Часть первая. Жизнь и творения святителя Амвросия

In addition to the rather meager evidence about St. Ambrose from church historians of the 5th century and the testimony of other church writers, mainly Blessed Augustine, a modern biographer of 26 Ambrose may have the following data: the works of Ambrose himself, especially his letters, and two ancient biographies of him: 1) Vita sancti Ambrosii, mediolanensis episcopi, a Paulino ejus notario ad Beatum Augustinum couscripta and 2) a biography of an unknown author, printed for the first time in the patrolology of Min (XIV, 7. s. 1.) under the title: Vita et institutum patris nostri Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi 27. As for the first of these three documents, the works of Ambrose, insofar as they represent autobiographical material of a sporadic and in most cases random nature, they cannot give the reader a complete picture; but, of course, their meaning, if only they belong to the number of truly genuine creations, is still extremely important. We should treat the mentioned biographies somewhat differently. Peacock began his work at the request of Blessed Augustine 28, who was interested in the details of the life of his teacher, and had in mind to briefly and accurately report everything that he learned from trustworthy people who stood close to Ambrose before him, what Ambrose’s sister Marcellina told him, what he himself noticed, being Ambrose’s secretary, what witnesses finally told him about the numerous appearances of Ambrose after his death in various provinces 29. He asks the reader to trust his work, convincing him of his complete impartiality 30. We, of course, have no reason to suspect the sincerity of Peacock’s assurances; but still his point of view needs to be supplemented. Of course, a modern researcher must pay tribute to the sublime feelings that animated Peacock in compiling the biography of his teacher, and respect the already very numerous pious tales that were widespread in his time and collected by him about the miracles of Ambrose and his appearances after death to different people and in different places. But while Peacock limits himself to this, it would be very curious and even necessary for the modern reader to know in as precise and detailed a manner as possible about the nature of upbringing and education, about the mood of Ambrose before the episcopate, about his activities as a church teacher and administrator; They would look in vain for answers to these questions from Peacock. Moreover, as Labriolle rightly noted, in his pursuit of an exclusively edifying goal, he cared little about highlighting the extremely important political role of St. Ambrose 31. Then, promising brief and accurate information, Peacock in fact does not always remain true to his promise and almost always, instead of definite chronological dates, is content with vague pêr idem tempus. Nevertheless, even with these shortcomings, his biography, as a person who stood very close to Ambrose, in many cases turns out to be the only reliable source. We know almost nothing reliable about the origin and author of the second biography. Apparently, it appeared in the east. This is supported not only by its Greek original, but also by the fact that the author is supposedly more knowledgeable about the events of the east and dwells in particular detail on Ambrose’s relationship with Theodosius the Great. The doxology with which the biography ends, as well as the word ἀμὴν, seem to give reason to see in the author a spiritual person or, in extreme cases, experienced in composing spiritual tales. In the details of the narrative, he often disagrees with the biography of Peacock; obviously, he is not familiar with Peacock’s work and does not at all depend on it. He does not say a word about many episodes from the life of Ambrose mentioned by Peacock. The question of the time of appearance of this biography remains open, but, apparently, it appeared after the church history of Blessed. Theodoret: its author tells about St. Ambrose in almost literal words of the latter, as can be seen, for example, from the following comparisons: The first publishers of the monument in question in the course of Minya patrolology suggested that its author was Metaphrastus (see t. XIV, s. 1. pp. 45–46 note, under the letter a): but this assumption still cannot be substantiated. However, there is not even any need to raise a dispute about this monument, because in itself it has almost no meaning for us, both in view of its dependence on the history of Theodoret, and because of its disagreement with the testimony of Paulinus, who was somehow aware due to his proximity to Ambrose. According to the testimony of the anonymous author, Ambrose, under Constantine and Constance, was in charge of the prefecture of Italy and from the praetors ascended to the episcopal see 32, while from Paulinus we learn that the Italian praetor at that time was a certain Probus, and Ambrose was appointed by Probus only as the provincial ruler of the named prefecture 33. According to the same anonymous author, Ambrose was instructed in the sacred books, εἰ καὶ ἀμύητος ἦν 34, without being baptized, which does not fit well, as we will see below, both with the testimony of Ambrose himself, and with data from other more reliable sources. The anonymous author believes that Ambrose died at a very old age, 35 and yet a more detailed analysis of Ambrose’s biography depicts him at the time of his death as a man far from old. If Peacock, therefore, sometimes does not satisfy us with the meagerness of his factual testimony, then the anonymous author is capable of leading us to erroneous conclusions. If in general our sources are not particularly generous with information, then regarding the first period of the life of St. Ambrose from the moment of his birth until his assumption of the episcopal see, their insufficiency is felt especially strongly. They give us the opportunity to make only a few very general strokes in this area. Speaking about the homeland of Ambrose, Peacock takes us to Gaul, to the house of the prefect of Gaul named Ambrose 36. Judging by the high administrative position that Ambrose's father held, he belonged to a noble and influential family. Ambrose himself mentions his relative, the martyr St. Soteria, who was a maiden of a noble family and preferred the holy faith to the consulate and prefecture of her parents 37. This same fact shows that Christianity had long been known to his noble family, who even managed to produce a martyr from their midst. That Ambrose’s father was also a Christian and was baptized cannot be proven, although in view of the above fact this is very likely; but that his family was even more than pious in the ordinary sense is certain. His daughter and sister of the future bishop Marcellinus, as well as their mother, treated bishops with great respect; Marcellina also took a vow of Christian virginity on herself very early 38 . In addition to his daughter, Ambrose the father had two more sons: Satyr and Ambrose, later the famous bishop of Milan. The chronological date of the bishop's birth is quite controversial. Ambrose himself, in his letter to the North, testifies that at the time of writing this letter he was already living into his 53rd year (annum tertium et quinquagesimum) 39; the solution of the question, therefore, depends on exactly when this letter was written. Ambrose gives rather vague data for solving the problem, mentioning here the attack of the barbarians and the adversities of the time, which have not yet disappeared 40. Some see in these words an indication of the invasion of Italy by the usurper Maximus around 386–387 and, counting 53 years ago, place the birth of Ambrose in 333; others, attributing the evidence of the letter to the time of the usurper Eugenius around 393–394, consider the date of birth to be 340 41 . Of course, in the absence of other more definitive data, it is difficult to understand these assumptions; but it still seems to us that of these two assumptions, the second one seems more fair: the tone of the entire letter reveals in the author an already venerable fighter for the interests of the church, who has become tired in a long and stubborn struggle and yearns for the peace of the afterlife; in his own words, he has been experiencing suffering and oppression for a long time (jamdudum); these features are more suitable for 393 than 386. About the childhood of St. Ambrose's biographers, with the exception of one unimportant fact, do not tell us anything. According to Peacock 43, later reproduced by Pope Nicholas I 44, (Once, when a newborn baby was sleeping with his mouth open in the presence of his parents in the open air, a swarm of bees flew in and covered his entire face; the bees entered and left the boy’s open mouth, and then flew away. The interested father was very happy when he saw that the flown away bees had risen to height invisible to the eye, and saw here an indication of the height of his son’s future career. He, perhaps, wanted to see his son in his place. Then the sources take us to Rome, where a widow and her children moved on the occasion of the death of her husband 45 . She intended here to give a decent upbringing and education to her children; but it is very possible that Rome was her homeland, where she returned from the place of service of her late husband. Ambrose at that time was still a young man: he had not yet held any service. We know something about his mood in this era. Subsequently, at the time of his election to the episcopal see, he was not yet baptized, but was only listed in the ranks of the catechumens 46; Taking into account the pious disposition of his family, one can think that he was also a catechumen in his youth. But just as it often happens in life that in youth people show little disposition for the field in which in mature years they are most distinguished, so in the young Ambrose it was not always possible to foresee the future famous teacher and defender of the Church. When he saw with what reverence his mother and sister usually received a blessing from the hand of the bishop, he himself playfully extended his right hand to them to kiss. Peacock sees here an indication of his bishopric: but the stricter sister condemned the not entirely serious attitude towards the religious actions of her younger brother 47, and she, of course, was right. When the time came for training, Ambrose probably had to attend the lessons of some teacher of classical eloquence, philosophy and literature 48; That’s at least what they usually did at that time. Here he apparently managed to achieve significant success. In his works, as we will see below, he quotes many classical authors. True, research shows that the vast majority of these quotations were taken by him at second hand, often even from Christian writers, whom he met already as a bishop: but even with all this, his knowledge of classical literature and science could bring honor to an educated person of our time. As for church literature, before his election as bishop, Ambrose did not have the opportunity to familiarize himself with it. That in his youth he could not attend any special Christian school is obvious, since at that time there were no such schools in the West 49. But he, apparently, did not use the usual educational means of that era: independent study of the works of Christian writers, traveling to different cities and countries to listen to famous Christian teachers or preachers, as the blessed one did a little later. Augustine, or direct acquaintance with educated ministers of the church; otherwise his election to the episcopal see would not have found him so little prepared for this task in theological and scientific terms. He himself subsequently testified before his listeners that he began to teach them before he learned himself, and that, while teaching others, he himself simultaneously learned what he had not had time to become acquainted with before 50. By his own admission, he was not raised in the church, that is, obviously, in the church spirit 51. Just at the time that Ambrose was receiving his education in Rome, another later famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed One, lived there for the same purpose. Jerome. Asslaber believes that now acquaintances and personal connections could have developed between them, for example, during visits to Roman shrines or common teachers in the sciences 52. But nothing can support this assumption. There is no doubt, however, and according to Asslaber’s admission, that close, intimate relations were not established between them. This is evident from the fact that Ambrose never mentions Jerome in a single word: in the same way, no correspondence between them has been preserved, and in all likelihood, there was no correspondence at all. If the Vatican Library preserves a letter entitled: Epistola de tide ad beatum Hierouymum presbyterum, its authenticity is rejected 53 Having completed his secular education, Ambrose entered the service field, obviously, initially without even thinking about church service. First of all, he goes to the Italian praetor Probus, who was probably his relative; Perhaps, under his leadership, the future bishop intended to acquire in a practical way the knowledge immediately necessary for his secular career. After several successful experiences in the role of a judicial defender and the execution of other more important judicial assignments, he puts on the insignia consularitatis and, having received the province of Liguria and Emilia under his control, goes to Mediolan, to his official residence 54. But here for Ambrose, in all likelihood, unexpectedly for him, a new field of activity opened up. Before following further events in the life of Ambrose, we consider it necessary to orientate ourselves in these events to take a quick look at the general state at that time of the western part of the Roman Empire and the church. Both the internal and external life of the European West in the second half of the 4th century was determined mainly by three factors: 1) religious ferment and controversy caused by Arianism, 2) the invasion of an alien Germanic element into the bowels of the hoary Roman nationality, which at that time assumed especially wide proportions and 3) partly related to this intensification of the struggle between the emerging power - Christianity and obsolete paganism. As is known, while in the east, soon after the Council of Nicea, traces of the anti-Nicene reaction began to be discovered, the west remained completely calm. It cannot be said that the Trinitarian formulas of the then West were certainly covered by the Nicene symbol; if the crux of the anti-Nicene movement, the term ὁμόουσιος, was not news to them, then among them, undoubtedly, there were many strict Tertullianists with their vivid subordinationism. But either because the West has not yet had time to properly get used to the essence of the eastern movement, or because the dissatisfied party, for some reason, did not dare to speak out openly, especially in view of the patronizing attitude towards St. Athanasius of the influential Roman bishops, the West did not worry for the time being. For the first time, Arianism appeared openly in the West in a way that was not so much natural as violent. In view of the religious unification of East and West, Emperor Constantius, with the assistance of his two faithful agents of the Illyrian bishops, Ursanius and Valens, at the Council of Milan in 355 forced the Western bishops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, and a little later at the Council of Ariminum in 359 he imposed on them the Omian formula without the addition of κατὰ πάντα and κατ’ οὐσίαν 55 . Arianism, which manifested itself in this way in the West, did not, apparently, reach the extremes with which it differed in the East. If St. Ambrose in his writings, especially in de fide, de spiritu sancto and de incarnationis Dominicae sacramento, polemicizes with the most radical movements in the depths of Arianism, with Eunomianism and others, this can be explained not so much by the actual needs of the Western Church, but by the influence of the works of St. Vasily, who, as we will see, in this case was followed by Ambrose. Nevertheless, the Arian party that emerged under Constantius in the west did not disappear after his death and at times reached such strength that both the civil authorities and representatives of the Church had to seriously take it into account. The most energetic struggle with it filled more than half of the saint’s life. Ambrose. Another feature of our era was the strengthening of the German element in the empire. From the beginning of the existence of Rome, only Romans were full citizens: representatives of other nationalities, if they submitted to Rome due to war, found themselves in the position of slaves. The jus gentium [law of peoples] that was subsequently developed, as a special legal norm for the foreigners who joined the Roman Empire, although it recognized the freedom of the latter, still separated the actually Roman element from the non-Roman element in the empire by a certain line. But subsequently the state power itself, for its own purposes, had to enter into closer relations with the foreign element. Even Marcus Aurelius, in order to protect the borders of his possessions from attacks by barbarians, decided to use the same barbarians as mercenaries 56. Since then, this idea of ​​​​using the Germans against the Germans has never disappeared. At first, from these Germans, who were quite hospitably received into Roman territory, the so-called colons were formed, which, having settled on free state and private lands, in peacetime were usually engaged in agriculture, and in wartime they supplied the government with the main contingent of recruits 57 . Since initially these colonists were only semi-serfs on the lands of their masters 58 and miserable mercenaries, and in their position as farmers and suppliers of agricultural products they became quite profitable for the state as payers of all kinds of taxes 59, Rome for some time calmly looked at their appearance and spread in the empire. But over time, relationships change. The Christian Church is legitimized by the government and enters into the closest connection with it. Either because the ancient Roman traditions and views began to lose their importance for the Christian government, or because these Germans, who, like the Romans, did not have a glorious pagan past, turned out to be less stubborn and more inclined to accept Christianity, or, finally, only because the German element became strong enough that in the future it could be safely denied the most important rights, but only simultaneously with the political rise of the Church did the political importance begin to rise Germany Emperor Constantine the Great accepts about forty thousand barbarians into the Roman army 60. Soon these barbarians begin to occupy even the highest positions in the army, move into the civil service, penetrate into the imperial palace and there, as ministers and influential advisers to the emperor, they begin to manage the affairs of even the entire empire 61. The Church also gives them access to its clergy. We know from among the Goths not only such bishops as Ulfilas, who was appointed for the Goths 62, but also those who found supporters in the purely Roman center - Mediolan 63 - a fact that is very remarkable for this time. The consequences of this growth of Germanism were very varied and innumerable. In response, natural Rome, which had lost its historical significance, responded with contempt and mute enmity, which, however, is sometimes visible in the largest political upheavals of that time. The third driving nerve of our era was now also functioning very intensively. Paganism, it is true, has now lost much of its former power, but still retains most of its former privileges. It had a unifying center in the Roman Senate, which, although it had already lost its former political significance under Diocletian and was now forced to tolerate Christians among its members, 64 was at least the guardian and moral bulwark of pagan hopes. Not only did it not think of capitulating to the historical course of events, but it thought of taking advantage of popular disasters, which were explained by the anger of the offended gods, to gain its former strength and prestige. What is important for our purpose is that this paganism, in order to realize its cherished dream, tried to remove all obstacles from its path, and its intrigues, like the intrigues of the offended Romans in general, can be seen in the political catastrophes that St. Ambrose. All of these forces often acted separately; For the most part they were even at odds with each other. But when their interests demanded it, all or some of them united in order to jointly overthrow the enemy and generally achieve their goals. Mediolan, where Ambrose arrived for service, was also at that time an arena of rather intense religious life. Once upon a time, like the rest of the West, he was Orthodox. But at the aforementioned Mediolan Council of 355, among other disobedient bishops, the Mediolan primate Dionysius 65 was condemned and sent into exile. His successor was Auxentius, bishop of “Arian impiety.” We actually know very little about him. It is difficult even to say to which faction of Arianism he belonged. But that, in any case, he was a rather bright and persistent personality, this is evident from the excited state into which the Mediolan flock came after his death regarding the election of his successor. Ambrose’s attitude to these disputes remains completely dark for us. From the brief remarks of the historian Rufinus, we can only conclude that in those cases where, for one reason or another, the civil authority of Milan had to interfere in church life, Ambrose acted in a conciliatory spirit, trying to prevent clashes and soften hostility between parties. In this he was even successful, 66 so that with his tact and administrative talents he gained the favor of Emperor Valentinian I and gained a reputation among the population as a humane and very sympathetic person; this is fully confirmed by the subsequent course of events. How exactly such an important revolution took place in the life of Ambrose, such as the election from secular officials to the rank of bishop, remains not entirely clear. But that he himself did not achieve this at all, undoubtedly, both from the absolute silence about this from all sources, and from the recognition of Ambrose himself. God gave the gift of the priesthood to him, who had been avoiding this gift 67 . The simplest version presents the matter as follows. When Bishop Auxentius died and the people who had gathered in the church to choose his successor became very excited, threatening public order, Ambrose, as part of his duties, hurried to the church. At the time when he addressed an exhortation to the people, divided into parties, each of which wanted at all costs to install its own candidate as bishop, some boy present in the church loudly called Ambrose a bishop. This surprise so struck those present that they all, abandoning their bickering, declared Ambrose their bishop 68 . But this story is contradicted by the almost unanimous testimony of other church historians. The latter have no trace of the story with the boy, but the situation seems to be that the people and the bishops who followed him, tired of the previous enmity, after lengthy consultations recognized Ambrose as the only worthy candidate for the bishopric at this moment, who alone was capable of maintaining unity among the people and like-mindedness in the faith 69 . However, understanding this evidence, we can go even further than Socrates and Sozomen and attribute the initiative in the matter of election not to the people or even to the bishops, but to no one else than the Emperor Valentinian himself. Emperor Valentinian is considered one of the most tolerant Roman emperors, under whom “the pagans, Jews and all the various sects that recognized the divine authority of Christ over themselves were surrounded by laws from the arbitrariness of the authorities and from insults from the crowd” 70. But this religious tolerance, probably determined by considerations of state order, did not prevent him from being a Christian and even a supporter of church orthodoxy. However, state considerations prevailed in him over religious feelings. On the one hand, protecting the institutions of the ruling Church and declaring by his law those Donatist primates of the Church who repeat baptism contra instituta omnium [against the general establishment] 71 are deprived of the priesthood, he, on the other hand, values ​​order and legality above all else in the representatives of the ruling Church. Having learned that clergy, under various pretexts, often use their connections with secular persons, especially with women, for personal enrichment and through wills accumulate significant wealth in their hands, he issues a law, unpleasant for the clergy of his day, which prohibits those who boast in the name of abstinence from visiting the homes of widows and orphans, taking advantage of the generosity of a woman into whose favor they managed to enter under the pretext of religion; a will drawn up in their favor is declared invalid, and if the same thing is repeated in the future, then everything donated to the clergy or left under a will must be subject to a tax 72. He tolerates all religious parties, fearing, perhaps, that his intervention will aggravate relations between them even more. But given his mood, he could hardly come to terms with the disorders in the Church, which sometimes greatly affected purely state interests, and he could hardly have abandoned any fight against them using more or less tactful measures. One of these measures could have been the installation of Ambrose, a completely worthy man, on whom the emperor could well rely in the matter of pacifying the Church. We find indirect evidence from the same historians. According to their testimony, the Orthodox and the Arians agreed on the personality of Ambrose, precisely as a person capable of maintaining unity in the faith among the people. But is it possible to allow something like this to happen on the part of the Arians? Not to mention the fact that heretical parties very rarely show a voluntary inclination towards agreement and unity with the Orthodox, they are just as little able to be guided in their activities by any motives other than their dogmas and slogans. And suddenly the Arians gather together with the Orthodox, having argued a little, extend the hand of reconciliation to the latter and happily agree on one candidate! Was there some third and authoritative person behind the voters, whose will those who disagreed did not dare to resist? Our doubts are further strengthened when we turn to the testimony of Theodoret and the anonymous person who followed him. Both the first and the second present the matter in this way: after the death of Auxentius, Valentinian calls bishops to himself and, without naming anyone’s name, recommends that they elect a worthy one, while listing in detail the desirable qualities of the candidate. When the assembled bishops asked the emperor himself to indicate such a worthy candidate, he categorically refused this, pointing out the weakness of his forces and his incompetence in this matter 73 . It is difficult, of course, to agree that an emperor could speak in such a humble language with the bishops, who in other cases, as we have seen, showed very little such humility before the bishops and was not distinguished by this virtue at all. But the story itself about the calling of bishops and the corresponding inspiration is very likely. According to Anonymous and Theodoret, the emperor, when the results of the episcopal elections were revealed, ordered them to consecrate the bishop, showing great joy at this election 74 . And in general, all historians, not excluding Pavlin 75, credit the emperor with active participation in the dedication of Ambrose: the emperor undoubtedly wanted to see Ambrose as a bishop. This coincidence of the desires of the bishops, the people and the emperor and the general rejoicing over the successful outcome of the elections are very strange, if we do not assume that before the election of Ambrose, the desire of the emperor was, in one way or another, brought to the attention of the bishops, the direct voters. If this guess is at all fair, then Valentinian, obviously having a very high opinion of the abilities and personality of Ambrose, believed that the latter would be able to maintain order in the Church and establish that unanimity and unanimity, the care of which historians attribute to the warring parties. Following the story about the circumstances of Ambrose's election to the episcopal see, Peacock tells the story of Ambrose's evasion from the episcopal title. And in view of the above testimony of Ambrose himself that he avoided the episcopate 76, in this case we must unconditionally believe Paulinus. Whether it was because Ambrose did not hope to reconcile the discord in the Church of Milan, or because he was afraid of the hardships of serving, or simply because he considered himself unworthy of the episcopacy, even during his election he tried to dissuade his voters and, when his efforts were in vain, he decided to flee. Leaving Mediolan at night, he intended to go to Ticinum [Titin], but found in the morning near the Roman gate of Mediolan, he was forcibly returned back to the city and, to prevent further attempts to escape, was taken into custody 77. Soon Ambrose decided to flee a second time and, probably taking advantage of the poor vigilance of the guards, managed to take refuge this time in the possession of some Leontius, a man, apparently a noble 78, and who apparently lived not far from Mediolan: he was probably some very good acquaintance, and perhaps even a comrade of Ambrose from his previous service. But when the emperor’s favorable response to the report on the election of Ambrose became known, and the vicar, who had received the appropriate instructions, invited everyone to reveal the fugitive, Leontius, fearing misunderstandings and troubles for himself, did not dare to further fulfill his friend’s request and handed him over to the authorities. Forced to yield and, against his own will, accept the bishopric, Ambrose, according to his own desire, was baptized by a Catholic bishop and, 8 days after this, received episcopal consecration 79. The election of Ambrose as bishop took place in 374, therefore, in the 34th year of his life. This date has been firmly established since the time of Baronius and mainly on the basis that, according to the testimony of ancient Greek and Latin historians, Auxentius, in whose place Ambrose was elected, died in the 11th year of the reign of Valentinian, who took the throne at the very beginning of 364. 