ページの画像
PDF
ePub

H

to

[ocr errors]

of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I

ships captured, and himself slain. Diodorus, writ- | VI." i. 29. vol. xvii. pt. i. p. 886, where for iola (1 ing perhaps from Ephorus, relates, that Agatharchus we should read Kvidiais), and also that some person was the Syracusan general opposed to him, and attributed to him several works included in the represents the defeat as having begun with Eury- Hippocratic Collection (Comment. in Hippocr. “De medon's division, and thence extended to the cen- Humor." i. prooem. vol. xvi. p. 3), viz. those enti (S tre. (Thuc. vii. 16, 31, 33, 42, 43, 49, 52; Diod. tled Пept Aiairns 'Tyieivñs, de Salubri Victus Ra xiii. 8, 11, 13; Plut. Nicias, 20, 24.) [A.H.C.] tione (Comment. in Hippocr. "De Rat. Vict. i EURY'MEDON (Evpvμédwv.) 1. Of Myr- Morb. Acut." i. 17. vol. xv. p. 455), and Пe fo rhinus, a friend of Plato, who, in his will, appointed Aialrns, de Victus Ratione. (De Aliment. Facul him one of his executors. (Diog. Laërt. iii. 42, 43.) | i. 1. vol. vi. p. 473.) He may perhaps be the au2. Of Tarentum, a Pythagorean philosopher men- thor of the second book Περί Νούσων, De Morbis tioned by Iamblichus. (Vit. Pyth. 36.) which forms part of the Hippocratic Collection, but which is generally allowed to be spurious, as: passage in this work (vol. ii. p. 284) is quoted by Galen (Comment. in Hippocr." De Morb. Vulgar. VI." i. 29. vol. xvii. pt. i. p. 888), and attributed to Euryphon (see Littré's Hippocr. vol. i. PP. 47, 363); and in the same manner M. Ermerins (Hip pocr. de Rat. Vict. in Morb. Acut. pp. 368, 369) conjectures that he is the author of the work Пe Tuvaikeins Þúσios, de Natura Muliebri, as Soranns appears to allude to a passage in that treatise (vol ii. p. 533) while quoting the opinions of Euryphon (De Arte Obstetr. p. 124.) From a passage in Caelius Aurelianus (de Morb. Chron. ii. 10. p. 390) it appears, that Euryphon was aware of the differ ence between the arteries and the veins, and als considered that the former vessels contained blood. Of his works nothing is now extant except a fer fragments, unless he be the author of the treatise in the Hippocratic Collection that have been attr buted to him. [W.A.G.]

3. A person who was suborned by Demophilus to bring an accusation of impiety against Aristotle for speaking irreverently of Hermes in a poem, which is preserved in Athenaeus. (xv. p. 696.) [L. S.] EURY'NOME (Evpvvóμn). 1. A daughter of Oceanus. When Hephaestus was expelled by Hera from Olympus, Eurynome and Thetis received him in the bosom of the sea. (Hom. Il. xviii, 395, &c.; Apollod. i. 2. § 2.) Previous to the time of Cronos and Rhea, Eurynome and Ophion had ruled in Olympus over the Titans, but after being conquered by Cronos, she had sunk down into Tartarus or Oceanus. (Apollon. Rhod. i. 503, &c.; Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 1191.) By Zeus she became the mother of the Charites, or of Asopus. (Hes. Theog. 908; Apollod. iii. 12. § 6.)

2. A surname of Artemis at Phigalea in Arcadia. Her sanctuary which was surrounded by cypresses, was opened only once in every year, and sacrifices were then offered to her. She was represented half woman and half fish. (Paus. viii. 41. § 4.) There are four more mythical personages of this name. (Hom. Od. xviii. 168; Apollod. iii. 9. § 2.) [ADRASTUS, AGENOR.] [L. S.]

