taking any steps to prevent the massacre of the latter,
Eurymedon proceeded to Sicily. Immediately after his arrival a
pacification was concluded by Hermocrates, to which Eurymedon and
Sophocles were induced to agree. The terms of the pacification did not,
however, satisfy the Athenians, who attributed its conclusion to
bribery; two of the chief agents in the negotiations were banished,
while Eurymedon was sentenced to pay a heavy fine. In 414 Eurymedon, who
had been sent with Demosthenes to reinforce the Athenians at the siege
of Syracuse, was defeated and slain before reaching land (Thucydides
iii., iv., vii.; Diod. Sic. xiii. 8, 11, 13).
EUSDEN, LAURENCE (1688-1730), English poet, son of the Rev. Laurence
Eusden, rector of Spofforth, Yorkshire, was baptized on the 6th of
September 1688. He was educated at St Peter's school, York, and at
Trinity College, Cambridge. He became a minor fellow of his college in
1711, and in the next year was admitted to a full fellowship. He was
made poet laureate in 1718 by the lord chancellor, the duke of
Newcastle, as a reward for a flattering poem on his marriage. He was
rector of Coningsby, Lincolnshire, where he died on the 27th of
September 1730. His name is less remembered by his translations and
gratulatory poems than by the numerous satirical allusions of Pope, e.g.
"Know, Eusden thirsts no more for sack or praise;
He sleeps among the dull of ancient days."
_Dunciad_, bk. i. 11. 293-294.
EUSEBIUS (Gr. [Greek: Eusebios], from [Greek: eusebes], pious, cf. the
Latin name Pius), a name borne by a large number of bishops and others
in the early ages of the Christian Church. Of these the most important
are separately noticed below. No less than 25 saints of this name
(sometimes corrupted into Eusoge, Euruge, Usoge, Usuge, Uruge and St
Sebis) are venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, of whom 23 are
included in the Bollandist _Acta Sanctorum_; many are obscure martyrs,
monks or anchorites, but two deserve at least a passing notice.
EUSEBIUS, bishop of Vercelli (d. 371), is notable not only as a stout
opponent of Arianism, but also as having been, with St Augustine, the
first Western bishop to unite with his clergy in adopting a strict
monastic life after the Eastern model (see Ambrose, _Ep. 63 ad
Vercellenses_, Sec. 66). The legend that he was stoned to death by the
Arians was probably invented for the edification of the Orthodox.
EUSEBIUS, bishop of Samosata (d. 380), played a considerable part in the
later stages of the Arian controversy in the East. He is first mentioned
among the Homoean and Homoeusian bishops who in 363 accepted the
Homousian formula at the synod of Antioch presided over by Meletius,
with whose views he seems to have identified himself (see MELETIUS OF
ANTIOCH). According to Theodoret (5, 4, 8) he was killed at Doliche in
Syria, where he had gone to consecrate a bishop, by a stone cast by an
Arian woman. He thus became a martyr, and found a place in the Catholic
calendar (see the article by Loofs in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._, ed.
1898, v. p. 620).
EUSEBIUS OF LAODICEA, though not included among the saints, was noted
for his saintly life. He was an Alexandrian by birth, and gained so
great a reputation for his self-denial and charity that when in 262 the
city was besieged by the troops of the emperor Gallienus he obtained
permission, together with Anatolius, from their commander Theodotus, to
lead out the non-combatants, whom he tended "like a father and
physician." He went with Anatolius to Syria, and took part in the
controversy against Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. He became
bishop of Laodicea, probably in the following year (263), and died some
time before 268. His friend Anatolius succeeded him as bishop in the
latter year (see the article by E. Hennecke in Herzog-Hauck, v. 619).
EUSEBIUS, bishop of Rome for four months under the emperor Maxentius, in
309 or 310. The Christians in Rome, divided on the question of the
reconciliation of apostates, on which Eusebius held the milder view,
brought forward a competitor, Heraclius. Both competitors were expelled
by the emperor, Eusebius dying in exile in Sicily. He was buried in the
cemetery of St Calixtus at Rome; and the extant epitaph, in eight
hexameter lines, set up here by his successor Damasus, contains all the
information there is about his life.
EUSEBIUS [OF CAESAREA] (c. 260-c. 340), ecclesiastical historian, who
called himself Eusebius Pamphili, because of his devotion to his friend
and teacher Pamphilus, was born probably in Palestine between A.D. 260
and 265, and died as bishop of Caesarea in the year 339 or 340. We know
little of his youth beyond the fact that he became associated at an
early day with Pamphilus, presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, and
founder of a theological school there (see _Hist. Eccl._ vii. 32).
Pamphilus gathered about him a circle of earnest students who devoted
themselves especially to the study of the Bible and the transcription of
Biblical codices, and also to the defence and spread of the writings of
Origen, whom they regarded as their master. Pamphilus had a magnificent
library, which Eusebius made diligent use of, and a catalogue of which
he published in his lost _Life_ of Pamphilus (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 32). In
the course of the Diocletian persecution, which broke out in 303,
Pamphilus was imprisoned for two years, and finally suffered martyrdom.
During the time of his imprisonment (307-309) Eusebius distinguished
himself by assiduous devotion to his friend, and assisted him in the
preparation of an apology for Origen's teaching (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 33),
the first book of which survives in the Latin of Rufinus (printed in
Routh's _Reliquiae sacrae_, iv. 339 sq., and in Lommatzsch's edition of
Origen's Works, xxiv. p. 293 sq.). After the death of Pamphilus Eusebius
withdrew to Tyre, and later, while the Diocletian persecution was still
raging, went to Egypt, where he seems to have been imprisoned, but soon
released. He became bishop of Caesarea between 313 and 315, and remained
such until his death. The patriarchate of Antioch was offered him in
331, but declined (_Vita Constantini_, iii. 59 sq.).
Eusebius was a very important figure in the church of his day. He was
not a great theologian nor a profound thinker, but he was the most
learned man of his age, and stood high in favour with the emperor
Constantine. At the council of Nicaea in 325 he took a prominent part,
occupying a seat at the emperor's right hand, and being appointed to
deliver the panegyrical oration in his honour. He was the leader of the
large middle party of Moderates at the council, and submitted the first
draft of the creed which was afterwards adopted with important changes
and additions. In the beginning he was the most influential man present,
but was finally forced to yield to the Alexandrian party, and to vote
for a creed which completely repudiated the position of the Arians, with
whom he had himself been hitherto more in sympathy than with the
Alexandrians. He was placed in a difficult predicament by the action of
the council, and his letter to the Caesarean church explaining his
conduct is exceedingly interesting and instructive (see Socrates, _Hist.
