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 –
Это относится к долгому расколу, который существовал в Церкви в Антиохии с 331 г. н.э., когда Евстафий был низложен арианской партией: в 361 г. н.э. Мелетий был избран преемником Евдоксия, предварительно подписав Акакиево исповедание (Socr. ii. 44.); но после того, как он принял Никейский Символ веры и признал Единосущие, он был низложен и сослан императором Констанцием, а на его место был назначен арианин Евзой, которому впоследствии наследовал Дорофей (который позже был переведен в Константинополь в 385 г. н.э.). Тем временем Мелетий вернулся из изгнания, но крайняя ортодоксальная партия отказалась признать его, потому что он был первоначально назначен как полуарианин, и избрала Павлина, хотя Александрийский собор призывал их подчиниться Мелетию, так что, как говорит Сократ, перечисляя епископов главных кафедр в 379 году, Церковь в Антиохии τριχῆ διῄρητο (была разделена на три части). Павлина поддерживала Александрийская церковь и западные епископы, и, как следует из утверждений этого письма, был предложен компромисс, что когда умрет либо Мелетий, либо Павлин, обе стороны признают выжившего. Епископы в Аквилее призывают императора обеспечить это, не зная, что Флавиан уже был избран преемником Мелетия на Константинопольском соборе. Таким образом, раскол был увековечен и продолжался до 415 г. н.э.
В чем заключалась трудность с Тимофеем, точно не известно. Он был рукоположен в епископа Александрийского в том же году, после смерти Петра, преемника св. Афанасия. Тиллемон (т. x, стр. 139) предполагает, что это, вероятно, было связано с вопросом о преемстве в Антиохии.
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 –
Что касается вопроса между Нектарием и Максимом, западные епископы были обмануты последним. Максим, названный Киником, потому что он сохранял внешний вид философа-киника после того, как объявил себя христианином, был незаконно рукоположен в Константинополе, но никогда не был признан, и Собор официально объявил его не истинным епископом. Затем он ходил, пытаясь настроить другие Церкви в свою пользу. См. проф. Брайт, «История Церкви», стр. 160–166.
Нектарий был избран после отставки Григория Богослова во время Константинопольского собора. Он, как и св. Амвросий, был некрещеным и занимал высокую гражданскую должность во время своего избрания.
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 –
Симмах размышляет о призыве Вергилия,
Di patrii, Indigetes, et Romule, Vestaque Mater, и т.д.
Георг. i. 498.
Di patrii объясняются как те, кого Эней привез в Италию, Indigetes — те, кто был коренным для почвы Италии.
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 –
Еще один след Вергилия:
Cum jam glandes atque arbuta sacræ Deficerent silvæ et victum Dodona negaret.
Георг. 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.