EURY'NOMUS (Evpúvoμos), a daemon of the lower world, concerning whom there was a tradition at Delphi, according to which, he devoured the flesh of dead human bodies, and left nothing but the bones. Polygnotus represented him in the Lesche at Delphi, of a dark-blue complexion, shewing his teeth, and sitting on the skin of a vulture. (Paus. x. 28. § 4.) There are two other mythical personages of this name, one mentioned by Ovid (Met. xii. 311) and the other in the Odyssey (ii. 22). [L. S.]

EURYPHA'MUS or EURYPHE'MUS (Epúpauos), a Pythagorean philosopher of Metapontum. (Iamblich. de Vit. Pyth. 30, 36.) Lysis was his fellow-pupil and his faithful friend. Euryphamus was the author of a work Пepl Blov, which is lost, but a considerable fragment of it is preserved in Stobaeus. (Serm. tit. 103. 27.) [L. S.]

EU'RYPHON (Eupupwv), a celebrated physician of Cnidos in Caria, who was probably born in the former half of the fifth century B. C., as Soranus (Vita Hippocr. in Hippocr. Opera, vol. iii. p. 851) says that he was a contemporary of Hippocrates, but older. The same writer says that he and Hippocrates were summoned to the court of Perdiccas, the son of Alexander, king of Macedonia; but this story is considered very doubtful, if not altogether apo cryphal. [HIPPOCRATES.] He is mentioned in a corrupt fragment of the comic poet Plato, preserved by Galen (Comment. in Hippocr. "Aphor." vii. 44. vol. xviii. pt. i. p. 149), in which, instead of ǎπvos, Meineke reads aπuyos. He is several times quoted by Galen, who says that he was considered to be the author of the ancient medical work entitled Kvidia Tropo (Comment. in Hippocr. “De Morb. Vulgar.

EURYPON, otherwise called EURY'TION (EuρUTŵv, Evpuriwv), grandson of Procles, was the third king of that house at Sparta, and thencefor ward gave it the name of Eurypontidae. Plutarch talks of his having relaxed the kingly power, and played the demagogue; and Polyaenus relates 1 war with the Arcadians of Mantineia under his command. (Paus. iii. 7. § 1; Plut. Lyc. 2; Poly aen. ii. 13.) [A. H. C.]

EURY PTOLEMUS (Evρuπтóλeμos). 1. One of the family of the Alcmaeonidae, the son of Megacles and father of Isodice, the wife of Cimon (Plut. Cimon, 4.)

2. Son of Peisianax, and cousin of Alcibiades. We find him coming forwards on the occasion of the trial of the victorious generals after the battle of Arginusae to oppose the illegal proceedings instituted against them. His speech on the occasion is quoted by Xenophon. He asked that a day should be granted for the separate trial of each prisoner (Xen. Hell. i. 7. § 16, &c.)

3. Another Euryptolemus, of whom nothing else is known, is mentioned by Xenophon as having been sent as ambassador to the Persian court. He could not have been the same with the cousin of Alcibiades, as he had not returned from his mission when the latter was at Athens ready to welcome his cousin on his return from banishment. (Hell. i. 3. § 13; 4. § 7, 19.) [C. P. M.] EURY'PYLUS (Evρúπuλos.) 1. A son of Euaemon and Ops. (Hygin. Fab. 81.) pears in the different traditions about him, as a hero of Ormenion, or Hyria, or as a king of Cyrene. In the Iliad he is represented as having led the men of Ormenion and other places to Troy with forty ships, and he is one of those who offer to fight with Hector. (ii. 734, vii. 167.) He slew many a Trojan, and when he himself was wounded by Paris, he was nursed and cured by Patroclus

He ap

[ocr errors]