80 If the historian Kedrinus dates the election of Ambrose to the 10th year of Valentinian’s reign, or to 373, then it is later a message that contradicts more ancient testimony has no significance; Moreover, the historian himself, as usual, reveals in this case such astonishing ignorance that he considers Ambrose to be the successor to Bishop Eudoxius in the Mediolan see 81. Ambrose's accession to the episcopal see and the first years of his ministry were marked by a temporary cessation of party struggle and disputes 82 . This, of course, was the most natural result of the circumstances. For both the Orthodox and the Arians, Ambrose was a new man, although he had previously acted in a conciliatory spirit, but had not yet had time to define his theological position in detail; therefore, both of them for the time being lived peacefully around his person, seeing no reason to fear for the fate of their confession. And Ambrose himself, as having no special training and a person with little knowledge of church affairs, adheres to very cautious tactics in relation to the Arians and for some time, apparently, avoids acute conflicts with them. His first literary works dealt with issues of a more neutral nature and contained very little polemics with Arianism. Then, gradually, his actions against the Arians became more and more noticeable, reaching their highest point at the very end of the 70s, and mainly the 80s, when Arianism opposed the Church in alliance with the civil authorities and was preparing to inflict serious blows on the Church and the bishop. In the first years of his ministry, the Mediolan bishop seems to be concerned not so much with dogmatic and polemical issues, but with issues of church improvement and practical moral life. He is, apparently, primarily interested in issues of church economy and church charity. To put this aspect of church life in order and raise it to the heights, he spares neither money nor energy. Having personally a significant fortune, he immediately upon his accession to the episcopal throne distributes his money to the poor and donates part of it to the Church; the land that belonged to him, minus the part for the maintenance of his own sister, also becomes church property 83. By this act, moreover, he perhaps intends to paralyze the moral significance of the above-mentioned Valentinian law against the greed of the clergy and to discipline the clergy who have become unbridled in recent times with his own example of selflessness. Already here we foresee in him a very decisive church leader. Noticing many different defects in the moral life of the clergy, he was concerned about correcting these shortcomings. He was very strict with himself. Peacock portrays him as a great faster, who used to dine only on Saturday, Sunday, and on the days of remembrance of the most glorious martyrs; Ambrose prayed constantly, day and night 84. And, undoubtedly, Ambrose’s thought is now occupied with the highest ideal of life; many works of St. Ambrose on marriage, virginity and widowhood relate to the first years of his episcopal ministry. Blzh. Augustine, who himself spent some time in Milan, listened to Ambrose and was on close terms with him 85, testifies to the strict virginity of Ambrose 86. According to his testimony, in Mediolan, outside the city walls, there was even a monastery, the good brothers of which labored under the leadership of Ambrose 87. We know almost nothing about this monastery. Probably, nevertheless, it was not a strictly organized monastery with a certain charter on the model of the East; at least, no traces of such an organization and charter have been preserved. Perhaps Ambrose, concerned about raising the moral level of the clergy subordinate to him, arranged something in the form of a hostel for the Mediolan clergy, from whom, probably, in this case, no vows were even required, but who here had to submit to a certain discipline in accordance with the general instructions of the bishop and under his personal supervision. Perhaps it was to these clergy that his guiding work “De officiis ministrorum” [“On the duties of clergy”] was subsequently addressed to them. From the works of Ambrose himself, we learn that he was a promoter of the ideas of strict life and celibacy not only in the close circle of his clergy, but also in wide circles of the Christian world. In this case, however, he was not an innovator, but only followed views that were already quite widespread at that time: we saw that already in his family the vows of celibacy were highly revered. He used to preach every Sunday 88 and at first, apparently, paid especially much attention to preaching virginity and celibacy 89 . The fame of the new preacher quickly spread far, so that virgins from Placentia, Bononia, Mauritania 90 came to him for initiation; many, not being able to personally attend his preaching, petitioned for a written guide for life to be compiled 91 . But it is also clear that his preaching, the fruits of which were felt even in distant Mauritania, had the least success in Mediolan, however, not because the bishop’s sermon had no influence here, but because mothers and widows prevented enthusiastic girls from following the bishop’s instructions 92. Finally, another noteworthy fact dates back to the beginning of Ambrose’s episcopal activity - the transfer from the East to Mediolan of the relics of the Orthodox predecessor Dionysius, exiled to the East. At that time, the remains of the former Mediolan bishop were honored by Eastern Christians as the relics of a saint 93 . The rumor about this apparently reached Ambrose. Having previously been personally acquainted with St. Basil the Great, although the sources known to us do not say anything about this interesting fact, St. Ambrose now sends him a letter 94 that has not survived to this day with a request to return the relics of Dionysius 95 to Mediolan. Judging by the response letter from St. Vasily, his request was fulfilled. We will see that Ambrose's episcopal activity was marked by the discovery of the relics of many saints and martyrs. Subsequently, Ambrose considered the incorruptible relics to be protectors, warriors of the Church, whose patronage is all the more certain the more there are 96; they were in his eyes the victorious trophies of the triumphant Church 97 . For him, the strength of the Church is determined by the wealth of its martyrs and their incorruptible relics; relics, serving as a manifestation of the power of God living in the Church, at the same time serve as visual and publicly accessible proof of the truth of the Church, adorned with victorious trophies. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Ambrose is trying to transfer the relics of St. Dionysius in Milan: these relics were supposed to show everyone that the Catholic Church, the baptism and ordination of which Ambrose accepted, is the actual true Church. Without speaking out with open polemics against the Arians, Ambrose in this case, perhaps, wanted to give them proof of the rightness of the Catholics and thereby indirectly encourage them to abandon further distrust of the ruling Church. A wider field opened up for Ambrose’s church activities when changes took place on the Roman throne. In 375, in the twelfth year of his reign 98, Valentinian I died, leaving behind two sons: the eldest, Gratian, from his first wife Severa, who was subsequently abandoned by him, and the youngest, Valentinian, from his second wife Justina 99; both sons were still minors, and the second of them had barely reached his fifth year 100. The western half of the empire was now divided between these two heirs, with Gratian getting Gaul, Spain and Britain, and Valentinian II getting Italy, Illyria and Africa 101. But since in subsequent events Gratian often acts as a representative of the entire half of the empire and appears with his orders in Italy, the region of Valentinian himself, we have every reason to agree with Richter that Gratian, as the eldest, was granted supremacy over his younger brother, so that not a single order of the latter could be valid without the consent of the first and the arbiter of the destinies of the Western Empire should have been Gratian himself 102. The reign of Gratian is remarkable in that all of the above-mentioned heterogeneous elements of the Roman Empire, hitherto restrained by the imperious hand of Valentinian I, begin to separate and enter into open hostility among themselves. Gratian himself was partly to blame here. A minor, weak and spineless, he obeyed all those who managed to get close to his throne, and in this compliance he made a lot of mistakes, from which he later died. His main adviser was the Frank Merobod, who had already taken an active part in the division of the empire and the elevation of Gratian to the throne, and by this to a certain extent obliged the latter in relation to himself 103 . Under the influence of this Merobod, who was overly attached to his fellow countrymen and feared competition from aristocratic paganism, Gratian, on the one hand, clearly sympathized with Germanism as an insult to the national element, and on the other, took very decisive measures against paganism. Pleasing, according to the ancient historian, those who usually corrupt the morals of rulers in their palaces, he favored and bestowed generous honors on all fugitive Alans, entrusting all affairs to them, thereby arousing displeasure against himself among the indigenous Roman element of his army 104 . Then, his very accession to the throne was marked by a severance of all ties with paganism: he was the first of the emperors to renounce the title pontifex maximus [high priest], which all his Christian predecessors did not dare to relinquish. It happened under these circumstances. As a sign of the high priestly dignity of the emperor, the Roman pontifexes usually presented each emperor with a high priestly robe upon his accession to the throne. When, according to custom, such a vestment was presented to Gratian, he rejected the offering, noting that it was inconvenient for a Christian to wear this vestment 105. But, having armed the natural Romans and pagans against himself, Gratian at the same time decisively took the side of the Catholics and aroused hostility towards himself from the Arians. Frankly, this determination in the young and weak-willed Gratian is not entirely understandable. It is not impossible that the soul in this case was the same Merobod. Having in mind, perhaps, Justina, who remained with her son Valentinian and, as a determined woman, did not quite put up with the supremacy of Gratian, and, wanting to remind her of this supremacy, Merobod inspired Gratian with the famous decree against heretics of 376 106, especially since Justina herself had the misfortune of belonging to these heretics. This law, issued pro religione catholicae sanctitatis [in defense of the faith of Catholic piety], in order to stop the meetings of heretics, ordered to convert into state property all places in cities and outside cities, wherever there were altars of heretics 107. Directed against heretics in general, it concerned, of course, the Arians in particular. Now Ambrose's tactics in relation to heretics become completely different. The unrest caused among the Arians by the just mentioned law of Gratian probably already threatened the interests and safety of the Catholics and caused much grief to Ambrose; under the influence of this, from the previous patient and conciliatory attitude towards heretics, his relations now become polemical. Now Ambrose's gaze naturally turns to Gratian, from whom in this case he could only expect support for his Church. Gratian, for his part, was glad to find an energetic defender of his religious policy among the Catholic bishops, and, probably, in this way very friendly relations gradually developed between the emperor and the Mediolan bishop. An event soon happened during which the full power of this friendship was revealed and at the same time the true intentions of the Arians began to be revealed. Approximately around 378 the eastern half of the empire, the ruler of which at that time was Valentinian I’s brother Valens, whom Valentinian appointed eastern Augustus in the year of his accession to the throne 108, was subjected to a terrible attack by the Goths; the latter, being pressed by the Huns, by cunning, together with all their property and weapons and with the consent of Valens himself, moved to the eastern part of Roman territory and now treacherously carried out terrible devastation there. Confused and powerless to fight the enemy, Valens asked for help from Gratian, who, in view of this, together with auxiliary detachments had to rush to the East 109. Forced to live for some time in the East, Gratian was apparently depressed by his position among enemies in an unfamiliar country. He yearns for Ambrose, writes a letter to him 110, in which he gives full scope to express his devotion to him and, probably besieged by the Arians, who under Valens felt like masters of the situation in the East, calls Ambrose to himself and asks for his instructions in the faith 111. Ambrose, in turn, hastens to answer him with a letter in which he does not hide the fact that although the Arians do not speak out openly, they keep some plans in their hearts, so the situation remains not entirely favorable 112. Gratian would have liked to return to the West as soon as possible, but affairs in the East were taking an increasingly unfavorable turn. Valens fell at the Battle of Adrianople; The previous burdens are now joined by concerns about finding a worthy co-ruler for the East who could cope with the very critical situation in the empire. In such a difficult moment, Gratian's choice settled on the personality of Theodosius, who, in this time of general panic and horror, alone turned out to be able, as a military commander, to cope with the devastating invasion of the barbarians 113; from 379 Theodosius became the head of the Eastern Empire, and Gratian hurried to his possessions in Gaul 114. From this moment on, we are witnessing more active performances of Arianism in the West. Arian Justina could not allow Gratian’s laws to be unhindered in the territory of her son under her care. Therefore, when, soon after Gratian returned to the west, around 380, the Sirmian see, still occupied by Hermidius 115, becomes vacant, Justina hurries there so as not to let the see out of the hands of her party and replace it with her candidate. Not wanting to remain a passive spectator of the struggle taking place in Sirmium, Ambrose personally hurries there. The Arian part of the flock greeted him there fiercely, the Sirmian ladies, protected by their patroness, were especially furious, 116 and one of them, while Ambrose was speaking to the people from the church pulpit, even grabbed the hem of his robe, intending to pull him by force from the pulpit and drag him into the female half of the church (ad partem mulierum); but since most of the assembled people had no desire to follow the distraught women, this time a Catholic was elected bishop of Sirmium, and Ambrose could calmly return to Milan 117. However, Justina and her followers did not think of giving up. Wanting to prove to Gratian and Ambrose that the Trinitarian formula of the latter does not have a solid basis in the West, and having, perhaps, hope for the support of the anti-Nicene opponents of the East, they begin to seriously think about an Ecumenical Council and in this sense initiate a petition to Gratian, who initially seemed to have made a promise to convene such a council in the near future 118. But Ambrose, rightly fearing that Justina’s machinations would be crowned with the triumph of Arianism in the West, submitted a counter-proposal to Gratian, in which he proved all the inconveniences at this moment of convening a council with the participation of the Arians, who at that time had in their hands most of the most important departments of the East; he proposed to replace the promised Ecumenical Council with a Local Council of only Western hierarchs 119; at the same time, he pointed out to the emperor the custom that had recently developed, according to his observations, for eastern bishops to consider their controversial cases at eastern councils, and western ones at western ones 120. Gratian, heeding the instructions of Ambrose, changed his original promise and issued an order to convene a Local Council in the West. Such a council juxta imperatoris praeceptum [by order of the emperor] 121 actually took place in Aquileia in 380 and is known in history under the name of the Council of Aquileia 122. This council consisted of several dozen Western bishops, among whom legates of the African Churches are mentioned. The nominal chairman of the council was Bishop Valerian of Aquileia, but virtually all matters (proposing questions to the accused, formulating charges) were conducted by Ambrose of Milan, who was its actual chairman. Apparently, not even all Western bishops considered it necessary to convene this council: to them, apparently, the anti-Nicene opposition in the West seemed completely insignificant, not worth attention. Some provinces of Gaul may have held this opinion, although Gaul sent Justus, Bishop of Lyons, and Proculus, Bishop of Massilia, to the council. At least, the Council of Aquileia considered it necessary to send a special message to the dilectissimis fratribus episcopis Galliarum provinciae Viennensis et Narbonensis primae et secundae [to the most beloved brothers, bishops of the Gallic province of Vienna and Narbonne first and second], while, as far as is known, no messages were sent to the other Gallic provinces and other Western Churches; then, in the letter in question to Gaul, the fathers of the council for some reason consider it necessary to prove that they did not gather in vain 123. In addition to Prester Attan, two bishops appeared before the court of the said council: Palladius and Secundian, bishops of Daciae Ripensis [Dacia Coastal] and Moesiae [Moesia] (the region of present-day Bulgaria and Serbia) 124 . Officially, the bishops were accused of Arianism 125. The accused, rejecting the authority of the council 126, were very stingy in their testimony. But the few testimonies that they were forced to give show that the Aquileian fathers were not dealing with representatives of the extreme current of Arianism. The accused persistently denied their acquaintance with Arius and the connection of their confession with his doctrine 127. They confess Christ to be the true (verus) Son of God 128 and acknowledge the veram etiam divinitatem [also true Deity] of the Son 129 ; agree to recognize the Son as the Only Begotten (unigenitum) 130 and deny the possibility of the existence of another Begotten 131. True, they do not dare to call the true Son the true God 132, but, apparently, only in the sense that Pater major est [The Father is greater] (as can be seen from the connection of speech - secundum divinitatem [according to the Divinity]) 133, and the Son is subjectus Patri, praecepta Patris custodit [subject to the Father, observes the commandments of the Father] 134. They do not call the Son sapiens [Wise], insofar as the property of sapiens belongs only to the Father 135, but they readily call Him Sapientia, Wisdom, obviously because Sapientia the Son comes from the sapientis [Wise] Father and is a manifestation of the Father's property 136. All this taken together shows that in the person of Palladius and Secundian we are dealing with conservative subordinationists who firmly held on to their traditions and now, obviously, opposed the recognition of the Nicene confession. For their persistence in subordinationism, the accused bishops, at least one of them, Palladius 137, were anathematized by the fathers of the council, deprived of their episcopacy, and Catholics were ordered to be installed in their place 138. At the same time, according to the conciliar fathers, Arianism has already completely disappeared in the West, so that “in all regions and countries, in all villages to the very ocean there is a single and indestructible communion of believers (fidelium communio)” 139. After this, the same council began to consider some other matters, among other things, about the Antiochian schism and the distrustful attitude of the Eastern Orthodox towards the Bishop of Alexandria Timothy and, having notified the Church and the emperors with four messages 140, ceased its meetings. Ambrose, of course, returned to Mediolan. Here he soon became convinced that, although, according to the statement of the Council of Aquileia, Arianism had disappeared in the West, the same court of Justina, which had already more than once tried to use religious unrest in its political interests, did not want to change its tactics. Until now, Justina had tried to establish her influence in the regions of Italy and Illyricum by selecting appropriate candidates for vacant episcopal sees. When, in her pursuit of this goal, she encountered strong opposition in the person of the Mediolan bishop, supported, judging by the very successful results of his activities, by the vast majority of the Western flock, she seemed to be trying to discredit Ambrose in religious matters, to prove his poor knowledge of controversial issues and thereby paralyze his influence. The sources preserve very vague information regarding some kind of dispute between Ambrose and the court. Even during the life of Gratian, two courtiers (duo cubicularii) of Justina invited Ambrose to appear the very next day ad basilicam Portianam [to the Porcian Basilica] for a debate about the truth of the Incarnation of the Lord (de incarnatione Domini), promising to come to the debate in person 141. We fully believe this testimony of Peacock, since debates were a favorite method of propaganda, defense and criticism of all kinds of ideas, not only at that time, but also much later, right up to modern times. But when the day appointed for the dispute arrived, Ambrose, who appeared at the church, did not find his opponents there, who during the night had obviously managed to become unconvinced of the possibility of achieving results beneficial to themselves through their chosen path and therefore not only did not arrive at the church, but even considered it prudent to completely leave the city 142. This in itself, a very unimportant fact, acquires interest for us because on this day, instead of a failed dispute, St. Ambrose delivered perhaps the most important of all his sermons, in which he clearly expressed his views on the most important issues of Christian dogma. All the events described in themselves were already capable of making Gratian’s position very serious. But just in the midst of the storm of popular passions, the emperor took another step, which this time turned out to be irrevocably fatal for him. Hitherto, Christian emperors, who had already issued a whole series of restrictive decrees regarding paganism, spared the very center of the pagan cult: priests and pagan worship received state subsidies, and in the Senate itself the famous statue of the Goddess of Victory, personifying Roman power, continued to stand. This statue was already very respectable years old and had its own history. Brought to Rome from Tarentum, Victoria [Victory] was considered the key to the success of Roman weapons, which is why it was called adveniens [coming, getting]. Under Augustus, an altar was built in front of it, on which senators took turns burning incense before the opening of meetings of their college 143. In view of the significance of this statue in Roman life, it was downright dangerous to encroach on it. But the danger did not stop Gratian, who, by his law of 382, ​​ordered the statue of Victoria to be removed from the Senate and the issuance of state subsidies for the needs of the pagan cult to be stopped 144. St. Ambrose reacted very sympathetically to this order, which, by the way, is confirmed by the unusually energetic opposition that he provided to all attempts by the pagan Senate to achieve the repeal of the law in question. There is no need to say that Gratian’s order must have affected the pagans with the force of a thunderclap. Offended in its cherished feelings, the Senate sent legates to the emperor to express its grief, led by its best representative Aurelius Symmachus 145. But at the same time, the Christian members of the Senate, of whom there were already quite a few at that time, organized themselves and submitted a written counter-petition to the Bishop of Rome Damasus, declaring their dissolidarity with the initiators of the petition and promising not to attend the curia at all in the future if the petition of the pagans was respected 146 . Bishop Damasus, obviously already well aware of Ambrose's opinion on this issue, did not hesitate to forward this petition to him 147, and how Ambrose treated it is evidenced by Symmachus himself: the latter was completely denied an imperial audience with the indication that justice had not been violated in the least by Gratian's order 148. It is easy to imagine the feelings with which Symmachus returned back and with which he was greeted by his colleagues and, in general, by the entire pagan world: these feelings could not bode well for Gratian. In general, everyone who was dissatisfied with the emperor’s careless flirting with foreigners responded to them; heretics and a handful of Arians, perhaps, joined them - and for us the sudden appearance of a formidable ghost on the borders of Gaul becomes very clear. A certain Maximus skillfully took advantage of the discontent that various elements of the West had towards Gratian. He was a very ambitious Spaniard by birth who served as an officer in Britain. Here he was first declared emperor by a dissatisfied part of the army. When he crossed over to Gaul, he was recognized there as ruler almost without resistance. When Gratian came out with his troops to meet him, he could only see how disastrously his policy had affected the army: his soldiers, leaving him to the mercy of fate, began to go over to Maxim’s side in droves. Gratian could only flee. But the cavalry commander Andragathius, sent by Maximus, who was well aware of the state of affairs, killed him before the latter managed to escape 149. This happened around 383 150 Maxim, having completed his affairs in the West, sent one of his most important confidants to Emperor Theodosius, demanding to recognize him as emperor in the Gratian region and to conclude a military treaty with him against the enemies of the empire; in case of refusal, he threatened Theodosius with hostility and military action 151. Theodosius, not feeling capable of resistance at the moment, accepted Maximus's proposal 152, and thus the empire again had three rulers. But Gratian's supremacy over Valentinian did not pass to Maximus, and Valentinian ruled his region independently for some time. At the same time that Maxim was negotiating with Theodosius, the Mediolan court, frightened, and for its part considered it necessary to protect itself from Maxim’s claims. In difficult circumstances, the enmity with Ambrose was temporarily forgotten. To appease the tyrant, it was decided to send an embassy to him. But when they began to choose the person most suitable for this purpose, they became convinced that only Ambrose could be such a person; the court, probably, in this case, most of all relied on his persistence and undaunted firmness, evidence of which Ambrose had already presented quite a lot. Thus, for the first time in the history of the Church, its bishop was entrusted with a diplomatic mission 153. He was instructed to ask for peace from the usurper 154 and at the same time to petition for the return of the body of the deceased emperor for burial with appropriate honors 155. Ambrose willingly took upon himself the mission of interceding for the orphaned emperor, considering the protection of all orphans in general to be the direct responsibility of the bishop 156, and went to his first embassy to Trier 157, the residence of Maximus. Ambrose did not immediately agree with the proud and suspicious tyrant. He had reason to expect that, as a bishop, and even endowed with extraordinary powers, he would be received by Maxim, if not with royal solemnity, then at least in a special audience. But Maxim agreed to receive him only in the meeting of the consistorium, against which Ambrose tried in vain to protest 158. He was very distrustful of Ambrose's personality, fearing some kind of deception and cunning on his part 159; he demanded that Valentinian himself, with complete trust, like a father to his son, come to ask him for peace, although Ambrose pointed out to him that the long journey of young Valentinian 160 with his mother to Trier, which was also associated with a difficult transition through the Alps, was inconvenient in the harsh winter that was then 161; Maxim responded to the demand to return Gratian’s body with a decisive refusal, fearing that the soldiers would repent at the sight of the treacherously killed emperor and betray him 162; he even denied his participation in the murder of Gratian, assuring that the latter committed suicide 163. This ended the conversation between Ambrose and Maxim. Thus, Ambrose's first diplomatic mission did not lead to any results. But Maxim was, obviously, a rather perspicacious person to immediately move further to Italy; after all, in Italy there was not such good ground for discontent as in Gaul, because its ruler Valentinian still did not have the opportunity to prove himself an independent ruler, and his mother was still known for skirmishes with Catholics, leaving others alone. Therefore, while waiting, Maxim decided to confine himself to the boundaries of Gratian’s kingdom and did not encroach on Valentinian. As a naturally insightful person, Maximus, upon his very accession to the throne, had the opportunity to become convinced of what an important force the ruling Catholic Church and the clergy represented at that time in the Western Roman Empire: after all, the very fact that such an important matter as a political embassy was entrusted to none other than an Orthodox bishop should have revealed to him a lot in terms of the ruling forces in the country. Wanting to use this power to his advantage, he uses all possible measures to attract it to his side. This tendency of Maximus was most clearly revealed in his attitude towards the heresy of the Priscillianists. The question of Priscillianism is one of the very dark questions of church historical science. Sources and evidence from antiquity about him are extremely scarce; of the ancient historians, only Sulpicius Severus gives us more or less detailed information about him in his “Historia sacra” [“Sacred History”] 164. The publication in 1889 of the treatises of the head of Priscillianism, Priscillian, has not yet dispelled the fog surrounding him. The heresy continues to remain mysterious. Some researchers are even inclined to assume that Priscillian was condemned not as a heretic, but as an early church reformer; at that time he was a representative of adogmatic Christianity, a kind of pietist who demanded a strictly ascetic life and an appeal to the primary source of Christianity, to the study of the Bible. Others, on the contrary, see in Priscillianism a revival of Manichaeism, citing certain points of contact between them: similarities in external organization, the existence of special teachers (magistri) among the Priscillianists, the recognition of the eternity of matter, docetic Christology, etc. 165 The history of this sect begins long before the appearance of Maximus in Gaul. According to the historian Sulpicius, it originated in Egypt, from where it was brought to Spain by a certain Mark, also an Egyptian by birth. It was in Spain that she built her main nest. Having conveyed his ideas to some rich woman Agapia and the rhetorician Elpidia, Mark, however, disappeared from the historical scene without a trace and is not found at all in the subsequent history of the sect; The successors of his work are only the outstanding of his students. Initially, the named Agapia and Elpidius remained as such, but very soon they were replaced by a certain Priscillian, converted by them, such an influential member of the sect that the sect itself received its name from his name. This is a man from a noble family, very rich, eloquent and has read and studied a lot, experienced in the art of criticism and defense; He was, apparently, an ascetic, famous for his feats of wakefulness, endured hunger and thirst, was not selfish, but was considered a very thrifty person in spending his money. Our historian treated Priscillian's personality with great praise: he would have been “truly happy if he had not perverted his excellent abilities with a bad education” 166; he, calling Priscillian vanissimus [an extremely vain man], reproaches him only for the fact that the latter boasted more than he should of profanarum rerum scientia [worldly knowledge] and studied magicas artes ab adolescentia [magical art from a young age] 167. This man was able with his eloquence to convince multos nobilium pluresque populares [many people from the nobility and very many from the people] and thus significantly expanded the circle of followers of the sect; They were also joined by two bishops: Instantsius and Salvian 168. As we see, the ancient historian of the sect does not report anything that would give us solid grounds for comparing Priscillianism with Manichaeism. Such foundations are found in the treatises of Priscillian himself. But the most important of these grounds, the recognition of the eternity of matter, seems very problematic. Such expressions of Priscillian as: omnia deum fecisse quae facta sunt, et compactis inter