8. And what wonder if Bauto, whose native country lies beyond the Rhine, had done so, when you yourself threaten the Roman Empire with barbarian allies, and with troops from beyond the military frontier, whose commissariat was supplied by the taxes of the provinces? But consider what a difference there is between your threats and the mildness of the young Emperor Valentinian. You insisted on making an incursion into Italy accompanied by armies of barbarians, Valentinian turned back the Huns and Alans on their approach to Italy through the territory of the Germans. What need for displeasure is there if Bauto set the barbarians at variance with each other? While you were employing the Roman forces, while he was presenting himself to oppose you on both sides,the Juthungi[142] in the very heart of the Roman Empire were laying Rhætia waste, and so the Huns were called in against the Juthungi. And yet when he was attacking the country of the Alemanni on your frontier, and was already threatening the provinces of Gaul with the near approach of danger, he was obliged torelinquish his triumphs, lest you should be alarmed. Compare the acts of the two; you caused the invasion of Rhætia, Valentinian by his gold has regained peace for you.
9. Look too at the man[143] who now stands at your right hand, whom Valentinian, when he had the opportunity of avenging his grief, sent back to you loaded with honours. He had him in his own territory, and yet restrained his hand: even when he received the tidings of his brother’s death, he restrained his natural feelings, and abstained from retaliation, where the relationship was the same, though the rank was not. Compare therefore, yourself being judge, the two actions. He sent back your brother alive; do you restore to him his brother at least now that he is dead. Why do you refuse to him his relation’s remains, when he refused not to you those who would assist you against him?
10. But you allege that you are alarmed lest the grief of the troops should be renewed by the return of these remains. Will they then defend after death one whom they deserted in life? Why do you fear him now he is dead, whom, when you might have saved him, you slew? ‘It was my enemy’ you say, ‘that I have slain.’ It was not he that was your enemy, but you that were his. He is no longer conscious of my advocacy,do you consider the case yourself[144]. If any one were to think of setting up a claim to the empire in these parts against you, I ask whether you would deem yourself to be his enemy, or him to be yours? If I mistake not, it is the part of an usurper to excite war, of an Emperor to defend his rights. Will you then withhold even the body of him whom you ought not to have slain? Let Valentinian have at least the remains of his brother as a pledge of your peaceful intentions.How moreover will[145] you assert that you did not command him to be slain, when you forbid him to be buried? Will it be believed that you did not grudge him life, when you even grudge him burial?
11. But to return to myself. I find that you complainof the followers of Valentinian betaking themselves to the Emperor Theodosius rather than to yourself. But what could you expect, when you called for punishment on the fugitives, and put to death those who were taken, Theodosius on the other hand loaded them with gifts and honours. ‘Whom,’ said he, ‘have I slain?’ ‘Vallio,’ I replied. ‘And what a man, what a soldier! Was it then a just cause of death, that he maintained his fidelity to his Emperor?’ ‘I gave no orders,’ said he, ‘for his death.’ ‘We have heard,’ I replied, ‘that the order was given for him to be put to death.’‘Nay,’ said he, ‘had he not laid violent hands on himself I had ordered him to be taken to Cabillonum[146] and there burnt alive.’ ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘and that was why it was believed that you had put him to death. And who could suppose that he would himself be spared, when a valiant warrior, a faithful soldier, a valuable comrade was thus slain?’ At that time, on taking my leave, he said he was willing to treat.
12. But afterwards on finding that I would not communicate with the Bishops who communicated with him, or who sought the death of any one,even though they were heretics[147], he grew angry and bade me depart without delay. And I, although many thought I should be waylaid, set forth gladly, grieving only that the aged Bishop Hyginus, now almost at his last gasp, was being carried into exile. And when I appealed to his guards against their suffering the old man to be driven out without a curtain or a pillow to rest upon, I was driven forth myself.
13. Such is the account of my mission. Farewell, your Majesty, and be well on your guard against a man who conceals war under the cloak of peace.
LETTER XXV.
THAT this and the following letter were addressed to the same person is clear from their contents, especially from the commencement of Letter xxvi. Whether Studius and Irenæus were two names of the same person, as the Benedictines suggest, or whether there is any error in either title, cannot be ascertained for certain. Is it not most probable that the name of Irenæus, to whom a long series of letters follows, has been affixed to one immediately preceding them by mistake, and that we should put ‘Studio’ for ‘Irenæo’ at the head of xxvi?
The letter deals briefly with the question which Studius, a layman apparently and a judge, puts to S. Ambrose, whether he did violence to his duty as a Christian in sentencing criminals to death. S. Ambrose replies that it is lawful, but recommends merciful dealing wherever possible, in hope of amendment of life.