  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.) 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 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, 1Illustres, 2Spectabiles, 3Clarissimi, 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 ?f??d?t? ???a??a, and this name was transferred, according to Herodotus (Bk.i. ch.105.) to the Phoenician 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. note12.) 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 s?a??? 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 ??? ?f???? ??e? p???? or ?? ?p? p????, 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 1Macc. 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 Footnote81 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 ??e????e???, 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 ?????, 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. ?????, 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 ?? ??? t?? ????. 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. ?????? t?? ??d?a t??t?? ???????t??. |
| 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, ???? ?????? ?a? ??e? ?????. 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 aul regi 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.’ |
|