se aelementis solidatam caeli extendisse naturam [God created everything that was created, and by connecting the elements he spread the firmament of heaven] 169, although they contain the idea of ​​world formation, they do not directly affirm the uncreatedness of matter; so that Hilgenfeld himself builds his hypothesis on the fact that the creation of the elements by God Priscillian nowhere asserts that he does not deny the doctrine of uncreated matter, of the chaos underlying creation 170 . Judging by the fact that the enemies of the Priscillianists had to use a lot of effort to achieve their condemnation, one can think that, with few exceptions, they did not disagree with the Church on the most important issues of doctrine. But, on the other hand, undoubtedly, in some way they stood out from the ranks of members of the Church and aroused the displeasure of its ministers against themselves, namely: they were reproached for their excessive passion for worldly science and passion for magicas artes [magical art]. Taking all this into account, can we not see in this sect a circle of educated people who tried, following the example of the Alexandrian Gnostic and the Origenistic sage, to reconcile the wisdom of this world with the teaching of the Church and understand the latter without having to cope with ancient tradition? Did our heretics not look at themselves as people who had risen several steps above the common mass in their understanding of church teaching? Didn't they consider the members of their circle to be the guardians of wisdom? Believing, in the spirit of Origen, that only they alone had become accessible in their true meaning to those truths that exceed the understanding of ordinary believers, they could repel others from themselves with their excessive conceit. This could be associated with a somewhat arrogant attitude towards some not particularly educated bishops. From this point of view, it becomes clear why the Priscillianists, towards whom many representatives of the Church were relatively tolerant, met their most fierce enemies among the other part of the bishops. Indeed, some points of contact between Priscillianism and Alexandrian gnosis are striking. This is, first of all, their attitude towards faith, Holy Scripture and scientific research. Like the Alexandrians, Priscillian, on the one hand, considering the word of God sufficient for believers (sufficiebat quidem credentibus dei sermo) 171 and condemning unbelief in it (crimen sit apostolis non credidisse sermonibus) 172, on the other hand, recognizes that Scripture itself needs interpretation (omnis scriptura interpretationem indiget) 173, and defends the investigation of the foundations of faith (non est tamen damnabilis culpae firmamentum fidei scriptorum probatione construere) 174; he sees his superiority in this study, since it gives him the opportunity to intellegere [understand] Scripture and vim viventis scire verbi [learn the power of the living word] 175. Then, as for the Alexandrians, for the Priscillianists the Old Testament retained its meaning only in its allegorical, spiritual understanding; Moreover, it is very characteristic that Priscillian knows the three meanings of the spiritual understanding of Scripture that Origen established: these are the bodily, mental and spiritual meaning 176. Finally, apparently, for the Priscillianists, again similar to the Alexandrians, the ultimate goal of all higher wisdom, penetration into the heavenly secrets, was mystical unity with Christ: if we consider Christ omnium principium [the beginning of everything], then, says Priscillian, we recognize man as the dwelling place of Christ, we will prepare dignum tali habitatori domicilium [a worthy dwelling for such Resident] 177 . Among the enemies of Priscillianism, Idatius, Bishop of Emeritus 178, stood out with particular zeal. At his insistence, the first council was held against the sectarians, apud Caesaraugustam, or in Saragossa, which condemned in absentia the bishops Instance and Salvian and the laity Elpidius and Priscillian who did not dare to appear at the council 179 . Only after this did the Priscillianists separate from the Church and organize their own community. The convicted bishops of Instance and Salvian elevated Priscillian to the episcopal rank 180. The fight against the sect intensified. At the request of Idatius and another Spanish bishop Itatius, Emperor Gratian issued an edict by which all heretics were expelled not only from all churches and cities, but even from the country 181. The heretics did not want to give up right away. Wanting to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the highest church authorities, they sought an audience with the Roman Bishop of Damasus; having been defeated in Rome, they went to Mediolan to Ambrose, who, however, also refused to receive them. Then they went to Trier to see Gratian and, having bribed the chief chamberlain Macedonius, a man very influential in the eyes of Gratian, but of very suspicious honesty, 182 managed to temporarily obtain the abolition of the imperial edict against them. The triumphant Priscillianists returned to Spain and freely occupied the churches that had been taken from them 183 . Circumstances changed with Maxim's accession to the throne. Yielding to the persistent complaints of the bishops, the new emperor first ordered that the case of heretics be considered at a council in Bordeaux; and when the heretics, who did not hope to be acquitted at the council, began to appeal to the court of the emperor himself, they were brought to the court in Trier 184. The emperor treated them very strictly: on his orders, Priscillian and some of his accomplices were executed 185. In this way, Maxim hoped to win over the Catholics to his side in order, with the moral support of the latter, to strengthen his position in the state. But this time the trick failed: the vast mass of the Catholic clergy still continued to treat him unkindly; and outstanding representatives of the Western hierarchy are Martin of Tours and St. Ambrose - openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the usurper's actions 186. While the Priscillianists were being debated in Gaul, a literary controversy of world importance was taking place in Italy. When, after the death of Gratian and the accession to the throne of Maximus, Valentinian II became independent from his co-rulers in the governance of Italy, the Roman Senate tried to seek happiness from him, counting on his youth and inexperience. But, knowing from previous experience that it is not entirely easy to achieve the desired results through deputation, the Senate this time instructed Symmachus, already known to us, to draw up a detailed memorandum on the restoration of the rights of the pagan religion and present it to the emperor. This memorandum is the famous “Relatio Symmachi”. "Relatio Symmachi" is a brilliant apology for paganism, imbued with the deep affection of the pagan for the cult of his ancestors and heavy grief over the latest orders. Symmachus was not a reckless fanatic, capable of going against all evidence: he puts up with the changes in the empire that have occurred recently, is ready to recognize the equality of all religious cults and justify their simultaneous existence: Suus enim cuique mos, suus cuique ritus est [Each has its own custom, each has its own ritual]. The Divine Mind, in his opinion, distributed various guards and various cults between the cities; just as souls are divided between individuals being born, so are fatales genii [geniuses of fate] between different peoples 187 . There is no need in how each one investigates the truth: we cannot all follow the same path to tam grande secretum [so great a secret] 188. Without therefore protesting against other religions, Symmachus only asks that the rights of his native religion not be violated, and defends these rights to exist in this way. First of all, pagan religion created the power of the Roman Empire. Emperors owe their power to the altar of Victoria and will henceforth owe even more. This cult created the universe, drove Hannibal from the walls, the Senones from the Capitol 189. What can we say about the famous Vestal Virgins, whom the state has now deprived of its subsidies? Honor solus est in illo velut stipendio castitatis [Their only honor consists in this, as it were, payment for their purity] 190. He complains that they were treated unfairly. Thus, ordinary citizens retain the right to accept the property left to them by will; slaves are not deprived of this right by law, and only famous virgins and servants of the sacred lots (nobiles virgines et fatalium sacrorum ministri) are deprived of estates acquired by right of inheritance 191. What is the use of devoting an immaculate body to the general welfare and not having the same rights as everyone? 192 Meanwhile, from neglect of them, many misfortunes occurred for the empire, such as general famine in the provinces, etc. 193 Then Symmachus moves on to another argument - the extreme antiquity of the pagan religion. Consuetudinis amor magnus est [Great is the love of habit] 194. All previous definitions tending to limit the cult 195 were shattered by this habit. The long existence of a religion creates a strong authority for it, and therefore faith must be preserved for all times, and we must follow our parents, who followed our grandfathers and for that enjoyed prosperity 196 . In conclusion, Symmachus envisages the objection that could be heard against his request in the contemporary Roman Christian state. Perhaps, he says, someone will say that it would be unfair for the state to give funds to the needs of someone else's religion. To this he notes that the state consists of individuals and what comes from it becomes again the property of the individuals. You manage everything, but reserve yours for everyone in accordance with their needs and interests 197; therefore, nothing prevents - this is the conclusion from the reasoning of Symmachus - the pagan cult to benefit from the subsidy of the Christian state. When this curious document was received at Milan, Ambrose was not there: it may have been in the winter of 383–384, when Ambrose was negotiating with Maximus in Trier. But rumors about this apparently reached him even before he had time to return; and, excited by the assumption that a very young emperor might yield to the insistence of the Senate, he hastens with his letter to support his firmness 198. He begins his letter with a reminder that there is only one true God, Who controls everything, serving Who is incompatible with serving idols and pagan cults 199. But, limiting himself here for now to only the most general remarks that nullius injuria est, cui Deus omnipotens antefertur [there is no injustice in relation to the one above whom Almighty God is placed] 200, that there is nothing majus heligione [greater than religion], nothing sublimius fide [higher than faith] 201, asks him for a copy of the note of Symmachus presented to him in order to examine in more detail all its provisions 202. This note was presented to him, and Ambrose wrote a detailed and no less brilliant criticism of it than the “Relatio” itself. Realizing that he cannot compare with the brilliant eloquence of Symmachus, which is capable of unwittingly bribing a person in his favor, Ambrose first of all asks the emperor to pay attention not to the elegance of words, but to the importance of things; then briefly pointing out the three main theses of Symmachus: 1) that Rome is seeking the restoration of its ancient cults, 2) that priests and vestals are entitled to receive a subsidy, and 3) that, finally, the result of the termination of the subsidy was public famine 203, he proceeds to their detailed analysis. To the first proof, Ambrose counters by pointing out the powerlessness of the pagan gods in the history of Rome: dum sacrorum potentia praedicatur, infirmitas proditur [while the power of sacred rites was proclaimed, their weakness was revealed] 204. Thus, the gods did not prevent Hannibal from victoriously reaching the very city walls, and the Senones would have captured Rome if the goose had not betrayed them. And Hannibal worshiped the same gods as the Romans. Consequently, if these gods were victorious among the Romans, they were defeated among the Carthaginians; if they triumphed among the Carthaginians, they did not bring any benefit to the Romans. In fact, Rome does not owe its greatness at all to its gods: the spoils of victory were given not by the blood of animals, but by the strength of soldiers 205. But in essence, longevity and old age alone, regardless of internal dignity, cannot serve as a reliable criterion in determining the dignity of religion. Erubescat senectus, quae emendare se non potest [Let old age blush, which cannot correct itself]. The whiteness of morals, not years, deserves praise, and there is no shame in moving from the old to the better 206. Further, they ask for the restoration of the cult and subsidies from the Christian emperor, but at the same time they forget that christianus imperator aram solius Christi didicit honorare [the Christian emperor is taught to honor the altar of Christ alone] 207. However, the very request for a subsidy speaks of the weakness of paganism. The pagan emperors not only did not subsidize, but oppressed and killed Christians, who, however, looked at these punishments as a reward and did not think of asking for a subsidy. Christianity was exalted by humiliation, poverty, punishment, and the pagans do not hope to maintain their ceremonies without assistance 208. To touch the emperor, they point out the innocence of their vestals. But what are these vestals compared to Christian virgins? The pagan cult admits barely only seven vestals, but Christianity gave plebem pudoris, populum integritatis, consilium virginitatis [(a whole) people of chastity and purity, the council of virginity]; among the former we see purple insignia, luxury, wealth, all kinds of privileges, while the latter tell us only about fasting 209 . They also ask for subsidies for their priests and ministers, but why don’t they pay attention to the fact that these priests and ministers still enjoy the right to receive inheritances through private wills, while Christian clergy are deprived of such a right by recent laws 210 . The Church itself is nihil sibi, nisi fidem possidet [has nothing but faith]; if, in addition to this, she possesses any property, then this is possessio sumptus est egenorum [property for the poor] 211. They threaten with disasters that supposedly befell the empire for insulting the ancient religion. But even if we take the point of view of Symmachus, can it be considered fair that for depriving only a small handful of priests of the means of subsistence, the gods should deprive everyone of the same means? 212 However, the disaster did not reach such wide proportions as Symmachus depicts, because the national famine did not affect many provinces 213. And what significance can these indications of disasters, as a manifestation of the wrath of offended gods, have for Christian emperors? If the gods have not helped those who worship them, how can they protect those who do not know them at all? 214 Having examined all the main arguments of Symmachus according to the planned plan, Ambrose again goes back and dwells in some more detail on the evidence from the ancient times of religion. Majorum, inquit, servandus est ritus [He says that the custom of the ancestors should be preserved] 215. But in the world nothing remains unchanged forever, but everything gradually moves into a better state. The initially unsettled world later received its beautiful forms. At first there was no day, and only in the process of time did it become illuminated with its light and warmed up with warmth. The moon goes through entire phases in its constant development. First the leaves appear, then the fruits; Childhood comes first, followed by adulthood. In a word, everything both in nature and in man changes until it reaches final perfection 216. The same law is observed in the history of the spiritual development of mankind. There is no crown of victory without fighting the opposite. Humanity often comes to the truth along a long path of error, and after the darkness of paganism it saw the light of Christianity; but, recognizing the truth of the latter, it should in fairness give it preference over the first 217. After dwelling on some remarks that are not of fundamental importance, St. Ambrose finishes his rebuke. At the basis of all the revealed reasoning of St. Ambrose has the idea that, as follows from the process of world development, paganism, with all its internal shortcomings, if it had any meaning, it was only temporary, while humanity was in the stage of infancy; with the onset of adulthood, a new, most perfect form of spiritual life should have begun in human development. This, in essence, is a fairly old idea, which was used partly by Christian apologists of the 2nd century, and mainly by the first Alexandrians (especially Clement); Ambrose narrows it by accepting only the general framework of gradual spiritual development, without recognizing the material similarity in the content of its individual moments. His originality lies only in the fact that this idea seems to have been used for the first time to literary justify the religious policy of the Roman emperors of the second half of the 4th century. Meanwhile, the ideas expressed by Ambrose in the monument we examined sometimes receive an exaggerated interpretation that does not correspond to reality. Thus, bearing in mind mainly the idea of ​​Ambrose that Christianity exalted itself without any support from the state, the famous French historian Gaston Boissier writes: “It seems to me that supporters of the separation of Church and state and the destruction of the church budget, with some leniency, should consider St. Ambrose to his own. If it were possible to apply expressions of the present tense to the past, then it would be necessary to say that St. Ambrose was a radical, and Symmachus was a reactionary. In any case, there is not the slightest doubt and it can be asserted without fear of objections that in the great struggle we have outlined Symmachus supported privileges, and St. Ambrose demands freedom" 218. In fact, Ambrose is as little like a radical as Symmachus: he demands not that the Christian state abandon its care of the Church, as well as the pagan cult, but asks the emperor that, having completely abandoned paganism, he devotes his concerns exclusively to protecting the interests of the Church. Ambrose's note completely paralyzed the impression of Symmachus' "Relatio". And this time the pagans were very definitely denied their request. They, of course, could not forget this to Valentinian II, just as they had not forgiven Gratian for their offense. Needing the services of Ambrose to settle matters with Maxim, the Mediolan court lived in peace with him for some time. But the gap between them, sooner or later, inevitably had to come again and did come. It was caused by two reasons. Firstly, they shared a religious point of view: Ambrose was a strict Catholic, and Justina was an Arian; She also instilled her views in the young Valentinian II 219. Secondly, she also had political considerations in mind: before, she relied on the Arians to get rid of Gratian’s tutelage, now she began to seek accomplice with them in order to protect herself from Maxim. The latter, as is known, reached the imperial throne mainly with the support of the Roman element offended by Gratian; Justina now decided to use to her advantage the Gothic element, Arian in its majority, which had been relegated to the background. This can be thought on the basis that she fought with Ambrose mainly through the Goths, as evidenced by Ambrose himself: venerunt enim Gothi, et diversarum nationum viri: venerunt cum armis, et circumfusi occupaverunt basilicam [the Goths and other foreigners came, came with weapons and surrounded the basilica] 220. The clash broke out over an essentially insignificant issue. On the basis of the laws issued by Gratian against heretics, decisively all the churches of Mediolan passed into the hands of Catholics. Having gotten rid of Gratian's tutelage, the Mediolan court now began to demand that the Orthodox give him at least one church for the organization of religious meetings 221. Initially, they demanded only an insignificant chapel, which was also located outside the city walls of Mediolana (extramurana) and known as basilica Portiana [Portian Basilica] 222. Ambrose responded to this with a categorical refusal, believing that the bishop does not have the right to dispose of the property of God. The court, which did not expect such a turn of affairs, apparently became irritated and demanded the bishop to the palace for an explanation. Ambrose sent a second refusal to Valentinian, declaring that in ecclesiastical matters a bishop could only be subject to the court of bishops 223; at the same time, he reminded him that his father Valentinian I even established by law that in matters of faith a cleric can only be judged by one who is equal to him in gift and does not differ from him in rights 224. Having lost hope of the possibility of an agreement with Ambrose, the court switched to the side of more decisive measures. The law he issued at that time read: “We grant the right of assembly to those who believe in accordance with what, in the time of the sacred memory of Constantius, after the assembly of bishops from the entire Roman Empire and the exposition of the faith at the council of Ariminum and Constantinople, was determined for all times and confirmed even by dissenters. Let freedom of assembly (conveniendi) be granted to those whom we command; and let those who arrogate this right only to themselves know that if they try to organize any indignation against the injunction of our serenity, then, as the perpetrators of indignation and violation of church peace, as well as insulters of the imperial majesty (majestatis), will be subject to punishment by death.” The law is dated February 386 and published in Milan 225. This law, of course, was primarily directed against St. Ambrose. Now the Arian party is no longer content with the basilicam Portianam [Portian basilica], and declares its claims to a new and large church located in the city itself (intramurana) - the so-called basilica nova [new basilica] 226. Apparently, even the idea arises of replacing Ambrose with some other, more suitable bishop. At least in Mediolan there appears the Arian bishop Mercurin, a Goth by origin, who took the name of Auxentius, the Mediolan predecessor of Ambrose, for greater authority. When Ambrose, even after these formidable orders, did not think of retreating, it was decided to force him into obedience. He was to be arrested and sent into exile 228, and his church was to be handed over to Auxentius. When, through an official, this decision was brought to the attention of Ambrose, he was performing a divine service in one of the Mediolan basilicas. Having learned the emperor’s decision, he courageously declared from the church pulpit in front of his flock that he did not intend to voluntarily leave the church; even if he is forcibly taken out of the church, then in this case only his flesh will be driven out, but not his spirit 229. Here, regarding the orders of the court concerning him, he first developed in detail his famous theory about the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, about their rights and relations to each other. The starting point of all his reasoning on this matter is the words of Christ: render the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God (Matthew 22:21). The emperor owns the palace, and the bishop the church 230, and the emperor cannot assert his claims to the church and its servants: he is granted the right only to dispose of public places, but not sacred 231, and regarding that quae divina sunt [that of God], he cannot imperiale aliquod jus habere [have (to) any imperial right] 232. The Church belongs to God, and the Dei templum [church of God] cannot be the object of jus Caesaris [the right of Caesar] 233 ; the emperor is filius Ecclesiae [son of the Church], belongs to the Church, but does not stand above it 234; jus Ecclesiae [the right of the Church] 235 does not belong to him. He must seek help from the Church, but not alienate this help from himself 236. Such should be the relationship of civil authorities to the Church. As for the Church and its representatives, within the limits of their purely ecclesiastical activities they do not know anyone other than Christ 237. They are quite content with their jus Ecclesiae [the right of the Church], without making claims to jus imperiale [the imperial right]; the emperors coveted the sacerdotium [priesthood] more than the priests of the imperium [empire]; Christ himself did not want to be king 238, the Church does not deny jus Caesaris [the right of Caesar] 239. If the emperor demands tribute, the bishop does not refuse him 240. But if the emperor goes beyond the limits of his jus [right] and encroaches on jus Ecclesiae [the right of the Church], if the emperor orders, for example, tradere basilicam [transfer to the basilica], then the bishop answers: non possum [I cannot], although he immediately adds: pugnare non debeo [I must not fight] 241. In the event of a clash with jus imperiale [imperial law], the bishop defends his jus [right], but again by means that do not go beyond his own jus [right]: habeo arma, sed in Christi nomine, habeo offerendi mei corporis potestatem [I have weapons, but [only] in the name of Christ; I have the power to lay down my [own] body] 242 . If the emperor wishes to forcibly take possession of church property, then the bishop answers him characteristically: non dono, sed non nego [I do not grant, but I do not refuse] 243. Military detachments, consisting mainly of Goths, were ordered to occupy the basilica. Ambrose, together with his faithful followers, continued to remain in the church even after the end of the service 244. In a fit of the most sincere enthusiasm, the believers firmly decided it was better to die as a martyr together with their bishop for the independence of church property than to allow the Church of God to be desecrated 245. Several days of the involuntary siege were a continuous time of prayer and religious animation. The introduction of St. dates back to this time. Ambrose singing hymns during worship. Wishing to keep his flock occupied during their long night vigils and to provide a form for the expression of their religious delight, Ambrose offered them several of his hymns for church performance 246 ; but then this innovation, which appeared on such a special occasion, was firmly established in the liturgical practice of the Western Church. The singing of the hymns made a tremendous impression on those present, so that even Ambrose’s enemies attributed the people’s inspiration to the hymns 247 . Apparently, popular enthusiasm has already begun to somewhat worry the government about the possibility of new and more serious complications. Moreover, the hopes placed on the Goths were far from being justified. The latter themselves succumbed to the general enthusiasm; in addition, they were affected by the news of the excommunication that the bishop subjected them to. One way or another, but only little by little the Goths began to go over to Ambrose’s side and thereby contributed to his triumph 248. Ambrose himself had the opportunity to testify that those sent to attack the divine heritage themselves became co-heirs of God, that he found protection for himself among those whom he considered his enemies 249. Apparently, prudence prompted Valentinian and Justina to make concessions, and Ambrose, together with his followers, learned with great joy that the emperor had ordered to lift the siege from the basilica 250. However, there has not yet been talk of complete reconciliation. At this very time, when the siege from the basilica had already been lifted, and yet complete reconciliation with the court had not yet taken place, Ambrose solemnly celebrated the discovery of the relics of two Mediolan martyrs: Gervasius and Protasius 251. In the time of Ambrose, almost no one knew about these martyrs: not only did they forget the place of their burial, but even their very names disappeared from people's memory 252 . They lay unknown in one basilica in front of a grating placed near the already discovered relics of the martyrs Nabor and Felix, glorified by the Church, so that believers approaching the tombs of the latter unwittingly had to pass by the burial place of the former 253 . The event of the discovery of the relics occurred during the performance of one rite of dedication of the basilica unknown to us from the sources, apparently according to a preliminary vow 254. It is possible that during the clash we described with the Mediolan court, Ambrose made a vow to perform this dedication if the outcome of the struggle was favorable for him, just as now people who are in difficult circumstances of life make a vow to God to fulfill this or that good deed if their prayer is heard. The people present insisted that the bishop perform a similar rite in another local basilica, known as Rome 255, to which he agreed, but on the condition that he managed to find the relics of the martyrs 256. He had probably long ago heard a silent rumor that the bodies of two martyrs were buried in one of the Mediolan basilicas; he had probably already looked for them more than once under the floors of Mediolan basilicas, but so far all his investigations had not revealed anything to him. The basilica being dedicated apparently remained the only place that had not yet been surveyed. Be that as it may, but, by order of Ambrose, the clerics began to dig the ground in front of the lattice of Set and Felix 257. Soon two skeletons were noticed, very large in size: all the bones were preserved intact, and there was a lot of blood around them 258. The bones were solemnly removed from the grave, and after an equally solemn celebration the next day they were transferred to the basilica called Ambrosiana 259 ; here they were laid under the altar in the place that Ambrose had prepared for his burial 260. The people hurried in droves to the tombs of the newly-minted martyrs, wanting to worship them or by touching their remains to receive healing from various ailments 261, and the bishop thanked God that He had aroused the spirit of the holy martyrs at a time when the Church needed especially strong protection 262. The final rapprochement of St. dates back to approximately this time. Ambrose with his famous disciple Blessed. Augustine. For several years now, the rhetorician Augustine, still a Manichaean, had been listening to the sermons of the Bishop of Mediolan, whose name was famous far beyond the borders of Mediolan. Ambrose's personality made a strong impression on him. It is described by Augustine in his Confessions. It is to this influence that the history of Augustine’s internal rebirth and conversion to Christianity must be largely attributed. The inspired struggle of St. Ambrose and Justina, supported by their no less inspired flock, contributed to this in particular. Already in August or September 386, according to researchers, the conversion of the blessed one took place. Augustine in Milan, although the baptism took place somewhat later, namely, on Easter night 387 263 Augustine, according to his own testimony, was baptized by Ambrose himself 264. This circumstance undoubtedly tied them even more closely to each other. And although soon after this Augustine left Milan and St. Ambrose forever, but he retained the impression and affection for his teacher, combined with deep respect, until the end of his life, as evidenced by his reviews in his various creations 265. It is difficult to say how long the tense situation between the Catholics and the Mediolan court would have continued, or in what direction further events would have gone, if sudden alarming news from the west had not cleared the thickened atmosphere. Let us remember that at that time Maximus was still sitting in Trier, who hoped to rule with the support of the Catholic clergy. Having already failed in his attempt to win over this clergy over the heresy of