Chapter XCIV: Letter XCI: A GRACEFUL letter of affection (3)

21 – It is to be remembered that ‘diocese’ was then a civil and
not an Ecclesiastical term. A ‘diœcesis’ was an aggregate
of provinces, under the charge of a Vicarius, who was
subordinate to one of the four Præfecti Prætorio, each
Præfectus having under him a number of dioceses. Thus
the Vicarius Italiæ, who was subordinate to the Præfectus
Prætorio Italiæ, had in his diocese fourteen provinces,
including both Liguria of which Milan was the capital,
and Venetia in which Aquileia was situated. It is to be
remembered also that Italia at this time meant only the
north of Italy, the rest of Italy being now included in
the Diocese of Rome, and under the Vicarius Urbis Romae.
See the table given in Smith’s Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 315.
taken from Marquardt. When the word diocese came into
Ecclesiastical use, it was applied, first to “an aggregate
not merely of several districts, governed each by its own
bishop, but of several provinces (ἐπαρχίαι) each presided
over by a metropolitan. The diocese itself was under
an Exarch or Patriarch.” Dict. of Chr. Ant. sub voc.
‘Creditâ’ is here read for ‘creditam,’ as required by the
order of the words.

22 – It is not certain to whom the Emperor’s letter was
addressed. Some have thought that it was addressed to
the Pretorian Prefect of Italy. Tillemont maintained
that it was addressed to Valerian, Bishop of Aquileia, in
whose see the Council was held. The language, though not
decisive, seems in favour of the former supposition. In
§ 7. the Prefect of Italy is spoken of as issuing letters
in pursuance of it.

23 – i. e. a copy of S. Paul’s Epistles.

24 – i. e. the Emperor’s letter.

25 – The text here seems defective, nor is there any thing
to guide us to supply the lacuna. What is given in the
translation is no more than a guess at the meaning of the
sentence. The general connection is however clear enough
even if it be omitted.

26 – The reading of Ed. Rom. is here adopted, as alone
furnishing a reasonable sense. The Benedictine text is
unintelligible.

27 – By Illyricum is here meant Illyricum Occidentale, which
at this time was under the jurisdiction of the Vicarius
Italiæ. (See the Table in Smith’s Gibbon, referred to in
note[21] p. 33.) Sirmium, which in the following Century
was entirely destroyed by the Goths under Attila, was
at this time a place of great importance both civil and
ecclesiastical. It is spoken of by Justinian as capital of
Illyricum both in civil and episcopal matters (Tillemont,
note xv on the Life of S. Ambrose vol. x. p. 739). Its
ecclesiastical importance is shewn by the contest in which
S. Ambrose engaged with Justina, two years before the
Council, 379 A. D. to bring about the election of Anemius
as Bishop, when the Empress was using all her influence to
cause an Arian Bishop to be appointed. Arianism had been
rife there for some time, and Germinus a previous Bishop
had been one of the leaders of that party. (Tillemont,
S. Ambr. ch. xx.) Illyricum had been finally separated
into two divisions, Orientale and Occidentale, by Gratian,
in 379 A.D. who transferred the Eastern Division to
Theodosius when he made him Emperor of the East, from
which time it formed part of the Eastern Empire.
(Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. vol. v. p. 716.)

28 – The context requires the reading ‘bonus’ for ‘omnibus,’
which is that of one MS. The same MS. also inserts
‘Deum’ in Eusebius’ next speech, which is required by the
argument.

29 – made Himself of no reputation E.T.

30 – But now ye seek to kill me, a man &c. E.V.

31 – By ‘tractatus concilii Nicæni’ is meant simply the
Nicene Creed. This is established by S. Ambr. De Fide
iii. 15. 125 (518 Ed. Ben.) where, speaking of the letter
of Eusebius of Nicomedia read at the Council, in reference
to the word ὁμοούσιος, he says, Hæc cum lecta esset
epistola in Concilio Nicæno, hoc verbum _in tractatu fidei_
posuerunt Patres, etc.

32 – The reading in Ed. Ben. is ‘carendum.’ If it is genuine,
the word must have acquired a sort of transitive sense and
have come to mean ‘to be deprived.’ No traces of such an
use is to be found in Facciolati or in Ducange. Ed. Ben.
quotes a parallel use of ‘abstinendus’ but without any
instances. Rom. reads ‘privandum,’ Chifflet ‘curandum,’
either of which give the required sense, but seem
corrections without MS. authority.

33 – The text in this passage is defective and confused: but
the general sense, as given here, may fairly be made out
of it as it stands.

34 – It is to be noticed that the sentence of only twenty-five
Bishops are here given out of thirty two or thirty three.
It is probable therefore that the Record is defective, and
that the sentences of the rest have been lost.

35 – Ed. Ben. here reads, Et cum Secundianus subripuisset. As
subripuisset by itself could have no sense, the reading
of Ed. Rom. has been adopted, Et cum Secundianus se
paullulum subripuisset et postea convenisset. This is
adopted in Tillemont’s narrative, Il sortit mesme de
l’assemblée, mais il revint quelque temps après.

36 – This is according to the text of Ed. Rom.

37 – The abrupt termination of the discussion with Secundianus,
without any account of a decision in his case, seems to
point to the same conclusion as the incomplete list of
Bishops who give sentence on Palladius, that the Record is
defective. Moreover the unusual number of various readings
is generally a sign of a defective text. The force and
cleverness of the evasions of Secundianus seem sometimes
to be lost thereby.

38 – With regard to the names of the sees, those of which
the modern name is as familiar or more familiar than
the ancient have been rendered by the modern name, those
of which the modern name would be unfamiliar to general
readers have been left in their ancient form. It would be
affectation to call S. Ambrose Bishop of Mediolanum: on
the other hand nothing would be gained by calling Felix
Bishop of Jadera, Bishop of Zara.

39 – This name is omitted in the list at the beginning, so
that there are thirty three in this list, only thirty
two in the other. The two presbyters were probably
representatives of Bishops, but it is not stated of whom.

40 – It is probable that similar letters were addressed to
the Bishops of the other Provinces of Gaul, who had
sent Justus as their deputy, and to Africa and Illyricum,
though no record of them remains. Possibly they were
identical, except the address. Gaul had at this time
been so subdivided, that the Vicariate or civil Diocese
consisted of no less than seventeen provinces. See
Marquardt’s Table, as quoted above.

