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.