(xi. 841, xv. 390; comp. Apollod. iii. 10. § 8; | story, after their father's return to Peloponnesus Hygin. Fab. 97; Ov. Met. xiii. 357.) According and occupation of his allotment of Laconia. He to a genealogy of the heroes of Ormenion he was died immediately after the birth of his children a son of Hyperochus, and the father of Ormenus. and had not even time to decide which of the (Schol. ad. Pind. Ol. vii. 42.) Among the heroes two should succeed him. The mother professed of Hyria, he is mentioned as a son of Poseidon to be unable to name the elder, and the Lacedaeand Celaeno, and went to Libya before Cyrene who monians in embarrassment applied to Delphi, fought against the lion that attacked his flocks, and were instructed to make them both kings, and in Libya he became connected with the Ar- but give the greater honour to the elder. The gonauts. (Schol. ad Apollon. Rhod. iv. 1561; difficulty thus remaining was at last removed at Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 902.) He is said to have been the suggestion of Panites, a Messenian, by watchI married to Sterope, the daughter of Helios, by ing which of the children was first washed and fed whom he became the father of Lycaon and Leu- by the mother; and the first rank was accordingly Cippus. (Schol. ad Pind. Pyth. iv. 57; Tzetz. ad given to Eurysthenes and retained by his descendLycoph. 886.) The tradition which connects him ants. (Herod. vi. 51, 52.) The mother's name with the legends about Dionysus, is given under was Argeia, and her brother Theras was, during AESYMNETES, and Eurypylus as connected with their minority, their joint-guardian and regent. Dionysus, dedicated a sanctuary to Soteria at Pa- (Herod. iv. 147.) They were married to two sistrae (Paus. vii. 21. § 2), which also contained a ters, twins like themselves, the daughters of Thermonuiment of him, and where sacrifices were offered sander, the Heracleid king of Cleonae, by name to him every year after the festival of Dionysus. Lathria and Anaxandra, whose tombs were to be (vii. 19. §§ 1, 3, ix. 41. § 1.) From Pausanias seen at Sparta in the time of Pausanias (iii. 16. we learn that Eurypylus was called by some a son § 5). The two brothers are said to have united of Dexamenus. (Comp. Müller, Orchom. p. 341, with the son of Temenus to restore Aepytus, the &c., 2nd edit.) son of Cresphontes, to Messenia. Otherwise, they were, according to both Pausanias and Herodotus, in continual strife, which perhaps may give a meaning to the strange story related in Polyaenus (i. 10), that Procles and Temenus attacked the Eurystheidae then in occupation of Sparta, and were successful through the good order preserved by the flute, the benefit of which on this occasion was the origin of the well-known Spartan practice. Ephorus in Strabo (viii. p. 366) states, that they maintained themselves by taking foreigners into their service, and these Clinton understands by the name Eurystheidae; but Müller considers it to be one of the transfers made by Ephorus in ancient times of the customs of his own. Cicero (de Div. ii. 43) tells us, that Procles died one year before his brother, and was much the more famous for his achievements. (Compare Clinton, F. H. vol. i. p. 333; Müller, Dor. i. 5. §§ 13, 14.) [A. H. C.]

2. A son of Poseidon and Astypalaea, was king of Cos, and was killed by Heracles who on his return from Troy landed in Cos, and being taken for a pirate, was attacked by its inhabitants. (Apollod. ii. 7. §§ 1, 8.) According to another tradition Heracles attacked the island of Cos, in order to obtain possession of Chalciope, the daughter of Eurypylus, whom he loved. (Schol. ad Pind. Nem. iv. 40; comp. Hom. Il. ii. 676, xiv. 250 &c., xv. 25.)

3. A son of Telephus and Astyoche, was king of Moesia or Cilicia. Eurypylus was induced by the presents which Priam sent to his mother or wife, to assist the Trojans against the Greeks. Eurypylus killed Machaon, but was himself slain by Neoptolemus. (Hygin. Fab. 112; Strab. xiii. p. 584; Paus. iii. 26. 7; Dict. Cret. iv. 14; Eustath. ad Hom. p. 1697.) There are three other mythical personages of this name. (Apollod. ii. 7. § 8, i. 7. § 10, 8. § 3.) [L. S.]

