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.