41 – There is no mention of the condemnation of Attalus in the
Records, another proof that they are not complete.

42 – Julianus Valens was Bishop of Petavio or Pettau on the
Drave, into which See he had apparently been introduced
in the place of the orthodox Bishop Marcus: for this
is, according to Tillemont, the meaning of the word
‘superpositus.’ When Pannonia and Illyricum were overrun
by the Goths after Valens’ defeat at Hadrianople, (378 A.D.)
he deserted his charge. The ravages of the Barbarians
are described by S. Jerome ad cap i. Zephan. vol. iii.
p. 1645. See Gibbon ch. 26. (from a note in Newman’s Fleury,
vol. 1 p. 38.)

43 – The reading here is uncertain. Ed. Rom. has ‘prout jam et
sacerdotum concilio sententia in eos lata est.’ Nor is it
certain to what laws allusion is made. A long note in Ed.
Ben. does not seem to clear up the matter.

44 – Dacia Ripensis. The original Province of Dacia was beyond
the Danube. It was conquered and included in the Empire
by Trajan. In the time of Aurelian it was abandoned again,
and the Danube re-established as the frontier. Then the
Roman colonists were removed to the South of the Danube,
into the central district of Mœsia, which was then called
Dacia Aureliani. This was afterwards divided into two
Provinces, called Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea,
Ripensis being the northern part, extending along the bank
of the Danube, whence the name.

45 – “Damasus was made Pope on the death of Liberius A.D. 366.
Ursinus, called by some Ursicinus, was, as Damasus had
been, Deacon at Rome, and could not endure the exaltation
of his former colleague who is suspected of having taken
part with Felix, the successor to the power of Liberius,
when exiled by the Arians. Ursinus was factiously
consecrated by one Bishop, and a contest ensued in which
even much blood was shed. Ursinus was banished, and
being recalled the next year, was banished again after
two months. In 371 he was allowed to leave his place of
exile, and only excluded from Rome and the suburbicarian
provinces. In 378 he held the factious meetings mentioned
in the letter, and was exiled to Cologne. He continued to
petition Gratian to restore him, and hence the request of
the Bishops at Aquileia.” Note in Newman’s Fleury vol. 1,
p. 38.

46 – i. e. Julianus Valens, Bp. of Petavio, mentioned in the
preceding letter.

47 – after the first and second admonition E.V.

48 – This Lucius the person who, after the death of
S. Athanasius, was forced upon the Church of Alexandria
as Bishop, in the place of Peter who had been duly elected,
by the Governor of the Province. His crimes and cruelties
are recorded at length by Eccl. Hist. iv. 21, 22. He was
eventually expelled from the see he had usurped, and is
mentioned by Socrates, Hist. Eccl. v. 7, as afterwards
dwelling at Constantinople and sharing the fate of
Demophilus.

49 – Demophilus was originally Bishop of Beroea, (probably
Beroea in Thrace,) and was deposed from his office for
Arianism. In A.D. 370, on the death of Eudoxius, he was
elected by the Arian party Bishop of Constantinople, in
opposition to Evagrius. He was supported by Valens who was
then Emperor, and Evagrius banished. In 380 A.D. after the
accession of Theodosius, matters were changed. Theodosius
offered to maintain him in his see, if he subscribed
the Nicene Confession, but he refused, and withdrew,
and maintained, in conjunction with Lucius and others,
Arian worship outside the walls of Constantinople. He died
A.D. 386. He is mentioned by S. Ambrose (De Fide 1. 6. 45.)
as a leader of one of the various forms of Arianism.

50 – This refers to the long schism which had existed in the
Church at Antioch, ever since 331 A.D. when Eustathius
was deposed by the Arian party: in 361 A.D. Meletius
was elected as successor to Eudoxius, having previously
subscribed the Creed of Acacius (Socr. ii. 44.); but on
his accepting the Nicene Creed, and acknowledging the
Homoousion, he was deposed, and banished by the Emperor
Constantius, and Euzoius, an Arian, appointed in his
stead, who was afterwards succeeded by Dorotheus, (who
was afterwards transferred to Constantinople, 385 A.D.)
Meanwhile Meletius had returned from exile, but the
extreme orthodox party refused to recognise him, because
he had at first been appointed as a Semi-Arian, and
elected Paulinus, though the Council of Alexandria had
urged them to submit to Meletius, so that, as Socrates
says, when recounting the Bishops of the chief sees in the
year 379, ♦the Church at Antioch τριχῆ διῄρητο. Paulinus
was supported by the Church of Alexandria and by the
Bishops of the West, and, as appears from the statements
of this letter, a compromise had been proposed, that
when either Meletius or Paulinus died, both parties would
acknowledge the survivor. The Bishops at Aquileia urge
the Emperor to enforce this, not aware that Flavian had
already been elected as Meletius’ successor at the Council
of Constantinople. The schism was thus perpetuated, and
continued till 415 A.D.

What the difficulty about Timotheus was, is not
certain. He had been consecrated Bishop of Alexandria
that same year, after the death of Peter, the successor of
S. Athanasius. Tillemont (vol. x. p. 139) suggests that it
was probably connected with the question of the succession
at Antioch.

51 – The enemy are the Goths under Fritigern. See Gibbon ch. 26.

52 – The reading ‘pactum’ which is suggested by Valerius is
here adopted instead of ‘factum’, which seems to give no
satisfactory sense.

53 – Fleury remarks on this ♦‘This letter plainly shews that
the Bishops who were there present (i. e. at the Council
of Aquileia) either did not acknowledge the Council which
had been lately held at Constantinople to be an Œcumenical
Council, or that they were not yet informed of what had
been transacted in it.

54 – In the regard of the question between Nectarius and
Maximus, the Western Bishops had been deceived by the
latter. Maximus, called the Cynic because he retained the
outward garb of a Cynic philosopher after he professed to
have become a Christian, was irregularly ♦consecrated at
Constantinople, but was never recognised, and was formally
pronounced by the Council not to be a true Bishop. He then
went about trying to stir up other Churches in his favour.
See Prof. Bright’s Hist. of the Church, pp. 160–166.

Nectarius was elected after the resignation of Gregory
Nazianzen, during the Council of Constantinople. He, like
S. Ambrose, was unbaptized and held a high civil office at
the time of his election.