EURY'PYLUS (Eupúruλos), is referred to as an author by Athenaeus (xi. p. 508), but is otherwise unknown. [L. S.] EURYSACES (Evpvσáêns), a son of the Telamonian Ajax and Tecmessa, was named after the broad shield of his father. (Soph. Aj. 575; Eustath. ad Hom. p. 857; Serv. ad Aen. i. 623; Philostr. Heroic. 11. 2.) An Athenian tradition related, that Eurysaces and his brother Philaeus had given up to the Athenians the island of Salamis, which they had inherited from their grandfather, and that the two brothers received in return the Attic franchise. One of the brothers then settled at Brauron, and the other at Melite. Eurysaces was honoured like his father, at Athens, with an altar. (Plut. Sol. 10; Paus. i. 35. § 2.) [L.S.] EURYSTERNOS (EupúσTepvos), that is, the goddess with a broad chest, is a surname of Ge (Hes. Theog. 117), under which she had a sanctuary on the Crathis near Aegae in Achaia, with a very ancient statue. (Paus. vii. 25. § 8, v. 14. § 8.) [L. S.] EURY'STHENES (Evpvolévns), and PROCLES (Прокλns), the twin sons of Aristodemus, were born, according to the common account before, but, according to the genuine Spartan

VOL. IL

EURYSTHEUS. [HERACLES.] EURY'TION (EvρUTíwv). 1. A son of Irus and Demonassa, and a grandson of Actor, is mentioned among the Argonauts. (Hygin. Fab. 14; Apollon. Rhod. i. 71.) According to others he was a son of Actor, and he is also called Eurytus. (Apollod. i. 8. § 2; Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 175.) When Peleus was expelled from his dominions, he fled to Eurytion and married his daughter Antigone; but in shooting at the Calydonian boar, Peleus inadvertently killed his father-in-law. (Apollod. iii. 13. § 1. &c.)

2. A centaur who took to flight during the fight of Heracles with the centaurs; but he was afterwards killed by Heracles in the dominions of Dexamenus, whose daughter Eurytion was on the point of making his wife. (Apollod. ii. 5. § 4, &c. ; comp. Diod. iv. 33; Hygin. Fab. 31.) Two other mythical personages of this name are mentioned by Apollodorus (ii. 5. § 10) and Virgil. (Aen. v. 495, &c.) [L. S.]

ÉURY'TION. [EURYPON.]

EU'RYTUS (Eupuros). 1. A son of Melaneus and Stratonice (Schol. ad Soph. Trach. 268), was king of Oechalia, probably the Thessalian town of this name. (Müller, Dor. ii. 11. § 1.) He was a skilful archer and married to Antioche, by whom he became the father of Lole, Iphitus,

I

Molion or Deion, Clytius, and Toxeus. (Diod. iv. 37.) He was proud of his skill in using the bow, and is even said to have instructed Heracles in his art. (Theocrit. xxiv. 105; Apollod. ii. 4. § 9; Soph. I. c.) He offered his daughter Iole as prize to him who should conquer him and his sons in shooting with the bow. Heracles won the prize, but Eurytus and his sons, with the exception of Iphitus, refused to give up Hole, because they feared lest he should kill the children he might have by her. (Apollod. ii. 6. § 1.) Heracles accordingly marched against Oechalia with an army: he took the place and killed Eurytus and his sons. (Apollod. ii. 7. § 7.) According to a tradition in Athenaeus (xi. p. 461) he put them to death because they had demanded a tribute from the Euboeans. According to the Homeric poems, on the other hand, Eurytus was killed by Apollo whom he presumed to rival in using the bow. (Od. viii. 226.) The remains of the body of Eurytus were believed to be preserved in the Carnasian grove; and in the Messenian Oechalia sacrifices were offered to him every year. (Paus. iv. 3. § 6, 27. § 4, 33. § 5.)

2. A son of Actor and Molione of Elis. (Hom. П. ii. 621; Apollod. ii. 7. § 2; Paus. ii. 15. § 1; Eurip. Iph. Aul. 270.) [MOLIONES.]