Eccl._ i. 8, and cf. McGiffert's translation of Eusebius' _Church
History_, p. 15 sq.). To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look
briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an
Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three
stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first
preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be
expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and
his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his
works written during this period (for instance, the _Praeparatio
evangelica_ and _Demonstratio evangelica_), as in the works of Origen
himself and other ante-Nicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the
direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The
second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and
continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side
of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what
he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he
supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was
natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of
Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in
general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who
seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son.
And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the
teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to
Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second
council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's _Concilia_, xiii. 316
sq.; English translation in McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 70). Meanwhile at
the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians
were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so
far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius
himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood
Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic
belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition,
and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians
were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene
orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his _Contra Marcellum, De
ecclesiastica theologia_, and _Theophania_). But he never felt in
sympathy with the extreme views of the Athanasian party, for they seemed
to him to savour of Sabellianism, which always remained his chief dread
(cf. his two works against Marcellus of Ancyra). His personal friends,
moreover, were principally among the Arians, and he was more closely
identified with them than with the supporters of Athanasius. But he was
always a man of peace, and while commonly counted one of the opponents
of Athanasius, he did not take a place of leadership among them as his
position and standing would have justified him in doing, and Athanasius
never spoke of him with bitterness as he did of other prominent men in
the party. (For a fuller description of the development of Eusebius'
Christology and of his attitude throughout the Arian controversy, see
McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 11 sq.)
Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his
labours covered almost every field of theological learning. If we look
in his works for brilliancy and originality we shall be disappointed. He
was not a creative genius like Origen or Augustine. His claim to
greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sound judgment. Nearly
all his works possess genuine and solid merits which raise them above
the commonplace, and many of them still remain valuable. His exegesis is
superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetic is
marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and an
instinctive appreciation of the difference between important and
unimportant points. His style, it is true, is involved and obscure,
often rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the
desultory character of his thinking. He did not always clearly define
his theme before beginning to write, and he failed to subject what he
produced to a careful revision. Ideas of all sorts poured in upon him
while he was writing, and he was not always able to resist the
temptation to insert them whether pertinent or not. His great learning
is evident everywhere, but he is often its slave rather than its master.
It is as an historian that he is best known, and to his _History of the
Christian Church_ he owes his fame and his familiar title "The Father of
Church History." This work, which was published in its final form in ten
books in 324 or early in 325, is the most important ecclesiastical
history produced in ancient times. The reasons leading to the great
undertaking, in which Eusebius had no predecessors, were in part
historical, in part apologetic. He believed that he was living at the
beginning of a new age, and he felt that it was a fitting time, when the
old order of things was passing away, to put on record for the benefit
of posterity the great events which had occurred during the generations
that were past. He thus wrote, as any historian might, for the
information and instruction of his readers, and yet he had all the time
an apologetic purpose, to exhibit to the world the history of
Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. His plan is
stated at the very beginning of the work:--
"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy
Apostles as well as of the times which have elapsed from the day of
our Saviour to our own; to relate how many and important events are
said to have occurred in the history of the church; and to mention
those who have governed and presided over the church in the most
prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed
the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to
give the names and number and times of those who through love of
innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming
themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so called, have like
fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my
intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came
on the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our
Saviour, and to record the ways and times in which the divine word has
been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those
who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and
tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own
day, and the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour has
accorded them all."
The value of the work does not lie in its literary merit, but in the
wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early
church. Many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to
us only from its pages. Many fragments, priceless on account of the
light which they shed upon movements of far-reaching consequence, have
been preserved in it alone. Eusebius often fails to appreciate the
significance of the events which he records; in many cases he draws
unwarranted conclusions from the given premises; he sometimes
misinterprets his documents and misunderstands men and movements; but
usually he presents us with the material upon which to form our own
judgment, and if we differ with him we must at the same time thank him
for the data that enable us independently to reach other results. But
the work is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in a true sense, and
it has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from
other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer
accessible to us. The number of books referred to as read is enormous.
He also had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them
information beyond the reach of most. But the value of his work is due,
not simply to the sources employed, but also to the use made of them.
Upon this matter there has been, it is true, some diversity of opinion
among modern scholars, but it is now generally admitted, and can be
abundantly shown, that he was not only diligent in gathering material,
but also far more thorough-going than most writers of antiquity in
discriminating between trustworthy and untrustworthy reports, frank in
acknowledging his ignorance, scrupulous in indicating his authorities in
doubtful cases, less credulous than most of his contemporaries, and
unfailingly honest. His principal faults are his carelessness and
inaccuracy in matters of chronology, his lack of artistic skill in the
presentation of his material, his desultory method of treatment, and his
failure to look below the surface and grasp the real significance and
vital connexion of events. He commonly regards an occurrence as
sufficiently accounted for when it is ascribed to the activity of God or
of Satan. But in spite of its defects the _Church History_ is a
monumental work, which need only be compared with its continuations by
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus and others, to be appreciated at
its true worth.
In addition to the _Church History_ we have from Eusebius' pen a
_Chronicle_ in two books (c. 303; later continued down to 325), the
first containing an epitome of universal history, the second
chronological tables exhibiting in parallel columns the royal
succession in different nations, and accompanied by notes marking the
dates of historical events. A revised edition of the second book with
a continuation down to his own day was published in Latin by St
Jerome, and this, together with some fragments of the original Greek,
was our only source for a knowledge of the Chronicle until the
discovery of an Armenian version of the whole work, which was
published by Aucher in 1818 (Latin translation in Schoene's edition),
and of two Syriac versions published in Latin translation respectively
in 1866 (by Roediger in Schoene's edition) and in 1884 (by Siegfried
and Gelzer). Other historical works still extant are the _Martyrs of
Palestine_ and the _Life of Constantine_. The former is an account of
martyrdoms occurring in Palestine during the years 303 to 310, of most
of which Eusebius himself was an eye-witness. The work exists in a
longer and a shorter recension, the former in a Syriac version
(published with English translation by Cureton, 1861), the latter in
the original Greek attached to the _Church History_ in most MSS.
(printed with the History in the various editions). _The Life of
Constantine_, in four books, published after the death of the emperor,
which occurred in 337, is a panegyric rather than a sober history, but
contains much valuable material. Of Eusebius' apologetic works we
still have the _Contra Hieroclem_, _Praeparatio evangelica_,
_Demonstratio evangelica_, and _Theophania_. The first is a reply to a
lost work against the Christians written by Hierocles, a Roman
governor and contemporary of Eusebius. The second and third, taken
together, are the most elaborate and important apologetic work of the
early church. The former, in fifteen books, aims to show that the
Christians are justified in accepting the sacred writings of the
Hebrews, and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks.