55 – This is translated from an ingenious and probable
conjecture of Valesius.

56 – The text through this long sentence is confused and
ungrammatical, but it conveys the general sense expressed
in the translation with tolerable clearness.

57 – i. e. Gratian.

58 – The sense is here to be elicited probably by repeating
the word ‘quod,’ so that the sentence should run, ‘dogma
nescio quod, quod Apollinaris asseritur.’

59 – There seems to be something corrupt in the text. Perhaps
we should read ‘moventur,’ ‘the dangerous parts of
Illyricum are in commotion;’ or ‘suspecta’ has taken the
place of some word, such as ‘superiora,’ which would stand
in antithesis to ‘maritima.’

60 – It may complete the subject of this series of letters
to remind the reader that about the same time that the
Council of the Italian Bishops was held, Theodosius
convened a second Council at Constantinople to deal
with the questions raised by the Westerns, where most of
the Bishops who had formed the previous General Council
re-assembled. They replied to the invitation to another
General Council at Rome by a Synodical letter, which is
given at full length by Theodoret (Eccles. Hist. v. 9.).
In it they excuse themselves from attending, on the ground
of their presence being required in their own Dioceses,
especially after the long exile of many of them, and the
prevalence of Arian usurpation, wishing that they ‘had
the wings of a dove,’ to fly to their Western brethren.
They then give a summary of the doctrinal decisions of
the two Councils, and announce that they have sent three
Bishops as deputies to explain all things more fully to
them, and, with reference to the disputed successions at
Constantinople and Antioch, give their assurance to their
brethren that both Nectarius and Flavian were canonically
elected, and the elections ratified both by the clergy
and the faithful of each diocese, and by the Council,
reminding them of the ancient Canon re-affirmed at Nicæa
that each province should settle all such questions for
themselves.

61 – Acholius, or Ascholius, as he is called by Socrates, was
the Bishop who baptised Theodosius, during an illness
which seized him on a campaign against the Goths. He was
present at the Council of Constantinople, and afterwards
at that of Rome, not as one of the deputies from the
East, but probably because his see had been so recently
transferred to the Eastern Empire, that he might seem to
belong to both East and West. (Tillemont Ambr. ch. xxxi.)
It was there that he met S. Ambrose, who had gone to Rome
to attend the Council, and had fallen ill. His death must
have occurred in A.D. 383, for his successor Anysius was
Bishop before the death of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, who
died in A.D. 384. Theodoret therefore (B. v. ch. 18.) must
be wrong in making him the Bishop who wrote to S. Ambrose
an account of the massacre at Thessalonica, which occurred
in A.D. 390. But the passage of Theodoret occurs in only
one MS., and is perhaps not genuine.

62 – The Goths had been settled within the boundaries of the
Empire by Valens in A.D. 376, when they implored his
protection against the Huns. He established them in Moesia,
where they soon revolted, and ravaged Thrace, uniting
with their former enemies, the Huns, and other barbarians.
Valens was defeated and slain by them in A.D. 378, and
then they overran all the neighbouring provinces. There is
a graphic account in Gibbon, ch. xxvi.

63 – The Benedictine text here reads ‘claudebatur.’ Several MSS.,
as the editors mention in a note, have ‘claudebat.’ They
themselves suggest ‘claudicabat.’ But ‘claudebat’ really
gives the same meaning, and there seems little doubt that
it is the true reading. It comes from claudeo or claudo,
(for both forms are to be found,) meaning ‘to be lame,’
‘to halt.’ It occurs three times in Cicero.

64 – ‘fisco vel arcæ.’ The ‘fiscus,’ or imperial treasury,
received whatever was assigned to the Emperor individually,
as distinguished from the ‘aerarium,’ which received what
belonged to the senate, as representing the old republica:
‘arca’ is sometimes used in late writers as equivalent to
‘fiscus,’ sometimes, when distinguished from it, as here,
it signifies the city funds, which were distinct from both.

65 – Julian’s edict, forbidding the Christians to teach in
the schools of grammar and rhetoric, is mentioned with
disapproval by Gibbon ch. xxiii.

66 – i. e. his half brother Gratian.

67 – i. e. Maximus.

68 – Valentinian the 1st.

69 – This is sometimes represented as an exaggerated piece
of rhetoric on S. Ambrose’s part, not to be regarded as
representing a real truth: but it may very well do so, for
Valentinian was almost constantly occupied with wars on
the frontiers of the empire, and it does not appear from
his life that he was ever at Rome during his reign. Milan,
not Rome, was the chief seat of the Western Emperors at
this time, when they were not with their armies.

70 – The Præfectus Urbi at this time ‘was regarded as the
direct representative of the Emperor,’ and, among other
duties, ‘he had every month to make a report to the
Emperor of the transactions of the Senate,’ and also
was ‘the medium through which the Emperors received the
petitions and presents from their capital.’ Dict. of Ant.
sub voc.

71 – By the ‘late emperor’ is meant Julian; ‘his successor’ is
Valentinian the 1st, and ‘last Emperors’ are Valentinian
the 1st and Valens.

72 – There is a play here on the words ‘nomen’ and ‘numen.’

73 – Symmachus is thinking of Virgil’s invocation,

Di patrii, Indigetes, et Romule, Vestaque Mater, &c.
Georg. i. 498.

The Di patrii are explained as being those brought by
Æneas into Italy, Indigetes those native to the soil of
Italy.

74 – In strict law a slave’s peculium was the property of his
owner, but custom had allowed it to be regarded his own
property.

75 – Another trace of Virgil:

Cum jam glandes atque arbuta sacræ
Deficerent silvæ et victum Dodona negaret.
Georg. i. 158.

76 – Valentinian the 1st, as Symmachus mentions above, had
tolerated the heathen rites, and this he here represents
as having availed to win the special favour of the gods.

77 – This an official title of honour. There were three
ranks among those who held office under the Emperors,
1 Illustres, 2 Spectabiles, 3 Clarissimi, which is the
one here applied to Symmachus. The latter was applied to
all senators: the other two were reserved for the higher
offices of state. See Gibbon, ch. xvii.

78 – He is referring apparently to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius,
but somewhat exaggerates the brevity of their reigns.
Galba reigned nearly seven months, Otho three months,
Vitellius nearly eight months.