[ocr errors]

distinct opinion on the relation of the first two Persons in the Trinity. There is no doubt that in many of his works, especially in those which he wrote before this time, but also in others, several expressions may be found inconsistent with each other, some of which can only be understood in a semiarian sense. Thus in the Demonstratio Evangelica he speaks of the Son as appoiμevos τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ παντὰ, ὅμοιος κατ' οὐσίαν. In the Praeparatio Evang. iv. 3, he denies that the Son is like the Father drλŵs dios; for (he adds) Πατὴρ προϋπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέσεως αὐ тоÛ πρойÞÉσTηкe; only the Son is not created, and everything perishable must be separated from our conception of His nature. But with regard to all his earlier statements of doctrine, we must remember that till Arius's opinions, with their full bearings and consequences, were generally known, it was very possible for a person to use language apparently somewhat favourable to them, quite unintentionally, since the true faith on the subject of our Lord's divinity had not yet been couched in certain formulae, of which the use after the controversy was mooted, became as it were the test of a man's opinions; nor had general attention been called to the results of differences apparently trifling. Eusebius's views on the subject seem to 3. A son of Hermes and Antianeira, and bro- have been based on those of Origen, though inther of Echion, was one of the Argonauts. (Apol- deed he deprecated the discussion of the question lod. i. 9. § 16; Hygin. Fab. 14, 160; Val. Flacc. as above human comprehension, recommending i. 439.) He is sometimes also called Erytus. men to be satisfied with the scriptural declaration, (Pind. Pyth. iv. 179; Apollon. Rhod. i. 51; "So God loved the world, that he gave His only Orph. Arg. 133.) There are two more mythical begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him personages of this name. (Apollod. iii. 10, 5, i. should not perish, but have everlasting life;" 6. § 2.) [L. S.] "not," as he argues, "whosoever knows how He EU'RYTUS (Eupuros), an eminent Pythagorean is generated from the Father." But in the Eccle philosopher, whom Iamblichus in one passage (desiastica Theologia (after the rise of Arianism) he Vit. Pyth. 28) describes as a native of Croton, while in another (ibid. 36) he enumerates him among the Tarentine Pythagoreans. He was a disciple of Philolaus, and Diogenes Laërtius (iii. 6, viii. 46) mentions him among the teachers of Plato, though this statement is very doubtful. It is uncertain whether Eurytus was the author of any work, unless we suppose that the fragment in Stobaeus (Phys. Ecl. i. p. 210), which is there ascribed to one Eurytus, belongs to our Eurytus. (Ritter, Gesch. der Pythag. Philos. p. 64, &c.) [L.S.] EUSE BIUS (Evσéßios) of CAESAREIA, the father of ecclesiastical history, took the surname of Pamphili, to commemorate his devoted friendship for Pamphilus, bishop of Caesareia. He was born in Palestine about A. D. 264, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Gallienus. He spent his youth in incessant study, and probably held some offices in the church of Caesareia. In A. D. 303, Diocletian's edict was issued, and the persecution of the Christians began. Pamphilus was imprisoned in 307, and was most affectionately attended on by Eusebius for two years, at the end of which time he suffered martyrdom, and Euse bius fled to Tyre, where he was kindly received by the bishop Paulinus; but afterwards he removed to Egypt, and was imprisoned there in the course of the persecution. After his release he returned to Caesareia, and succeeded Agapius as bishop of that see about 315. He was summoned to the council of Nicaea in 327, and was there appointed to receive Constantine with a panegyrical oration, and to sit on his right hand. The course of events now made it necessary for him to form a

declares (i. 8, ix. 5) against those who reckon Christ among the Kтloμaтa, asserting God to be the Father of Christ, but the Creator of all other beings. Again: in the Ecclesiastical History (1. 4) he calls Him avrodeós, and in other places uses language which proves him to have fully believed in His divinity. He was, however, of course dis posed to regard Arius with mildness, and wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his defence; arguing that though Arius had called Christ riopa EOU TÉλELOV, he had added dλλ oux as Ev Tür KTIOμάTWV. Thus he took his seat at the council of Nicaea not indeed as a partizan of Arius, but as anxious to shield him from censure for opinions whose importance, either for good or evil, he considered exaggerated. He accordingly appeared there as head of the moderate section of the council, and drew up a creed which he hoped would satisfy both the extreme parties, of which the Arian was favoured by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea; while their opponents were led by Alexander, whose deacon Athanasius, afterwards so famous, accompanied him to the council, and rendered him great ser vice. This formula, which is to be found in Socrates (Hist. Eccl. i. 5), chiefly differs from the Nicene Creed in containing the expression πрwró тOKOS TάσNS Kтlσews (from Col. i. 15) instead of the declaration that Christ is of the same substance with the Father, expressed in the adjective oμooúσlov, and the phrase " Very God of Very God," is not found in it after "God of God, Light of Light." This creed was accepted by Arius; but Alexander insisted on the addition of duooúσios, to which Cou

