Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/760

Rh 724 U T E V A style in some instances differs from that of the purest models, the work was for a long time a favourite elementary Bchool-book. As a history its independent value is not great, and occasional mistakes have been discovered in it, both in regard to matters of fact and in chronology ; but it is sometimes serviceable in supplying the lacunae occurring in history from the total loss of some of the classics, and the imperfect state in which others have come down to us. There have been many editions of Eutropius. That by Havercamp was reputed the best till the appearance of the more complete and critical ones by Tzschucke,Leipsic, 1798, and Grosse, Halle, 1813. Several other editions have been published since that of Grosse, the best being that of Guil. Hartel, Berlin, 1872. Of the two Greek translations of Eutropius, that by Capito Lycius has long since perished ; the more recent version of Pyeanius, which is rather a peri phrasis than a translation, will be found incorporated with the best editions of the Latin text. EUTYCHES, the founder of the sect of the Eutychians, was a presbyter and archimandrite at Constantinople, and first came into notice in 431 A.D. at the council of Ephesus, where, as a zealous adherent of Cyril and the Alexandrine school, he vehemently opposed the doctrine of the Nes- torians. 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 ex press his meaning with proper guardedness, 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 bis being accused of heresy by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylseum, at a council presided over by Flavian at Con stantinople in 448. As his explanations were not con sidered satisfactory, thecouncil deposed him from his priestly office and excommunicated him; but in 449, at a council convened by Dioscorus of Alexandria and overawed by the presence of a large number of Egyptian monks, not only was Eutyches reinstated in his office, but Eusebius and Flavian, his chief opponents, were deposed, and the Alexandrine doctrine of the &quot; one nature &quot; received the sanction of the church. Two years afterwards, however, by a council which met at Chalcedon, the synod of Ephesus was declared to have been a &quot; robber synod, &quot; its proceed ings were annulled, and, in opposition to the doctrines of Eutyches, it was declared that the two natures were united in Christ, but without any alteration, absorption, or confu sion. Eutyches died in exile, but of his later life nothing is known. After his death his doctrines obtained the sup port of the empress Eudocia, and made considerable pro gress in Syria. In the Gth century they received a new impulse from a monk of the name of Jacob, who united the various divisions into which the Eutychians, or Monophy- sites, 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. EUYUK, or UYUK, a Turkish village of Asia Minor, is situated about 75 miles W.S.W. of Amasia, and 28 miles south of the Kizil Irmak river, on a small hill which is a spur from higher hills to the north of it. It consists of only about twenty houses, but contains perhaps the most important ruins in Asia Minor. They are the remains of a large building, and consist of colossal blocks of granite con taining a great variety of sculptures very little defaced. The upper portion of the walls seems to have been formed of clay, as there are no remains of overturned materials. In form the building resembles an Assyrian palace, and has been conjectured by some to have been erected by the builders of the palaces of Nineveh, adopting in this instance, as they are known to have done in others, Egyptian figures and emblems. But not merely from the sphinxes, but from the character of the human figures, Van Lennep considers that it was more probably a temple erected by Egyptians, who adopted an Assyrian form of building; and he conjec tures that it dates back to the earliest Egyptian conquests in Asia Minor. See Hamilton s Asia Minor, 1842 ; Earth s Rtisc von Trapcziwi nach Skutari, 1860 ; and Van Lennep, Asia Minor, 1870. EVAGORAS, king of Salamis, is said to have been descended from a family who claimed Teucer, brother of Ajax, as their progenitor, and who for a long period had been rulers of Salamis until expelled by a Phoenician exile. Evagoras, notwithstanding the expulsion of his ancestors, seems to have been born at Salamis, and lived there till the throne was again usurped by a Cyprian noble, when, either from a prudent resolve to avoid the possi bility of danger, or on account of information which he re ceived of the usurper s designs against his life, he fled to Cilicia. Thence he returned secretly to Salamis in 410 B.C.; and, having with the aid of a small band of adherents over powered the guards of the palace and put the tyrant to death, he mounted the throne. According to Isocrates, Evagoras was a just and wise ruler, whose aim was to pro mote alike the general wellbeing of his state and the welfare of his individual subjects, and this not merely by an increase of wealth and of the luxuries which it can provide, but by the cultivation of the Grecian arts of refinement and civilization, which had been almost obliterated in Salamis by a long period of barbarian rule. He endeavoured in every way to promote friendly relations with the Athenians, and after the defeat of the Athenian general Couon at ^Egospotami, he gave him refuge and a cordial reception. He also endeavoured, at least for a time, to secure the friendship of Persia, and concluded a treaty with Artaxerxes II., whose aid he secured for the Athenians against Lacedaemon. Conjointly with the Persians and Athenians, he assisted in gaining the battle of Cnidus, 394 B.C., and for this service his statue was placed by the Athenians side by side with that of their general Conon in the Ceramicus. Not long after this his friendly relations with Persia seem to have been annulled, very probably because the Persian monarch was jealous of his enterprising and independent spirit, and of his increasing influence. Direct war between him and Persia did not, however, occur until after the peace negotiated by Antalcidas, 387; but he took advantage of the Persians being otherwise engaged to extend his rule over the greater part of Cyprus, and to stir up revolt among the Cilicians. As soon as the Persians were free to devote their whole attention to him, these acts were speedily revenged. He was totally defeated by a largely superior Persian force, and compelled to flee to Salamis, which the Persians closely invested, and in all probability would soon have succeeded in capturing, had not dissensions broken out between the two generals, of which Evagoras took advantage to conclude a peace with one of them. By the terms of this peace, Evagoras was allowed to remain nominal king of Salamis, but apparently under the authority of Persia, and at all events with his independence, if not altogether overthrown, at least very much crippled. About ten years after this,