a Roman historian who has been styled Flavius Eutropius by Sigonius and some of the earlier scholars without the slightest authority from MSS. or any ancient source for such an addition. Considerable doubts are entertained with regard to the native country of this writer. The only positive witness is Suidas, who terms him a learned Italian (Ἰταλὸς σοφιστής); but these words have been interpreted to signify merely that he wrote in Latin. The arguments of certain French writers, who have sought to prove from Symmachus that he was the countryman of Ausonius, and those of Vinetus, who endeavors from various considerations to demonstrate that he must have been a Greek, are singularly feeble and frivolous. We know from his own statements, taken in combination with various passages in the Byzantines, that he held the office of a secretary (EpistolarisἘπιστολογράφος) under Constantine the Great, that he was patronised by Julian the Apostate, whom he accompanied in the Persian expedition, and that he was alive in the reign of Valentinian and Valens, to the latter of whom his book is dedicated. To these particulars our certain information is limited. That he is the same individual with the Eutropius who, as we learn from Ammianus Marcellinus, was proconsul of Asia about A. D. 371, and who is spoken of by Libanius and Gregory Nazianzen, or with the Eutropius who, as we gather from the Codex Theodosianus, was praefectus praetorio in A. D. 380 and 381, are pure conjectures resting upon no base save the identity of name and embarrassed by chronological difficulties. In no case must he be confounded with the ambitious eunuch, great chamberlain to the emperor Arcadius, so well known from the invective of Claudian; and still less could he have been the disciple of Augustin, as not a few persons have fancied, since, if not actually dead, he must have reached the extreme verge of old age at the epoch when the bishop of Hippo was rising into fame. The only other point connected with the personal career of this author which admits of discussion, is his religion. It has been confidently asserted that it can be proved from his own words that he was a Christian. But how any one could, by any possible stretch of ingenuity, twist such a conclusion out of the passage in question (10.116, sub fin.), even if we retain the reading "Nimius religionis Christianae insectator," it is very hard for an unprejudiced reader to imagine; and it is equally difficult to perceive upon what grounds we can reject or evade the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras, who insists that the praises bestowed by Eutropius upon Constantine are peculiarly valuable, because they proceed from one who cherished hostile feelings towards that prince in consequence of differing from him in religion (διά τε τὸ τῆς θρησκείας ἀκοινώνητον) and of being the contemporary and partizan (ἡλικιώτην καὶ αἱρεσιώτην) of Julian; moreover, as if to leave no room for doubt, he declares that the observations of Eutropius, inasmuch as he was a gentile professing a different faith from Constantine (Ἕλλην δ̓ ὤν καὶ ἀλλοφύλου θρηοκείας τρόφιμος), are tainted with heathen bitterness (ἀπόζουσιν Ἑλληνικῆς πικρίας), and then goes on to adduce some examples of unfair representations.