the Priscillianists, he, having learned about the Mediolan events, also decided to use them in his political interests and decided to act as a defender of Orthodoxy. The anonymous compiler of the biography of Ambrose and Theodoret retained the news that Maxim sent a threatening letter to Mediolan with reproaches for the persecution of the Orthodox, demanding an immediate end to the religious persecution and threatening war otherwise 266. This rather unexpected letter seems to have thrown the Mediolan court into confusion. It was necessary to somehow prevent the impending danger by sending an embassy to him. Here again they remembered Ambrose: he had already fearlessly spoken before Maxim once, and one could generally rely on him in this case, since Ambrose himself had a negative attitude towards Maxim, as a tyrant who had illegally seized the throne and raised arms against his emperor 267 . Ambrose was offered a second time to go as ambassador to Trier in order to resolve the conflict; and he, having forgotten the insult inflicted on him so recently, considered it his duty to come to the defense of his rightful emperor. In 386 or 387 268 his second embassy to Maximus 269 took place. And now, as before, he was received by Maxim very distrustfully and officially at the general meeting of the consistorium 270. And this time he did not agree to hand over the corpse of Gratian, on which St. insisted especially strongly. Ambrose 271. The latter was soon to return without any positive results from his mission, and the political situation still remained dangerous. In Mediolan, however, this time they were dissatisfied with Ambrose, mainly with his intransigence to the tyrant. To improve matters, they decided to send a new, third embassy to Maxim. This time the choice fell on some Mediolan courtier Domnin, a Syrian by origin, a noble man who enjoyed the trust of the emperor, 272 but at the same time, it seems, weak-willed and short-sighted. Maxim, seeing Domnin, immediately realized that in Mediolan they were seriously afraid of him, and considered the moment the most favorable for the invasion of Italy. Domnin was received by him very kindly, with honors, showered with expensive gifts, so that he came away with the impression that Valentinian could not have a better and more faithful friend than Maximus 273 . With cunning plans, but covered with outward courtesy, Maxim even offered Domnin, upon his return, a military detachment, which, supposedly, would prove useful to Valentinian in suppressing the unrest that had recently broken out in Pannonia, which belonged to him. Domnin gratefully took advantage of the service offered to him 274. Returning back to Mediolan, Domnin testified before the frightened court about the very friendly feelings that Trier allegedly had towards Mediolan. But very soon, however, Maxim’s insidious cunning was revealed: with his main forces he followed on the heels of the detachment entrusted to Domnin 275. In Mediolan they learned about this only when Maxim approached almost the city itself. Under such circumstances, Valentinian and Justina had no choice but to flee to save their lives. They actually took refuge first in Aquileia, and then crossed over to Thessalonica under the strong protection of Theodosius 276. Ambrose, who never recognized Maximus at all, also did not want to tacitly acknowledge him as his master by staying in Mediolan, and therefore also went to Aquileia 277. Meanwhile, Maxim had already moved his troops here too 278. Arriving in Thessalonica, Valentinian and Justina begged Theodosius for war with Maximus. But the too cautious Theodosius initially agreed only to send ambassadors to Maxim in order to induce him to peace and restore the political status quo 279. Meanwhile, he really liked one of Valentinian’s sisters, Galla, who arrived in Thessalonica with her brother and mother. Having recently lost his former wife Plaquilla, he now decided to marry Galla. And since Justina agreed to this marriage only under the condition of immediate war against Maxim, the indecisive Theodosius could only agree and, after the marriage, set out on a campaign 280 to Aquileia 281. Very quickly he approached the walls of Aquileia. Maxim's position here turned out to be much worse than he thought; he had to be convinced once again how few supporters he had in the Valentinian region. Theodosius in 387–388 282 occupied Aquileia almost unhindered; Maxim was killed 283. For some time after this, Theodosius continued to remain in the West and went to Mediolan 284, where he probably waited until a new order was finally established in the West. According to the historian, he transferred all the lands taken from Maximus to Valentinian, so that the latter, like his father Valentinian I, united the entire western part of the empire under his rule 285. But, undoubtedly, Theodosius very generously rewarded himself for his labors in overthrowing Maximus; after this we see him as the complete master in the West, so that, according to the testimony of St. Ambrose, Valentinian was guided by his instructions in his further activities 286. Probably, having given the Western Empire to Valentinian, Theodosius retained the right of supreme leadership and control of Western life, and in fact, therefore, became the ruler of the entire empire 287. After the defeat of Maximus and the return of Valentinian II to the throne, Ambrose entered perhaps the calmest period in his episcopal life. Justina, who caused him so much trouble, soon died. Under the influence of Theodosius, young Valentinian irrevocably changed his attitude towards the Orthodox Church in a direction favorable to it. From this time on, the most friendly relations were established between him and Ambrose. Young, with a feminine, tender soul, the emperor completely submitted to the influence of Ambrose, making him the closest person 288. Describing his benevolent attitude towards the Catholic Church, Ambrose compares him with Father Valentinian and Brother Gratian, adding that he not only kept their covenants intact, but even completed and expanded them 289. Under these conditions, the Arian party once and for all had to abandon all hopes of success and little by little disappear without a trace. From this time on, Ambrose's literary polemics against them became less frequent and milder. Ambrose devoted himself to very zealous preaching activities from the church pulpit. Blzh. Augustine had the opportunity to listen to him every Sunday 290. It is difficult, of course, to list all the objects to which the bishop now turned his attention, since not everything he created at that time has reached us. But the same blzh. Augustine testifies that, under the influence of Ambrose’s sermons, he was able to resolve for himself all the knots of intricacies set up by learned seducers against the Divine Books 291, and this makes it clear that Ambrose’s listeners found in his speeches answers to many questions of Christian thought and life. It is easy, of course, to guess that the bishop, a strict virgin, now began preaching ascetic ideals with particular force. It goes without saying that, as before, he now found sympathizers with his way of thinking; but now for the first time he had to face quite serious and principled opposition on this issue. Initially, however, this opposition did not originate in Mediolan: opponents came here from somewhere outside 292. Probably, here their number increased significantly, since the documents name about nine persons, headed by Jovinian, who were condemned 293. These, according to Pope Sirius, incentores novae haeresis et blasphemiae [inciters of new heresy and blasphemy] 294, apparently extended their religious free-thinking very far. Their objections seemed to be directed, first of all, specifically to the Western Church, against its teaching about a strictly organized ordo factorum et meritorum [order of deeds and merits], according to which each specific type of human deeds and merits was quantitatively corresponding to a certain degree of heavenly reward, and they tried to prove that, in relation to the heavenly reward, virginity is in no way higher than ordinary marriage 295. At the same time, they armed themselves against the vows of virginity, preferring married life to it 296; and even more than that, virginity seemed to them to be not an institution of Christ and the apostles, but an invention of the bishops 297 . Further, since in the church consciousness of that time the doctrine of virginity was generally associated with the doctrine of the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our heretics, in order to weaken the power of the episcopal arguments, simply rejected the doctrine of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. Without denying the supernatural conception of Christ from the Virgin, they taught that by the act of the birth of Christ, the virginity of Mary was violated by the very law of birth, so that She did not remain forever the Ever-Virgin: the Virgin conceived, but it was not the Virgin who gave birth 298 . Finally, Jovinian and his accomplices rebelled in general against any ascetic mood of his age, no matter in what forms it manifested itself, for example, fasting 299. Pope Siricius was the first to respond to the topic of the day, irrevocably condemning the new heresy. He notified the Milan Church 300 of his decision with a special message. After this, the 301st council in Milan, held around 390, for its part, decisively spoke out against Jovinian, notifying the pope of the decision 302. After the council, the heresy disappeared from Mediolan, but its supporters continued to exist for some time in other places. Even among the Orthodox bishops there was one who fell under the influence of heresy 303. However, this probably did not last very long; if subsequently Ambrose occasionally returns to this topic, then in this we can see proof that the heresy soon disappeared completely. Soon after these disputes, Ambrose had to endure a heavy loss in the person of Valentinian, who died, like his older brother, a victim of betrayal by his own army. The soul of the conspiracy this time was a man very close to the emperor named Arbogast, a Frank by origin, who rose high in military service under Gratian 304; an ambitious and very capable man, who enjoyed the great favor of the army 305, he obviously expected to be the most powerful man in the Valentinian empire. But, apparently, Valentinian preferred Ambrose to him, listening to his voice. Ambrose's influence had long irritated Arbogast. Peacock makes it clear in passing that between him and Ambrose there were far from friendly relations 306. Arbogast did not dare to remove Ambrose from the path, perhaps due to his enormous popularity, and therefore preferred to get rid of the rebellious Valentinian. In this matter, he could, first of all, rely on the army 307 located near him, which, moreover, largely consisted of his fellow countrymen and compatriots. But, in addition to the army, he could also be supported by the pagans, who were once offended by the emperor in the person of their famous representative Symmachus. The right moment to carry out Arbogast’s plan was not long in coming. One day Valentinian received news that the Gallic borders of the empire were under attack from the Franks, and, as a supreme military leader, he hastened there with his army and Arbogast. Circumstances detained them here for some time. Arbogast immediately changed his attitude towards the emperor: he treated him very rudely, did not carry out his orders, and issued orders in his own name, in addition to the emperor. The latter, finding himself completely alone and helpless, begins to feel bored and sad, writes letters to Ambrose, calls him to him, seeks his protection; anticipating the possibility of imminent death, he wishes to receive baptism from his spiritual father 308: until now he has not yet been baptized. Ambrose could not immediately fulfill his request. Meanwhile, when almost everything was ready and the pagans agreed to take part in the conspiracy, they, undoubtedly feignedly, also made an attempt to petition the emperor for the restoration of the altar of Victoria. Valentinian refused this time too 309. The results were revealed immediately: a few days later Valentinian was found dead, and rumor and even history considered Arbogast to be directly responsible for his death. This happened in 393 310. Arbogast still did not dare to put on the imperial crown: the rise of barbarians in the public service had long caused displeasure among natural Romans and it could have been expected that the appearance of a natural barbarian on the imperial throne would be greeted in the country far from sympathetically; if paganism helped him overthrow Valentinian, it was only because this Valentinian inflicted a blood offense on him. Arbogast chose to govern the empire on behalf of the natural Roman rhetorician Eugenius, who had long lived at the court of Valentinian and was now enthroned 311. With this election, Arbogast hoped to rely on the ancient Roman party, intending to create a counterbalance to the influential Catholics led by Ambrose. Indeed, as soon as Eugene had time to ascend the throne, a pagan deputation headed by the prefect Flavian arrived to petition for the restoration of the altar of Victory and government subsidies for the pagan cult 312; and the emperor, although he was a Christian, immediately hastened to satisfy this request 313. It is clear that, wanting to please the pagan party, he had to alienate the Catholics, who began to avoid all communication with him. As soon as Ambrose learned that Eugene from Gaul was hurrying to the imperial residence of Mediolanus, he, not wanting to meet him, immediately left Mediolanus and went to Bononia, and then to Florence 314. From the place of his voluntary exile, he sent a letter to the new emperor, in which, blaming him for his concession to the pagans, he reminded that if the power of the emperor is great, then the power and dignity of God is even greater 315. В Медиолан Амвросий возвратился только по удалению Евгения. The rest of the Catholic bishops behaved the same way towards the latter: the gifts of Eugene, who had stained himself with wickedness, were not accepted by the Church; ему отказывали даже в общении в церковной молитве 316 . Theodosius, having learned about the coup, immediately began to prepare for war. In vain Eugene rushed to win him over with a special embassy 317. Theodosius had already opposed him and, no later than 394, defeated Eugene with his army; in this struggle, Eugene was killed, and the desperate Arbogast committed suicide 318. Theodosius intended to severely punish all those who sympathized with Eugene; but his anger was softened by the intercession of Ambrose, who asked to spare at least those whose guilt was not particularly great 319. From 394, Theodosius began to rule the entire empire without assistants or co-rulers. His zealous religious policy, aimed at establishing the Nicene confession in the empire and fighting all kinds of heresies, should have brought him closer to Ambrose, who was equally inclined to him. Both of them highly valued each other and their mutual relations in most cases left nothing to be desired. Only occasionally were these relations marred by the emperor's temper and tendency toward excessive cruelty. В первый раз это случилось по поводу восстания в Антиохии. Дело представляется в таком виде. Long defensive wars against the barbarians exhausted the treasury of Theodosius, who for this purpose was forced to increase the amount of taxes from the population 320. Это распоряжение вызвало недовольство во многих местах империи. In Syrian Antioch no later than 387 321 things came to insulting the person of the emperor and his family. The irritated crowd, as a sign of displeasure, overturned the statues of Emperor Theodosius and his wife Plaquilla standing in the city square and, with frantic screams, dragged them around the city. Even before rumors of this reached Theodosius, local administrators managed to execute some of the culprits 322. Then the emperor, angry, deprived the city of its privileges and, obviously, threatened with even greater punishments, so that the frightened Antiochians began to ask him for mercy with a special deputation. Fortunately, the emperor's anger soon subsided, and the emperor canceled his issued orders regarding the offending city 323. Очень скоро после этого Амвросий был взволнован новым уже более обидным для Церкви распоряжением императора. In 388 324, the head of one of the remote eastern provinces reported to the emperor that local Christians, outraged by the Jews and Gnostics, who, apparently, caused them some obstacles in their religious processions, destroyed one Jewish synagogue and one of the places of religious gatherings of the Valentinians 325; monks and the local Orthodox bishop also seemed to be involved in this matter 326. Вспыльчивый император издал распоряжение наказать примерно монахов, а православного епископа обязать на церковные средства возобновить разрушенную синагогу 327 . From the point of view of Ambrose, in this order of Theodosius, both the emperor’s violent intervention in matters of this kind and the emperor’s determination to protect Jews and heretics to the detriment of the interests of Christians should have been offensive to the Church. From Aquileia, he immediately sent a special letter 328 to Theodosius in Milan. Having pointed out first of all the duty of the bishop to speak the truth to the emperor in case of errors on the part of the latter 329, especially if these errors concern religious subjects, 330 he then points out the obvious injustice of the emperor towards Christians. Indeed, why did he not issue a similar order regarding the heretics who attacked the house of the Orthodox bishop in Constantinople 331, and flew into a rage when the synagogue was destroyed, perfidiae locus, impietatis domus, amentiae receptaculum [place of infidelity, house of wickedness, refuge of madness], which God Himself condemned? 332 Why did the Christians not demand from the Jews the restoration of their destroyed churches, but restored them at their own expense, when these Jews, during the time of Emperor Julian, destroyed many Christian churches in Damascus, Gaza, Ascalon, Beirut and Alexandria? 333 Is it just and in accordance with religious duties that Ecclesia non vindicata est [The Church was not protected], but on the contrary vindicabitur synagoga [the synagogue is protected]? 334 Если распоряжение императора будет приведено в исполнение, то этим не только будет нарушена справедливость, но и поругана Церковь. Ведь синагога будет восстановлена на средства, приобретённые христианами любовью Христа, Которого отвергли иудеи; а иудеи, иронизируя над христианами, сделают на дверях своей восстановленной синагоги надпись: храм нечестия, воздвигнутый на деньги христиан 335 . Isn't this an evil mockery of Christians? Разве этим император не даёт повод иудеям злорадно торжествовать над Церковью Христовой 336 , которая должна уничтожить синагогу? 337 В заключение епископ просит Феодосия отменить своё прежнее решение относительно восстановления синагоги и издать новый приказ, полный веры и благочестия 338 . Насколько можно судить по свидетельству Павлина, император не пожелал разрывать с Амвросием и после некоторых колебаний удовлетворил его просьбу 339 . If this fact already speaks strongly enough about the high importance that Theodosius attributed to the Bishop of Milan, then the Thessalonian event shows that Theodosius was sometimes able to sacrifice his own pride in order to maintain the favor of the saint. Ambrose. Just two years after the story of the Jewish synagogue, in 390, 340, a rebellion broke out in Thessalonica over a minor issue. For some reason the inhabitants of Thessalonica, the chief city of the whole Illyrian prefecture and the seat of the prefect, became so embittered against their superiors that they stoned some of the members of the magistrate and dragged them through the streets of the city; some were killed in the process 341. The incident was immediately reported to the emperor in Mediolan. Having learned about this, Ambrose, according to custom, came to the emperor to intercede for the unfortunate people who were awaiting severe punishment; the emperor seemed to have given him a promise to be moderate and selective in punishing the guilty 342. But then, due to the influence of the courtiers, who inclined the emperor in a completely different direction, Theodosius, without saying a word to Ambrose, allowed the Thessalonian administration to deal with the rebels at its own discretion, without trial; and these administrators, breathing a sense of merciless revenge against some of the Thessalonians, lost all sense of proportion in punishments, dooming to death everyone on whom suspicion fell; The moral feeling of the best people of that time was especially outraged by the fact that many more innocents died among the few rebels 343. Some historians estimate the number of those executed at 7,000 people 344. Perhaps this huge figure is significantly exaggerated, but, in any case, something so terrible happened in Thessalonica even for that time rich in all sorts of horrors that, according to the testimony of St. Ambrose, anything like nulla memoria habet [no one remembers] 345. It was with a deep sense of indignation that we learned about this incident in Mediolan. Ambrose, who had hitherto stood so close to Theodosius, began to avoid all meetings with him 346. Then, to justify his behavior, he wrote a letter to the emperor, in which, pouring out all his disgust for the act of Theodosius, by the example of the prophet David, he called on him to immediate church repentance 347. Conscience and religious feeling began to speak at once in the emperor; the anger to which he so easily succumbed passed and Theodosius was overcome by the pangs of repentance. Ambrose could then boast in front of the whole world as an emperor who “subordinated his kingdom to God, made repentance, confessing his sin, asked God for mercy, and through humility acquired salvation” 348; - an emperor who “publicly mourned his sin in the Church” and, as an example to ordinary believers, “was not ashamed to publicly repent” 349. The further life of Theodosius proceeded in complete peace and harmony with Ambrose. The emperor died in 395. St. Ambrose was now left alone; he, however, had very little time left to live. History has preserved for us very little information regarding this last period of his life. His former influence on government affairs is declining. The Western Emperor Honorius, who succeeded Theodosius, was influenced by his first minister, the foreigner Stilicho, who, like Arbogast, was suspicious of Ambrose. Peacock talks about the case of a clash between Stilicho and Ambrose on the issue of the right of church asylum: a certain Crescontius, persecuted by Stilicho, decided to use the right of church asylum for his salvation; Ambrose and the clergy received him. But Stilicho sent soldiers who forcibly broke into the church and, contrary to existing laws, took Crescontius 350. This fact shows that Stilicho was not one of the people who found it necessary to reckon with Ambrose. Ambrose himself at this time, obviously, already feels quite tired of all his previous activities and, without actively reacting to Stilicho’s mood, completely abandons his previous field of activity. His main attention now, apparently, is directed to his desk literary work, to which he devotes all his already weakened strength. At this time, Peacock, the author of the well-known “Vita Ambrosii” [“Life of Ambrose”], appears near him as a house secretary. This Peacock, as can be concluded based on his own words, wrote down Ambrose’s latest creations under the dictation of Ambrose, since it was difficult for the weak bishop to write himself 351. Ambrose, apparently, became very attached to Peacock and fell in love with him 352. According to him, Ambrose post obitum [after death] Theodosius fere triennium supervixit [lived for about three more years] 353. On this basis, the death of St. Ambrose is usually dated to 397. 354 Literary works of St. Ambrose 355 Literary productivity of St. Ambrose was extraordinary; in this regard, only a few of the church writers can compare with him. To understand this, you need to keep in mind that only a few of Ambrose’s works were created independently of the church pulpit and were completely processed by him. Most of his works arose from sermons recorded by his listeners. Some of them remain unprocessed from the outside: they sometimes lack internal connection, integrity and completeness. Others were subsequently given by him in the form of separate treatises and books. It should also be noted that in modern science not all works known under the name of St. Ambrose of Milan, are recognized as truly belonging to him; Regarding some of them, opinions differ, and some have long been recognized as fraudulent works. From this point of view, in the further presentation we find it possible to subdivide them into three categories: works a. Original works of St. Ambrose Authentic works of St. Ambrose are considered to be those which are preserved in the most ancient manuscripts, to which he himself testifies and which are quoted under his name by other writers of antiquity. A number of such works in many printed editions, especially later ones, open with an essay entitled Hexaemeron [“Six Days”], but in terms of time this is far from the first work of Ambrose; in printing it in the first place, the publishers were guided only by the motive of logical sequence: “Hexaemeron” concerns the first verses of the Book of Genesis, while other exegetical works are engaged in explaining further verses and chapters of this and other books. Traces of the earliest origin, admittedly, bear the work “De paradiso” [“On Paradise”]. “De paradiso” is dedicated to explaining the biblical story about paradise, about the settlement of man in it, about the naming of animals, about the creation of woman, about the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, about the tempter and temptation, about the consequences of the fall. The seriousness of the tone and some dryness of presentation, the absence of an appeal to the listeners, mention of the day's gospel reading and preaching techniques in general give some reason to assume that in its present form this work does not represent a church sermon. But perhaps Kellner’s assumption is correct that the close connection, recognized by Ambrose himself 357, of this work with the work “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”, written in the spirit of a sermon], shows that “De paradiso” in its original form arose from oral teachings 358. According to Ambrose himself, he wrote about heaven nondum veteranus sacerdos [not yet being an old bishop] 359; hence some attribute this work to the first, 375, year of Ambrose's episcopal activity 360. Although such a precise determination of the date of the book's appearance is somewhat arbitrary, it is likely that the absence of allusions to other works in it indicates its very early origin. “De Cain et Abel” [“About Cain and Abel”], having as its starting point the biblical story of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel, contains many moral and mystical-allegorical applications. The work consists of two separate books. At the beginning of it, Ambrose notes that above he already spoke about paradise and our first parents; therefore, this work constitutes, as it were, a direct continuation of the story about the fate of man upon his removal from paradise. In terms of time of origin, it appears to be directly adjacent to the previous one. “De virginibus” [“On the Virgins”] contains in three books a praise of the virgin life and an exhortation to it. These books, according to Ambrose's own testimony, were written at a time when he was nondum triennalis sacerdos [(when his) bishopric was not yet three years old] 361; consequently, having received the episcopal dignity in 374, he could address the virgins with his composition around 377. “De viduis” [“On Widows”] was written very soon after the previous book and stands to it in exactly the same relationship as “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”] stands to the book “De paradiso” [“On Paradise”]. Ambrose testifies that, since he had already discussed virgins in previous books, he now cannot pass over widows in silence and does not dare to divide those whom St. apostle 362. Probably both books appeared in the same year. “De virginitate” [“On Virginity”] is similar in content to the three books about virgins. Its origin in sermons is clear from the repeated references to the daily readings in worship 363 . This book undoubtedly appeared after the book about widows, since it already contains references to the latter 364. On this basis, some think that “De virginitate” appeared in 378 365, but the work does not contain clear data to resolve this issue 366. “De fide” [“On Faith”] in five books, in connection with the ardent denunciation of Arian and generally heretical opinions about the Son of God and about the Person of Christ the Savior, contains a presentation of Orthodox teaching on the basis of the dogmatic definition of the Council of Nicaea; At the same time, the treatise also contains the general doctrine of the Holy Trinity and, due to the abundance of dogmatic material, is very important in characterizing the theological views of St. Ambrose. There are very clear indications that not all of the books in this work appeared at the same time. From the treatise itself it is clear that it was written at the request of Emperor Gratian during his campaign to the east to help Valens in his fight against the Goths 367, i.e. in 378; Ambrose's expression in one of his letters explains that only the first two books of the treatise 368 were written at this time. The other three books were added to the first ones later. These books were undoubtedly compiled from church sermons: they are directly called the daily teaching 369, they speak of the daily apostolic reading 370, the author often addresses the listeners in them 371. But along with this general purpose, the books were intended personally and for the emperor, which is evident both from individual addresses to the emperor 372 and from a direct indication of the emperor’s desire to become more familiar with what he approved in the summary 373. On this basis, we can think that Books III, IV and V of the treatise were compiled soon after the first two and, perhaps, around 379 or 380, as He believes 374: appeals to Emperor Gratian, who was present at the delivery of teachings (coram) 375, show that the latter had already returned from the east at that time, and this could not have happened earlier than 379. “De excessu fratris Satyri” [“On the death of brother Satyr”] represents the word spoken by Ambrose at the burial of his brother Satyr; the constituent addition to it “De fide resurrectionis” [“On the hope of resurrection”] 376 - the word about the resurrection of the dead and about the final destinies of man was pronounced seven days after the first at the grave of the deceased 377. The time of origin of these two books is determined by the bishop's references to the fear and misfortunes of Italy caused by the fear of a barbarian invasion 378; Moreover, the invasion of barbarians in the West was only expected, but did not actually happen. Consequently, the words in question belong to the time when Gratian and especially his eastern co-ruler Theodosius had not yet managed to completely put an end to the barbarians in the East, i.e., around 379. 379 Some, however, attribute the word to an even earlier time, namely to 375. 