Demetrius, and conquered a great part of western India. According to Apollodorus of Artemita, the historian of the Parthians, he ruled over 1000 towns (Strabo xv. 686; transferred to Diodotus of Bactria in Justin 41, 4. 6); and the extent of his kingdom over Bactria, Sogdiana (Bokhara), Drangiana (Sijistan), Kabul and the western Punjab is confirmed by numerous coins. On these coins, which bear Greek and Indian legends (in Kharoshti writing, cf. Bactria), he is called “the great King Eucratides.” On one his portrait and name are associated on the reverse with those of Heliocles and Laodice; Heliocles was probably his son, and the coin may have been struck to celebrate his marriage with Laodice, who seems to have been a Seleucid princess. In Bactria Eucratides founded a Greek city, Eucratideia (Strabo xi. 516, Ptolem. vi. 11. 8). On his return from India Eucratides was (about 150 B.C.) murdered by his son, whom he had made co-regent (Justin 41, 6). This son is probably the Heliocles just mentioned, who on his coins calls himself “the Just” (βασιλέως Ἡλιοκλέους δικαίου). In his time the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom lost the countries north of the Hindu Kush. Mongolian tribes, the Yue-chi of the Chinese, called by the Greeks Scythians, by the Indians Saka, among which the Tochari are the most conspicuous, invaded Sogdiana in 159 B.C. and conquered Bactria in 139. Meanwhile the Parthian kings Mithradates I. and Phraates II. conquered the provinces in the west of the Hindu Kush (Justin 41, 6. 8); for a short time Mithradates I. extended his dominion to the borders of India (Diod. 33. 18, Orosius v. 4. 16). When Antiochus VII. Sidetes tried once more to restore the Seleucid dominion in 130, Phraates allied himself with the Scythians (Justin 42, 1. 1); but after his decisive victory in 129 he was attacked by them and fell in the battle. The changed state of affairs is shown by the numerous coins of Heliocles; while his predecessors maintained the Attic standard, which had been dominant throughout the Greek east, he on his later coins passes over to a native silver standard, and his bronze coins became quite barbarous. Besides his coins we possess coins of many other Greek kings of these times, most of whom take the epithet of “invincible” (ἀνίκητος) and “saviour” (σωτήρ). They are records of a desperate struggle of the Greeks to maintain their nationality and independence in the Far East; one usurper after the other rose to fight for the rescue of the kingdom. But these internal wars only accelerated the destruction; about 120 B.C. almost the whole of eastern Iran was in the hands either of a Parthian dynasty or of the Mongol invaders, who are now called Indo-Scythians. Only in the Kabul valley and western India the Greeks maintained themselves about two generations longer (see Menander). (Ed. M.)
EUDAEMONISM (from Gr. εὐδαιμονία, literally the state of
being under the protection of a benign spirit, a “good genius”),
in ethics, the name applied to theories of morality which find
the chief good of man in some form of happiness. The term
Eudaemonia has been taken in a large number of senses, with
consequent variations in the meaning of Eudaemonism. To
Plato the “happiness” of all the members of a state, each according
to his own capacity, was the final end of political development.
Aristotle, as usual, adopted “eudaemonia” as the term which in
popular language most nearly represented his idea and made
it the keyword of his ethical doctrine. None the less he greatly
expanded the content of the word, until the popular idea was
practically lost: if a man is to be called εὐδαίμων, he must have
all his powers performing their functions freely in accordance
with virtue, as well as a reasonable degree of material well-being;
the highest conceivable good of man is the life of contemplation.
Aristotle further held that the good man in achieving virtue
must experience pleasure (ἡδονή), which is, therefore, not the
same as, but the sequel to or concomitant of eudaemonia. Subsequent
thinkers have to a greater or less degree identified the
two ideas, and much confusion has resulted. Among the ancients
the Epicureans expressed all eudaemonia in terms of pleasure.