The latter, in twenty books, of which only the first ten and fragments
of the fifteenth are extant, endeavours to prove from the Hebrew
Scriptures themselves that the Christians are right in going beyond
the Jews and adopting new principles and practices. The former is thus
a preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a
defence of Christianity against all the world, heathen as well as
Jews. In grandeur of conception, comprehensiveness of treatment, and
breadth of learning, this apology surpasses all other similar works of
antiquity. The _Praeparatio_ is also valuable because of its large
number of quotations from classical literature, many of them
otherwise unknown to us. The _Theophania_, though we have many
fragments of the original Greek, is extant as a whole only in a Syriac
version first published by Lee in 1842. Its subject is the
manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word, and it aims to
give with an apologetic purpose a brief exposition of the divine
authority and influence of Christianity. Of Eusebius' dogmatic and
polemic writings, we still have two works against his contemporary,
Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the one known as _Contra Marcellum_, the
other as _De theologia ecclesiastica_. The former and briefer aims
simply to expose the errors of Marcellus, whom Eusebius accuses of
Sabellianism, the latter to refute them. We also have parts of a
General Introduction ([Greek: He katholon stoicheiodes eisagoge]),
which consisted of ten-books (the sixth to the ninth books and a few
other fragments still extant), under the title of _Prophetical
Extracts_ ([Greek: Prophetikai eklogai]). Although this formed part of
a larger work it was complete in itself and circulated separately. It
contains prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the
person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. Of
Biblical and exegetical works we have a considerable part of Eusebius'
Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, which are monuments of
learning, industry and critical acumen, though marred by the use of
the allegorical method characteristic of the school of Origen; also a
work on the names of places mentioned in Scripture, or the
_Onomasticon_, the only one extant of a number of writings on Old
Testament topography; and an epitome and some fragments of a work in
two parts on Gospel Questions and Solutions, the first part dealing
with the genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke, the second
with the apparent discrepancies between the various gospel accounts of
the resurrection. Other important works which have perished wholly or
in large part, and some orations and minor writings still extant, it
is not necessary to refer to more particularly. (See Preuschen's list
in Harnack's _Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, i. 2, p. 55 sq.
Preuschen gives thirty-eight titles, besides orations and letters, but
it is doubtful whether all of the Commentaries mentioned really
existed.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The only edition of Eusebius' extant works which can
lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne (_Patrologia
graeca_, tom, xix.-xxiv.). The publication of a new critical edition
was begun in 1902 in the Berlin Academy's _Greek Fathers_ (_Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte_, Leipzig). Many of Eusebius' works have been published
separately. Thus the _Church History_, first by Stephanus (Paris,
1554); by Valesius with copious notes, together with the _Life of
Constantine_, the _Oration in Praise of Constantine_, and the
Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c. (best edition that of
Reading (Cambridge, 1720), in three volumes, folio); by Heinichen
(1827, second edition 1868-1870 in three volumes, a very useful
edition, containing also the _Life of Constantine_ and the _Oration in
Praise of Constantine_, with elaborate notes); by Burton (1838; a
handy reprint in a single volume by Bright, 1881), and by many others.
The most recent and best edition is that of Schwartz in the Berlin
Academy's _Greek Fathers_, of which the first half has appeared,
accompanied by the Latin version of Rufinus edited by Mommsen. The
history was early put into Syriac (edited by Bedjan, Leipzig, 1897;
also by Wright, McLean and Merx, London, 1898), Armenian (edited by
Djarian, Venice, 1877), and Latin, and has been translated into many
modern languages, the latest English version being that of McGiffert,
in the _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, second series, volume i. (New
York, 1890). Of the _Chronicle_, the best edition is by Schoene in two
volumes (Berlin, 1866-1875). The _Life of Constantine_ and the
_Oration in Praise of Constantine_ are published by Valesius,
Heinichen and others in their editions of the _Church History_, also
in the first volume of the Berlin Academy's edition (ed. by Heikel),
and an English translation by Richardson in the volume containing
McGiffert's translation of the _Church History_. Gaisford published
the _Prophetical Extracts_ (Oxford, 1842), the _Praeparatio
evangelica_ (1843), the _Demonstratio evangelica_ (1852), and the
works against Hierocles and Marcellus (1852); and the works against
Marcellus have appeared in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol.
iv.). The _Onomasticon_ has been published frequently, among others by
Lagarde (Goettingen, 1870; 2nd ed., 1887), and is contained in the
edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.). The _Theophania_ was first
published by Lee (Syriac version, 1842; English translation, 1843). A
German translation of the Syriac version, with the extant fragments of
the original Greek, is given in the edition of the Berlin Academy
(vol. iii.).
Acacius, the pupil of Eusebius and his successor in the see of
Caesarea, wrote a life of him which is unfortunately lost. His own
writings contain little biographical material, but we get information
from Athanasius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome's
_De vir. ill._, and Photius. Among the many modern accounts in church
histories, histories of Christian literature, encyclopaedias, &c., may
be mentioned a monograph by Stein, _Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea_
(Wuerzburg, 1859), meagre but useful as far as it goes; the magnificent
article by Lightfoot in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_; the
account by McGiffert in his translation of the _Church History_; Erwin
Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklop_. (3rd ed., 1898);
the treatment of the Chronology of Eusebius writings in Harnack's
_Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, ii. 2, p. 106 sq.; and
Bardenhewer's _Patrologie_, p. 2260 f. The many special discussions
of Eusebius' separate works, particularly of his _Church History_, and
of his character as an historian, cannot be referred to here.
Elaborate bibliographies will be found in McGiffert's translation, and
in Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck. (A. C. McG.)
EUSEBIUS [OF EMESA] (d. c. 360), a learned ecclesiastic of the Greek
church, was born at Edessa about the beginning of the 4th century. After
receiving his early education in his native town, he studied theology at
Caesarea and Antioch and philosophy and science at Alexandria. Among his
teachers were Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. The
reputation he acquired for learning and eloquence led to his being
offered the see of Alexandria in succession to the deposed Athanasius at
the beginning of 339, but he declined, and the council (of Antioch)
chose Gregory of Cappadocia, "a fitter agent for the rough work to be
done." Eusebius accepted the small bishopric of Emesa (the modern Horns)
in Phoenicia, but his powers as mathematician and astronomer led his
flock to accuse him of practising sorcery, and he had to flee to
Laodicea. A reconciliation was effected by the patriarch of Antioch, but
tradition says that Eusebius finally resigned his charge and lived a
studious life in Antioch. His fame as an astrologer commended him to the
notice of the emperor Constantius II., with whom he became a great
favourite, accompanying him on many of his expeditions. The theological
sympathies of Eusebius were with the semi-Arian party, but his interest
in the controversy was not strong. His life was written by his friend
George of Laodicea. He was a man of extraordinary learning, great
eloquence and considerable intellectual power, but of his numerous
writings only a few fragments are now in existence.