380 “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”] in three books sets forth in connection with the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, about His participation in creation, providence and redemption. The treatise contains references to the books “De fide” [“On Faith”] 381, and the letter we have already quoted, sent to St. Ambrose in 378–379 to the east to Emperor Gratian, shows that at that time Ambrose still only intended to write about the Holy Spirit 382, ​​which means that the work could not have appeared earlier than 379. On the other hand, at the time of writing this work, the leader of the previously feared barbarians had already died, and the Alexandrian Bishop Peter was still alive 383. These signs point to 381 as the time of the appearance of our treatise 384. “De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento” [“On the Mystery of the Lord's Incarnation”] is directed against the Arians and followers of Apollinaris and sets out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God and the mystery of the Incarnation. The initial address to the listeners 385 suggests its origins in church sermons. The expression “hesternos meos non invenio creditores, nisi forte improviso conventu putaverunt nos esse turbandos: sed numquam fides vera turbatur [I do not find yesterday’s creditors, unless by (some) sudden agreement they decided to throw us into confusion, but true faith never comes into confusion]” 386 reminds us of that episode in the life of the bishop when Arian courtiers summoned him to a debate about objects of faith. In this case, the work in question represents a response to the challenge and denunciation of the disputants and was written in 382. “Apologia prophetae David” [“Apology of the Prophet David”], as the title of the work shows, aims to explain and justify the dark sides in the life of the prophet David. Its origins in church teachings are indicated by references to the day's reading and the book's doxology to the Holy Trinity 387. It contains still fresh impressions of the disasters of the war endured, of the violent murder of the Tsar 388; both can be attributed either to the uprising of Maximus in 383 or to the accession of Eugenius in 393. But if we take into account that references to the “Apology of the Prophet David” are already found in the commentary on the Gospel of Luke 389 dating back to 385, then it will be clear that the above signs refer to the time of Maximus and the murder of Gratian. The book was thus compiled around 383, and, in any case, no later than 385. “De poenitentia” [“On Repentance”], in two books directed against the extreme rigorism of Novatian, sets out in a moderate spirit the church teaching on repentance and the forgiveness of sins. In determining the chronological date of origin, this work presents more difficulties than most of Ambrose's other works. Attempts to determine it precisely are not always convincing. Based on the words of Ambrose that at the time of writing this book he had already endured enough labor in the name of the Church 390, its origin is generally attributed to the difficult eighties 391; further, the more lenient attitude towards sinners expressed in the book compared to the views that Ambrose developed in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke seems to show that the first arose earlier than the second 392. Thus, the book "De poenitentia" appeared in the period of time between the death of Emperor Gratian, after which difficult times came for the Church, and the compilation of the commentary on the Gospel of Luke, around 384. 393 But this is only an assumption that cannot be strictly proven 394. “De Tobia” [“On Tobias”] weaves passionate philippics against usury into the fabric of the non-canonical narrative about Tobias. This is a collection of sermons combined into one whole. The mention of the Huns, 395 who became known to the Romans only in 375, 396 shows that the book could not have appeared before this time. And the fact that in a letter to Bishop Vigilius, written around 385 397, Ambrose also speaks against usury and holds up Tobias 398 as a model of relations with debtors, gives some researchers reason to assume that the collection “De Tobia” was written earlier than the letter to Vigilius 399, in which the bishop only reproduced his previous thoughts, and allows others to assume that the letter was written earlier and served as the reason for the compilation of a special work 400; in general, for the compilation of the book, a ten-year period of time is separated between 375 and 385. 401 But it seems that the very subject of the work under consideration shows that at the time of its composition the Church was not overwhelmed by external adversities and struggles, and the Mediolan bishop had the time and opportunity to heal the internal and permanent ailments of society; the time from 382 to 386 was hardly favorable for this, when there were already a lot of extraordinary and urgent needs. In addition, the number of works by Ambrose falling in the seventies is smaller and the works are smaller in volume compared to the number and volume of works composed of sermons and falling in the second half of the 80s. And if these latter, precisely because of their large number, are quite difficult to arrange according to chronological dates, and for each year several large treatises fall, then one has to be amazed when Ambrose had time to compose so many sermons and pronounce them during divine services; Each new book can only create difficulties here. Therefore, since the internal data of the work “De Tobia” do not at all speak against an early origin and since there is no compelling data in favor of its late appearance, then, perhaps, due to the above external considerations, the book “De Tobia” can be attributed to the first half of Ambrose’s episcopal activity, to the end of the seventies. The Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam [Exposition of the Gospel of Luke], divided into ten separate books, gives a consistent explanation of the Gospel history and teaching. The entire commentary is a collection of words that were gradually communicated to the listeners from the church pulpit 402. Its volume suggests that the period of time in which its constituent words could have been spoken was more or less long: in one of the initial books of the commentary there is a mention of the feast of the Epiphany 403, and the word included in the VIII book was pronounced in the dies natalis sacerdotii of Ambrose 404, i.e. on the day of Ambrose’s consecration as bishop; such a day was December 7, 405. Thus, Ambrose worked on his commentary on the Gospel of Luke for a whole year. The precise definition of the year is helped by the author’s words about the plight of the Church, about the bishop who, in sheep’s clothing, caused trouble in the Church 406, i.e., an allusion to the Arian bishop Auxentius, who came out with his machinations in 386. Then, no one knows when, all the individual sermons were collected by the author himself and in this form addressed to some person 407. We find evidence of this work from the blzh. Augustine 408. Expositio psalmi CXVIII [Exposition of Psalm 119], or the 22-chapter exposition of the psalm, is also a collection of sermons 409. The entire presentation, or at least the second half of it, appeared after the commentary on the Gospel of Luke, since it already contains references to the latter 410. In it, the Church is still presented as persecuted 411, it speaks of the discovery of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius 412 as an already accomplished fact, and mentions the popular singing of hymns in the Church 413. All these data, taken together, give reason to place the commentary in question immediately after the commentary on the Gospel of Luke and date it to approximately 387. “De Noe” [“About Noah”] sets out with enormous appendices the history of the righteous Noah, gives a detailed description and explanation of Noah’s ark, speaks of the global flood, the conclusion of a covenant with God, the subsequent fate of the patriarch, the blessing of Shem and Japheth and the curse of Ham. This work opens up a whole series of other works about the life and deeds of the post-Flood patriarchs and stands in close connection with them. In some codes and in the blzh. Augustine found another name for the book “De area” or “De area (et) Noe” 414, but the authority of the most ancient codes speaks in favor of the name “De Noe” 415. There is very serious disagreement about the time of origin of the book. Some, understanding by the church and state disasters mentioned in it 416, the disasters of the Gothic invasion in 378 and, taking into account the close similarity of the work in its general character and in the predominance of the mystical-allegorical element with the work “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”], attribute it to the relatively early period of Ambrose’s episcopal activity, to 379. 417 Others, from the mention of indiction in the work, conclude that it appeared around 386, when one indiction ended and another began, and when the thought about it could most naturally come 418. But this last consideration and the reference to indiction cannot actually have evidentiary value. Ambrose's passage here literally reads like this: a septembri mense annus videatar incipere, sicut indictionum praesentium usus ostendit 419. The meaning of this expression is as follows: as the accepted calculation of time according to indictions shows, the year begins in the month of September. Already from this it can be seen that here only a reference is made to the reckoning of time accepted at that time - a reference that is equally natural both in the middle and at the beginning and at the end of the indiction. More important are the historical features of the book; in them, apparently, one can find a guiding thread for resolving the controversial issue. As one might think, the calm, reconciled tone in which Ambrose speaks about the vicissitudes of the world, the daily embarrassment 420 experienced, the sins with which we reject God’s mercy 421, and the too brief, only casually expressed mention of the misfortunes that befell the Church 422, give reason to assume that here we are not dealing with 385, 386 and 387 years of the Church’s fierce struggle with the court, and adversity and disasters are political, worldly, military; otherwise, it is unlikely that Ambrose would have called on his flock to calm down ab omni cura terrenae conversationis, quae corpus nostrum atque animam frequentibus vexat doloribus [from all the worries of earthly life, which torment our body and soul with frequent sorrows] 423 if the matter here was about the state of church affairs. This assumption is partly confirmed by the detailed arguments of the author of the book about the need for discipline for troops, about the need to deploy troops in battle expediently and according to a known plan 424. Further, inviting his flock to calm down from the worries of the time, the bishop points them to the righteous Noah as a model and recognizes the best and instructive feature in the latter as the fact that he was looking for something useful not for himself personally, but beneficial for everyone 425. Obviously, by this he wants to indicate the reason that caused the turmoil, and he has in mind some outstanding example of injustice and selfishness. And if so, then, taking into account all of the above, most likely we have here a hint of ambition, of the hard-heartedness of the usurper Maximus and we can attribute the book “De Noe” [“About Noah”] to the first years of the latter’s reign, i.e. to 383-384. 426 The difficult times that soon followed for the Church deprived Ambrose for a time of the opportunity to write about other patriarchs. Commentaries on the Gospel of Luke and Psalm 118 constitute this break caused by the difficult circumstances of the time. Only after some calmness could Ambrose begin to further implement his plan. “De Abraham” [“About Abraham”] sets out in two books the history of Abraham with the addition of an appropriate commentary. The first book included instructions for those preparing for St. baptism 427, the second, apparently, meant listeners who were already enlightened. “De Isaac et anima” [“On Isaac and the Soul”] has only an external relation to the story of Isaac, and mainly contains a commentary on the Book of Song of Songs and the doctrine of the mystical union of the Divine Logos with the soul of the righteous. “De bono mortis” [“On the Good of Death”] is a work of predominantly moral content, dedicated to the development of the idea that death, as the separation of the soul from the body, is good and not evil; according to Ambrose himself, in terms of the time of its appearance it is directly adjacent to the work “De Isaac” [“About Isaac”] 428. “De Jacob et vita beata” [“On Jacob and the Blessed Life”] is divided into two books and, within the framework of the Old Testament story of the patriarch Jacob, sets out the doctrine of the highest good as the freedom of the spirit from the desires of the flesh, and the attitude of the righteous to external goods and disasters. The first book can be called the theoretical part of the work, and the second - practical, since in it the main thoughts of the first part are illustrated with examples of the patriarch Jacob, Eleazar and the Maccabee brothers with their mother 429. The work is also based on sermons 430. “De Joseph” [“About Joseph”] sets out the story of Joseph, presents him as a model of Christian chastity and purity and, on the other hand, develops the doctrine of Joseph as a prototype of Christ the Savior in character and circumstances of life. When this book was compiled, books about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob already existed 431. The story of Joseph was told by Ambrose from the church pulpit, 432 and, of course, the stories of all the other patriarchs, as closely related to it, were also the subject of church instructions. This same connection, this unity of the plan revealed in all the books gives reason to assume that they all appeared soon after one another, and therefore the book “De Joseph” can give us the key to determining the chronological date of each of the works. This key is the mention in the book of a certain Syrian, a courtier of Calligonia, executed by order of Emperor Valentinian II 433; Ambrose's letter to his sister Marcellina, written, judging by internal data 434, in 386, gives reason to think that the execution took place in the same year 435. Soon after this our work appeared, probably in 387 or 388. “De patriarchis” [“On the patriarchs”] or, according to the inscription of other later codes, “De benedictionibus patriarcharum” [“On the patriarchal blessings”] 436 treats Jacob’s blessing of his sons. This work, judging by the subject of the presentation, should immediately follow the book about Joseph and belongs to the same year; due to the internal connection that unites them, the book about the patriarchs was sometimes even mistaken for the second part of the book about Joseph 437. The work already contains references to the explanation of the Gospel of Luke, and this once again confirms the appearance of the book after 386. The Hexaemeron ["Six Days"] is a commentary on the biblical account of the creation of the world and the origin of man. In its present edition, the book consists of six separate parts, according to the number of six days of creation; over the course of also six days, the contents of the book were expounded by Ambrose from the church pulpit 438. But, as the doxologies found in the text show, these six books were composed of nine words, since on some days Ambrose spoke two words; These are the explanations for the first day of creation 439, the third 440 and the fifth 441. In terms of time of origin, this is a rather late creation. The double mention of the nationwide singing of psalms and hymns that existed in the Church 442 indicates the date of writing after 386. Finally, the peace and prosperity of the Church during the compilation of the “Six Days” 443 suggests that the “Hexaemeron” dates back to at least 388, when, with the death of Empress Justina, the persecution of the Church by the Arians ceased 444. “De interpellatione Job et David” [“On the complaint of Job and David”] its main interest revolves around the question of the earthly well-being of sinners and the failures that haunt the righteous. The work is divided into four books. The doxology that concludes book 445 probably indicates that it also has its roots in teachings. A vague hint as to the time of the book’s appearance is given by the following words of Ambrose: in civitatibus bonorum principium imagines perseverent, deleantur imagines tyrannorum 446, i.e. the statues and memory of good rulers in the state are preserved, and the images of tyrants are destroyed. Obviously, the bishop had already had the opportunity to become convinced from experience of the fragility of the rule of tyrants, of the fragility of the glory that they seek. Thus, the work “De interpellatione Job” could only appear after 388, after the tragic death of the first usurper Maximus 447. “De Elia et jejunio” [“On Elijah and Fasting”], as the title indicates, is devoted to revealing the doctrine of the necessity and saving fruits of fasting and abstinence. The work appeared after the introduction of hymn singing, which it mentions in passing 448, but the exact date remains unknown. From the fact that in one place of the book Ambrose speaks of emperors in the plural, the conclusion is sometimes drawn that at that time there were two emperors in Milan 449; this could have been after the victory over Maximus, when Emperor Theodosius lived for some time in the West 450. But in reality, this circumstance does not prove anything, since just one line later in the essay it talks about one emperor. “De fuga saeculi” [“On Flight from the World”] is a work of moral and ascetic content, treats the benefit of moving away from the world and worldly attachments. Already the main idea of ​​the essay is dissatisfaction with the surrounding world, the awareness of the fragility of everything earthly, perhaps indicating the fatigue of Ambrose’s spirit, the unrest and adversity experienced, and in this case, the essay appeared after that long and difficult struggle, which ended with the death of the usurper Maxim. This is partly confirmed by the fact that Ambrose refers here to a collection of sayings and figures of speech of Sallust, which victoribus decebat [befitted the victors] 451; such an edition was made by the grammarian Aruzius-Messiah in the late 80s of the fourth century 452. Therefore, "De fuga saeculi" must be placed after 388. “De officiis ministrorum” [“On the duties of the clergy”] consists of three books and, in connection with the pastoral instructions of the bishop to the Mediolan clergy, contains a general teaching on morality. To characterize the moral teaching of Ambrose, this work is of primary interest, but to complete the characterization it needs to be supplemented with data from other works. The mere intention of Ambrose to give instructions and instructions to the clergy in the book under consideration indicates the venerable age and authority of the teacher. And, indeed, “De officiis” already refers to the book about Noah 453, and the difficult times of the Arian turmoil seem to be events of the past 454. These data indicate the appearance of the book in the late 80s 455. “De institutione virginis” [“On the Education of the Virgin”] reveals the doctrine of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God and, as one of the earliest treatises on this issue in history, is of great importance. Its appearance was caused by purely practical motives - to refute the heresy of Jovinian, condemned at the Council of Milan in 390; Our work 456 could have appeared around this time. "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio" ["Consolatory word on the death of Valentinian (emperor)"] is a word on the death of Emperor Valentinian II and, therefore, it dates back to 393. “Exhortatio virginitatis” [“Exhortation to Virginity”] is dedicated to Ambrose’s favorite theme of virginity. The book contains fairly definite data for judging the time of its origin. The author himself says that he uttered the word that made up this book in Bononia during the solemn transfer of the relics of the martyrs Agricola and Vitaly 457. From the biography of the bishop we know that he visited Bononia after leaving Milan on the occasion of the appearance of Eugene there; and Peacock confirms that it was from Bononia that the relics of the named martyrs were transferred by Ambrose to Florence 458. Everything, therefore, suggests that our book appeared in 393 459 “De Nabuthe Jezraelita” [“On Naboth the Israelite”], using the example of the attitude of Ahab and Jezebel towards Naboth, denounces the modern rich for their selfishness and hardness of heart towards the poor. This work dates back to the last years of the reign of Theodosius, when the greed and arbitrariness of rich people supposedly reached especially terrifying proportions, since the tired Theodosius himself, little disturbed by external enemies, was not particularly willing to deal with matters of internal politics 460. It is unlikely, however, that such argumentation can be considered convincing: the listed vices exist always and everywhere. The work provides absolutely no data for judging the time of its origin. But still, the boldness of the accusatory tone, in our opinion, indicates that Ambrose was already a venerable bishop at that time; and the content of the book, dedicated to exposing the eternal illness of humanity, points to the time after 387-388, when the Church was not in any danger. “De obitu Theodosii oratio” [“Word on the death of Theodosius (emperor)”] is a word pronounced on the 40th day after the death of Theodosius in the presence of Emperor Honorius 461, and dates back to 395 462. “Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos” [“Commentaries on the twelve psalms of David”] – 1st, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 43rd, 45th, 47th, 48th, 61st – a collection of moral and dogmatic commentaries, more partly deprived of internal communication, belonging to different years. The first place in time probably belongs to the interpretation of the first psalm, since its preface serves as a prologue to the explanation of all psalms in general. All that can be said about the time of its appearance is that it appeared after the book “De fide resurrectionis” [“On the Hope of the Resurrection”] 463. Next in time of origin appears to be the group of Psalms 45-61. The commentary on Psalm 45 preceded the commentary on Psalm 47, since in the second, when explaining the title “psalm of the sons of Korah,” reference is already made to the first 464. The commentary on Psalm 47 and the commentary on Psalm 48 have an internal relationship with each other: at the end of the first, Ambrose speaks of unbelief and rejection of the Jews 465, and the beginning of the second opens with a speech about the calling and entry into the Church of the pagans 466. If we remember now that Ambrose generally likes to connect these two phenomena and considers the rejection of the Jews necessary for the calling of the pagans 467, then the internal unity of these two comments will become obvious to us. Finally, the commentary on Psalm 61 speaks of the future calling of the Jews as well and the entry into the Church of the entire fullness of nations, 468 so that here we have, as it were, a completion and clarification of the two previous commentaries. But in his commentary on Psalm 61, Ambrose speaks of his second embassy to Maximus 469, therefore, it was written after 386-387 and other commentaries related to it appeared around this time. This group is followed by commentaries on Psalms 35–40, which also form a special group, because each subsequent one already mentions its previous 470. The mention of the struggle with the Arians and their demand for a basilica and the defeat of Eugenius in the interpretation of Psalm 36,471, hints of cruelty in Thessalonica in the interpretation of Psalm 37, 472 indicate that they could have appeared between 390 and 395. Finally, the lonely commentary on Psalm 43 represents the very last work of Ambrose, dictated by him to the scribe, according to the testimony of Paulinus, already on his deathbed 473. Commentaries on the psalms end a rather long series of genuine works by Ambrose. b. Controversial works of St. Ambrose Of the works of the second type, doubtful, the book “De mysteriis” [“On the Sacraments”] was least challenged. Doubts about its authenticity are based mainly on the features of its style. Of the new researchers, however, there is not a single one who would decisively deny that the work in question belongs to Ambrose. The dogmatics and mystical-allegorical exegesis of the work undoubtedly agree with the spirit of the teachings of Ambrose: it also seems to us very important that “De mysteriis” was written under the strong influence of Didymus, and Didymus was an author whose works left significant traces in the original works of Ambrose 474. The author of the work mentions his previous speeches about the affairs of the patriarchs 475, and this in the mouth of Ambrose is so natural and plausible. “De mysteriis” was formed from the instructions of the bishop to those who had just received the sacrament of baptism, in order to initiate them into the most important sacraments of the Church 476. It is impossible to accurately determine the time of origin of the book. Some attribute its appearance to 387. 477 and, by the way, on the basis that its author himself mentions his teachings and the patriarchs 478; but this is a rather uncertain date, since, as already indicated by Im479, Ambrose spoke often on these subjects, and we know that his writings on the patriarchs are scattered over the space of a whole decade at the end of the seventies and eighties. It should be noted that the book was written under the influence of Didymus, and this influence most strongly affected the works of Ambrose “De fide” [“On Faith”] and “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”]; De mysteriis was probably written during the period of these creations. "De sacramentis" ["On the Sacraments"], in six books, in former times was sometimes considered the genuine work of Ambrose, but at present its forgery can no longer be doubted. True, Augustine mentions Ambrose’s work “De sacramentis” several times, but adds that this work was also called “sive de philosophia” [“...or On Philosophy”], which is not applicable to the work known to us; the beginning of the work of Ambrose indicated by him: sunt praecepta quaedam is not the beginning of our book “De sacramentis” 480, and the quotation he gives from the work of Ambrose: Beata igitur mors, quae nos peccato eripit, ut reformet Deo, etc. 481 in our “De sacramentis” is not found at all; undoubtedly, darling. Augustine knew a completely different work, De sacramentis. But regardless of this, there is a lot of external and internal evidence that forces us to deny that the work “De sacramentis” belonged to Ambrose. Shermann's research shed a clear light on the question. The latter first of all showed that in the period from the 4th to the 7th centuries. we find absolutely no traces of this book among church writers; completely absent from the most ancient codices, our “De sacramentis” suddenly appears in the codices of the 7th–9th centuries. Sangalle and Vatican. However, the first codex does not even contain the works of Ambrose, but conveys only the homilies of Augustine and Maximus of Tours and, offering the text of the work without the title “De sacramentis”, does not at all attribute it to Ambrose; in the Vatican Codex, near the text of the book, only a later hand made the inscription: Ambrosii de initiandis sacramentis [(Book) of Ambrose on the performance of the sacraments] 482. The work was finally attributed to Ambrose even later, in the Middle Ages, during the era of Eucharistic disputes 483. The history of the text thus speaks very definitely against its attribution to Ambrose. Further, when analyzing the text of the book, frequent borrowings from the work “De mysteriis” [“On the Sacraments”] 484 are striking; Thus, the impression of imitation is obtained. The difference in attitude towards the Roman Church between Ambrose and the author of the work “De sacramentis” is also worthy of attention; the latter looks at the Roman Church as the guiding criterion in assessing this or that church institution and adheres to its typum et formam [image and form] 485; and the blzh. Augustine, telling about one incident from the history of his acquaintance with Ambrose, we learn that the latter was very far from the idea of ​​​​considering the institutions of the Roman Church obligatory for other Churches and he himself personally followed Roman customs only when he was in Rome 486. It is unknown to whom exactly the work “De sacramentis” belongs, but, undoubtedly, its actual author lived later than Ambrose. The fulcrum in this case is the text of the Lord’s Prayer, given in “De sacramentis” and consisting of seven petitions, as at the present time 487. According to Augustine, Western copies of the text of the prayer contain only five petitions, according to the text of the Gospel of Matthew 488. In the Eastern Church, the edition of the prayer consisting of seven petitions was established back in the time of Origen, who, in a special work “Περὶ ἐυχῆς” [“On Prayer”] reconciled the text according to Matthew with the text according to Luke and thus received seven petitions. Origen's version gradually penetrates the West starting from the 4th century. 