[ocr errors]

1

stantine himself was favourable, and a majority of the council decreed its insertion. Eusebius at first hesitated to sign it, but afterwards did so; because, as he told the people of Caesareia in a pastoral letter explanatory of the proceedings at the council (Socrat. i. 5), the emperor had assured him that by the phrase need only be understood an assertion that the Son of God is wholly different from every created being; and that as His nature is entirely spiritual, He was not born from the Father by any division, or separation, or other corporeal process. Eusebius, however, always retained his mild feelings on this subject; for he wished to reinstate Arius in his church, in opposition to Athanasius, and he was intimate with his namesake, the bishop of Nicomedeia, a decided Arian. Eusebius had a very strong feeling against pictures of our Lord, and other novelties, which were then creeping into the Church. When Constantia, the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine, requested him to send her such a picture, he refused, and pronounced all such representations worthy only of heathenism. (Vit. Const. 1. 3. p. 1069.) These pictures he destroyed when they came in his way, considering them inconsistent with 2 Cor. v. 10 (" Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more"); and he greatly objected (Hist. Eccl. vii. 18) to a practice prevalent at Caesareia of offering up figures of Christ as an act of thanksgiving for recovery from sickness. It cannot be denied that in some of his objections to pictures of our Lord, he appears to overlook the practical importance of His Incarnation to our Christian life. Eusebius remained in favour with the imperial family till his death. He was offered the see of Antioch on the death of Eustathius, but declined it, considering the practice of translations objectionable, and, indeed, contrary to one of the canons agreed upon at the recent council of Nicaea. For this moderation he was exceedingly praised by Constantine, who declared that he was universally considered worthy to be the bishop not of one city only, but almost of the whole world. (Socrat. H. E. i. 18.) He died about A. D. 340; so that his birth, his elevation to high office, and his death, nearly coincide in time with those of his imperial patron.

The character of Eusebius, and his honesty as a writer, have been made the subject of a fierce attack by Gibbon, who (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) accuses him of relating whatever might redound to the credit, and suppressing whatever would tend to cast reproach on Christianity, and represents 1 him as little better than a dishonest sycophant, anxious for nothing higher than the favour of Constantine; and resumes the subject in his “Vindication" of the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the history. For the charge of sycophancy there is but little foundation. The joy of the Christians at Constantine's patronage of the true religion was so great, that he was all but deified by them both before and after his death; and al1 though no doubt Niebuhr (Lectures on Roman History, Lect. lxxix. ed. Schmitz) has sufficiently shewn that Constantine, at least up to the time of his last illness, can only be considered as a pagan; vet, considering that his accession not only terminated the persecution which had raged for ten years, but even established Christianity as the datate religion, it is not surprising that Eusebius,

like others, should be willing to overlook his faults, and regard him as an especial favourite of Heaven. As to the charge of dishonesty, though we could neither expect nor wish a Christian to be impartial in Gibbon's sense, yet Eusebius has certainly avowed (H. E. viii. 2), that he omits almost all account of the wickedness and dissensions of the Christians, from thinking such stories less edifying than those which display the excellence of religion, by reflecting honour upon the martyrs. The fact that he avows this principle, at once diminishes our confidence in him as an historian and acquits him of the charge of intentional deceit, to which he would otherwise have been exposed. But besides this, Eusebius has written a chapter (Praep. Evang. xii. 31) bearing the monstrous title," How far it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine for the advantage of those who require such a method." Now at first sight this naturally raises in our minds a strong prejudice against a person who, being a Christian in profession, could suppose that the use of falsehood can ever be justified; and no doubt the thought was suggested by the pious frauds which are the shame of the early Church. But when we read the chapter itself, we find that the instances which Eusebius takes of the extent to which the principle may be carried are the cases in which God is described in the Old Testament as liable to human affections, as jealousy or anger, "which is done for the advantage of those who require such a method." From this explanation it would appear that Eusebius may have meant nothing more than the principle of accommodating the degree of enlightenment granted from time to time to the knowledge and moral state of mankind; and his only error consists in giving the odious name of falsehood to what is practically the most real truth. (See Arnold, Essay appended to Sermons, vol. ii.)