See Migne, _Patrol. Graec._ vol. lxxxvi.
EUSEBIUS [OF MYNDUS], Greek philosopher, a distinguished Neoplatonist
and pupil of Aedesius who lived in the time of Julian, and who is
described by Eunapius as one of the "Golden Chain" of Neoplatonism. He
ventured to criticize the magical and theurgic side of the doctrine, and
exasperated the emperor, who preferred the mysticism of Maximus and
Chrysanthius. He devoted himself principally to logic. Stobaeus in the
_Sermones_ collected a number of ethical dicta of one Eusebius, who may
perhaps be identical with the Neoplatonist.
The fragments have been collected by Mullach in his Fragmenta _Phil.
Graec._, and by Orelli, in _Opuscula veter. graec. sentent. et moral_.
EUSEBIUS [OF NICOMEDIA] (d. 341?), Greek bishop and theologian, was the
defender of Arius in a still more avowed manner than his namesake of
Caesarea, and from him the Eusebian or middle party specially derived
its name, giving him in return the epithet of Great. He was a
contemporary of the bishop of Caesarea, and united with him in the
enjoyment of the friendship and favour of the imperial family. He is
said to have been connected by his mother with the emperor Julian, whose
early tutor he was. His first bishopric was Berytus (Beirut) in
Phoenicia, but his name is especially identified with the see of
Nicomedia, which, from the time of Diocletian till Constantine
established his court at Byzantium, was regarded as the capital of the
eastern part of the empire. He warmly espoused the cause of Arius in his
quarrel with his bishop Alexander, and wrote a letter in his defence to
Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, which is preserved in the _Church History_ of
Theodoret. Trained in the school of Lucian of Antioch, his views appear
to have been identical with those of Eusebius of Caesarea in placing
Christ above all created beings, the only begotten of the Father, but in
refusing to recognize him to be "of the same substance" with the Father,
who is alone in essence and absolute being.
At the council of Nicaea Eusebius of Nicomedia earnestly opposed, along
with his namesake of Caesarea, the insertion of the Homousian clause,
but after being defeated in his object he also signed the creed in his
own sense of [Greek: omoios kat ouoian]. He refused, however, to sign
the anathema directed against the Arians, not, as he afterwards
explained, because of his variance from the Athanasian theology, but
"because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed
to him" (Sozom. ii. 15). After the council he continued vigorously to
espouse the Arian cause, and was so far carried away in his zeal against
the Athanasians that he was temporarily banished from his see as a
disturber of the peace of the church. But his alienation from the court
was of short duration. He retained the confidence of the emperor's
sister Constantia, through whose influence he was promoted to the see of
Nicomedia, and by her favour he was restored to his position, and
speedily acquired an equal ascendancy over the emperor. He was selected
to administer baptism to him in his last illness. There seems no doubt
that Eusebius of Nicomedia was more of a politician than a theologian.
He was certainly a partisan in the great controversy of his time, and is
even credited (although on insufficient evidence) with having used
unworthy means to procure the deposition of Eustathius, the "orthodox"
bishop of Antioch (Theodoret i. 21). His restless ambition and love of
power are not to be denied. To the last he defended Arius, and at the
time of the latter's sudden death, 336, it was chiefly through his
menace, as representing the emperor, that the church of Constantinople
was thrown into anxiety as to whether the leader should be readmitted to
the bosom of the church. The death of Constantine followed hard upon
that of Arius; and Eusebius, who was promoted in 339 to the see of
Constantinople, became the leader of the anti-Nicene party till his own
death in (probably) 341. The real activity of Eusebius and his party
must be studied in connexion with the Arian controversy (see ARIUS).
EUSKIRCHEN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on a
plateau lying to the E. of the Eifel range, at the junction of railways
from Cologne and Bonn and 10 m. W. of the latter. Pop. (1905) 10,285. It
has an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and its industries
include cloth, sugar and stocking manufactures, besides breweries and
tanneries.
EUSTACE, the name of four counts of Boulogne.
EUSTACE I., a son of Count Baldwin II., held the county from 1046 until
his death in 1049.
His son, EUSTACE II. (d. 1093), count of Boulogne, was the husband of
Goda, daughter of the English king AEthelred the Unready, and aunt of
Edward the Confessor. Eustace paid a visit to England in 1051, and was
honourably received at the Confessor's court. A brawl in which he and
his servants became involved with the citizens of Dover led to a serious
quarrel between the king and Earl Godwine. The latter, to whose
jurisdiction the men of Dover were subject, refused to punish them. His
contumacy was made the excuse for the outlawry of himself and his
family. In 1066 Eustace came to England with Duke William, and fought at
the battle of Hastings. In the following year, probably because he was
dissatisfied with his share of the spoil, he assisted the Kentishmen in
an attempt to seize Dover Castle. The conspiracy failed, and Eustace was
sentenced to forfeit his English fiefs. Subsequently he was reconciled
to the Conqueror, who restored a portion of the confiscated lands.
Eustace died in 1093, and was succeeded by his son, EUSTACE III., who
went on crusade in 1096, and died about 1125. On his death the county of
Boulogne came to his daughter, Matilda, and her husband Stephen, count
of Blois, afterwards king of England, and in 1150 it was given to their
son, Eustace IV.
EUSTACE IV. (d. 1153) became the heir-apparent to his father's
possessions by the death of an elder brother before 1135. In 1137 he did
homage for Normandy to Louis VII. of France, whose sister, Constance, he
subsequently married. Eustace was knighted in 1147, at which date he was
probably from sixteen to eighteen years of age; and in 1151 he joined
Louis in an abortive raid upon Normandy, which had accepted the title of
the empress Matilda, and was now defended by her husband, Geoffrey of
Anjou. At a council held in London on the 6th of April 1152 Stephen
induced a small number of barons to do homage to Eustace as their future
king; but the primate, Theobald, and the other bishops declined to
perform the coronation ceremony on the ground that the Roman curia had
declared against the claim of Eustace. The death of Eustace, which
occurred during the next year, was hailed with general satisfaction as
opening the possibility of a peaceful settlement between Stephen and his
rival, the young Henry of Anjou. The _Peterborough Chronicle_, not
content with voicing this sentiment, gives Eustace a bad character. "He
was an evil man and did more harm than good wherever he went; he spoiled
the lands and laid thereon heavy taxes." He had used threats against the
recalcitrant bishops, and in the war against the Angevin party had
demanded contributions from religious houses; these facts perhaps
suffice to account for the verdict of the chronicler.