489 During the time of St. Ambrose, the text of the Lord's Prayer in the West has not yet been definitively established. In the cited article by Shermann the reader can find a rather long quotation from one hitherto unpublished work of Ambrose, borrowed by the publisher from the Paris Codex and bearing the title “Expositio sancti Ambrosii super Dominicam orationem” [“Interpretation of Saint Ambrose on the Lord’s Prayer”]. In the surviving edition, this work belongs, however, to a later time, because it contains such specifically scholastic terms as vita contemplative [contemplative life] and vita activa [active life], but its main grain belongs to pre-Augustine times, since the text of the Lord’s Prayer does not yet seem to be completely established: the author, although he cites all seven petitions of the prayer, tries to prove that a comparison of the texts of Matthew and Luke gives us reason to recognize all seven petitions 490, showing by this that not all of his listeners knew the prayer in such a wording. The above reference to Augustine shows that this edition was not yet established everywhere in the West and in his time. And since the author of “De sacramentis” cites all seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer without any further explanation, he only shows that in his time the unification in the West of the texts of Matthew and Luke had already been completed and that, therefore, he wrote after the blessed one. Augustine 491. “Apologia David altera” [“Second Apology of David”] appears for the first time in relatively later codices 492. Serious doubts about the forgery of the book begin from the time of Erasmus, who pointed mainly to the difference in style 493. But there are many other reasons for such doubts. The author of this apology does not mention the first, which would be strange for Ambrose; Ambrose himself nowhere speaks of his intention to write a second apology; blzh. Augustine, often quoting the first apology of Ambrose, says simply “Apologia prophetae David” [“Apology of the Prophet David”], showing that he does not know the second apology 494. In the absence of any external evidence in favor of the authenticity of “Apologia David altera” [“Apology of David the Second”], the latter raises many doubts regarding its content. Just as there is a close literary dependence of “De sacramentis” on “De mysteriis,” it is precisely possible to establish a similar dependence of the second apology on the first, and this shows that in the second we have an imitation of the first 495. The author complains about the weakness of his voice, 496 while, as far as is known, such complaints are not contained in the original works of Ambrose. For our part, we could add the following to these arguments. While the genuine works of Ambrose from the formal and logical side are very simple and unsophisticated, often even incoherent, at best following the order of the biblical text, “Apologia altera” attracts attention with its logical processing: after a short introduction (§§ 1–4), the author in § 5 divides his entire treatise into three separate parts: adversus gentiles [against the pagans], adversus Judaeos [against the Jews] and apud Christianos [for Christians] and then further sets out each part separately, without mixing with each other (against the pagans - §§ 6-20; against the Jews - §§ 21-30; for Christians - § 31 to the end). "Apologia altera" belongs, therefore, to a more skillful writer than Ambrose. The name of this author is unknown. His complaint about the weakness of his voice indicates that he was delivering his apology for David from the pulpit and was therefore a bishop. Finally, the same reference to the weakness of the voice perhaps shows that the “Apologia” belongs to the same author as the “De sacramentis”, because in the latter the same complaint is found. “De lapsu virginis consecratae” [“On the fall of the consecrated virgin”] has long been considered the original work of Ambrose, but then its authenticity began to be disputed on the basis of differences in style and on the basis of some expressions not found in Ambrose, for example, propitiatrix [prayer book (for sins)] 497; he was attributed to the blzh. Jerome, then Augustine, then finally Nikita, Bishop of Dacia. An attempt to prove the authorship of the latter, by the way, was recently made by Patin; he points out that the handwritten tradition attributes our composition specifically to Nikita, that its author is a defender of Nikita’s favorite idea of ​​communio sanctorum [communion of saints], that he contributed to the introduction of the singing of hymns in the Western Church, and that, finally, in the language, figures and individual provisions of the composition there are similarities with the genuine works of Nikita 498. But almost all of these arguments can be equally rightly directed towards Ambrose. The difference in style is an argument in the absence of other positive data that is not particularly convincing, especially since the sincere indignation experienced by the author towards the fallen maiden may well explain this difference in the language of the essay, written in a noticeably elevated tone; propitiatrix is ​​quite consistent with the terminology of Ambrose, since the word propitiatio [propitiation] in relation to Christ and human affairs and other expressions derived from it are very important in the range of Ambrose’s theological views. If the work attracts attention with its inexorable severity in condemning the fallen virgin, the refusal of church permission from sin 499, while in other works Ambrose takes a more lenient point of view in relation to human weaknesses, then, in our opinion, this also does not at all speak against the authorship of Ambrose: you need to know what exceptionally high importance in religious life Ambrose attached to virgin life, so that understand the severity of his condemnation of the fallen virgin; We must not forget that “De lapsu virginis consecratee” among the works of Ambrose is the only work that deals with the fact of the fall of a virgin dedicated to God; Yes, finally, even if there were a real contradiction here, then this still does not prove anything, since contradictions in Ambrose are a very common phenomenon. Actually, there are no serious reasons to deny that this work belongs to Ambrose. In favor of the authorship of the latter, in addition to the ancient tradition, one can also point out some points of contact between “De lapsu virginis” [“On the Fall of the Virgin”] and “De virginibus” [“On the Virgins”], undoubtedly the original creation of Ambrose. In the latter, Ambrose most often sets up Mary 500 as a model of virginity, and then the martyrs, in the days of whose memory he quite accidentally had to say the instructions to virgins that made up the present book: St. Agnius 501 and St. Thekla 502. It is interesting that the author of the essay “De lapsu virginis” shames the fallen virgin with the names of Mary, Thekla and Agnia and, in general, with the entire immaculate face of chastity 503. This reference to purely random names may speak in favor of the unity of the author of both books named here. The question now, of course, is when Ambrose could have compiled the little book “De lapsu virginis”. There are some reasons to attribute it to the relatively early years of Ambrose's episcopal ministry. On the one hand, in “De lapsu virginis” the teaching about the Virgin Mary and mainly about Her Ever-Virginity is expressed more briefly than in the works written by Ambrose after the appearance of the Jovinian heresy in Milan and the Council of Milan in 390; This means that the work appeared earlier than this time. On the other hand, the mention of the names of Agnia and Thekla suggests that it appeared very soon after the composition of “De virginibus” [“On the Virgins”], i.e. already after 377 504 “Expositio fidei” [“Exposition of Faith”] is a fragment with a rather strange fate. Completely unknown to Ambrose’s contemporaries and those close to him, it unexpectedly surfaces for the first time in the work of the blessed one. Theodorit “Ἐρανιστής, or Πολύμορφος” 505; The fragment is given by Theodoret under the title “Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀμβροσίου ἐπισκόπου Μεδιολάνου.” Ἐν ἐκϑέσει πίστεως" 506, and it is completely unclear whether Theodoret had the original of this work at hand or was quoting it from the words of some other author. Following the example of Theodoret, the fragment is still attributed to Ambrose. Im, a well-known researcher of the works of our bishop, considers it to be a fragment of a special, not entirely preserved, work of Ambrose 507. But, in our opinion, there are reasons to doubt its authenticity. First of all, in the biography of St. Ambrose, it is difficult to find a suitable moment to which this confession could be timed. It also seems no less strange that Ambrose himself and his disciples absolutely do not mention this document of paramount importance anywhere. On the other hand, the content of the confession does not speak in favor of the authorship of Ambrose. While the dogmatic writings of Ambrose are distinguished mainly by their anti-Arian character and deal primarily with Trinitarian issues, the Expositio fidei, if we exclude its opening lines, deals almost entirely with Christological issues. Further, it is possible that it is already dealing with the first glimpses of Monophysitism. Thus, the author of the presentation proves that the flesh of Christ was of earthly, ordinary, and not heavenly origin 508; he already knows the Monophysite formula about μὶα φύσις [one nature] in Christ as a result of the union of the original δύο φύσεις [two natures] with each other 509; against the Monophysites, obviously, he defends οὐἀλλοίωσις [immutability] in the image of the union of two natures in Christ the Savior 510. The matter is not made much easier even if in all these cases we see a polemic not with the beginnings of Monophysitism, but with Apollinarianism, because, although in his works Ambrose repeatedly touches on the heresy of Apollinaris, he does not know expressions similar to οὐρανόϑεν σῶμα [body from heaven], etc. “Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi de excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae libri quinque” [“Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Mediolan, five books on the fall of the city of Jerusalem”] 511, depending on the books of Josephus “De bello Judaico” [“On the Jewish War”], have long been the subject of dispute, although currently in the area specialized literature and the tendency to attribute them specifically to St. Ambrose. Wilbrand does not even allow the possibility of doubt about this and, for his part, by analyzing 6 and 19 letters of Ambrose, tries to establish his familiarity with the works of Josephus 512. Im based on lib. V, ss. 50, 22, dates our books to the first years of the bishop's ecclesiastical ministry 513. Recently, a number of controversial works by St. Ambrose was unexpectedly replenished with another, albeit long-known, monument. We mean the so-called symbol of St. Athanasius, known in science by his initial words under the name "Quicumque". The question of the author of this symbol, unfairly attributed to St. Athanasius, has long been a subject of controversy in science, to which no end is in sight. Research in most cases has led to a more or less strong conviction that “Quicumque” appeared in the West after the blj. Augustine, since the symbol already reveals familiarity with the dogma of the latter. But in 1909, a rather extensive study by Heinrich Brewer 514 appeared, in which it is not “Quicumque” that is derived from the works of the bl. Augustine, but, on the contrary, the dogma of the latter is explained by the influence of “Quicumque”; the author concludes from this that the symbol during the time of the bl. Augustine already existed, and considers his creator none other than St. Ambrose. Traces of this symbol can already be seen in the words of Augustine: sed in ea (catholica fide) nonnulli perturbantur, cum audiunt Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, et Deum Spiritum Sanctum, et tamen hanc Trinitatem non tres deos, sed unum Deum [...but in it (the Catholic faith) some are indignant when they hear that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that, however, this is a Trinity - not three gods, but one God] 515. Then, the author of “Quicumque” is very characteristic of the systematic identification of the concepts fides catholica [Catholic faith] and fides Trinitatis [faith in the Trinity], and this identification is also one of the features of the theology of St. Ambrose 516. This provision regarding the belonging of the “Quicumque” of St. Brewer then tries to substantiate Ambrose in detail by comparing the symbol with the works of Ambrose in terms of content and stylistic and linguistic features 517. He even finds it possible to establish the exact date of the symbol's appearance. In his opinion, the terminus a quo for the appearance of the symbol is the message of the Council of Constantinople in 382, ​​and the terminus ante quern - 383–384, since in some monuments of this time traces of the existence of the symbol are already allegedly revealed 518. We, however, cannot agree with the assumption that it was the Mediolan bishop who was the long-sought author of the mysterious symbol. Firstly, the parallels that our author establishes between the symbol and the works of Ambrose do not in fact represent the distinctive features of the latter alone, but are also found in very many other Latin writers of that era. Secondly, in those cases where the author finds similarities between a symbol and the works of writers after Ambrose, he assumes that the latter already knew the symbol, but does not allow the thought that their ideas would be reflected in the symbol; and yet this requires special evidence, which, however, Brever does not try to do. Finally, thirdly, the symbol contains such expressions and concepts that make it very doubtful that it was composed by St. Ambrose. Brever himself noted the concept of humanitas, which in the symbol is used to designate the human nature of the Savior, and in Ambrose it still continues to retain its classic Ciceronian meaning 519. In addition, the expression of the symbol subsistens [existing] 520, as far as is known, was not used by Ambrose, as well as the expression about Christ non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus [and, however, not two, but one Christ] 521, also unknown to Ambrose and apparently presupposing the doctrine of Nestorius, seems very suspicious. But the most important evidence against Ambrose's authorship remains the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The symbol already categorically teaches about the procession of the Holy Spirit a Patre et Filio [from the Father and the Son] 522, and meanwhile Ambrose, although sometimes he shares this teaching, still hesitates, sometimes speaking, as we will see, about the procession of the Holy Spirit simply from the Father. Then, to denote the concept of “proceeds,” the symbol not only uses the expression procedens, but makes this expression a technical term for the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and already sharply distinguishes between the concepts of “birth” and “procession”: nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens [not created, not born, but proceeding] 523; Ambrose, although he uses the expression procedens, procedere [outgoing, proceed] for the same purpose, but, as we will see again below, does not yet give it the meaning of a technical term, does not distinguish it from the concept generatio, generatus [birth, begotten], sometimes applying it to the Son to designate His Birth from the Father. With. Unauthentic works of St. Ambrose Finally, there are a number of works that were previously attributed to Ambrose, but are now once and for all recognized as not belonging to him. These are mainly the commentaries on the books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament: “In Epistulam ad Romanos” [“On the Epistle to the Romans”], “In Epistulam ad Corinthios I et II” [“On the Epistle to the Corinthians 1 and 2”], “In Epistulam ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonicenses I et II, ad Timotheum I et II, ad Titum, ad Philemonem" ["On the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians 1 and 2, Timothy 1 and 2, Titus, Philemon"]; this also includes “Liber de vocatione gentium” [“Book of the Vocation of Nations”] and some others. In contrast to the original works of Ambrose, they are usually called the works of Ambrosiaster. Their inauthenticity is obvious from the fact that the Holy Scriptures, unlike Ambrose, are quoted in some of them according to the Latin translation of the blessed one. Jerome, and from the fact that often their teaching runs counter to the genuine provisions of Ambrose. In addition to the listed more or less extensive works of St. Ambrose, many letters and several hymns still remain from him. In printed publications we find a collection of 91 letters, which are usually divided into two separate classes: the first includes letters with a more or less precise chronological date (1–64), and the second includes those whose time of writing is unknown (65–91). Between these letters, some were written personally by Ambrose to private individuals (2–8, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25–39, 41–50, 54–56, 58–61, 65–86, 88–91), emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius and Eugenius (1, 17–18, 21, 24, 40, 51, 53, 57,62:63), entire Churches (15, 23:64) and a group of individuals (87); others are epistles from councils attended by Ambrose (9–15). Diverse in content, these letters are sometimes exegetical, sometimes dogmatic, sometimes moral and practical, sometimes, finally, they concern some purely personal circumstances from the life of St. Ambrose. As for the hymns of St. Ambrose, then tradition has preserved for us many hymns under the name “Ambrosian.” But since the name “Ambrosian” was used in ancient times not only in the sense of the authorship of Ambrose, but also in the sense of imitation of the hymns of St. Ambrose, then this name alone is not enough when deciding the question of the number of authentic hymns of the Mediolan bishop. Undoubtedly, the authentic hymns should be recognized as those whose evidence we find either in Ambrose himself or in church writers contemporary to him and generally close to him. The following 4 hymns satisfy these conditions: 1) “Deus Creator omnium”, the text of which we find in Augustine 524; 2) “Aeterne rerum Conditor”, quotes from which are found equally in both Ambrose 525 and Augustine 526; 3) “Jam surgit hora tertia”, an indication of which is also found in Augustine 527; finally, 4) “Intende qui regis Israel,” which is better known under the title of the 5th stanza “Veni Redemtor gentium” 528, has long been attributed to Ambrose; although the authenticity of the testimony of the blj. Augustine’s mention of this hymn in “Sermo de nativitate Domini” [“Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord”], as well as the authenticity of the sermon itself, is disputed, but Pope Celestine mentions it, like the hymn of Ambrose, at the Roman Council of 430. 529 All these hymns appeared, most likely, already when it was customary to sing them in church and when it was most natural for the bishop to write them for his flock, i.e. in 386 or after it. The question of the authenticity of all the other so-called hymns of Ambrose is difficult to resolve with certainty. The Italian scientist Biraghi, well-known in this field, approached this issue with three guiding “canons”: 1) of all the Ambrosian hymns, only those that have long been used in the Mediolan liturgy can be attributed to Ambrose; 2) and of them precisely those that are similar in language and nature of content to the original hymns of Ambrose; and finally 3) were adopted by Ambrose by more or less ancient writers. Guided by these canons, Biraghi himself, in addition to the 4 above-mentioned, recognized 14 more hymns as authentic. Guided by his principles, Steyer of these hymns, based mainly on the difference between the stanzas and the original hymns, rejected four, thus recognizing only 14,530 as genuine, although Dreves stands for the number 18,531. Finally, for a very long time the hymn “Te Deum laudamus” [“We praise you God”] was attributed to Ambrose, and there is even a legend that this hymn was sung together by Ambrose and Augustine at the latter’s baptism. But at present, his non-belonging to Ambrose is not disputed. Until the 8th century. there are no traces of this legend and the hymn of St. It was not attributed to Ambrose, although without the name of Ambrose it was known in the West already in the first half of the 6th century. and is mentioned in the monastic rules of Benedict of Nursia. Some, taking into account the similarity of this hymn with "Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις" ["Glory in the highest"], attribute to it not Western, but Eastern origin, although most are inclined to consider it Western 532. Patin attributes it to the already known Nikita 533. No matter how large the number of Ambrose’s works known to us is, there is no doubt that many of Ambrose’s works have not survived to our time. So, for example, Augustine knew the work of Ambrose “De sacramentis, sive de philosophia” [“On the sacraments, or On philosophy”] 534, which in another place he calls “De Sacramento regenerationis, vel de philosophia” [“On the sacrament of rebirth, or On philosophy”] 535. In addition, Augustine speaks of some books of Ambrose unknown to us, which he adversus nonnullos imperitissimos et superbissimos, qui de Platonis libris Dominum profecisse contendunt, diligentissime et copiosissime scripsit [wrote very carefully and in detail against some extremely ignorant and proud people who claim that the Lord grew up on the writings of Plato] 536 . However, here Augustine probably means the work “De sacramentis, sive de philosophia,” since this latter also discussed Plato 537. About the content of this lost work, based on quotes from Augustine, one can only say that in it Ambrose, in refutation of the pagans who recognized the dependence of Revelation on philosophy, proved his favorite idea about the dependence of philosophy on Revelation. We also do not own another great work of Ambrose, which existed in the time of Augustine - a commentary on the book of the prophet Isaiah 538. Likewise, some of Ambrose's letters are missing. When presenting the biography of the latter, we already had reason to talk about his letter to St. Basil the Great on the issue of the relics of St. Dionysius of Milan. The letter to Alypius known to us also speaks of other letters unknown to us to the same person 539. Literary influences in the works of St. Ambrose 540 The very number of works Ambrose wrote in his twenty-odd years as an episcopal minister could lead to the assumption that he made extensive use of material processed before him, and thereby enhanced his literary productivity. A close comparison of his works with the works of other church and pre-Christian writers, indeed, confirms that in most cases he is in the closest dependence on them. The similarity often extends to the point of giving the impression of mere transcription; sometimes you can even state literal excerpts, almost always without indicating the source. However, with such close dependence, St. Ambrose, for the most part, knows how to dominate his source, borrowing from it only that which suits his purpose, and omitting everything else; he often changes what he borrows, adapting it to his own views and adding new content. In this chapter, we do not intend to prove the dependence of ideas, which will be discussed later, but to establish the simple fact of literary dependence. Therefore, the reader will not find here the names of writers whose views had a strong influence on the structure of Ambrosian theology, but whose direct literary dependence is not so obvious. For convenience, we will consider Ambrose’s relationship separately I to Philo of Alexandria, II to Church Writers and III to non-Christian and classical writers. Philo's influence was already reflected in Ambrose's earliest works and then was felt for quite a long time whenever Ambrose had to touch on Old Testament subjects. “De paradiso” [“On Paradise”], “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”], “De Noe” [“On Noah”], “De Abraham” [“On Abraham”], “De bono mortis” [“On the Good of Death”] and “De fuga saeculi” [“On the Flight from the World”] flowed strongly from this source, although other works are dependent on it, only to a lesser extent. Allegorical concept of heaven revealed by St. Ambrose in the essay “De paradiso” [“On Paradise”], almost entirely belongs to Philo, not only in its main features, but also in small details. Both of them understand heaven and heavenly life in the sense of bliss, blissful existence 541. But at the same time, Ambrose reproduces another idea, also belonging to Philo, of paradise as a soul, and, in accordance with it, represents the trees of paradise and, in general, everything related to paradise, with a number of allegories of a virtuous life and the necessary conditions for it 542. In his work “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”], Ambrose mainly used Philo’s work “De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini” [“On the Sacrifice of Abel and Cain”]. Both here and here the life of the first two brothers on earth symbolizes the life of the human soul. Precisely, just as two brothers of different character were born from one mother, so the soul is characterized by two different ways of thinking, two sects, two dogmas: one, in conceit, attributes everything to its own abilities, the other attributes everything to God 543. In this sense, the story of the first two brothers was subsequently repeated in the story of Jacob and Esau, born of Rebekah 544. In accordance with this very internal meaning of history, it is explained that in the Holy Scriptures the name of the younger Abel is placed before the name of the older Cain, because in general the good way of thinking of the soul should be given preference over its bad direction 545. Equally, a deep meaning is hidden in the seniority in time of birth of Cain before Abel, since in the early and young years a person is more susceptible to instability and passions than in later years and old age 546. Our writers also have the same view of the sacrifice of brothers. Cain's sacrifice showed his evil disposition, because he brought it already at sunset and not from the firstborn, but from ordinary fruits 547. In other words, he preferred himself to God and served the body instead of its mistress - the soul; and yet the good movements of the human soul, which far exceeds the body and its organs, turn out to be original. Abel offered just such an original sacrifice 548. “De Noe” [“About Noah”] reveals a close connection with Philo’s “Quaestiones in Genesim”, I and II [“Questions on the Book of Genesis”, which have not been preserved in complete form, Vol. 1–2], where the ark in which righteous Noah was saved during the Flood, and all the details of its structure are explained in the sense of symbolizing the human body, its organs with their distinctive functions. In the work “De Abraham” [“On Abraham”], the most mystical and mysterious, and, therefore, akin to Philo, seems to be the second half of it, which was compiled under the predominant influence of Philo’s work “De migratione Abrahami” [“On the Migration of Abraham”]. This is, for example, the explanation according to which the command given by God to Abraham to leave his land and his relatives, in its internal meaning, required liberation from the flesh with its passions, from the impressions of his external senses that often dominate a person 549. Likewise, the command to leave one’s house, in essence, required restraint and caution in speech and thoughts, and prohibited excessive talkativeness and talkativeness. Thus, the Divine call to Abraham is directed initially to change the external manifestations of his spiritual mood, in order to then be directed towards this latter 550. With this understanding of the biblical story, Abraham himself is naturally portrayed as a representative of reason, the highest state of human nature and its sober, blameless state 551. His settlement in Shechem under a tall oak tree indicates the height of his soul, which did not bend under the alluring influence of the outside world, but turned out to be unshakable and constantly rushing to the heights, to God 552. Nevertheless, in the first part of the work “De Abraham” [“About Abraham”] familiarity with Philo is evident in places. This is undoubtedly, for example, Ambrose’s view of Pharaoh, who appropriated Abraham’s wife for himself, as the representative and leader of all kinds of vices 553. In this part, Ambrose mainly used the books of Philo regarding the “Legum allegoriarum” [“Allegories of the Laws”]. The relationship between “De fuga saeculi” [“On flight from the world”] of Ambrose and “De fuga et inventione” [“On flight and finding”] of Philo 554 is especially clear. In both works, the section on the Jewish cities of refuge is of particular interest. Like Philo, Ambrose in this case is mainly concerned with the following four questions: 1) why only some of the cities intended instead of a special inheritance for the tribe of Levi could be cities of refuge; 2) why only six such cities were appointed, and no more and no less; 3) why three of them were located on one side of the Jordan, and the other three on the other; finally 4) what was the meaning of the law’s injunction that the murderer should remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest and only after that could return to his hometown? 555 It is characteristic that all the transitions and eastern phrases found in Philo are also found in Ambrose 556; There can be no doubt that Ambrose had the works of Philo at hand, and did not become acquainted with their content through some source. Proceeding then to consider the four identified questions, Ambrose repeats Philo’s thoughts, sometimes even preserving the latter’s literal expressions. He answers the first question: the cities of refuge were separated from the cities of Levi, because the Levites themselves were, so to speak, fugitives from the world, leaving their parents, children, property and devoting themselves to serving God 557. Then follows a detailed disclosure of this thought and clarification that only in such an ascetic mood and self-sacrifice can true service to God 558 be found. Here Ambrose differs from Philo only in that he illustrates his thought with New Testament examples and commandments. The question of the sixfold number of cities is also resolved in the same way for both. This number exhausts the entirety of the Levitical service to God: the first city corresponds to the knowledge of the word of God and the way of life required by this word; the second city indicated constant reflection on the creative activity of God, who created the world; the third meant the contemplation of the royal power of God and His eternal Majesty; the fourth is the Levitical surrender of oneself to Divine Mercy 559; the fifth is the positive requirements of the law about what one should do, and the sixth is the prescriptions of the law about what one should avoid. In this case, the only difference from Philo is that the latter lists the names of cities in a slightly different order 560. Also, to the last question regarding cities of refuge, both authors equally answer with two considerations: first of all, the death of the high priest is understood literally and determines the actual limit of the possibility of criminals staying in the city of refuge, even if someone came to it the day before the event in question 561; on the other hand, in a mystical sense, staying in the city of refuge is considered as a union of the soul with the Divine Logos, which serves as a guarantee of purely inner life and protection from sins; the removal of the soul from union with the Divine Logos, as if leaving the city of refuge, leads to the internal death of the spirit, to sin 562. This is where the most obvious connection with Philo in Ambrose's work ends; the further part of the work represents little direct borrowing from Philo and resembles the latter only in the general nature of the reasoning. Finally, familiarity with the works and ideas of Philo is also noticeable in some of the letters of St. Ambrose, for example, epist. 2, 7, 8, 19, 27, 28, 33, 37, 38, 49, etc. 563 Awareness of St. Ambrose in the church literature of his time is very extensive. He knew almost all the outstanding writers of Christianity. Shermann establishes the acquaintance of St. discovered in the books “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”]. Ambrose with the catechetical teachings of Cyril of Jerusalem, especially in the selection of Old Testament examples and the typological explanation of the persons of Joseph, Samson, Abraham, Gideon and others. 