:

The principal works of Eusebius are as follows:1. The Chronicon (Xрoviкà πavtodaπîs iotopías), a work of great value to us in the study of ancient history. For some time it was only known in a fragmentary state, but was discovered entire in an Armenian MS. version at Constantinople, and published by Mai and Zohrab at Milan, in 1818. It is in two books. The first, entitled Xpovoypapía, contains a sketch of the history of several ancient nations, as the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, and Egyptians. It is chiefly taken from the πενταβίβλιον χρονολογικὸν of Africanus [AFRICANUS, SEX. JULIUS], and gives lists of kings and other magistrates, with short accounts of remarkable events from the creation to the time of Eusebius. The second book consists of synchronological tables, with similar catalogues of rulers and striking occurrences, from the time of Abraham to the celebration of Constantine's Vicennalia at Nicomedeia, A. D. 327, and at Rome, A. D. 328. Eusebius's object in writing it was to give an account of ancient history, previous to the time of Christ, in order to establish belief in the truth of the Old Testament History, and to point out the superior antiquity of the Mosaic to any other writings. For he says that whereas different accounts had been given of the age of Moses, it would be found from his work that he was contemporary with Cecrops, and therefore not only prior to Homer, Hesiod, and the Trojan war, but also to Hercules, Musaeus, Castor, Pollux, Hermes

Apollo, Zeus, and all other persons deified by the Greeks. In the course of the work Eusebius gives extracts from Berosus, Sanchoniathon, Polyhistor, Cephalion, and Manetho, which materially increase its value. Of this Chronicon an abridge ment was found by Mai in the Vatican library, at the end of a copy of Theodoret's Haereticae Fabulae, also in two parts, to the second of which is added by the abbreviator, a list of bishops of the five patriarchal sees, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, together with the boundaries of these patriarchates as they existed in the ninth century. This has been published by Mai, together with a commentary on St. Luke and twenty Quaestiones Evangelicae, also by Eusebius, in the Scriptorum Vaticanorum Nova Collectio, Rome, 1825. The Quaestiones are short disquisitions on certain points of the Gospel histories, e. g. why the evangelists give Joseph's genealogy rather than Mary's; in what sense our Lord is said to sit on David's throne, &c. The Chronicon was translated into Latin by Jerome, and published by J. J. Scaliger, Leyden, 1606, of which another enlarged edition appeared at Amsterdam, 1658. It was again published at Venice, in Armenian, Greek, and Latin, by J. Baptist Aucher, 1818. Mai and Zohrab's edition has been noticed above. The historical importance of their discovery is explained by Niebuhr, in his essay entitled Historischer Gewinn aus der Armenischen Uebersetzung der Chronik des Eusebius, published in his Kleine Schriften.