See Sir James Ramsay, _Foundations of England_, vol. ii. (London,
1898); J.M. Lappenberg, _History of England under the Norman Kings_
(trans. B. Thorpe, Oxford, 1857); and E.A. Freeman, _History of the
Norman Conquest_ (Oxford, 1867-1879).
EUSTATHIUS, of Antioch, sometimes styled "the Great" (fl. 325), was a
native of Side in Pamphylia. About 320 he was bishop of Beroea, and he
was patriarch of Antioch before the council of Nicaea in 325. In that
assembly he distinguished himself by his zeal against the Arians, though
the _Allocutio ad Imperatorem_ with which he has been credited is hardly
genuine. His anti-Arian polemic against Eusebius of Caesarea made him
unpopular among his fellow-bishops in the East, and a synod convened at
Antioch in 330 passed a sentence of deposition, which was confirmed by
the emperor. He was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died,
probably about 337, though possibly not till 360.
The only complete work by Eustathius now extant is the _De
Engastrimytho contra Origenem_ (ed. by A. Jahn in _Texte und
Untersuchungen_, ii. 4). Other fragments are enumerated by F. Loofs in
Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopaedie_.
EUSTATHIUS, or EUMATHIUS, surnamed Macrembolites ("living near the long
bazaar"), the last of the Greek romance writers, flourished in the
second half of the 12th century A.D. His title _Protonobilissimus_ shows
him to have been a person of distinction, and if he is also correctly
described in the MSS. as [Greek: megas chartophulax] (chief keeper of
the ecclesiastical archives), he must have been a Christian. He was the
author of _The Story of Hysmine and Hysminias_, in eleven books, a
tedious and inferior imitation of the _Cleitophon and Leucippe_ of
Achilles Tatius. There is nothing original in the plot, and the work is
tasteless and often coarse. Although the author borrowed from Homer and
other Attic poets, the chief source of his phraseology was the
rhetorician Choricius of Gaza. The style is remarkable for the absence
of hiatus and an extremely laboured use of antithesis. The digressions
on works of art, apparently the result of personal observation, are the
best part of the work. A collection of eleven _Riddles_, of which
solutions were written by the grammarian Manuel Holobolos, is also
attributed to Eustathius.
The best edition of both romance and riddles is by I. Hilberg (1876,
who fixes the date of Eustathius between 850 and 988), with critical
apparatus and prolegomena, including the solutions; of the _Riddles_
alone by M. Treu (1893). On Eustathius generally, see J.C. Dunlop,
_History of Fiction_ (1888, new ed. in Bohn's _Standard Library_); E.
Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_ (1900); K. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der
byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897). There are many translations in
modern languages, of which that by P. le Bas (1825) may be
recommended; there is an English version from the French by L.H. le
Moine (London and Paris, 1788).
EUSTATHIUS, archbishop of Thessalonica, Byzantine scholar and author
(probably a native of Constantinople), flourished during the second half
of the 12th century. He was at first a monk, and afterwards deacon of St
Sophia and teacher of rhetoric in his native city. In 1174 he was chosen
bishop of Myra in Lycia, but in 1175 was transferred to Thessalonica. He
was outspoken and independent, and did not hesitate to oppose the
emperor Manuel, when the latter desired an alteration in the formula of
abjuration necessary for converts from Mahommedanism. In 1185, when
Thessalonica was captured by the Normans under William II. of Sicily,
Eustathius secured religious toleration for the conquered. He died about
1193. His best known work is his _Commentary on the Iliad and Odyssey of
Homer_ ([Greek: parekbolai], critical compilations), valuable as
containing numerous extracts from the scholia of other critics, whose
works have now perished. He also wrote a commentary on the geographical
epic of Dionysius Periegetes, in which much of Stephanus of Byzantium
and the lost writings of Arrian is preserved. A commentary on Pindar has
been lost, with the exception of the preface, which contains an essay on
lyric poetry, a life of Pindar, and an account of the Olympic games. A
history of the conquest of Thessalonica by the Normans, a congratulatory
address to the emperor Manuel, a plea for an improved water-supply for
Constantinople, and an extensive correspondence with clerical and lay
dignitaries, are evidence of his versatility. He is also the author of
various religious works, chiefly directed against the prevailing abuses
of his time, which almost anticipate, though in a milder form, the
denunciations of Luther; the most important of these is _The Reform of
Monastic Life_. A commentary on the pentecostal hymn of John of Damascus
may also be mentioned.
Editions: Homer Commentary, by G. Stallbaum (1825-1830); preface to
Pindar Commentary, by F.W. Schneidewin (1837); Dionysius Commentary in
C.W. Mueller, _Geographici Graeci minores_, ii.; pentecostal hymn, in
A. Mai. _Spicilegium Romanum_, v. 2 (1841). The smaller works have
been edited (1832) and the _De Thessalonica_ (1839) by L.F. Tafel;
many will be found in J.P. Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, cxxxv., cxxxvi.
Five new speeches have been edited by W. Regel, _Fontes rerum
Byzantinarum_, i. (1892).
EUSTYLE (from Gr. [Greek: eu,] well, and [Greek: stulos], column), the
architectural term for the intercolumniation defined by Vitruvius (iii.
3) as being of the best proportion, i.e. two and a half diameters (see
INTERCOLUMNIATION).
EUTAWVILLE, a town of Berkeley county, South Carolina, U.S.A., about 55
m. N.N.W. of Charleston. Pop. (1900) 305; (1910) 405. It is served by
the Atlantic Coast Line railway. The town lies on high ground near the
Santee river, in a region abounding in swamps, limestone cliffs and pine
forests. At present its chief interest is in lumber, but in colonial
days it was a settlement of aristocratic rice planters. The neighbouring
Eutaw Springs issue first from the foot of a hill and form a large
stream of clear, cool water, but this, only a few yards away, again
rushes underground to reappear about 1/8 m. farther on. At Eutaw
Springs, on the 8th of September 1781, was fought the last battle in the
field in the Southern States during the War of American Independence.
About 2300 Americans under General Nathanael Greene here attacked a
slightly inferior force under Colonel Alexander Stewart; at first the
Americans drove the British before them, but later in the day the latter
took a position in a brick house and behind palisades, and from this
position the Americans were unable to drive them. On the night of the
9th, however, Colonel Stewart retreated toward Charleston, abandoning
1000 stand of arms. The battle has been classed as a tactical victory
for the British and a strategical victory for the Americans, terminating
a campaign which left General Greene in virtual possession of the
Carolinas, the British thereafter confining themselves to Charleston.
