Ref. 077
Baronius (ad 387, No. 63) applies to this season of public distress some of the penitential sermons of the archbishop.
Ref. 078
The flight of Valentinian and the love of Theodosius for his sister are related by Zosimus (l. iv. p. 263, 264 [c. 43]). Tillemont produces some weak and ambiguous evidence to antedate the second marriage of Theodosius (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 740), and consequently to refute ces contes de Zosime, qui seroient trop contraires à la piété de Théodose.
Ref. 079
See Godefroy’s Chronology of the Laws, Cod. Theodos. tom. i. p. 119.
Ref. 080
Besides the hints which may be gathered from chronicles and ecclesiastical history, Zos. (l. iv. p. 259-267 [c. 44-47]), Oros. (l. vii. c. 35) and Pacatus (in Pan. Vet. xii. 30-47) supply the loose and scanty materials of this civil war. Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xl. p. 952, 953) darkly alludes to the well-known events of a magazine surprised, an action at Pœtovio, a Sicilian, perhaps a naval, victory, &c. Ausonius (p. 256, edit. Toll. [Ord. Urb. Nob. 66 sqq.]) applauds the peculiar merit, and good fortune, of Aquileia. [For the son of Maximus, Flavius Victor, see C.I.L. 5, 8032 and Eckhel, 8, 66. The victory in Sicilia must have been on sea, over the fleet of Andragathius; cp. Oros. loc. cit.]
Ref. 081
Quam promptum laudare principem, tam tutum siluisse de principe (Pacat. in Pan. Vet. xii. 2). Latinus Pacatus Drepanius, a native of Gaul, pronounced this oration at Rome (ad 388). He was afterwards proconsul of Africa; and his friend Ausonius praises him as a poet, second only to Virgil. See Tillemont, Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 303.
Ref. 082
See the fair portrait of Theodosius by the younger Victor; the strokes are distinct, and the colours are mixed. The praise of Pacatus is too vague: and Claudian always seems afraid of exalting the father above the son.
Ref. 083
Ambros. tom. ii. epist. xl. p. 955. [The interpretation of this passage is not certain. The daughters of an inimicus and the mother of a hostis are mentioned. Are the hostis and inimicus the same, viz., Maximus?] Pacatus. from the want of skill, or of courage, omits this glorious circumstance.
Ref. 084
Pacat. in Panegyr. Vet. xii. 20.
Ref. 085
Zosimus, l. iv. p. 271, 272 [c. 50]. His partial evidence is marked by an air of candour and truth. He observes these vicissitudes of sloth and activity, not as a vice, but as a singularity, in the character of Theodosius.
Ref. 086
This choleric temper is acknowledged, and excused, by Victor [Epit. 48] Sed habes (says Ambrose, in decent and manly language, to his sovereign) naturæ impetum, quem si quis lenire velit, cito vertes ad misericordiam: si quis stimulet, in magis exsuscitas, ut eum revocare vix possis (tom. ii. epist. ii. p. 998). Theod. (Claud. in iv. Cons. Hon. 266, &c.) exhorts his son to moderate his anger.
Ref. 087
The Christians and Pagans agreed in believing that the sedition of Antioch was excited by the demons. A gigantic woman (says Sozomen, l. vii. c. 23) paraded the streets with a scourge in her hand. An old man (says Libanius, Orat. xii. p. 396 [or. xix. in Reiske’s ed., vol. 7, p. 626 seq.]) transformed himself into a youth, then a boy, &c.
Ref. 088
Zosimus, in his short and disingenuous account (l. iv. p. 258, 259 [c. 41]), is certainly mistaken in sending Libanius himself to Constantinople. His own orations fix him at Antioch.
Ref. 089
Libanius (Orat. i. p. 6, edit. Venet.) declares that, under such a reign, the fear of a massacre was groundless and absurd, especially in the emperor’s absence; for his presence, according to the eloquent slave, might have given a sanction to the most bloody acts.
Ref. 090
Laodicea, on the sea-coast, sixty-five miles from Antioch (see Noris, Epoch. Syro-Maced. Dissert. iii. p. 230). The Antiochians were offended that the dependent city of Seleucia should presume to intercede for them.
Ref. 091
As the days of the tumult depend on the movable festival of Easter, they can only be determined by the previous determination of the year. The year 387 has been preferred, after a laborious inquiry, by Tillemont (Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 741-744) and Montfaucon (Chrysostom, tom. xiii. p. 105-110). [So Güldenpenning and Ifland; but Baronius and Clinton give 388. Cp. Arnold Hug, Studien aus dem classischen Alterthum, p. 54.]
Ref. 092
Chrysostom opposes their courage, which was not attended with much risk, to the cowardly flight of the Cynics.
Ref. 093
The sedition of Antioch is represented in a lively, and almost dramatic, manner by two orators, who had their respective shares of interest and merit. See Libanius (Orat. xiv. xv. [leg. xii. xiii.] p. 389-420, edit. Morel., Orat. i. p. 1-14, Venet. 1754 and the twenty orations of St. Chrysostom, de Statuis (tom. ii. p. 1-225, edit. Montfaucon). I do not pretend to much personal acquaintance with Chrysostom; but Tillem. (Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 263-283) and Hermant (Vie de St. Chrysostome, tom. i. p. 137-224) had read him with pious curiosity and diligence. [The dates which A. Hug (Antiochia und der Aufstand des Jahres 387 n. Chr.) has endeavoured to establish are not inserted in the present edition.]
Ref. 094
[“Cause” in sense of occasion. But the true cause was discontent at the practice of quartering barbarian soldiers in Antioch. Cp. John Malalas, p. 347.]
Ref. 095
[Theodoret, v. 17; on the authority of Philostorgius?]
Ref. 096
The original evidence of Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. li. p. 998), Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, v. 26), and Paulinus (in Vit. Ambros. c. 24) is delivered in vague expressions of horror and pity. It is illustrated by the subsequent and unequal testimonies of Sozomen (l. vii. c. 25), Theodoret (l. v. c. 17), Theophanes (Chronograph. p. 62), Cedrenus (p. 317 [p. 556, ed. Bonn]), and Zonaras (tom. ii. l. xiii. p. 34 [c. 18]). Zosimus alone, the partial enemy of Theodosius, most unaccountably passes over in silence the worst of his actions. [Further, Rufinus, ii. 18; Moses Choren. iii. 37; and Malalas, p. 347.]
Ref. 097
See the whole transaction in Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xl. xli. p. 946-956) and his biographer Paulinus (c. 23). Bayle and Barbeyrac (Morales des Pères, c. xvii. p. 325, &c.) have justly condemned the archbishop. [The sentence was that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue and pay the value of the destroyed treasures.]
Ref. 098
His sermon is a strange allegory of Jeremiah’s rod, of an almond-tree, of the woman who washed and anointed the feet of Christ. But the peroration is direct and personal.
