Scanned text contains errors.
a . T a
& A Commentary to Aristotle's Ethica Nicomackea, published in the Greek language with some other commentators on the same work, Venice, 1536, fol., and in the Latin language by J. Bernardus Felici-anus, Ven. 1541, 1589, fol., Paris. 4 543, Helmst. 1662, 4to. But, according to the latest researches, this commentary consists of very different materials, and great parts of it are the work of other interpreters, as Aspasius and Michael Ephesius. This has been proved chiefly by the researches of Schleiermacher, in his writings on the Greek * Scholia to the Ethics of Aristotle (printed in the Abhandlungen der Berliner A kademie der Wissensck. of the year 1816—1817, p. 263, &c.). Schleiermacher has shewn that the author of the commentary to the first book of the Ethics cannot possibly be the same person as the author of the commentary to the sixth book, because very different interpretation^ of the 'E|eyTep//coi A6yoi of Aristotle are given in the two passages cited. (See Stahr, Aristbtelid^ ii. pp.261, 262; Schleiermacher, p. 267.) Probably Eustratius is only the author of .the commentary to the sixth book, which is much better than the rest, and from which the commentaries to the second, third, and fourth book greatly differ. But perhaps the commentary to the first is also to be ascribed to Eustratius, and the difference on the signification of the 'E&wrepi/cof Myoi may have been occasioned by Eustratius himself borrowing one opinion or the other from more ancient interpreters.
The commentaries of Eustratius greatly differ from similar works of elder commentators by their riot being uninterrupted treatises on philosophical subjects, but commentaries in the proper sense of the word, explaining single words and things. It is this which renders them of great importance. In the middle ages Robert of Lincoln translated this commentary into Latin, and Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas made considerable use of it in their interpretation of Aristotle. (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. iii. pp. 215, 264 ; Buhle's Ari»- totle, vol. i. p. 299.) [A. S.] EttTE'LIDAS, statuary. [chrysothemis.] EUTE'LIDAS ( Et/reAftas), a Lacedaemonian who gained a prize at Olympia in wrestling and in the pentathlon of boys, in b. c. 628 (01. 38), which was the first Olympiad in which the pentathlon, and the second in which wrestling was performed by boys. (Paus. v. 9. § 1, vi< 15, § 4,&c.) [L.S.] EUTERPE. [-musab.] EUTHA'LIUS (Euflckuos), bishop of Sulce, lived, according to some, at the time of the great . Athanasius; and Cave, in the London edition of his Hist. Lit.) places him in a. d. 398, whereas, in the Basle edition (i. p. 466), he places him about A. DJ 458. The latter supposition agrees with a statement of Euthalius himself, in his Introduction to the Life of St. Paul. When Euthalius was yet . a .young man, he divided the Epistles of St. Paul into chapters and verses; and aftei; his elevation to the bishopric, he did the same with the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles. The Epis tles of St. Paul, however, had been divided in that manner before him, about A. d. 396 ; but Euthalius added the argumenta of the chapters, indexes, and the passages of Scripture to which allusions are made in the Epistles. This work he afterwards sent to Athanasius the younger, who was bishop .of Alexandria, in a. d. 490. A portion of it was first published by cardinal Ximehes, in .1514,
Erasmus, in his several editions of the New Testa ment, incorporated the Argumenta to the Epistles of St. Paul and the Acts. The Prologue on the Life of St. Paul, with a prefatory Epistle, was first edited by J. H. Boeclerus at the end of his edition of the New Testament, Argentorat. 1645 and 1660^ 12mo., from which it was afterwards often re printed. All the works of Euthalius were edited by L. Zaccagni, in his Collectanea monum. vet, Eccles. Graecae, Rome, 1698, 4to. Whether Eu* thalius also wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke and on the Acts, is uncertain, at least there is no distinct mention of them, and no MSS. are known to exist* (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. ix. p; 287, &c.; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 252.) [L. S.] EU'THIAS (EvOlas), an Athenian orator of the time of Demosthenes. He brought an accusation against Phryne, and as he failed in his attempt to bring about her condemnation, he abstained ever after from speaking in the courts of justice. (Athen, xiii. p. 590 ; Alciphr. Epist. i. 10, &c.; Suidas. s. v+ Euflfos ; Schol. ad Hermog. p. 45.) [L. S.]
EUTHYCLES (Et?0v/cXrfr). 1. An Athenian comic poet of the old comedy, whose plays "Atfwroi $ 'ettio-toa^ and 'Arahdvri) are mentioned by Suidas (s. v. EyflwcArJs and fiovs e§8o/xos), and the former is quoted by Athenaeus (iii. p. 124, c.). Nothing more is known of him. (Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. vol. i. pp. 270, 271, vol. ii. p. 890 ; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. ii. p. 448.)
2. Of Rhegium, a Pythagorean philosopher, (lamblich. Vit. Pytli. cc. 27, 36.) [P. S.] ' EUTHY'CRATES ( Ei50u/cp<£n?s), a Greek statuary, whom Pliny places at 01. 120, b. C. 300. (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.) He was the most distinguished son and pupil of Lysippus, whom he imitated more in his diligence than in his gracefulness, preferring severe truth to elegance of expression. (Plin. I. c. § 7.) This feature of his style was seen in a most excellent statue of Hercules, at Delphi, and in his statues of Alexander, the hunter Thestis^ and the Thestiadae: the rest of the passage, in which Pliny enumerates his works, is hopelessly corrupt. (See Sillig, Catal. Artif. s. v.) According to Tatian, Euthycrates made statues of courtezans. (Orat» in Graec. 52- p. 114, ed. Worth.) [P. S.]
EUTHYDFMUS(Ei)0i557?]uos),an Athenian commander in the Peloponnesian war, was, at the close of its eighteenth year, b. c. 414, raised from a particular to a general command in the army besieging Syracuse. The object was to meet the urgent entreaty of Nicias for immediate relief from the burden of the sole superintendence, without mak-.ing him wait for the arrival of .the second armament. This position he appears to have occupied to the end, though probably subordinate as well to Demosthenes and Eurymedon as to Nicias. Whether he as well as his colleague Menander took part in the night attack on Epipolae appears doubtful. He is expressly named by Thucydides only once again, as united, in the last desperate engagement in the harbour, with Demosthenes and Menander in command of the ships. Diodorus names him in the previous sea-fight, as opposed oh the left wing to the Syracusan Sicanus. Plutarch, who mentions his appointment with Menander, ascribes the occurrence of the second sea-fight, in which the Athenians received their first defeat, to the eagerness of the two new commanders to display .their abilities. But this looks very like a late conjecture, such as Ephorus was fond of making