The Americans lost in killed and wounded 408 men (including Colonel
William Washington, wounded and captured); the British, 693.
EUTHYDEMUS, a native of Magnesia, who overturned the dynasty of Diodotus
of Bactria, and became king of Bactria about 230 B.C. (Polyb. xi. 34;
Strabo xi. 515 wrongly makes him the first king). In 208 he was attacked
by Antiochus the Great, whom he tried in vain to resist on the shores of
the river Arius, the modern Herirud (Polyb. x. 49). The war lasted three
years, and was on the whole fortunate for Antiochus. But he saw that he
was not able to subdue Bactria and Sogdiana, and so in 206 concluded a
peace with Euthydemus, through the mediation of his son Demetrius, in
which he recognized him as king (Polyb. xi. 34). Soon afterwards
Demetrius (q.v.) began the conquest of India. There exist many coins of
Euthydemus; those on which he is called god are struck by the later king
Agathocles. Other coins with the name Euthydemus, which show a youthful
face, are presumably those of Euthydemus II., who cannot have ruled long
and was probably a son of Demetrius. (Ed. M.)
EUTIN, a town of Germany, capital of the principality oi Luebeck, which
is an enclave in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein and belongs
to the grand-duchy of Oldenburg, picturesquely situated on the Lake
Eutin, 20 m. N. from Luebeck by the railway to Kiel. Pop. (1905) 5204. It
possesses a Roman Catholic and two Protestant churches, a palace with a
fine park, and a monument to Weber, the composer, who was born here.
Towards the end of the 18th century Eutin acquired some fame as the
residence of a group of poets and writers, of whom the best-known were
Johann Heinrich Voss, the brothers Stolberg, and Friedrich Heinrich
Jacobi. In the neighbourhood is a beautiful tract of country, rich in
beech forests and fjords, known as "the Holstein Switzerland," largely
frequented in summer by the Hamburgers.
Eutin was, according to tradition, founded by Count Adolf II. of
Holstein. In 1155 it fell to the bishopric of Luebeck and was often the
residence of the prelates of that see. After some vicissitudes of
fortune during the middle ages and the Thirty Years' War, it came into
the possession of the house of Holstein, and hence to Prussia in 1866.
EUTROPIUS, Roman historian, flourished in the latter half of the 4th
century A.D. He held the office of secretary (_magister memoriae_) at
Constantinople, accompanied Julian on his expedition against the
Persians (363), and was alive during the reign of Valens (364-378), to
whom he dedicates his history. This work (_Breviarium historiae
Romanae_) is a complete compendium, in ten books, of Roman history from
the foundation of the city to the accession of Valens. It was compiled
with considerable care from the best accessible authorities, and is
written generally with impartiality, and in a clear and simple style.
Although the Latin in some instances differs from that of the purest
models, the work was for a long time a favourite elementary school-book.
Its independent value is small, but it sometimes fills a gap left by the
more authoritative records. The _Breviarium_ was enlarged and continued
down to the time of Justinian by Paulus Diaconus (q.v.); the work of the
latter was in turn enlarged by Landolfus Sagax (c. 1000), and taken down
to the time of the emperor Leo the Armenian (813-820) in the _Historia
Miscella_.
Of the Greek translations by Capito Lycius and Paeanius, the version
of the latter is extant in an almost complete state. The best edition
of Eutropius is by H. Droysen (1879), containing the Greek version and
the enlarged editions of Paulus Diaconus and Landolfus; smaller
critical editions, C. Wagener (1884), F. Ruehl (1887). J. Sorn's _Der
Sprachgebrauch des Historikers Eutropius_ (1892) contains a systematic
account of the grammar and style of the author. There are numerous
English school editions and translations.
EUTYCHES (c. 380-c. 456), a presbyter and archimandrite at
Constantinople, first came into notice in A.D. 431 at the council of
Ephesus, where, as a zealous adherent of Cyril (q.v.) of Alexandria, he
vehemently opposed the doctrine of the Nestorians (q.v.). They were
accused of teaching that the divine nature was not incarnated in but
only attendant on Jesus, being superadded to his human nature after the
latter was completely formed. In opposition to this Eutyches went so far
as to affirm that after the union of the two natures, the human and the
divine, Christ had only _one nature_, that of the incarnate Word, and
that therefore His human body was essentially different from other human
bodies. In this he went beyond Cyril and the Alexandrine school
generally, who, although they expressed the unity of the two natures in
Christ so as almost to nullify their duality, yet took care verbally to
guard themselves against the accusation of in any way circumscribing or
modifying his real and true humanity. It would seem, however, that
Eutyches differed from the Alexandrine school chiefly from inability to
express his meaning with proper safeguards, for equally with them he
denied that Christ's human nature was either transmuted or absorbed into
his divine nature. The energy and imprudence of Eutyches in asserting
his opinions led to his being accused of heresy by Domnus of Antioch and
Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, at a synod presided over by Flavian at
Constantinople in 448. As his explanations were not considered
satisfactory, the council deposed him from his priestly office and
excommunicated him; but in 449, at a council held in Ephesus convened by
Dioscurus of Alexandria and overawed by the presence of a large number
of Egyptian monks, not only was Eutyches reinstated in his office, but
Eusebius, Domnus and Flavian, his chief opponents, were deposed, and the
Alexandrine doctrine of the "one nature" received the sanction of the
church. This judgment is the more interesting as being in distinct
conflict with the opinion of the bishop of Rome--Leo--who, departing
from the policy of his predecessor Celestine, had written very strongly
to Flavian in support of the doctrine of the two natures and one person.
Meanwhile the emperor Theodosius died, and Pulcheria and Marcian who
succeeded summoned, in October 451, a council (the fourth ecumenical)
which met at Chalcedon (q.v.). There the synod of Ephesus was declared
to have been a "robber synod," its proceedings were annulled, and, in
accordance with the rule of Leo as opposed to the doctrines of Eutyches,
it was declared that the two natures were united in Christ, but without
any alteration, absorption or confusion. Eutyches died in exile, but of
his later life nothing is known. After his death his doctrines obtained
the support of the Empress Eudocia and made considerable progress in
Syria. In the 6th century they received a new impulse from a monk of the
name of Jacob, who united the various divisions into which the
Eutychians, or Monophysites (q.v.), had separated into one church, which
exists at the present time under the name of the Jacobite Church, and
has numerous adherents in Armenia, Egypt and Ethiopia.