79 – The captive Emperor is Valerian, who, A.D. 260, was taken
prisoner by Sapor king of Persia, and treated with the
utmost indignity. The other is his son Gallienus, and S.
Ambrose’s expression with regard to him may be explained
by a sentence of Gibbon, (ch. xi. init.) ‘Under the
deplorable reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, the empire
was oppressed and almost destroyed by the soldiers, the
tyrants, and the barbarians.’

80 – S. Ambrose refers here to a law of Valentinian’s,
forbidding the Clergy from receiving bequests from widows
and unmarried females. It was addressed to Damasus, Bishop
of Rome. S. Ambrose’s caution in de Off. Min. 1, 20, 87,
shews that control was needed. S. Jerome, speaking of this
law says, ‘I do not complain of the law, but grieve that
we have deserved it.’

81 – In the provincial towns the political power in the times
of the Emperors had passed into the hands of the curia or
provincial Senate; and, with the power, many burdensome
and extensive duties, were laid upon the curiales or
decurions, as they were called. (See § 15.) Exemption from
these had been granted first by Constantine; afterwards,
as it was found that persons sought Holy Orders in order
to evade civil duties, the privilege was restrained: and
various changes were introduced by different Emperors.
A full outline of the various laws is given in a learned
note in Newman’s Fleury, vol. i. p. 162. where the text is
speaking of S. Ambrose’s Letter to Theodosius, (infr. Lett.
xl.) where he again complains of the same hardship. The
subject is also more fully dealt with by Bingham Antiq.
B. V. ch. iii. § 14–16.

82 – ‘Conferte’ is here adopted as a manifest emendation of
‘conferet.’ The transfer of two letters is a common
mistake of copyists.

83 – This was the case in Julian’s reign, as may be seen in
Theod. iii. 12.

84 – The reading of all the other Edd. ‘sacri nemoris’ for
‘agri nemorum’ is here adopted, as yielding a clearer
sense.

85 – Pannonia was at this time divided into three provinces,
viz. Pannonia Prima and Secunda, and Valeria Ripensis.

86 – Rhaetia Secunda was the name given to Vindelicia when
separated again from Rhaetia proper, shortly before the
time of Constantine: it had been united to it about the
end of the first century.

87 – The Reading ‘nuda gignentium’ is adopted from Ed. Rom. The
phrase occurs in Sallust Jug. 79, 6. ‘Gignentia’ is used
for plants, trees &c. The clause ‘quae nos’ &c. is strange,
but probably refers to the torpidity of winter, which is
felt by man as well as by the lower creation.

88 – This passage seems suggested by reminiscences of Virgil,
the phrase ‘absconditam pretio humum’ possibly from Aen.
iv, 211. urbem Exiguam pretio posuit, while in the latter
part S. Ambrose perhaps had in his mind the description of
Evander’s town in Aen. viii. See especially ll. 347–366.

89 – The story of Cybele being brought to Rome, and landing
outside the city, where the little stream of the Almo
joins the Tiber, is told at length by Ovid, Fast. iv.
250–348. In commemoration of the washing of the Statue
and sacred implements at the landing, an annual ceremony
was maintained, which seems to have been popular, from
the numerous allusions to it in later writers. See Lucan
1. 600, Martial iii. 47. 2, Stat. Silv. v. 1. 222, Sil.
Ital. viii. 365, all quoted in Dict. of Geogr. When the
rites were performed away from Rome, the nearest river
was conventionally made the Almo for the time. It is
remarkable that Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii, 3, 7. mentions
as one of the Emperor Julian’s lasts acts, his keeping the
day of this rite, when on his last campaign against the
Persians, and performing all the ceremonies at Callinicum
or Nicephorium on the Euphrates.

90 – Venus Cælestis is a Latin equivalent of Ἀφροδίτη οὐρανία,
and this name was transferred, according to Herodotus
(Bk. i. ch. 105.) to the Phœnician goddess Astarte,
or Ashtaroth. The same author also (B. i. ch. 131.)
identifies Aphrodite with the Persian goddess Mitra,
which however is shewn by Prof. Rawlinson, ad loc., to be
an error, as Mithras is the sun-god of the Persians. The
Temple of Venus Cælestis, or Astarte, at Carthage was very
shortly after this time converted into a Christian Church,
as recorded by Gibbon on the authority of Prosper Aquitan.
(ch. xxviii).

91 – S. Ambrose’s repeated assertions, that the Christians
formed a majority in the Senate, are characterised by
writers unfavourable to Christianity as unfounded, but
they produce no proof. Gibbon (ch. xxviii. note 12.)
simply says that it is an assertion ‘in contradiction to
common sense.’ But as a large majority of the Senate voted
for the abolition of the worship of Jupiter about the same
time, as Gibbon himself records, common sense would seem
rather to agree with S. Ambrose.

92 – Referring to the unhappy end of Gratian who in the
previous year (A.D. 383.) had been overpowered by Maximus,
who revolted in Britain, and attacked him in Gaul. His
troops deserted him and he was put to death by Maximus’
orders.

93 – Pompeius was murdered, as he landed in Egypt, after
escaping from Pharsalia, by Achillas an Eunuch and one of
the guardians of king Ptolemy.

94 – Tomyris queen of the Massagetæ. See the story in Herod.
i. 214.

95 – This is the first of the famous Hamilcars, the one who led
the great invasion of Sicily in B.C. 480, and was totally
defeated by Gelon. Herodotus, B. vii. ch. 167, tells the
story to which S. Ambrose alludes as the account given by
the Carthaginians of his end.

96 – S. Ambrose is alluding to the famous story of Julian
burning his fleet, after crossing the Tigris to attack
Sapor, king of Persia, in his dominions. This was regarded
afterwards by the Christians as an act of judicial
blindness. See Augustine de Civ. Dei iv. 29, v. 21.
Ammianus, xxiv. 7. asserts that he repented of the order
as soon as it was issued, but was too late to stop the
flames. Gibbon endeavours to justify the act, and says,
‘had he been victorious we should now admire his conduct.’
See his narrative in ch. xxiv. The author of his life in
the Dict. of Ant. styles it ‘the best thing he could have
done, if his march into the interior of Persia, had been
dictated by absolute necessity.’ Setting these hypotheses
aside, and looking only at the actual result, we may
fairly think that the Christian interpretation of the
facts, even if over-strongly expressed, is the truer.