2. The Praeparatio Evangelica (evayyeλins άπоdεĺžεws пропараσкeúŋ) in fifteen books, inscribed to Theodotus, bishop of Laodiceia, is a collection of various facts and quotations from old writers, by which it was supposed that the mind would be prepared to receive the evidences of Christianity. This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient philosophy, as the Chronicon is with reference to history, since in it are preserved specimens from the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now extant. It was translated into Latin by George of Trebisond, and published at Treviso, 1480. This translation is said to be a very bad one, and the Greek work itself first appeared at Paris, 1544, edited by Robert Stephens, and again in 1628, also at Paris, with a Latin version, by F. Viger, who republished his edition at Cologne, 1688. The Praeparatio Evangelica is closely connected with another work written soon after it, viz.: 3. The Demonstratio Evangelica (evαyyeλur) amódeigis) in twenty books, of which ten are extant, is a collection of evidences, chiefly from the Old Testament, addressed principally to the Jews. This is the completion of the preceding work, giving the arguments which the Praeparatio was intended to make the mind ready to receive. The two together form a treatise on the evidences of considerable ability and immense learning. The Demonstratio was translated into Latin by Donatus of Verona, and published either at Rome or Venice in 1498 and at Cologne in 1542. The Greek text appeared with that of the Praeparatio, at Paris, in the editions both of R. Stephens and Viger.

4. The Ecclesiastical History (KKλnσιασTIKη ioropla), in ten books. The work was finished in the lifetime of Crispus, i. e. before 326, whom (x. 9) he commemorates as Oeopiléσтatov καὶ κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς ὅμοιον. The history terminates with the death of Licinius,

A. D. 324. When Constantine visited Caesarela, he offered to give Eusebius anything which would be beneficial to the Church there; Eusebius requested him to order an examination to be made of all documents connected with the history of martyrs, so as to get a list of the times, places, manner, and causes of their deaths, from the archives of the provinces. On this the history is founded; and of its general trustworthiness, with the limitation necessary from the principle of omission noticed above, there can be no doubt whatever. The first book consists of a discussion on our Lord's pre-existence, the prophecies respecting Him, the purpose of His revelation, and many facts relating to His life, together with the story of His correspondence with Abgarus or Agbarus, toparch of Edessa. [ABGARUS.] The second book begins the history of the Church after our Lord's Ascension, with an account of the death of Pilate, the history of Simon Magus, St. Peter's preaching at Rome, and the various labours of other apostles and disciples. The rest of the work gives an account of the principal ecclesiastical writers, heresies, and persecutions, including the beautiful stories of the martyrs at Lyons and Vienne, and the death of Polycarp. Many accounts of different scenes and periods in church history had been written before, as by Hegesippus, Papias, Irenaeus, and Clemens of Alexandria; but Eusebius was the first who reduced them all into one whole, availing himself largely of the labours of his predecessors, but giving a unity and completeness to them all. The History was turned into Latin by Rufinus, though with many omissions and interpolations, and published at Rome, 1474. The Greek text, together with that of the histories of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Evagrius, appeared at Paris, 1549, edited by R. Stephens, and again at Geneva, 1612, with little alteration from the preceding edition. In this edition the text of Eusebius was that which had been published by Valesius at Paris, in 1659, with many emendations, after a careful recension of the MSS. in the Bibliothèque du Roi; and again at Amsterdam, with the other historians, in 1695. The same histories, with the remaining fragments of Theodorus and the Arian Philostorgius, were published at Cambridge in three folio volumes, 1720. The Cambridge edition was furnished with notes by W. Reading, and republished at Turin, 1746-48. More recent editions are Heinichen, in three volumes, Leipzig, 1827, which contains the commentary of Valesius and very copious notes, and another at Oxford in 1838, by Dr. Burton, regius professor of divinity in that University.

The History has been translated into various languages: into English by Parker, 1703, by Cater, 1736, and by Dalrymple, 1778; into German, Eusebii Kirchengeschichte aus dem Griech. und mit Anmercungen erlaütert von F. A. Stroth, 1778; into Italian in the Biblioteca degli Autori volgarizzati, Venice, 1547; and into French by Cousin, Paris, 1675.

5. De Martyribus Palaestinae (TEρl TÔV Ev Παλαιστίνῃ μαρτυρησάντων), being an account of the persecutions of Diocletian and Maximin from A. D. 303 to 310. It is in one book, and generally found as an appendix to the eighth of the Ecclesiastical History.

6. Against Hierocles (πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Φιλοστράτου εἰς ̓Απολλώνιον τὸν Τυανέα διὰ τὴν Ἱεροκλεῖ

« 前へ次へ »