See R.L. Ottley, _The Doctrine of the Incarnation_, ii. 97 ff.; A.
Harnack, _History of Dogma_, iv. _passim_; F. Loofs,
_Dogmengeschichte_ (4th ed., 1906), 297 f., and the art. in
Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyk. fuer prot. Theol._, with a full bibliography.
EUTYCHIANUS, pope from 275 to 283. His original epitaph was discovered
in the catacombs (see Kraus, _Roma sotterranea_, p. 154 et seq.), but
nothing more is known of him.
EUTYCHIDES, of Sicyon in Achaea, Greek sculptor of the latter part of
the 4th century B.C., was a pupil of Lysippus. His most noted work was a
statue of Fortune, which he made for the city of Antioch, then newly
founded. The goddess, who embodied the idea of the city, was seated on a
rock, crowned with towers, and having the river Orontes at her feet.
There is a small copy of the statue in the Vatican (see GREEK ART). It
was imitated by a number of Asiatic cities; and indeed most statues of
cities since erected borrow something from the work of Eutychides.
EUYUK, or EYUK (the _eu_ pronounced as in French), a small village in
Asia Minor, in the Angora vilayet, 12 m. N.N.E. of Boghaz Keui
(_Pteria_), built on a mound which contains some remarkable ruins of a
large building--a palace or sanctuary--anterior to the Greek period and
belonging to the same civilization as the ruins and rock-reliefs at
Pteria. These ruins consist of a gateway and an approach enclosed by two
lateral walls, 15 ft. long, from the outer end of which two walls return
outwards at right angles, one to right and one to left. The gateway is
flanked by two huge blocks, each carved in front into the shape of a
sphinx, while on the inner face is a relief of a two-headed eagle with
wings displayed. Of the approach and its returning walls only the lower
courses remain: they consist of large blocks adorned with a series of
bas-reliefs similar in type to those carved on the rocks of Boghaz Keui.
Behind the gateway is another vestibule leading to another portal which
gives entrance to the building, the lateral walls and abutments of the
portal being also decorated with reliefs much worn. These reliefs belong
to that pre-Greek oriental art generally called Hittite, of which there
are numerous remains in the eastern half of the peninsula. It is now
generally agreed that the scenes represented are religious processions.
On the left returning wall is a train of priestly attendants headed by
the chief priest and priestess (the latter carrying a _lituus_), clad in
the dress of the deities they serve and facing an altar, behind which is
an image of a bull on a pedestal (representing the god); then comes an
attendant leading a goat and three rams for sacrifice, followed by more
priests with _litui_ or musical instruments, after whom comes a bull
bearing on his back the sacred _cista_ (?). On the lateral walls of the
approach we have a similar procession of attendants headed by the chief
priestess and priest, who pours a libation at the feet of the goddess
seated on her throne; while on the right returning wall are fragments of
a third procession approaching another draped figure of the goddess on
her throne (placed at the angle opposite the bull on the pedestal), the
train being again brought up by a bull.
These are all scenes in the ritual of the indigenous naturalistic
religion which was spread, in slightly varying forms, all over Asia
Minor, and consisted in the worship of the self-reproductive powers of
nature, personified in the great mother-goddess (called by various names
Cybele, Leto, Artemis, &c.) and the god her husband-and-son (Attis, Men,
Sabazios, &c), representing the two elements of the ultimate divine
nature (see GREAT MOTHER OF THE GODS). Here, as in the oriental
mysteries generally, the goddess is made more prominent. Where Greek
influence affects the native religion, emphasis tends to be laid on the
god, but the character of the religion remains everywhere ultimately the
same (see Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, ch. iii.).
AUTHORITIES.--Perrot, _Explor. de la Galatie_ (1862) and _Hist. de
l'art_ (Eng. trans., 1890); Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in
Kleinasien u. Nordsyrien_ (1890); Hogarth in Murray's _Handbook to
Asia Minor_ (1895); Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_ (1898). See also
HITTITES. (J. G. C. A.)
EVAGORAS, son of Nicocles, king of Salamis in Cyprus 410-374 B.C. He
claimed descent from Teucer, half-brother of Ajax, son of Telamon, and
his family had long been rulers of Salamis until supplanted by a
Phoenician exile. When the usurper was in turn driven out by a Cyprian
noble, Evagoras, fearing that his life was in danger, fled to Cilicia.
Thence he returned secretly in 410, and with the aid of a small band of
adherents regained possession of the throne. According to Isocrates,
whose panegyric must however be read with caution, Evagoras was a model
ruler, whose aim was to promote the welfare of his state and of his
subjects by the cultivation of Greek refinement and civilization, which
had been almost obliterated in Salamis by a long period of barbarian
rule. He cultivated the friendship of the Athenians, and after the
defeat of Conon at Aegospotami he afforded him refuge and hospitality.
For a time he also maintained friendly relations with Persia, and
secured the aid of Artaxerxes II. for Athens against Sparta. He took
part in the battle of Cnidus (394), in which the Spartan fleet was
defeated, and for this service his statue was placed by the Athenians
side by side with that of Conon in the Ceramicus. But the energy and
enterprise of Evagoras soon roused the jealousy of the Great King, and
relations between them became strained. From 391 they were virtually at
war. Aided by the Athenians and the Egyptian Hakor (Acoris), Evagoras
extended his rule over the greater part of Cyprus, crossed over to Asia
Minor, took several cities in Phoenicia, and persuaded the Cilicians to
revolt. After the peace of Antalcidas (387), to which he refused to
agree, the Athenians withdrew their support, since by its terms they
recognized the lordship of Persia over Cyprus. For ten years Evagoras
carried on hostilities single-handed, except for occasional aid from
Egypt. At last he was totally defeated at Citium, and compelled to flee
to Salamis. Here, although closely blockaded, he managed to hold his
ground, and took advantage of a quarrel between the Persian generals to
conclude peace (376). Evagoras was allowed to remain nominally king of
Salamis, but in reality a vassal of Persia, to which he was to pay a
yearly tribute. The chronology of the last part of his reign is
uncertain. In 374 he was assassinated by a eunuch from motives of
private revenge.
The chief authority for the life of Evagoras is the panegyric of
Isocrates addressed to his son Nicocles; see also Diod. Sic. xiv. 115,
xv. 2-9; Xenophon, _Hellenica_, iv. 8; W. Judeich, _Kleinasiatische
Studien_ (Marburg, 1892), and art. HELLENISM.