97 – He here refers to Josephus Antiq. v. ch. iv.

98 – The name given in the Hebrew is Ramath Lehi, which
means, ‘the hill or lifting up of the jaw-bone.’
S. Ambrose interprets it below ‘maxillae interfectionem.’
He would seem to be here suggesting a Greek etymology.
The Benedictine note suggests that the name Agon is a
confusion on his part from the word σιαγὼν in Josephus.

99 – The words ‘quasi in cubitum intexti’ are probably from the
Old Latin Version of the Bible. Field, on Origen’s Hexapla
in loc. (Judg. xvi. 13.) mentions that some MSS of LXX
read ἐὰν ὑφάνης ὡςει πῆχυν or ὡς ἐπὶ πῆχυν, which may very
well have been translated by some such words as the above,
in the Old Latin Version which S. Ambrose used.

100 – The expression ‘principes virtutum’ seems to be a phrase
from the Old Testament. In the Vulgate we find ‘rex
virtutum’ Ps. lxvii, (lxviii. E.V.) 13, where the E.V.
has ‘kings of armies,’ and in Judith xiv. 17 (19 E.V.)
‘Quod quum audissent principes virtutis Assyriorum,’ and
in 1 Macc. v. 56. ‘Azarias princeps virtutis.’ The ‘comites
consistoriani’ formed a sort of cabinet (consistorium) or
privy council to the Emperor. The Benedictine Editors take
‘principes virtutum’ as meaning the Magistri militum, but
the absence of any conjunction is against this.

101 – This must mean the Præfectus prætorio Italiæ, one of
the four great Viceroys, under whom the Dioceses of the
Empire were placed. He was supreme over all Italy, and the
countries north of it to the Danube, and the western part
of the north of Africa. He had under him three Dioceses,
containing thirty Provinces.

102 – The title given them is ‘Decani.’ They seem to have been
something like the lictors of the great officers of state
under the republic.

103 – These ‘vela’ or hangings were a token that the building
was claimed for the ‘fiscus,’ or private property of
the Emperor. Gibbon in his grand way says, ‘the splendid
canopy and hangings of the royal seat were arranged in the
customary manner,’ but, as is noticed by the writer of the
Life of S. Ambrose in Dict. of Christian Biog. it is clear
from the sequel of the narrative (see § 20) that they were
outside, not inside the Church.

104 – The words in the original are ‘missam facere.’ Prof.
Bright in his History notes that this is ‘the earliest
instance, apparently, of this term being used for the
Eucharistic service.’

105 – ‘The introduction of barbarians into the Roman armies
became every day more universal, more necessary, and more
fatal. The most daring of the Scythians, of the Goths, and
of the Germans, were enrolled not only in the auxiliaries
of their respective nations, but in the legions themselves,
and among the most distinguished of the Palatine troops.’
(Gibbon, ch. xvii.) The Goths were Arians. It was much
about this time that Ulfilas, the apostle of the Goths,
made his famous translation of the Bible into Gothic. See
Bright’s Hist. of the Church p. 157.

106 – This is the Vulgate rendering of ‘_At Salem is His
Tabernacle_.’

107 – On the high rank and great influence of the Præpositus
cubiculi, or Grand Chamberlain, see Gibbon ch. xvii.
They ranked with the Præfecti prætorio and other highest
officers of state as Illustres. See note on Lett. xvii. § 1.

108 – A reply of Valentinian the 1st to some Bishops of the
Hellespont and Bithynia, who demanded permission to meet
‘to amend the doctrine of the faith,’ is given by Sozomen.
(vi. 7.) His words are, ‘It is not lawful for me, as a
layman, to busy myself about such matters as these: let
the Bishops, whose business it is, meet by themselves
wherever they will.’ To the same effect are the words of
his which Theodoret reports, (iv. 6.) when bidding the
Bishops of the province elect a successor to Auxentius.
He bids them choose a fit person, ‘that we also, who rule
the empire, may sincerely bow our heads to him, and welcome
his reproofs, (for, being men, we cannot but stumble,)
as a remedial discipline.’ What law is referred to is
uncertain. The Benedictine Editors, after mentioning some
which had been suggested ‘think it more probable that the
law referred to is not extant.’

109 – Gibbon (ch. xxv.) in his character of Valentinian says,
‘In the time of Julian he provoked the danger of disgrace
by the contempt which he publicly expressed for the
reigning religion.’ The story is told by Theod. Eccles.
Hist. iii. 16. ♦Valentinian was in official attendance
on the Emperor Julian on one occasion when he went to the
temple of Fortune to perform rites. ‘On either side of the
door were stationed attendants, who sprinkled all who came
in with lustral water to purify them, as they believed.
When some of the drops fell on his cloak, Valentinian
struck the attendants with his fist, saying that he was
defiled not purified by them.’ For this he was dismissed
from the court, and sent to a solitary garrison. The same
story is told with slight variations by Sozomen. Hist. vi. 6.

110 – He is alluding to his own election.

111 – This is true of the first decision of the Council, but as
S. Ambrose says, ‘it ended badly,’ for the Bishops were
inveigled into accepting a less orthodox formula. See Prof.
Bright’s Hist. p. 94, 98.

112 – S. Ambrose here delicately alludes to the service he had
rendered to Valentinian in going on his behalf to the
court of the usurper Maximus after the death of Gratian,
which is referred to in Letter xxiv.

113 – ‘This was not so great an inconvenience to them as might
appear at first sight, for the early Basilicas were not
unlike the heathen temples, or our own collegiate chapels,
that is, part of a range of buildings, which contained the
lodgings of the ecclesiastics, and formed a fortress in
themselves, which could easily be blockaded either from
within or without.’ Newman. Ch. of the Fathers. p. 22.

114 – The words ‘custodiam’ and ‘amisit,’ are repeated by
S. Ambrose from the former part of the sentence. ‘Amisit’
as applied here recalls the Psalmist’s expression, ‘Hath
God forgotten to be gracious?’ Ps. lxxvii. 9.