564 with some of the works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria 565 and words about the theology of Gregory the Theologian, especially the fifth 566. But if the influence of the listed authors is felt only in some places, then the following representatives of church literature were already its permanent leaders in presenting issues of theology. Thus, already very early in the works of St. Ambrose reveals the influence of the works of St. Basil the Great. Noticeable already in writings devoted to the issue of virgin life, it is especially strongly manifested in 378, when Ambrose, at the request of the emperor, had to begin compiling the dogmatic treatise “De fide” [“On Faith”], and then remains very noticeable in the continuation of all of Ambrose’s further activities. Caused initially by dogmatic needs, the influence of St. Basil gradually gains strength in exegetical matters, relegating Ambrose’s former teacher in these matters, Philo, to the background. "De fide" ["On Faith"] in its essential thoughts was composed under the influence of the defensive speeches of St. Basil against Eunomius. Leaving the speculative tone of Basil, and limiting himself in this case to only the most general remarks borrowed from him, Ambrose is mainly engaged here in the analysis of the Old Testament and Gospel texts and in this way reveals his teaching. But in the very selection of texts and in their analysis, the leadership of St. Vasily. However, in the construction of his book, Ambrose did not slavishly follow Basil: firstly, the refutation of Eunomius in its true form consists of three books, and the work “De fide” contains as many as five books; secondly, St. In the first book of his work, Vasily speaks about God in general, about God the Father and about the eternal birth of the Son from him, the second he devotes to the teaching about the Son, and the third about the Holy Spirit; Ambrose devotes all five books to the question of the Divinity of the Son and His Incarnation, about the mutual relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity, without discussing in detail the Holy Spirit. Exactly the same must be said regarding another work of Ambrose - “De incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento” [“On the Mystery of the Lord's Incarnation”], in which thoughts borrowed from the same work of St. Vasily, especially from the first book of the latter. This dependence, however, concerns only the Trinitarian material of Ambrose’s work, but does not concern his Christological views, which are revealed in him in much more detail than in St. Vasily. Ambrose’s literary dependence on Vasily is especially well characterized by his “Hexaemeron” [“Six Days”]. Already blzh. Jerome noted that in this work Ambrose used Origen, Hippolytus and Basil 567 . Origen's interpretation of the Book of Genesis, which Jerome probably has in mind here, has been preserved in such a fragmentary form that it contains very few points of contact with Ambrose's Six Days; and the work of Hippolytus related here has not survived at all. As for St. Basil, then the testimony of Jerome is fully confirmed by the comparison of Ambrose’s “Six Days” with the “Conversations on the Six Days” of St. Vasily. The similarity between these two works is so great that sometimes they even considered Ambrose’s “Sex Day” to be a simple translation of Vasily’s “Six Day” 568. “The general layout of the book,” says Kellner, “is borrowed from Vasily: in both we find nine conversations and almost the same distribution of material” 569. Both, for example, almost in the same words praise the order of the biblical narrative, which, first of all, in contrast to the classics, affirms the createdness of the world, and then moves on to a detailed consideration of the affairs of creation 570. Both then consider the evidence of the beginninglessness of the world from its spherical form closed in itself and, by refuting them, come to deny the closure of the world in itself, arguing that everything that has a beginning also has an end 571. Moving on after this to the explanation of the text, both by heaven and earth mean the entire totality of the creations of the invisible and visible world 572. In particular, when explaining the words of the writer of everyday life that at the beginning of creation “The Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1:2), Ambrose borrows from Basil a reference to the Syriac translation, which in this case expresses the idea of ​​​​warming the embryos of life by the Holy Spirit and, thus, indicates the creative power and active participation of the Holy Spirit in the creation of the world 573. The initial abundance of water in the world is explained by the need to counteract the force of fire and heat spilled in large quantities in the world, which without this counteraction could threaten the very existence of the world. Following this, both writers have a very similar overview of rivers and seas 574. Both equally explain the Bible expression “let the waters be gathered together in one” (Gen. 1:9). Namely: all rivers and seas, in the end, flow into one common place for everyone and make up one great sea 575, etc. With all this, in the “Sex Day” of St. Ambrose also contains many special things in comparison with Vasily’s “Six Days,” and therefore the first cannot be considered a simple translation of the second. In Ambrose, unlike Vasily, we find more symbolism 576, more personifications, moral and dogmatic truths. Thus, only he has the moon, which in its phases either decreases or increases, serves as an image of Christ, who diminished Himself in the mystery of the Incarnation 577, as well as of the Church, which declined during times of persecution, but then spread throughout the whole world 578. He alone has a story about the legendary phoenix bird, which supposedly lives in Arabia, after death it is renewed and comes to life again, and which seems to be a symbol of the future resurrection of our flesh 579. Speaking about the creation of man, Basil the Great limits himself to only a simple mention of the fact of creation, promising to speak elsewhere about the image and likeness of God in man, 580 while St. Ambrose in his “Six Days” devotes enough space to this issue 581. There is also no doubt that the prologue to Ambrose’s interpretations of the psalms and the first half of the commentary on the first psalm almost entirely belong to Basil the Great. St. Ambrose owns only the smaller half of the prologue, which sets out, so to speak, the history of psalmody: it has its beginning in the praise of the God of the heavenly armies, then, moving to earth, continues in the heavenly praise of the first sinless man; interrupted temporarily due to the Fall of man, it is gradually restored in the chants of sacred writers and finally ends in the Book of Psalms 582. Next, Ambrose already follows Vasily. They agree to look at the Book of Psalms as a complete treasure of everything necessary for the exercise of the human spirit in goodness and correction, and see in it both the moralizing content of the law and the predictions of the future of the prophets 583. Compared with the law and the prophets, she even has the advantage that she offers her instructions in a pleasant musical form, delights the soul and therefore acts more powerfully 584. This advantage is also expressed in the very method of musical performance of the psalms: the psalms were performed on the psalter, a musical instrument whose sounds and harmony originate in its upper part; this seemed to indicate that those singing psalms should direct their minds to grief, and not live in enslavement to passions 585. In the first half of his commentary on the first psalm, Ambrose, following Basil, draws attention, first of all, to the fact that in the first verse the psalmist directs our gaze to the blissful end of a virtuous life, thereby encouraging us in the difficulties of the feat ahead of us 586. However, our exegetes explain this idea with different examples: Ambrose cites the example of a commander who, with the promise of future booty, increases the energy of his soldiers, while Basil points to housebuilders and shipbuilders, who first of all care about a solid foundation, and to the example of an animal organism in which the heart, the most necessary part of the body, is formed first of all. Further, dwelling on the words of the psalmist “blessed is the man,” both Ambrose and Basil agree to note that, calling only the husband blessed, the prophet does not at all exclude the woman from participating in bliss: just as a woman was created together with a man, so equally with a man she is destined for virtue and a reward for it; under the name of man, the prophet designated both sexes 587. Both also anticipate the same objection: on the basis that the prophet calls everyone blessed who moves away from sins, some might think that blessedness can be earned by moral indifference, the absence of both good and evil, that one can, for example, call an ox and an ox or a stone blessed, which are alien to sin; however, the prophet praises the absence of evil not for its own sake, but because in man it already serves as the beginning, the first stage of virtue, after which positive goodness very soon follows 588 . The Psalmist forbids us 1) walk in the counsel of the wicked, 2) stand in the way of sinners, 3) sit on the seat of the destroyers. These three prohibitions correspond to three types of sin: thinking about sin, doing sin and remaining in it 589. “De Elia et jejunio” [“On Elijah and Fasting”] recalls the conversations of St. Basil the Great about fasting and exhortation to holy baptism, both in individual expressions and main thoughts. Thus, both of them trace the beginning of fasting to the first days of human life on earth, to the prohibition of eating the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 590. In the same way, both of them almost literally compare the action of baptism with the action of the sacrifice of the prophet Elijah: just as the prophet’s sacrifice, surrounded by water, was burned by fire that came down from heaven, so the water of baptism burns our inner impurity 591. "De Nabuthe" ["On Naboth"] has similarities with the conversation of St. Basil on the 18th verse of the 12th chapter of the Gospel of Luke. To determine the degree of this similarity, it is enough to point out that St. Ambrose almost literally reproduces from Basil the Great his classic description of the internal struggle of a father forced by hunger to sell his sons 592. “De Tobia” [“On Tobias”] contains many borrowings from the conversation of St. Basil on Psalm 14; this is confirmed, for example, by the description of the hard-heartedness of the rich towards the poor 593, the description of the luxurious lifestyle and expensive feasts of the rich 594, the depiction of all the horrors and worries of a person burdened with debts 595, and so on. Around the same time as the works of St. Vasily Ambrose begins to get acquainted with the works of Origen. The influence of the latter is then quite noticeable in the entire literary activity of Ambrose in the 80s, but only at the end of these years can one note a critical attitude towards Origenism. Unfortunately, most of the works of Origen that existed during the time of the Mediolan bishop either did not reach us at all or were preserved in the form of fragments, extracts and Latin translations, so in some cases it is not possible to determine the degree of dependence of St. Ambrose from Origen. Nevertheless, what has survived provides sufficient evidence of the position we are expressing. Ambrose's first work, which reflected his familiarity with the works of the famous Alexandrian, is his speech “De fide resurrectionis” [“On the hope of the resurrection”]. Their first half, which examines the question of the possibility and necessity of the resurrection of the dead, in substantive terms corresponds to Origen’s work of the same name. Whether Ambrose used this work of Origen when composing his word cannot be stated decisively due to the fact that we know about Origen’s treatise only from a very condensed presentation of it in one of the letters of the Blessed. Jerome. Given the passion that Ambrose initially showed for Origen, this is quite possible. But much more obvious is the evidence in favor of the Origenistic origin of the second half of the work under consideration. It recalls some passages from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. When discussing the last trumpet, with the sound of which the dead will be resurrected for a future life, both Ambrose and Origen turn to Old Testament examples and, on the basis of them, try to figure out the meaning of the Gospel words about the trumpet of resurrection: the Old Testament liturgical rudes, from their point of view, were a prototype of the last trumpet 596. Both borrow these examples from the Book of Numbers and give the same passage; however, their edition of the biblical text is different, although this is easily explained by the fact that Origen quoted it from the Greek translation, and Ambrose from the Latin 597. The Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam [Exposition of the Gospel of Luke] was also written under the partial influence of Origen: in this case, Ambrose had at hand Origen's homilies on the Gospel of Luke and his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Origen's homilies already resemble the explanation of the prologue to the Gospel of Luke. Like Origen, Ambrose begins with the observation that just as in the Old Testament there were not only prophets, but also false prophets who were not recognized by the believing community, so in the New Testament many tried to compose a description of earthly life and a statement of the teachings of Christ the Savior, but only four of these descriptions were recognized as the true Gospel and accepted by all 598. However, these false evangelists only tried in vain to compose the gospel story, but did not know how to compose it properly. Meanwhile, Matthew, Mark, John and Luke not only tried to write, but, led by the Divine Spirit, successfully completed their work 599. They wrote the Gospel about the Word of God, not spoken, which is perceived by the ear, but substantial, which was accessible to our vision and of which they themselves were ministers 600. In particular, the Gospel of Luke was written to a certain Theophilus, a certain historical figure; but since the name Theophilus in its internal meaning means a loving God, the Gospel is also intended in general for everyone who loves God 601. Many similar quotations from both writers could be given, but these are still enough to recognize the dependence between the commentary on the Gospel of Luke and Origen’s homilies. The dependence of Ambrose's commentary on Origenov's is somewhat more interesting because it concerns sections that are important in their content. When you compare these two works, you get the impression that Ambrose only expounded and shortened the extensive chapters of Origen’s commentary, only occasionally introducing some changes. This is, for example, the reasoning about the gates of the Church and the gates of hell: the gates of the Church are the gates of purity, the gates of truth; the gates of hell are the gates of death, that is, sin. Sins reduce us to hell; but if we avoid sins, then the gates of the underworld cannot prevail against us 602. This, undoubtedly, is further the description of the Transfiguration of the Lord: at the beginning of the Transfiguration of the Lord, Moses and Elijah were present on the mountain with Him, who then disappeared and became, as it were, one with Jesus. This meant that the law and prophets are one with the Gospel, leading to Christ, who is their final goal 603. Christ the Savior commands the believers so that the calamities of the end of the age do not befall them on Saturday; this means that they must take care so that the Lord who comes does not find them resting from the works of righteousness (Saturday is rest) 604. The man who, before the Last Supper, was met by the apostles at the entrance to the city with a water-carrier and asked to show them the place to celebrate the Paschal supper with the Lord, seems to be an image of a perfect and sublime understanding of the law - an understanding that prepared the way for the New Testament Revelation 605. In addition to the two works considered, the influence of Origen was also significantly reflected in the interpretations of St. Ambrose on the Psalms. Already the second half of the commentary on Psalm 1 gives grounds for such an assumption, as is shown, for example, by comparing the following passages from the works of both authors: Ambrosius, PL 14, 948–949 and Origenes, PG 12, 1092; Ambrosius, 14, 951–952 and Origenes, PG 12, 1097–1100 606 . Some Origenian thoughts are also found in the interpretations of Psalms 36 and 37. So, for example, when explaining verse 11 of Psalm 36, both writers by meek people mean people free from slavery to affects and passions, and contrast them with those who are attached to sensual pleasures 607. The expression of Psalm 37 “there is no peace in my bones because of my sins” (v. 4) is accordingly understood by them in the sense of a lack of internal balance in the soul of a sinner 608. In Psalm 39 this influence is even more evident. The mournful feeling of the prophet (v. 3) gives grounds for both authors to believe that the prophet at the time of compiling this psalm was still at a relatively low level of moral perfection, at which complete freedom of spirit from passions and external circumstances was not yet available to him 609. He still remained subject to sins and for this he was handed over to the reproach of the “madman,” that is, the devil, the cause of all disasters 610. This is followed by an apology for suffering and misfortune as necessary conditions for taming the sting of the flesh and purifying the heart; even references to places of Holy Scripture: Matthew 13:15, Gen. 6:3 and the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel are equally found in both Ambrose and Origen 611. Kellner argues that, besides Psalm 118, the psalm we have considered is the last, in the explanation of which one can discern traces of Origen's influence 612. But, apparently, one can think that of the remaining psalms, at least two (45 and 48) were created under the partial guidance of the works of Origen. Leaving a detailed enumeration of the parallels related here until the presentation of the dogmatic views of St. Ambrose, here we can point out only one place from the commentary on Psalm 45 to prove the stated position. True, there is no slavishly accurate rendering of the Greek original, but the similarity in thoughts is so significant that in the words of Ambrose it is quite possible to see an imitation of the words of Origen while maintaining their logical limit. As for the commentary on Psalm 119, its dependence on Origen is clear both from the formal and material side. From the formal side, it expressed itself in the fact that, like Origen, Ambrose in this commentary uses somewhat Kabbalistic techniques. This was partly required by the very structure of the psalm: in the Hebrew text, every 8 verses in order begin with the same letter of the alphabet, which is, as it were, the table of contents of a department. Ambrose sets out to discover the inner meaning of each letter and shows that each section only reveals in more detail the content that lies in the meaning of the letter uniting its individual verses. As for Origen, we know his explanations of only the first two letters 613, but the explanations of the rest have been lost. Origen's explanations of the first letters are the same as those of Ambrose. On this basis, we can conclude that Ambrose drew explanations for the remaining letters from Origen. This assumption can also be confirmed by the consideration that Ambrose, who did not know the Hebrew language at all, had to borrow all the knowledge of this kind from someone else. But since in general there were few such explanations, and the only explanation of Eusebius that has survived to us differs significantly from the explanations of Ambrose 614, then we have another reason to talk about borrowing from Origen. Further, this dependence on Origen is also confirmed by the similarity of some passages in both writers. Most of all, Ambrose's commentary on Psalm 118 has points of contact with Origen's comments on the Book of Songs of Songs. Here it is enough to give only a few quotes for now. This includes the common comparison between Ambrose and Origen of the organ of vision with a window through which impressions of the external world enter the soul, bringing with them spiritual life or death; For both, this idea is illustrated by the same text taken from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 615. The expression of the Book of Song of Songs about the lily growing between the thorns (Song.2:2), Ambrose, in agreement with Origen, refers to the Church, surrounded on all sides by heretics with their tricks and false teachings 616. By the words of the same book, “under the shadow of it (the apple tree) I love to sit” (Song. 2:3), both exegetes mean Jewish law and the Old Testament holidays, which really were a shadow in relation to the times of the New Testament 617. Some of the letters of St. Ambrose also bears traces of his acquaintance with Origen 618. In the dogmatic works of Ambrose, literary dependence on the works of Didymus is also visible. This must be said first of all regarding his books “De fide” [“On Faith”]. In terms of content, this work reveals some similarities with the work of Didymus “De Trinitate” [“On the Trinity”]; however, Ambrose could not use them when compiling his books for the sole reason that the work of Didymus appeared after the Council of Constantinople 619 or even later 620. But, undoubtedly, here Ambrose used in great detail the IV and V books of the speech against Eunomius, which were previously attributed to St. Basil the Great and were published along with his three books against Eunomius, but are now recognized as the works of Didymus. Ambrose made especially extensive use of Book IV against Eunomius in the analysis of biblical texts, explained by heretics in the subordinate sense or even in the sense of the difference between the essence of the Son compared to the essence of the Father. From this source, Ambrose borrowed an explanation of the expressions of Scripture about the humiliation of Christ (Phil. 2:7), 621, about the Savior’s prayer for the passing of the cup of suffering (Matt. 26:39), and so on. At present, there can no longer be any doubt that Ambrose’s work “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”] was created under the influence of Didymus’ work of the same name. True, Ambrose did not limit himself only to the aforementioned work of Didymus, his creation is much more extensive than the work of Didymus, and it would therefore be a mistake to consider the first a simple translation of the second. Nevertheless, Ambrose used the latter’s work in great detail. The similarity concerns the essential distribution of the material itself: both first engage in a fairly detailed refutation of the teaching of heretics about the creation of the Holy Spirit 622, and then move on to a positive solution to the issue. Their proofs and the texts from the Holy Scriptures are in the vast majority of cases the same; for example, Didymus, p. 24 and Ambrosius, III, 90–92, where the same texts are analyzed: 2 Cor. 6:16, John 14:23, 1 Cor. 3:16, 1 Cor. 6:19; Didymus, ss. 23–24 and Ambrosius, II, 143–153 with analysis of the texts Acts 15:28, Job 1:21, Acts 13:2, Gal.2:8, Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 12:28, Acts 20:28 623. Finally, it seems that the essay “De mysteriis” [“On the Sacraments”] was written under the influence of Didymus. We have in mind here the second book of Didymus’s work “De Trinitate” [“On the Trinity”]. True, in the aforementioned work of Ambrose we do not find literal excerpts from the work of Didymus, but the range of thoughts and exegetical techniques is very similar; Perhaps Ambrose used the book of Didymus only from memory. Let us take, for example, from Didymus De Trinitate II, 12, PG 39, 672B: “Δεῖ γεννηϑῆναι ἐξ ὕδατος” ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀποπλῦναι ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι τὸν ῥύπον τοῦ σώματος γνώρισμά ἐστιν τῶν ἀνακτιζομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ὁρατῶς μὲν γὰρ τὸ ὁρατὸν ἡμῶν σῶμα... ὁμοῦ καὶ ψυχήν, ἀγγέλων ὑπηρετουμένων, τὸ πάσαις νοήσεσιν ἀόρατον Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ βαπτίζει εἰς ἑαυτὸ καὶ ἀναγεννᾷ [“Must be born of water” because the washing from bodily dirt that occurs in baptism means that those who are baptized are created anew by the Holy Spirit. For our body is visible in a visible way... at the same time our soul, surrounded by concelebrating angels, the Spirit of God, who is invisible to all thinking, baptizes into Himself and regenerates]. It seems that it is precisely these thoughts of Didymus that Ambrose varies if he says: Quid vidisti? Aquas utique, sed non solas: levitas illic ministrantes, summum sacerdotem interrogantem et consecrantem. Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur, sed quae non videntur [What did you see? Of course, water, but not water alone: ​​you saw the servants of God and the high priest asking questions and sanctifying. First of all, the Apostle taught you that we should not look at those things that we see, but at those that we do not see] 624. Vidisti illic levitam, vidisti sacerdotem, vidisti summum sacerdotem. Noli considerare corporum figuras, sed mysteriorum gratiam. Praesentibus angelis locutus es... Angelus est qui regnum Christi et vitam aeternam annuntiat. Non specie tibi aestimandus sit, sed munere [You saw the minister there, you saw the priest, you saw the high priest. Do not look at bodily forms, but at the grace of the sacrament. You spoke to the coming angels... The angel proclaims the kingdom of Christ and eternal life. You should look not at his appearance, but at the duty he performs] 625. What Ambrose says here, in essence, is a more detailed explanation of what Didymus briefly said. Then, Didymus, considering the prototypes of New Testament baptism, stops at the passage of the Jews through the Red Sea, and by the Egyptians who perished at that time he understands the world, κακῶς [in which, living badly, we are unhappy] 626; such an explanation is undoubtedly known to Ambrose, if he says: In illo Hebraeorum transitu jam tunc sacri baptismatis figura praecesserit, in quo Aegyptius interiit et Hebraeus evasit. Quid enim aliud in hoc quotatidie sacramento docemur, nisi quia culpa mergitur, et error aboletur? [Already then, holy baptism was depicted in this transition of the Jews, during which the Egyptians died and the Jews were saved. What else do we learn daily in this sacrament, except that guilt is drowned and sin is destroyed?] 627 Another type of baptism in Didymus is the transformation of the bitter water of Marah into sweet 628 ; and in Ambrose: Sicut ergo in ilium fontem Moyses misit lignum... ita et in hunc fontem sacerdos praedicationem Dominicae crucis mittit, et aqua fit dulcis ad gratiam [Consequently, as Moses threw a tree into that spring... so the priest throws into this spring the confession of the cross of the Lord, and the water becomes sweet for grace] 629 . In Didymus, in this example, the tree is a type of cross (τοῦ σταυροῦ) 630; Absolutely in the same spirit, Ambrose comments on the fact of the transformation of bitter water into sweet water through wood: aqua enim sine praedicatione Dominicae crucis ad nullos usus futurae salutis est [for water without confession of the cross of the Lord is useless for future salvation] 631. The third prototype of baptism in Didymus appears to be the font of Bethesda, and the writer also indicates the superiority of truth over the prototype, because the latter had power only πρὸς καιρόν [for a time], and truth εἰς αἰωνιότητα κρίνεται [thought of constantly abiding] 632; and in Ambrose, ilia piscina in figura [that font in the image] represented baptism 633, and tunc curabatur unus, nunc omnes sanantur [then one was cured, now all are healed] 634; and with the coming of Christ jam non umbra sanaret singulos, sed veritas universos [it is no longer the shadow that heals some, but the truth that heals all] 635 . The question of the attitude of St. Ambrose to the so-called onomastics. Onomastica sacra are collections that existed in patristic times, dedicated to the interpretation of proper biblical names and perhaps originating from Philo himself. Given Ambrose's penchant for allegory, it was natural for him to turn to this type of literature. Although most explanations of proper names, as we will see below, are quite similar to the explanations contained in the works of Philo known to us, nevertheless, exceptions occasionally occur. Thus, given in epist. 27 the explanation of the name Leah in the sense of ἀνανευμένη καὶ κοπιῶσα [negatively shaking her head and toiling], and Rachel in the meaning of apiratio fortis [bold breath] is alien to Philo. In this, as Wilbrand does, perhaps one can see confirmation of the assumption that Ambrose was familiar with onomastics 636. Of the pre-Christian writers who were used in one way or another by St. Ambrose, especially mention should be made of pseudo-Joseph or the author of the work “Περὶ λογισμοῦ αὐτοκράτορος” [“On Autocratic Reason”], also known as IV Maccabees. This work, which probably originated in Alexandria among the Hellenized Jewish diaspora, appeared, apparently, in the 1st century. AD, but even before the fall of Jerusalem and aims to encourage Jews to fulfill the law 637. The book was created under the influence of Stoicism and tries to reconcile the basic principles of Stoic morality with Jewish law. The influence of the pseudo-Joseph is already evident in the first chapters of Ambrose’s first book, “De Jacob et vita beata” [“On Jacob and the Blessed Life”]. As the main idea of his work, the author of IV Maccabees puts forward the position that αὐτοδέσποτος τῶν παϑῶν [lord of the passions] is ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός [pious reason] 638; The theme of Ambrose’s work is also a similar proposition: necessarius ad disciplinam bonus omnibus sermo, plenus prudentiae, et mens rationi intenta praecurrit virtutibus, passiones coercet [to teach everyone, a good word, full of prudence, is necessary, and the mind, directed towards reason, precedes the virtues and restrains the passions] 639. In particular, regarding this reason, both pseudo-Joseph and Ambrose observe in almost the same words that God placed it in man as a royal power over his passions at the creation of man, providing him with his instructions: For the author of the Book of Maccabees, the reason that should dominate in a person, or the so-called ἐυσεβὴς λογισμός, is exclusively the reason that agrees with the prescriptions of the law 640; Ambrose also holds the same opinion regarding mens, if he says: mens igitur recta ratione tenens disciplinam sapientiae, ut divina ac humana cognoscat, eruditur in Lege per quam discit quas sibi subjicere debeat passiones [thus, the right mind, adhering to the instruction of wisdom in order to know the divine and human, is formed in the law, thanks to which it learns what he must subjugate passions] 641. The section on passions, on pleasure and sorrow, as their main types, and on the secondary phenomena arising from them, Ambrose literally borrows from the Book of Maccabees, expressing himself only in somewhat more detail. Likewise, the examples with which our authors illustrate their thoughts very often coincide. Both of them point to the Maccabean brothers (only briefly for now) as an example of mastery over one’s passions, although Ambrose does not directly name them 642; dwell on the example of Joseph, who, despite his youth, resisted temptation and, following the guidance of reason, defeated the passion of lust 643. Both, finally, point to the patriarch Jacob, who reproached his sons Levi and Simeon for the fact that, in revenge for the dishonor of their own sister Dinah, they devastated Shechem and destroyed its male inhabitants (Gen. 34); by this, according to their explanation, Jacob showed an example of how anger can be tamed through reason; both of them literally quote the 30th verse of the 34th chapter of Genesis, although Ambrose quotes it differently 644. Ambrose also knows the term λογισμός; he just does not name the author of the quoted book, limiting himself to the general Graeci nuncupant [the Greeks call] 645. For all that, Ambrose in this case does not limit himself only to the material of the Book of Maccabees. He, unlike pseudo-Joseph, also discusses the whole question from the point of view of New Testament teaching and, in addition to the Old Testament law, points to Christ, qui docet sapientiam (intellectum) et disciplinam [Who instructs both in wisdom and in doctrine] 646. We do not find references by pseudo-Joseph to Moses' relations with Korah, Dathan and Abiron 647 in Ambrose. But in essentials, the first two chapters of the first book of the work “De Jacob” [“On Jacob”] are very similar to the first three chapters of “Περὶ λογισμοῦ” [“On Reason”]. The same exact similarity is then found between chapters 10–12 of the second book “De Jacob et vita beata” [“On Jacob and the Blessed Life”] and between chapters 10–15 of the same “Περὶ λογισμοῦ” [“On Reason”]. Here we are talking about further illustrating the main idea of ​​the essay with examples from Sacred History. Chapter 10 of Ambrose’s work is a significant reduction of chapters 5 and 6 of “Περὶ λογισμοῦ,” which contain a story about the devotion of Elder Eleazar to the requirements of the law regarding food, which did not waver even before the threats and torture of Antiochus and death. Chapter 7 “Περὶ λογισμοῦ”, which draws a parallel between Eleazar and Aaron, is completely absent from Ambrose. An abbreviated summary of chapters 8–14 of “Περὶ λογισμοῦ” is chapter 11 of “De Jacob” with a description of the martyrdom of the seven Maccabean brothers, with a depiction of the type of torment and torture of each of them and a statement of the answers that each of them gave to his tormentor; here it is also briefly said about the martyrdom of their mother, just as pseudo-Joseph briefly talks about this at the end of chapter 14 of his work. Chapter 12 "De Jacob" corresponds to chapter 15 "Περὶ λογισμοῦ". It contains praise for the mother of the Maccabees, who, unlike other mothers, herself encouraged her sons to persevere in torment; here both authors have a poetic comparison of the last conversation between a mother and her sons with the captivating singing of sirens and a swan song; here the mother, who courageously preferred the glorious death of her sons to preserving their lives, is compared to Noah’s ark, which rushed through the waters of the flood without harm to itself. But the comparison of the mother with the moon 648 cited by Ambrose along with this is not found in pseudo-Joseph. The final chapters of “Περὶ λογισμού” (16–18) were left unused by Ambrose. The question of Ambrose's relationship to classical writers has been studied more or less thoroughly in modern scholarship. In the writings of Ambrose we actually find a lot of quotations from classical literature; Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, Ambrose does not name his sources at all and does not even make it clear that he is quoting some other author. It has been established that he actually borrowed some of these quotes from primary sources. In his book “Studia Ambrosiana” he collected all the quotations borrowed by Ambrose from the works of Virgil 649. In Wilbrand's brochure the reader can familiarize himself with quotations from Sallust, Plautus, Lucretius, Horace and others. 