EVAGRIUS (c. 536-600), surnamed SCHOLASTICUS, Church historian, was born
at Epiphania in Coele-Syria. His surname shows him to have been an
advocate, and it is supposed that he practised at Antioch. He was the
legal adviser of Gregory, patriarch of that city, whom he successfully
defended at Constantinople against certain serious charges. Through this
connexion he was brought under the notice of the emperor Tiberius
Constantine, who honoured him with the rank of quaestorian; Maurice
Tiberius made him master of the rolls. His influence and reputation were
so considerable that on the occasion of his second marriage a public
festival was celebrated in his honour, which was interrupted by a
terrible earthquake. Evagrius's name has been preserved by his
_Ecclesiastical History_ in six books, extending over the period from
the third general council (that of Ephesus, 431) to the year 593. It
thus continues the work of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret.
Though not wholly trustworthy, and often very credulous, this work is on
the whole impartial, and appears to have been compiled from original
documents, from which many valuable excerpts are given. It is
particularly helpful to the student of the history of dogma during the
5th and 6th centuries, while the political history of the time is by no
means neglected. Evagrius made use of the writings of Eustathius, John
of Epiphania, John Malalas, Procopius, and (possibly) Menander
Protector.
The best edition of the History is that of L. Parmentier and J. Bidez
(London, 1898), which contains the Scholia; it is also included in
Migne's _Patrologia Graeca_, lxxxvi. There is an English translation
in Bohn's _Ecclesiastical Library_. See Krumbacher, _Geschichte der
byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897); F.C. Baur, _Die Epochen der
kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung_ (1852); L. Jeep,
_Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern_ (1884).
EVANDER (Gr. [Greek: Euandros], "good man"), in Roman legend, son of
Mercury and Carmenta, or of Echemus, king of Arcadia. According to the
story, Evander left the Arcadian town of Pallantion about sixty years
before the Trojan War and founded Pallanteum or Palatium on the hill
afterwards called the Palatine. This is only one of the many Greek
legends adopted by the Romans for the purpose of connecting places in
Italy with others of like-sounding name in Greece. To Evander was
attributed the introduction of Greek rites and customs into his new
country; of writing, music and other arts; of the worship of Pan (called
Faunus by the Italians) and the festival of Lupercalia. In Virgil he
receives Aeneas hospitably, and assists him against Turnus. Probably
Evander was identical with the god Faunus (the "favourer"), and the tale
of his Arcadian origin was due to the desire to establish connexion with
Greece; the name of his reputed mother (or wife) Carmenta is genuinely
Italian.
See Livy i. 6. 7; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 471, v. 99; Dion. Halic. i. 31-33;
Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 335.
EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, an association of individual Christians of
different denominations formed in London in August 1846, at a conference
of over 900 clergymen and laymen from all parts of the world, and
representing upwards of fifty sections of the Protestant church. The
idea originated in Scotland in the preceding year, and was intended "to
associate and concentrate the strength of an enlightened Protestantism
against the encroachments of popery and Puseyism, and to promote the
interests of a scriptural Christianity," as well as to combat religious
indifference. A preliminary meeting was held at Liverpool in October
1845. The movement obtained wide support in other countries, more
especially in America, and organizations in connexion with it now exist
in the different capitals throughout the world. The object of the
alliance, according to a resolution of the first conference, is "to
enable Christians to realize in themselves and to exhibit to others that
a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the
fellowship of the church." At the same conference the following nine
points were adopted as the basis of the alliance: "Evangelical views in
regard to the divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures; the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures; the unity of the Godhead and the Trinity of
persons therein; the utter depravity of human nature in consequence of
the fall; the incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for
sinners of mankind, and His mediatorial intercession and reign; the
justification of the sinner by faith alone; the work of the Holy Spirit
in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner; the immortality of
the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our
Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the
eternal punishment of the wicked; the divine institution of the
Christian ministry, and the obligations and perpetuity of the ordinances
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper," it being understood, however, (1)
that such a summary "is not to be regarded in any formal or
ecclesiastical sense as a creed or confession," and (2) that "the
selection of certain tenets, with the omission of others, is not to be
held as implying that the former constitute the whole body of important
truth, or that the latter are unimportant."
Annual conferences of branches of the alliance are held in England,
America and several continental countries; and it is provided that a
general conference, including representatives of the whole alliance, be
held every seventh year, or oftener if it be deemed necessary. Such
conferences have been held in London in 1851; Paris, 1855; Berlin, 1857;
Geneva, 1861; Amsterdam, 1867; New York, 1873; Basel, 1879; Copenhagen,
1885; Florence, 1891; London, 1896 and 1907. They are occupied with the
discussion of the "best methods of counteracting infidelity, Romanism
and ritualism, and the desecration of the Lord's Day," and of furthering
the positive objects of the alliance. The latter are sometimes stated as
follows: (a) "The world girdled by prayer"; a world-wide week of prayer
is held annually, beginning on the first Sunday in the year, (b) "The
maintenance of religious liberty throughout the world." (c) "The relief
of persecuted Christians in all parts"; the alliance has agents in many
countries to help the persecuted by distributing relief, &c., and in
Russia there is a travelling agent who endeavours to help the Stundists.
(d) "The manifestation of the unity of all believers and the upholding
of the evangelical faith."
The following publications may be mentioned:--_The Evangelical
Alliance Monthly Intelligencer_, _The Evangelical Alliance Quarterly_,
both published in London; A.J. Arnold, _History of the Evangelical
Alliance_ (London, 1897); and the reports of the proceedings of the
different conferences.
EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION of North America, a religious denomination,
founded about the beginning of the 19th century by Jacob Albright
(1759-1808), a German Lutheran of Pennsylvania. About 1790 he began an
itinerant mission among his fellow-countrymen, chiefly in Pennsylvania;
and meeting with considerable success, he was, at an assembly composed
of adherents from the different places he had visited, elected in 1800
presiding elder or chief pastor, and shortly afterwards rules of
government were adopted somewhat similar to those of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. The theological standards of the two bodies are also
in close agreement. In 1807 Albright was appointed bishop of the
community, which adopted its present name in 1818. In 1816 the first
annual conference was held, and in 1843 there was instituted a general
conference, composed of delegates chosen by the annual conferences and
constituting the highest legislative and judicial authority in the
church. The members of the general conference hold office for four
years. In 1891 a long internal controversy resulted in a division. A
law-suit awarded the property to the branch making its headquarters at
Indianapolis, whereon the other party, numbering 40,000, that met at
Philadelphia, constituted themselves the United Evangelical Church. The
Association in 1906 had about 105,000 members, besides some 10,000 in
Germany and Switzerland, and has nearly 2000 churches and 1200 itinerant
and other preachers. There are four bishops. It distributes much
evangelical literature, and supports a mission in Japan.