115 – This refers to a story thus recounted in Paulinus’ Life
of S. Ambrose ch. 12, ‘Among many who tried to force
S. Ambrose into exile, but through God’s protection failed
of their ♦purpose, one Euthymius more hapless than the
rest, was stirred to such a pitch of frenzy that he hired
a house close to the Church, and there kept a carriage,
that he might the more readily carry off Ambrose into
exile, by seizing him and putting him in the carriage.
But _his wickedness fell upon his own pate_, (Ps. vii. 7.)
for that very day year, he was himself put into the
carriage and from the same house was carried into exile,
confessing that it was by the just judgment of God that
his wickedness had recoiled on himself, and he was carried
into exile in the very chariot which he had prepared for
the Bishop. And the Bishop did much to comfort him, by
giving him money, and other necessaries.’

116 – The word is ‘curiales.’ See Footnote 81 on Lett. xviii.
To the authorities there referred to add Bingh. Antiq.
iv, 4, 4, where Gothofred’s enumeration of their duties is
given in full in the notes.

117 – Zech. v. 1 [E.V. a flying roll. Vulg. volumen volans.]

118 – i. e. by causing them to commit sacrilege.

119 – There is a play here on the word ‘aerarios,’ as connected
with ‘aerarium’ the treasury. The aerarii were the lowest
class of people at Rome, and so S. Ambrose calls the
‘pauperes Christi’ his aerarii, while at the same time
they are the treasures of the Church.

120 – S. Augustine mentions in his Confessions (ix. 7.)
S. Ambrose’s introduction both of Hymns and chanting
during this period of trial. ‘Then was it first instituted
that, after the manner of the Eastern Churches, Hymns
and Psalms should be sung, lest the people should wax
faint through the tediousness of sorrow; and from that
day to this the custom is retained, divers, yea, almost
all Thy Congregations throughout other parts of the world
following herein.’ Oxf. Transl. He speaks in the same
passage of the behaviour of the people: ‘The devout people
kept watch in the Church, ready to die with their Bishop
Thy servant.’ He also dwells on the effect produced
on himself, these events happening shortly before his
conversion. ‘How did I weep in Thy Hymns and Canticles,
touched to the quick by the voice of Thy sweet-attuned
Church! The voices flowed into mine ears, and the Truth
distilled into mine heart, whence the affections of my
devotion overflowed, and tears ran down, and happy was
I therein.’ Ib. ix. 6. It is quite possible that some of
the twelve Hymns, acknowledged by the Benedictine Editors
as genuine, were then first sung. Among them are the
well-known ‘Aeterna Christi munera,’ ‘Aeterne rerum
Conditor,’ ‘Deus Creator omnium,’ and others, whose strains
are now familiar in English versions.

121 – This is said to be the Church now called ‘S. Ambrose
the greater.’ The Roman Church is the one called in the
previous letter the ‘New Basilica,’ and also the Church of
the Apostles. It was probably called ‘Romana’ from being
near the Porta Romana.

122 – S. Augustine says that it was revealed to him in a dream.

123 – These were ἐνεργούμενοι, or persons possessed by evil
spirits. On them see Bingh. Antiq. iii. 4, 6. The laying
on of hands was part of the rite of exorcism.

124 – The text stands ‘arriperetur urna,’ nor is there any
variation of MSS. noted. But it seems absolutely necessary
to read ‘una.’ An ‘urna’ could have nothing to do with
the matter. It might hold ashes, but surely not the bones
of two men of marvellous size. The histories founded on
the letter all tacitly adopt the emendation, and speak of
‘a woman among the possessed.’ See Fleury. B. xviii. 46.
Tillemont in Vit.

125 – now of S. Vitalis and S. Agricola Fleury p. 104. Eng. Tr.

126 – This is distinctly asserted by S. Augustine in all the
three passages referred to in the Introduction.

127 – The word is ‘Enneacaidecateris.’ Mr. Hensley remarks in
his article on Easter, ‘It has been often stated that the
Council established a particular cycle, that of nineteen
years, but this is a mistake.’

128 – ‘Nam incipit ♦esse contrarium.’ According to Ducange
‘incipio’ is used in late Latin in the sense of the Greek
verb μέλλω, and here, as it would seem, with the force
with which that verb is so often used as equivalent to ‘it
is likely’ or ‘it is sure’ that such and such is the case:
see Lidd. and Scott. μέλλω, ii. 3, 4.

129 – An allusion to Virg. Georg., 1, 276.

Ipsa dies alios alio dedit ordine luna Felices operum;
quintam fuge, etc.

130 – Days immediately following the Kalends, Nones or Ides,
considered unlucky by the Romans. See A. Gellius, v. 17.
What the ‘Egyptian days’ were is not ascertained.

131 – This is the ordinary phrase for the day of the lunar month.
See Bright Early Engl. Ch. Hist. p. 195.

132 – S. Ambrose’s Latin is ‘mensis novorum.’ The LXX has ἐν
μηνὶ τῶν νέων. The Vulgate ‘in mense novarum frugum.’

133 – bitter herbs E.T. Ex. xii. 8.

134 – The Era of Diocletian was the prevalent one at this time,
and till the general adoption of the Christian Era, which
did not become established until the 8th Century. See
Mr. Hensley’s article ‘Era’ in Dict. of Christ. Antiq. He
gives there the rule for reducing the Era of Diocletian,
the epoch of which is Aug. 29th A.D. 284, to the Christian
Era, viz. to add 283 years and 240 days to the given date
of Diocletian’s Era. According to this the Easter of the
89th year of Diocletian would be A.D. 373, and that of
the 93rd would be A.D. 377. The ‘times lately past’ would
probably refer to A.D. 383, when, as may be seen by the
Table, the ‘fourteenth moon’ fell on a Sunday.

135 – There is a slight error here. The interval is 32 days,
not 31.

136 – There is some uncertainty about the reading here. The
original reading in the text was ‘biennium,’ and, as
this clearly did not agree with the facts the Benedictine
Editors adopted a suggestion that ‘biennium’ was a
mistaken rendering of a MS. which had ‘vi-ennium.’ But
the period of 6 years would not be precise, as the year
referred to must be A.D. 379, (see table,) which would be
seven years before.

137 – The precise words are not found in either of these passages.

138 – in haste E.T.

139 – against all the gods of Egypt E.T.

140 – This would seem to be not quite correct. Mr. Hensley
remarks that in A.D. 360. Easter day was on April 23rd
but that the ‘fourteenth moon’ of that year was a Monday
and not on a Sunday. The question is discussed in Ideler
Chronol. vol. II. p. 254–257.

