Scanned text contains errors.
Athenians in the Cerameictis, by the side of that of Conon. (Patis. i. 3. § 2; Isocr. Evag. p. 200, c.) We have very imperfect information concerning the relation in which Evagoras stood to the king of Persia in the early part of his reign ; but it seems probable that he was regarded from the first with suspicion: the tyrants whom he had succeeded are particularly spoken of as friendly to Persia (Diod. xiv* 98), and we learn from Ctesias (ap. Phot, p. 44, b.) that his quarrels with one of the other petty states of Cyprus had already called for the interference of the great king before the battle of Cnidus. The chronology of the succeeding events is also very obscure ; but the most consistent view of the matter appears to be that derived from Theopompus (ap. Phot. p. 120, a.), that Artaxerxes had previously determined to make war upon Evagoras, and had even commenced his preparations, but was unable to engage with vigour in the enterprise until after the peace of Antalcidas (b. c. 387). (See Clinton, F. H.vol. ii. p. 280 ; and cornp. Isocr. Panegyr. p. 70, a.; Xen. Hell. iv. 8. § 24, v. 1. § 10.) Meantime Evagoras had not only extended his dominion over the greater part of Cyprus, but had ravaged the coast of Phoenicia with his fleet, prevailed on the Cilicians to revolt from Persia, and even (if we may believe Isocrates and Diodorus) made himself master of Tyre itself. (Diod. xiv. 98, 110, xv. 2; Isocrat. JEvag. p. 201.) At length, however, a great fleet and array were assembled under the command of Tiribazus and Ororites, and Evagoras having ventured to oppose them with very inferior forces was totally defeated; all the rest of Cyprus fell into the hands of the satraps, and Evagoras himself was shut up within the walls of Salamis. But the Persian generals seem to have been unable to follow up their advantage, and notwithstanding this blow the war was allowed to linger for some years. The dissensions between his two adversaries at length proved the safety of Evagoras : Tiribazus was recalled in consequence of the intrigues of Orontes, and the latter hastened to conclude a peace with the Cyprian monarch, by which he was allowed to retain uncontrolled possession of Salamis, with the title of king. (Diod. xv. 2—4, 8, 9; Theopomp. ap. Phot* p. 120, a.; Isocr. Evag. p. 20], Parwgyr. p. 70.) This war, which is said to have lasted ten yeas in all, was brought to a close in B. c. 385. (Diod. xv. 9; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 278-281.) Evagoras survived it above ten years. He was assassinated in 374, together with his eldest son Pnytagoras, by an eunuch named Thrasydaeus; but the murder was caused by revenge for a private injury, and he seems to have been succeeded without opposition by his son Nicocles. (Theopomp. ap. Phot. p. 120, a, b.; Arist. Pol. v. 10; Diod. xv. 47, and Wesseling, ad toe.) Our knowledge of the character and administration of Evagoras is derived mainly from the oration of Isocrates in his praise, addressed to his son Nicocles; but this is written in a style of undistinguishing panegyric, which must lead us to receive its statements with great caution.
2. Apparently a son of the preceding, is mentioned by Diodorus as joined with Phocion in the command of an expedition destined to recover Cyprus for the king of Persia, from whom it had revolted. (b. c. 351.) They succeeded in reducing all the island with the exception of Salamis, which was held by Pnytagoras, probably a brother of
this Evagoras. The latter had obtained from the Persian king a promise of his father's government in case he could effect its conquest; but the siege being protracted, Evagoras by some means incurred the displeasure of Artaxerxes, who became reconciled to Pnytagoras, and left him in the possession of Salamis, while he appointed Evagoras to a government in the interior of Asia. Here, however, he again gave dissatisfaction, and was accused of maladministration, in consequence of which he fled to Cyprus, where he was seized and put to death. (Diod. xvi. 42, 46.) The annexed coin belongs to this Evagoras.
3. Of Lacedaemon, remarkable for having gained three victories in the chariot-race at the Olympic games with the same horses, in consequence of which he erected the statue of a quadriga at Olympia, and honoured his horses with a magnificent funeral. (Herod, vi. 103; Aelian, Hist* Anim. xii. 40; Paus. vi. 10. § 8.)
4. An Achaean of Aegium, accused by Critolaus of betraying the counsels of his countrymen to the Romans, b. c. 146. (Polyb. xxxviii. 5.) [E. H. B.]
EVAGRIUS (Etdyptos). 1. Of antioch, was a native of Antioch, .the son of a citizen of that place, named Pompeianus, and a presbyter apparently of the church of Antioch. He travelled into the west of Europe, and was acquainted with Jerome, who describes him as a man " acris ac ferventis ingenii." During the schism in the pa* triarchate of Antioch, he was chosen by one of the parties (a. D. 388 or 389) successor to their deceased patriarch Paulinus, in opposition to Flavianus, the patriarch of the other party. According to Theo-doret, the manner of his election and ordination was altogether contrary to ecclesiastical rule. The historians Socrates and Sozomen state that Evagrius survived his elevation only a short time; but this expression must not be too strictly interpreted, as it appears from Jerome that he was living in A. D. 392. He was perhaps the Evagrius who instructed Chrysostom in monastic discipline, though it is to be observed that Chrysostom was ordained a presbyter by Flavianus, the rival of Evagrius in the see of Antioch. Evagrius had no successor in his see, and ultimately Flavianus succeeded in healing the division.
Evagrius wrote treatises on various subjects (diversarum hypotheseon tractatus). Jerome says the author had read them to him, but had not yet published them. They are not extant. Evagrius also translated the life of St. Anthony by Atha-nasius from Greek into Latin. The very free version printed in the Benedictine edition of Athanasius (vol. i. pars ii. p. 785, &c.) and in the Acta Sanctorum (Januar. vol. ii. p. 107), prfr-fesses to be that of Evagrius, and is addressed to his son Innocentius, who is perhaps the Innocen-tius whose death, a. d. 369 or 370, is mentioned by Jerome. (Epist.^1 ad Rufinwn?) Tillemont receives it, and Bollandus (Ada Sanct. I. c.) and the Benedictine editors of Athanasius (I. c.). vindicate its genuineness; but Cave affirms that