On the other hand attempts have been made to separate hedonism,
as the search for a continuous series of physical pleasures, from
eudaemonism, a condition of enduring mental satisfaction. Such
a distinction involves the assumptions that bodily pleasures
are generically different from mental ones, and that there is in
practice a clearly marked dividing line,—both of which hypotheses
are frequently denied. Among modern writers, James Seth
(Ethical Princ., 1894) resumes Aristotle’s position, and places
Eudaemonism as the mean between the Ethics of Sensibility
(hedonism) and the Ethics of Rationality, each of which overlooks
the complex character of human life. The fundamental
difficulty which confronts those who would distinguish between
pleasure and eudaemonia is that all pleasure is ultimately a
mental phenomenon, whether it be roused by food, music, doing
a moral action or committing a theft. There is a marked disposition
on the part of critics of hedonism to confuse “pleasure”
with animal pleasure or “passion,”—in other words, with a
pleasure phenomenon in which the predominant feature is entire
lack of self-control, whereas the word “pleasure” has strictly
no such connotation. Pleasure is strictly nothing more than
the state of being pleased, and hedonism the theory that man’s
chief good consists in acting in such a way as to bring about a
continuous succession of such states. That they are in some
cases produced by physical or sensory stimuli does not constitute
them irrational, and it is purely arbitrary to confine the word
pleasure to those cases in which such stimuli are the proximate
causes. The value of the term Eudaemonism as an antithesis
to Hedonism is thus very questionable.
EUDOCIA AUGUSTA (c. 401–c. 460), the wife of Theodosius
II., East Roman emperor, was born in Athens, the daughter
of the sophist Leontius, from whom she received a thorough
training in literature and rhetoric. Deprived of her small
patrimony by her brothers’ rapacity, she betook herself to
Constantinople to obtain redress at court. Her accomplishments
attracted Theodosius’ sister Pulcheria, who took her into her
retinue and destined her to be the emperor’s wife. After receiving
baptism and discarding her former name, Athenaïs, for that of
Aelia Līcinia Eudocia, she was married to Theodosius in 421;
two years later, after the birth of a daughter, she received the
title Augusta. The new empress repaid her brothers by making
them consuls and prefects, and used her large influence at court
to protect pagans and Jews. In 438–439 she made an ostentatious
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, whence she brought back several
precious relics; during her stay at Antioch she harangued the
senate in Hellenic style and distributed funds for the repair of
its buildings. On her return her position was undermined by
the jealousy of Pulcheria and the groundless suspicion of an
intrigue with her protégé Paulinus, the master of the offices.
After the latter’s execution (440) she retired to Jerusalem,
where she was made responsible for the murder of an officer sent
to kill two of her followers and stripped of her revenues. Nevertheless
she retained great influence; although involved in the
revolt of the Syrian monophysites (453), she was ultimately
reconciled to Pulcheria and readmitted into the orthodox church.
She died at Jerusalem about 460, after devoting her last years to
literature. Among her works were a paraphrase of the Octateuch
in hexameters, a paraphrase of the books of Daniel and Zechariah,
a poem on St Cyprian and on her husband’s Persian victories.
A Passion History compiled out of Homeric verses, which Zonaras
attributed to Eudocia, is perhaps of different authorship.
See W. Wiegand, Eudokia (Worms, 1871); F. Gregorovius, Athenaïs (Leipzig, 1892); C. Diehl, Figures byzantines (Paris, 1906), pp. 25-49; also Theodosius. On her works cf. A. Ludwich, Eudociae Augustae carminum reliquiae (Königsberg, 1893).
EUDOCIA MACREMBOLITISSA (c. 1021–1096), daughter of
John Macrembolites, was the wife of the Byzantine emperor
Constantine X., and after his death (1067) of Romanus IV.
She had sworn to her first husband on his deathbed not to marry
again, and had even imprisoned and exiled Romanus, who was
suspected of aspiring to the throne. Perceiving, however, that
she was not able unaided to avert the invasions which threatened
the eastern frontier of the empire, she revoked her oath, married
Romanus, and with his assistance dispelled the impending
danger. She did not live very happily with her new husband,
who was warlike and self-willed, and when he was taken prisoner
by the Turks (1071) she was compelled to vacate the throne in