141 – i. e. as Bishop.

142 – The Juthungi were a German tribe settled on the north bank
of the Danube, in what is now Austria Proper and Moravia.
It is uncertain whether they were, as Ammianus Marcellinus
describes them, a sept of the Alemanni, or whether they
were Goths. It has been suggested that the name is only
another form of Gothi or Gothones, (Dict. of Antiq.)
The want of a detailed and accurate history of these
times, which are just beyond the range of Ammianus, makes
it difficult to make out clearly the allusions which S.
Ambrose here makes. Tillemont explains them thus, ‘Bauton
seeing the Juthungan Alemanni ravaging Rhaetia, while
the Roman soldiers were engaged in guarding the passes of
the Alps against Maximus, summoned the Huns and Alans to
make war on them. These tribes accordingly pillaged the
territories of the Alemanni up to the frontiers of Gaul.
But on Maximus complaining that they had been brought
against him, Valentinian, to deprive him of any pretext
for breaking off the peace, induced them to retire in
the midst of their victories by presents of money.’ He
also considers that the reason why the Juthungi came to
pillage Rhaetia that year was the extraordinary fertility,
and that it is this invasion to which allusion is made
in Letter xxiv, 21, where S. Ambrose says that Rhaetia
Secunda ‘drew down an enemy on herself by her abundance.’

143 – S. Ambrose means Maximus’ brother.

144 – He seems to mean that pity for the dead should move him to
less harsh treatment. But perhaps the word ‘tuam’ may have
dropped out, and we should read ‘tu tuam causam considera,’
‘do you consider your own case.’

145 – It seems necessary here to read ‘allegabis’ for ‘allegabas,’
as the past tense would be unmeaning.

146 – Cabillonum is the ancient name of Châlons-sur-Saône.

147 – He refers to the Bishops Idacius and Ithacius, who had
induced Maximus to put Priscillian and others of his party
to death, in spite of the remonstrances of S. Martin,
who urged Maximus to be content with their having been
condemned by ecclesiastical sentence. Priscillian ‘had
adopted a strange compound of various errors,’ (Prof.
Bright Hist. p. 160.) chiefly Manichean. There is a full
account of Maximus’ dealings with them in Fleury, xviii.
29, 30. Newman’s Transl. vol. 1, p. 66–69. S. Ambrose in
Letter xxvi. condemns the conduct of these Bishops, and
the appeal to the civil sword in Ecclesiastical cases, in
still stronger terms.

148 – The Benedictine Editors consider him to be referring to
the Novatians.

149 – S. Ambrose’s Latin is ‘scribe hoc viros abdicatos.’ The
Vulg. has ‘scribe virum istum sterilem.’ The LXX. γράψον
τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἐκκήρυκτον.

150 – abdicati.

151 – Fleury remarks on this, ‘We must remember that the
canonical penances inflicted for great crimes were at that
time so very severe, that they were equal to a rigorous
punishment.’

152 – See Footnote 147 on Letter xxiv.

153 – S. Ambrose makes the same statement again, De Spirit.
iii. 17. ‘It is important then to notice _where_ the Lord
maintained this argument, for oft-times His oracles derive
their value from the quality of the place where He was.’

154 – nevel.

155 – These words are not in the Heb. In LXX they take the place
of the half-homer of barley, γομὸρ κριθῶν καὶ νέβελ οἴνου.
S. Ambrose combines both.

156 – It was said just afterwards, if the story of the woman
taken in adultery be in its right place, which is doubtful.

157 – Leah means ‘wearied,’ and the name is supposed to refer
to her ‘tenderness’ or weakness of eyes. (Gen. xxix. 16).
S. Ambrose gives a mistaken meaning to the name Rachel,
which really means ‘ewe.’

158 – S. Ambrose often gives this exposition of the name
‘Shechem.’

159 – Isaac means ‘laughter.’ Gen. xxi. 6.

160 – He is here referring to Virg. Ecl. 5, 77. Dumque thymo
pascuntur apes, dum rore cicadae.

161 – Here again he is thinking of Virg. Georg. 3, 328. Et cantu
querulae rumpent arbusta cicadae.

162 – Here again S. Ambrose is thinking of Virg. Georg. 2, 154.
Squameus in spiram tractu se colligit anguis.

163 – Perhaps quoted from memory from S. John iv. 26.

164 – ‘Veri vana.’ This is simply one of the Virgilian
expressions of which S. Ambrose is so full. It is taken
from Aen. x. 630, Nunc manet insontem gravis exitus, aut
ego veri Vana feror.

165 – The Engl. Vers. is ‘Prepare war, wake up the mighty men.’
The Vulg. ‘Sanctificate bellum, suscitate robustos.’

166 – This refers to Ps. xix. 5. where the sun, that _rejoiceth
as a giant to run his course_, is usually interpreted
by the Fathers of the Messiah. It was a very favourite
thought with S. Ambrose. In his Hymn ‘De Adventu Domini’
he adapts the language of the Psalm to it in words of
beautiful simplicity,

Procedit e thalamo suo,
Pudoris aulâ regiâ
Geminæ Gigas substantiæ
Alacris ut currat viam.
Egressus Ejus a Patre,
Regressus Ejus ad Patrem,
Excursus usque ad Inferos,
Recursus ad sedem Dei.

In the De Incarn. ch. v. he gives a fuller explanation.
‘Him the Prophet Daniel describes as a Giant, because
being of a twofold nature, He partaketh in one Person
both of the Godhead and of a human Body, and exulted in
going forth as a Bridegroom from His chamber, like a Giant,
to run His course. He is Bridegroom of the soul as being
the Word, He is a Giant of earth because He fulfilled all
the duties of our daily life, and, though He was ever the
eternal God, took upon Him the Mystery of the Incarnation.’

167 – The English Version has ‘_The partridge sitteth on eggs
and hatcheth them not_.’ S. Ambrose is referring to § 11
of the preceding Letter, where he applies the text to
Satan. He makes the same application of it in Letter
xlvi. 14.

168 – perdendo.

169 – contrarius.

170 – judicio.

171 – judicio.

172 – judicium.

173 – ‘Cornici oculum effodere’ was a familiar Latin proverb for
overcoming craft with craft. See Cic. pro Mur. 11, pro
Flacco, 20.

