Eutropius was a historian who accompanied Byzantine Emperor Julian in an expedition against the Persians. His Breviarium Historiae Romanae has been used, in the original Latin, as a textbook since the Middle Ages. The literary elements used by Eutropius contribute to his themes and lessons by deftly combining popular phrases among historians and consensus on certain figures to further his claims. He uses the circumstances around the passing of Roman kings to characterize their reigns, specifically in the sense that good leadership does not come only from military prowess.
Numa Pompilius is widely regarded as one of the most beneficial Roman kings, especially in the opinion of Eutropius. He writes of Pompilius, “posteā Numa Pompilius rēx creātus est, quī bellum nūllum quidem gessit, sed nōn minus cīvitātī quam Rōmulus prōfuit; nam et lēgēs Rōmānīs mōrēsque cōnstituit”—“Afterwards, Numa Pompilius was appointed as king, who indeed waged no war, but who was not less beneficial to the state than Romulus; for he established laws and customs for the Romans”. Characterizing Numa Pompilius, possibly the only politician in the millennia-long lifespan of Rome who did not fight a war, as “no less beneficial to the state than Romulus”, speaks to the high regard in which Eutropius holds Pompilius. Additionally, he praises the king not because of his military tactics or victories, but because of the customs he established that steered Roman culture away from the perception of barbarism. In his use of the word sēmibarbarī, a word which both means ‘cruel/savage’ but also ‘foreign’, Eutropius makes clear that Pompilius played a defining role in codifying Roman culture by steering early Roman civilization away from this “foreignness”.
The man directly succeeding Numa Pompilius was Tullus Hostilius, an aggressive king whose warmongering ended with a demise from on high. Eutropius states that, “Albānōs vīcit […] Vēientēs et Fīdēnātēs bellō superāvit […] urbem ampliāvit”; Hostilius conquered the Albans, the Veientes, and the Fidenates, making him the first king since Romulus to engage in war. Of Hostilius’ death, he writes that, “cum trīgintā duōs annōs regnāsset, fulmine ictus, cum domō suā ārsit”—“When he had reigned for thirty two years, having been struck by lightning, he burned along with his home”. By making it clear that Hostilius’ death was no peaceful endeavor, perhaps having been killed by Jupiter himself by his lightning, Eutropius warns against ruling exclusively with the mindset of a conqueror.
By the time Eutropius wrote his Breviarium, Julius Caesar had already came, saw, and conquered. In fact, Eutropius offers heavy criticism against Caesar on the subject of his civil war, further showcasing his rather anti-war sentiment. In conjunction with the already violent nature of his death, he makes Hostilius the subject of “ārsit”, as opposed to his house, to emphasize the brutal nature of the death.
If further proof of Eutropius’ anti-war stance was needed, Pompilius’ grandson Ancus Marcius fills that role excellently. According to the Breviarium, both Pompilius and Marcius die of illness, a rarity for the Roman monarchy. However, the wording of both deaths is different. For Pompilius, Eutropius states that “morbō dēcessit”—“because of illness, he passed away”—while for Marcius he states that “morbō periit”—“he died […] because of illness”. The difference in the words “dēcēdō” and “pereō” are lost in translation, but there is a difference in the Latin. Dēcēdō is closer to a peaceful death, sometimes defined as withdrawing or retiring. On the other hand, pereō is defined in a more negative context: ruin, destruction, or waste. While Marcius expanded the city of Rome and founded Ostia, a major port city that played a part in establishing Rome as a major Mediterranean power, his rule was still pockmarked by battles against the Latin Tribes. Eutropius here uses the subtle difference in the ancient Latin to show how war can be detrimental to a ruler’s legacy.
To conclude, Eutropius uses the language surrounding the deaths of Roman kings to illustrate how beneficial he believes them to be to the state of Rome. He specifically uses the intricacies of the Latin language to make clear his distaste of the attitude that good rule comes from military success, as emphasized in his singing praises of Numa Pompilius and choice of words for the death of Pompilius’ grandson.
Educated Insolence 