commonly cited with the addition HEROS, was a Graeco-Roman jurist, who flourished shortly before Justinian. Panciroli (de Claris Interpp. Juris,
p. 63) places him too early in supposing that he was the Pr. Pr. to whom were addressed the constitution of Theodosius and Valentinian of A. D. 427 (Cod. 1. tit. 8. s. 1), and the constitution of Arcadius and Honorius. (Cod. 2. tit. 77. s. 2.)
He is mentioned in Const. Tanta,
§ 9, as the grandfather of Anatolius, professor of law at Berytus, who was one of the compilers of the Digest.
The appellation Heros is not a proper name, but a title of excellency, and is placed sometimes before, and sometimes after, the name. Thus. in Basil.
vi. p. 227, we have ὁ Ἥρως Εὐδοξίος
, and, in Basil.
iii. p. 60, Εὐδόξιος ὁ Ἥρως
. We find the same title applied to Patricius, Amblichus (qu. Iambilichus, Basil.
iii. p. 256), and Cyrillus (Basil.
iv. p. 702). Heimbach (Anecdota,
i. p. 202) is inciined to think that, like the expression ὁ μακαρίτης
it was used by the Graeco-Roman jurists of and after the age of Justinian as a designation of honour in speaking of their predecessors who had died within their memory.
Eudoxius was probably acquainted with the original writings of the classical jurists, for from Basil.
ii. p. 454 (ed. Heimbach) it appears that he quoted Ulpian's treatise De Officio Proconsulis.
From the citations of Eudoxius in the Basilica, he appears to have written upon the constitutions of emperors earlier than Justinian, and thence 1teiz (ad Theophilum,
pp. 1234-1246) infers that he commented upon the Gregorian, Hermogenian, and Theodosian codes, from which those constitutions were transferred into the Code of Justinian.
It is probably to the commentaries of Eudoxius, Leontius, and Patricius on the three earlier codes that Justinian (Const. Tanta,
§ 9) alludes, when he says of them " optimam sui memoriam in Legibus
reliquerunt," for the imperatorial constitutions were often called Leges,
as distinguished from the Jus
of the jurists.
, ii. p. 614, Thalelaeus, who survived Justinian, classes Eudoxius among the older teachers, and cites his exposition of a constitution of Severus and Antoninus of A. D. 199, which appears in Cod. 2. tit. 12. s. 4. Again, in Basil.
i. pp. 810, 811, is cited his exposition of a constitution of Diocletian and Maximinian, of A. D. 193, which appears in Cod. 2. tit. 4. s. 18, with the interpolated words excepto adulterio.
In both these passages, the opinion of Heros Patricius is preferred to that of Eudoxius.
In like manner, it appears from the scholiast in the fifth volume of Meerlnian's Thesaurus (JCtorum Graecorum Commentarii,
p. 56 ;Basil.,
ed. Heimbach, i. p. 403) that Domninus, Demosthenes, and Eudoxitts, differed from Patricius in their construction of a constitution of the emperor Alexander, of A. D. 224, and that that constitution was altered by the compilers of Justinian's code in conformity with the opinion of Patricius. Eudoxius is cited by Patricius (Basil.
iii. p. 61) on a constitution of A. D. 293 (Cod. 4. tit. 19. s. 9), and is cited by Theodorus (Basil.
vi. p. 227) on a constitution of A. D. 290. (Cod. 8. tit. 55. s. 3.)
In the latter passage Theodorus, who was a contemporary of Justinian, calls Eudoxius his teacher. Whether this expression is to be taken literally may be doubted, as Theodorus also calls Domninus, Patricius, and Stephanus (Basil.
ii. p. 580) his teachers. (Zachariae, Anecdota,
p. xlviii.; Zimmern, R. R. G.
1. §§ 106, 109.)
The untrustworthy Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli (Praenot. Mystag.
pp. 345, 402) mentions a Eudoxius, Nomicus, Judex veli, and cites his Synopsis Legum, and his scholia on the Novells of Alexius Comnenus.