174 – primitivus.

175 – primogenitus.

176 – Horontianus appears to have been, like Irenæus, a pupil
of S. Ambrose, and to have been ordained by him, and to
have been, as the Benedictine Editors say, ‘In clericorum
contubernio educatus ab infantia.’ Nothing more is known
of him. See Letter lxx. 25.

177 – ἐντελέχεια.

178 – propria corporis.

179 – Sun, E. V. Sol, Vulg.

180 – primitias.

181 – primogenita.

182 – The difference in the original is only the punctuation; in
the first case, ‘Nam quod videt quis quid, et sperat:’ in
the second, ‘Nam quod videt quis, quid et sperat?’

183 – S. Ambrose is evidently referring to his mission to
Maximus, and the persecution of Justina.

184 – There is another reading of several MSS., ‘et ille
profecto gemitus,’ which seems to offer a better sense,
‘and that groaning is indeed truly unutterable, etc.’

185 – Canaan. E.V.

186 – The Vulgate has, ‘Trahitur autem sapientia de occultis.’
The E.V. is, ‘The price of wisdom is above rubies.’

187 – This is referred by the Benedictine Editors to Prov. xxii.
7. but it does not agree with either the Sept. or Vulgate.

188 – τοῦ πνεύματος is inserted in a few MSS, and Spiritus is in
the Vulgate.

189 – The story of Calanus and Alexander is related in Arian
vii. 2. It is also more briefly alluded to by Plutarch.
Alex. 65. Neither writer mentions this letter.

190 – vibulamina. Gr. μοσχεύματα.

191 – i. e. the three children in the furnace.

192 – S. Ambrose is here imitating the consolation offered by
Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero on the death of his daughter. See
Ep. ad Div. iv, 5, 4.

193 – distinxisti ei.

194 – ‘Oriens’ or ‘the East’ was the title of the great civil
‘diocese’ which included Syria, Palestine, Cilicia, Cyprus,
Mesopotamia, and some adjacent districts, and corresponded
to the Patriarchate of Antioch in the ecclesiastical
division. It was originally under one chief called ‘Comes
orientis,’ but it would appear from this passage, as
is asserted by Gothofred, that the civil and military
functions had been divided, and there were now two
officers, ‘Comes orientis militarium partium,’ and
‘Comes orientis civilium partium.’ The subject is somewhat
obscure.

195 – Callinicum was in Osrhoene, a name given to the
north-western part of Mesopotamia.

196 – Socrates, B. v. ch. 13., mentions that Nectarius’ house
was burnt by the Arian party in the same year in which
this letter was written.

197 – See a note in Newman’s Fleury, p. 160.

198 – Andragathius, who commanded a fleet in Maximus’ interest
expecting Theodosius to come to Italy by sea.

199 – The Benedictine editors say ‘tota hæc pericope in uno
Cod. Reg. desideratur: forte non male.’ It is difficult
to elicit any sense from it.

200 – Siscia, now Sissek, was a large town in upper Pannonia,
on the south bank of the Save. Petavio, now Pettau, was
on the Drave. It seems likely that ‘in Sicilia’ should
be omitted, as being only a false meaning for ‘Sciscia.’
There is no mention of Sicily being in any way connected
with the war. But see Tillemont, Theod. art. xlv.

201 – S. Ambrose is quoting from memory and slightly varies the
facts from the narrative in book of Judges.

202 – See a learned note in Newman’s Fleury vol. 1 p. 162,
on the exemption of the Clergy from municipal offices,
compare also Letter xviii. 14, and the note there.

203 – i. e. the Count of the East.

204 – This refers to the famous sedition at Antioch, when the
mob, enraged at the imposition of new taxes, overthrew
the Emperor’s statues, and dragged them through the city.
After a period of suspense, during which S. Chrysostom
preached the Homilies on the Statues, Theodosius, who had
at first been violently enraged, sent them a free pardon.
This was in the previous year.

205 – i. e. of Maximus.

206 – spiritum.

207 – sacramentum.

208 – refrigerat.

209 – The Latin title is ‘Magister equitum et peditum.’ When
the Præfecti Prætorio became civil rather than military
officers, the chief command of the armies was transferred
to two high officers, called, one ‘Magister equitum,’ and
the other ‘Magister peditum.’ When the empire was divided
these became four, and eventually the number was increased
to eight, who were all called ‘Magistri equitum et peditum.’
See Gibbon ch. xvii. 3.

210 – i. e. the ‘Comes Orientis,’ under whose jurisdiction the
matter was, and who had sent the report to the Emperor.
See Lett. xl. 6.

211 – sospitatis indicio.

212 – This sentence as it stands in the text is incomplete, the
‘quia’ having no correlative. The ‘at vero quia’ seems
like ‘at enim’ in Classical Latin, or perhaps the ‘quia’
should be omitted.

213 – See Letter xix, 7. S. Ambrose in De Abraham B. 1. c. 9, 93
alludes to the use of the veil in Christian marriages.

214 – This name appears in the reply of the Milan Synod as
Plotinus, which is probably the true form.

215 – There are three laws in the code of Theodosius directed
against the Manichees, one of the year 372 A.D. which
forbade them to hold assemblies, one of 389 A.D. and one
of 391 A.D. ordering their banishment. It is probably
the second of these that is referred to, though Gothofred
refers it to the third, in which case the date of the
Letter must be altered.

216 – All these names except Geminianus occur in the list of
Bishops present at the Council of Aquileia. See p. 60.

217 – νοῦς.

218 – This whole passage is full of expressions borrowed from
Virgil.

219 – This title seems here to be applied especially to the
constellations of the Pleiades and Hyades, each of which
consisted of seven stars.

220 – See note on Letter xxvi. 9.

221 – morsus hominum. E. V. ‘principal men.’

222 – Devoravit mors praevalens. The E. V. is, ‘He will swallow
up death in victory.’ The Vulg. has, ‘Praecipitabit mortem
in sempiternum.’

223 – The word ‘vitae’ is here inserted as necessary to the
sense, and to the accuracy of the quotation.

224 – νοῦς.

225 – diminuit.

226 – ampliavit.

227 – This agrees with the LXX, καὶ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι καὶ τίς
γνώσεται αὐτόν;

228 – specie.

229 – puerum.