650 But especially many St. Ambrose used the writings of Cicero. Because of this, Ambrose himself is called by some writers the Christian Cicero. The similarity between the work of Cicero and the work of Ambrose “De officiis ministrorum” is so great that, as Ebert puts it, the latter reveals not a simple “direct imitation of the famous work of Cicero,” but rather a desire to transfer it almost entirely to Christian soil; the similarity between them equally “concerns both content and form” 651. Indeed, they are similar to each other already in their titles and partly the reason for their appearance. Just as Cicero in his work wanted first of all to give everyday instructions to his son, who was at that time studying science in Greece 652, so Ambrose with his work primarily instructed his spiritual children 653. Further, both works consist of three books, and each book, in particular, has the same content in both. This division is based on the same principle: every action can be considered 1) on the part of his honesty and decency, 2) in terms of its usefulness and 3) from the side of the relationship between decent and useful 654. Based on this principle, our writers devote the first books of their works to the question of honesty and decency, and illustrate their thoughts with examples of particular virtues. The difference simply boils down to the fact that while in Cicero decorum (decorum) is discussed in detail when considering the fourth of the cardinal virtues 655, in Ambrose it comes first and embraces the entire area of ​​moral activity 656. But, having transferred the judgment of the decent to the first place, Ambrose acts quite consistently if he now talks about all the particular cases of manifestation of the decent, which Cicero lists much later and also immediately after the general definition of the decent. Therefore, in Ambrose, chapters 17–22, which treat the duties of young men, duties in relation to the body, taming anger, silence and conversation, and oratory, correspond to chapters 31–38 of the first book of Cicero’s work. For the same reason, Cicero devotes the beginning and middle of the first book of his work to the consideration of the four cardinal virtues, and Ambrose - the middle and end. Thus, chapter 27 of Ambrose, dedicated to the exposition of the precepts of prudence, the first of the fundamental virtues, corresponds to chapter 6 of Cicero; the second virtue, which, according to both authors, consists of justice (justitia) and charity (beneficentia), is devoted to chapters 28–34 in Ambrose, and chapters 7–17 in Cicero. The first speaks of courage and generosity in chapters 35–42, of moderation, the last of the virtues, in 43–44, and the second in chapters 18–26 and 40. But, starting from chapter 46, Ambrose again turns to the question of decentness, speaks of its division into types, thus, to some extent, submits to the order proposed by Cicero, and ends his book with this question, while Cicero also adds to this a comparative assessment of all four virtues (43 and 45). Both Ambrose and Cicero devote the second book to the question of what is useful. Ambrose here represents that peculiarity in comparison with his classical model that he forgets for a while the question of what is useful and in the first five chapters of his book deals with the question of true happiness and bliss, resolving the issue on the basis of extensive biblical material in the church spirit; These chapters, in general, have little connection with the subsequent one, as well as with the previous one, and constitute an addition compared to the work of Cicero. Chapters 6 and 7, in which the nature and character of the useful are clarified, find their counterpart in chapters 3–5 of the work of the famous Roman. Then both, in general agreement, talk about those means and methods by which useful things are best acquired. They rely on benefit in serving the common cause; the most useful type of activity is social, state activity 657. In accordance with this, Ambrose, together with Cicero, especially recommends taking care of the qualities that can win a person the favor of society, namely: justice, prudence in business and advice (pp. 8–14 and 6–14), then charity and generosity (pp. 15–22, 25–26 and 15–24); in chapters 23 and 24, both talk about bribery and generally cheap ways to gain popularity. Subsequently, Ambrose, in contrast to Cicero, lists purely Christian forms of charity: the release of prisoners (p. 28), assistance to widows (p. 29). His final chapter (p. 30) has the character of a moral exhortation, while in Cicero (p. 25) he is devoted to comparing different types of useful activities according to their inner dignity 658. The third book, De officiis, has as its subject a definition of the relationship between the honest and the useful. In the first chapters, the similarities between our authors are quite obvious. Just as Cicero in the first chapter proves the good and benefit of a solitary life, making, as it were, an introduction to the entire section, so does St. Ambrose. In this case, he himself points out his dependence on Cicero, saying that not only Scipio, praised by Cicero, did not feel loneliness in a solitary life, but also Moses, who lived much earlier than him, and many others. etc. (p. 1). Subsequently, our writers agree in identifying the honest with the useful, but differ from one another in the order of chapters and in details; this is due to the fact that Ambrose introduced much more of the church-Christian element into this section of his book than into the two previous ones. But in all three books, Ambrose and Cicero share the examples they give: Cicero borrows them from Roman history, and Ambrose from the Bible and church history. If Virgil, Cicero and some other classics of St. Ambrose read in the original, then this cannot be assumed also regarding the other numerous authors quoted by him. The abundance of literary erudition and factual material earned Ambrose the reputation of a comprehensively educated man of his time and aroused enthusiastic praise and surprise among historians. “Ambrose,” says Foerster, “possessed an extraordinary wealth of general humanistic knowledge for his time... He reveals a great acquaintance with Greek philosophy and the classics and, if he himself was not a philosopher, he still knew the essential content of the ancient systems, and he often makes them the subject of his research and attacks. Thales and the atomists, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Epicureans are as often found in him, as are the Greek poets Homer and Euripides, as well as the younger Roman authors Virgil, Cicero, Pliny and others.” 659 Kellner speaks with great praise of Ambrose’s natural scientific knowledge: “Only a few of his contemporaries,” he says, “were so closely acquainted with the various genera of plants and their fertilization, only a few of them knew so well the life of animals living in the air and in water, and the structure of the human body” 660. All this, of course, is fair. But it should also be borne in mind that a significant part of this information was borrowed from second hand, mostly from one of the writers we have already mentioned. In this regard, St. Ambrose owes a lot to Philo. So, for example, the mention of Pythagorean numbers and geometry found in the book “De Abraham” [“On Abraham”] was, in all likelihood, borrowed from Philo, as the context of the speech in which these remarks stand convinces us. Ambrose and Cicero provided an important service in introducing classical literature and quoting it. Many places directly show that Ambrose was often content with the information that he found in the writings of Cicero and in particular in his “De officiis” [“On Duties”] 662. Here, first of all, we must include the myth conveyed by Plato about a giant who, having descended into the earth opened up by heavy rains, miraculously turned into the Lydian king. The similarity of verbal transmission 663 speaks for dependence on Cicero. For the same reason and the context of the speech, it must be recognized as undoubted that the story about two Pythagoreans, bound together by the closest friendship, was borrowed from Cicero: when one of them, condemned to death by the Syracusan tyrant, asked to be given freedom for a few days for a last meeting with relatives and friends, the other vouched for the loyalty of his comrade with his own life 664 . Ambrose, in full agreement with Cicero, recounts one of the episodes of the Greco-Persian wars, when Themistocles suggested that the Athenian citizens, through cunning, set fire to and destroy the enemy fleet, but this dishonest, although useful, advice was unanimously rejected by the Athenians 665. The second chapter of the second book of Ambrose’s work “De officiis ministrorum” [“On the duties of the clergy”] is, among other things, devoted to the presentation of the opinions of various philosophers about the highest good; these opinions are partly borrowed from other writings of Cicero, and partly collected into one whole from various places in his book De officiis. This is, for example, the teaching of the Epicurean Calliphon, who believed honesty and decency in the skillful use of pleasure. That Ambrose drew this information precisely from Cicero is evident from the fact that in this case he also touches on the issue of combining honesty with pleasure, which we find in Cicero, while Ambrose’s direct goal was only to list various opinions about the highest good, about a happy life 666. The Stoic formula of happiness was probably borrowed from Cicero, according to which only the honest is recognized as good, 667 as well as the very similar formula of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school in general, which, although it recognized only the honest as good, but as an addition attached some importance to the pleasures of the body and external goods in general 668. As for natural scientific information, in this regard, in the vast majority of cases, Ambrose is dependent on other authors. He owes a lot to the “Sex Day” of St. Vasily. Yes, St. Vasily is already the author of the exposition of the theory of atomism, reproduced by Ambrose; according to this theory, of course rejected by our authors, the world arose from a random combination of atoms; leaving the whole matter to incomprehensible accidents in explanation and rejecting the Highest Cause that governs the world, it represents only a cobweb 669. In both Ambrose and Vasily we then encounter the same positive views on the composition of the world and its origin. They borrow from classical philosophy the doctrine of the four constituent elements of the visible world: earth, water, fire and air; these elements are actually mixed with each other and are found in one another; so, for example, fire exists in a latent form in stones and iron, and with strong impacts on these objects it comes out of them, which explains the mechanical development of heat 670 known to us. The world formed from these basic elements splits into two main parts: the visible sky and the earth. The sky we see is also material and consists of a thin and soft substance 671. As for the nature of this celestial substance, our authors know of two theories: according to one, this substance consists of the same four elements from which the other part of the universe is composed; according to another theory, it represents a new, unusually soft etheric body, which differs from other bodies in its circular rather than rectilinear movement, that is, movement up and down; In addition, it is very simple in nature, it does not consist of separate parts and cannot fall apart into parts 672. Unlike the visible sky, the earth always remains motionless; and whether we assume that it hangs in the air, or assume that it rests on the waters, we still cannot in a natural way fully explain its stability and must seek an explanation only in the decision and action of the Divine Will 673. This land in its pristine state is characterized by the everyday writer as invisible and unsettled for the reason that it was still devoid of amenities and decorations in the form of various kinds of flowers and plants, that it was not yet illuminated by the light of the subsequently created sun, that it was hidden by many waters and, finally, there was still no person who could see it. She was brought into a state of well-being during the six days of creation 674. On the first day of creation, by the power of the word of God, a light shone in the primeval darkness, which instantly, through airy matter, spread throughout the entire world and illuminated it; this light existed without the sun; it was initially dispersed in the air and was not concentrated in one place 675. The writer of everyday life called this moment of peacemaking one day, thereby designating a certain closed circle of time, 24 hours, making it the unit of measure of any time in general 676. Then the visible sky was improved. Some of the ancient philosophers recognized that the celestial stars are located on seven planes and their movements, opposite to the movement of the universe, produce a wonderful celestial harmony, which, however, we cannot hear due to the fact that we are accustomed to it, perceiving it from our very birth. And St. Ambrose and St. Vasily has a negative attitude towards this theory 677. The philological production of the word οὐρανός [sky] adopted by both of them also deserves attention: this word comes from the verb ὁράω [see] and indicates the visibility of the sky 678. In the process of peacemaking, attention is drawn to the appearance of plants before the creation of the sun. The wisdom of God thereby showed that the sun is not the cause of life on earth 679. Plants are endowed with the ability to reproduce, and in two ways: some of them grow from seeds; others, for example, reeds, through shoots from the root 680. All of them were created very expediently and for good reason. Most of them are necessary for the nutrition of man, who would soon appear on earth. Among them, however, there are also plants that are harmful to humans, for example, hellebore, etc., but the existence of harmful and poisonous herbs is justified by the fact that they serve as a medicine against certain diseases; in addition, they are eaten without harm by some birds, for example, starlings, and this is very simply explained by the fact that the thin holes in the heart of such birds give them the opportunity to digest the poison before it has time to spread throughout the body 681. Of the creatures of the fourth day, our writers focus their attention in particular detail on the moon and its phases. The phases of the moon have a great influence on the course of earthly life: when the moon wanes, then the elements of bodies also decrease, and when it increases, the bodies overflow again; Thus, under the influence of moonlight, the brains of killed animals quickly deteriorate, the inside of trees becomes covered with moisture; during the full moon the sea overflows, and during the period of damage it goes back to its usual limits 682. In great dependence on St. Ambrose also stands as Vasily in stories about the animal world 683. Without going into details, we note their rather interesting general view of the animal kingdom. Animals, in their opinion, have a certain, albeit insignificant, amount of intelligence: a dog already by nature knows what people acquire through long life and study; Having reached, while pursuing an animal, a place where the trail forks, he stops here for a while, as if thinking about something, and, as if by inference, selects the true trail 684. But regarding man, as Gossel’s research shows, Ambrose is only partly dependent on St. Vasily. Namely, this includes a description of the eyes, a discussion about the meaning of teeth and a general comparison of man with birds 685. Everything else about a person must be attributed to other sources. These for him were Galen’s work “Περὶ χρείας μορίων” [“On the purpose of parts”] when describing the human head with its parts 686, the work of the Platonist Apuleius “De Platone et ejus dogmate” [“On Plato and his teachings”] when depicting the external and internal organs of the body 687, etc. In addition to the authors listed, St. Ambrose was also aware of other sources of a natural historical nature. He drew something from the writings of Suetonius 688, and owed much to the natural history of Pliny 689. General characteristics of the works of St. Ambrose Let us now consider the works of St. Ambrose a) in terms of their content and The works of Ambrose that we have listed are very diverse in content. From this point of view, it is very difficult to classify them correctly: usually in almost every work we can find answers to questions of the most diverse nature. If we pay attention to the predominant element in them, then they can be divided, in addition to letters and hymns, into three main classes: 1) works of an exegetical nature regarding the sacred text of the Old and New Testaments: “De paradiso” [“On Paradise”], “De Cain et Abel” [“On Cain and Abel”], “De Abraham” [“On Abraham”], “Expositio in psalmos” [“Exposition of the Psalms”], “Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam” [“Exposition of the Gospel of Luke”] and pl. etc.; 2) moral: all works on virginity, “De Elia et jejunio” [“On Elijah and Fasting”], “De Tobia” [“On Tobias”], etc.; finally 3) dogmatic-polemical: “De fide” [“On Faith”], “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”], “De incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento” [“On the Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation”]. All of them, however, have one thing in common: their practicality. Ambrose was not an armchair scientist and theologian-theorist who engages in scientific research for the sake of research and truth; he does not explore the subject comprehensively and in detail, as is typical of Origen. “The Church for him serves as the only vital element: for it he feels, thinks, acts, fights” 690. Almost his entire life was spent in the struggle against Arianism, paganism and the social vices of his time. All his main concerns boiled down to defending the purity of the teachings of the Church and the inviolability of church property, protecting it from the encroachments of people powerful in their position, and extending its influence to all aspects of state and public life. Literary activity served for him only as one of the many means to achieve this practical goal. This determines the general character of Ambrose’s works, as a result of which, for example, he does not have purely dogmatic works, but only dogmatic-polemical works. This explains, first of all, the abundance in the writings of St. Ambrose of the moral and edifying element; in this regard, St. Ambrose discovers a rare art; he finds something instructive in absolutely everything he has to talk about, and even where another would not reveal edification. Whether he speaks about the command given to the water to gather “in one assembly,” he immediately turns to man, tries to awaken his conscience, and with the example of the waters gathered at the call of God, reproaches him for disobedience to the Divine commandments 691. All visible nature serves as a teacher of morality and piety for him. The vine, which is tied so that it does not bend to the ground, in his explanation teaches that we, too, should strive to heaven with our thoughts, and not be tied to the earth 692. The phases of the moon suggest that everything in general in the world is impermanent, changes and collapses 693. The caring attitude of birds towards their chicks instructs man in his family responsibilities 694. The hardworking ant, who, despite the insignificance of his own strength, obtains everything he needs for himself, teaches by his own example that we have no right to justify our carelessness in a virtuous life by the weakness of our body 695. In connection with this feature of Ambrose’s works there is another equally important one: the abundance in them of everyday features of that time, as a result of which they receive important historical interest; they contain sufficient material to characterize the Christian society of that time. This especially needs to be said about the following three works: “De Elia et jejunio” [“On Elijah and Fasting”], “De Nabuthe Jezraelita” [“On Naboth the Israelite”], “De Tobia” [“On Tobias”], which, according to Ebert, with the extraordinary vitality of the images given and the mass of small details, should have made a strong impression on contemporaries 696. They give us an idea of the strength of moral debauchery of that time, of drunkenness and the inactivity and wastefulness associated with it 697, of the luxury of feasts, the rich decoration of the environment and home quarters 698, of the disorder of family life and the depravity of women, whose bold appearance in the company of drunken men horrified Ambrose 699, of the extremely difficult social situation of the era, when at every step one could meet repetition of the blatant injustice of the biblical Jezebel in relation to Naboth 700, about the incredible wealth of one small part of society and, conversely, about hunger, poverty and lawlessness of another 701 and many others. etc. According to the form of presentation of the work of St. Ambrose are very simple. Having arisen from church sermons, they in most cases represent the most artless homilies. There is no text from the Holy Scriptures in the form of a title; in presenting his thoughts, Ambrose usually follows the order of the biblical story, which serves as the subject of this work. But this order is not always strictly followed: very lengthy digressions towards issues that are not closely related to the main theme of the story are the most common occurrence in his work. The works that were given the form of a treatise are distinguished by the same character (“De fide” [“On Faith”], “De Spiritu Sancto” [“On the Holy Spirit”], etc.). Usually, however, the work is divided into several books; a separate book is sometimes preceded by an introduction or prologue; but the division of a book very often has an exclusively mechanical, and not a logical character, and it remains completely incomprehensible why the author divided his book at all and divided it in this way and not otherwise. In this regard, from the series of all the works of Ambrose, the exception is his three funeral words: “De excessu fratris sui Satyri” [“On the death of brother Satyr”], “De obitu Valentiniani consolatio” [“A consoling word on the death of Valentinian (emperor)”] and “De obitu Theodosii oratio” [“A word on the death of Theodosius [emperor]"]. Containing Christian content, they are similar in plan and form of presentation to classic funeral orations. The first two of them belong to the category of consoling words, the so-called λόγοι παραμυϑητικοί, and contain a prooemium [introduction]; expositio [exposition] with its four divisions: ϑρῆνος [lamentation], ἔπαινος [praise], ϑρῆνος [lamentation] and παραμυϑίαι [consolation]; and conclusio [conclusion]. And the third, having exordium [beginning], expositio [exposition] and conclusio [conclusion], refers to a variety of the same kind of speeches, known under the name ἐγκώμιον [eulogy, encomium] 702. The language of the essays is sometimes excessively drawn out. But in moments of special uplifting of the bishop’s spirit, his speech becomes captivating, lively and capable of making a strong impression. Ambrose was well able to use the rules of classical rhetoric. In such cases, as epitheta ornantia [decorating epithets] of classical speech, he sometimes successfully uses all kinds of metaphors, personifications and comparisons: inanimate nature turns into an animate being, singing an enthusiastic hymn to the sun and at the same time giving a fair assessment of its significance in the general life of nature 703; the eagle, which is able to rise to enormous heights, above the clouds, where it is free from any danger of being caught in a net and, on the contrary, easily falling into a trap when approaching the ground, serves as a poetic image of the human soul, which is so far free from all dangers to itself while living on high, but as soon as it becomes attached to the world, it immediately perishes in the networks of passions and worldly attachments 704. There are also appeals to inanimate objects, but these appeals, thanks to the numerous comparisons and approximations associated with them, sometimes take on a noticeably artificial character. This, for example, is the classical description of water and its properties in this sense: O aqua, quae humano aspersum sanguine, ut praesentium lavacrorum figura praecederet, orbem terrarum lavisti! O aqua, quae sacramentum Christi esse meruisti, quae lavas omnia nec lavaris! Tu incipis prima, tu comples perfecta mysteria. A te principium, in te finis: vel potius tu facis ut finem nesciamus. Per te fetor tabidae carnis aboletur, et pereuntia situ viscera asperso sale, in multam servantur aetatem. Per te arentibus aestu corporibus dulcis ad gratiam, salutaris ad vitam, suavis ad voluptatem potus infunditur. Tu nomen prophetis et apostolis, tu nomen Salvatori dedisti: illi nubes caeli, illi sal mundi, iste fons vitae est [O water, you washed the entire universe, spattered with human blood, preceding this present ablution! O water, honored to be the sacrament of Christ, you wash everything and are not washed! You begin the first, you finish the perfect sacraments. The beginning is from you, the end is in you, or rather, you make it so that we do not know the end. Thanks to you, the stench of a decaying body is destroyed, and the entrails, which perish in their place, are preserved for a long time when salt is added. Thanks to you, bodies languishing in heat are given a drink that is sweet in effect, life-saving, and pleasant for pleasure. You gave a name to the prophets and apostles, you gave a name to the Savior: they are the clouds of heaven, they are the salt of the world, He is the source of life], etc. 705 Ambrose's style immediately takes on a different character when he has to act as a polemicist. His polemics attract attention. In terms of passion and strength of polemical tone, the Roman Ambrose is very reminiscent of the African Tertullian. Especially Arianism and general errors on issues of church teaching arouse Ambrose's indignation. For him, the wickedness of Arius was tantamount to the betrayal of Judas, as a result of which both suffered the same punishment 706. Heretics are the children of the Antichrist and the Antichrists themselves 707; moth, worm with their ability to undermine and destroy everything - these are the true names they deserve 708. Hymns of St. Ambrose of Milan Hymns of St. Ambrose in all respects represent a special group among his numerous works. In the Western Church they represented a new phenomenon, but in the East this type of work had existed for a long time. According to the historian Socrates, they first appeared at the end of the 1st or at the very beginning of the 2nd century. in the Antiochian Church, where the then bishop of Antioch, the famous Ignatius the God-Bearer, introduced their singing in the form of antiphons into church services; these unbiblical hymns were of a dogmatic nature 709 . Spreading after this in other Eastern Churches, the singing of hymns especially strengthened here due to the need to counteract the heretics (first the Gnostics, and then the Arians, etc.), who, taking advantage of this custom, saw in it a good means for promoting their teachings. For the same reason, the Christian lyrics of the East should very soon acquire the character of artificial musical works. In the 4th century. we already meet prominent lyric writers in the East in the person of Ephraim the Syrian and Gregory of Nazianzus. As for the Western Church, here we are, however, before St. Ambrose we see Christian poets in the person of Commodianus with his “instructions” (to the pagans) and “Carmen apologeticum” and Juvencus, the author of the poetic “Historiae Evangelicae” [“Gospel History”] 710; but these works, very crude and unsuccessful in their form, passed without a trace in the history of Western church poetry, and were not works of lyrical nature. In any case, until St. Ambrose, the custom of using hymns for Christian worship was unknown to the Western Church. What really is St. Ambrose first introduced the singing of hymns during the worship of the Milan Church, this is directly evidenced by his biographer Paulinus; from the words of the latter it also follows that this singing had, at least sometimes, the character of antiphons 711. Blzh. Augustine adds to this that this custom was borrowed by Ambrose from the East 712, which, given Ambrose’s personal and literary connections with the Eastern Church, is more than likely. But whether in this case Augustine, as Ebert believes, means the Syrian Church itself, where antiphonal singing 713 first appeared, this cannot be said, since the custom of singing hymns at that time was already widespread in the East; Moreover, we do not know about Ambrose’s acquaintance with the Syrian theologians themselves. St. himself Ambrose, in his "Sermo contra Auxentium" ["Tale against Auxentius"] confirms the testimony of two previous witnesses, making it clear that 1) all the people present in the church took part in the singing of hymns and 2) the subject of these chants was the glorification of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit 714. From Mediolan, a new custom, according to the testimony of the same clergyman. Augustine, moved to other Western Churches, and already in his time, that is, some 10–20 years after the establishment, became established in them 715. As for the particular types of these new literary works in the West and their names, then, first of all, Peacock in the above testimony indicates three such names: antiphonae, hymni ac vigiliae [antiphons, hymns and vigiliae], Augustine - two: hymni et psalmi [hymns and psalms], Ambrose himself only one: carmen [song]; in total we have five different names. But as for the word carmen itself, there can be no doubt that it is applied by Ambrose to hymns, since in the same place from Sermo contra Auxentium, p. 34 he applies the word carmen to the same works that immediately before he called hymns. Further, the psalmi of Augustine is, apparently, one and the same with the vigiliae of Peacock. Ambrose himself testifies that on that night, when he was unable to go home due to the siege of the basilica, he sang psalms 716 in the church along with the believers. It is very possible that this type of chant got its name from this purely random feature. As for, finally, the name antiphonae, it is very strange that it is absent from Augustine, who in this case was a witness no less authoritative than Peacock. Augustine’s mention of only two types of chants gives us reason to assume that Peacock’s antiphonae also has a generic concept in relation to hymni ac vigiliae. Peacock apparently wanted to say that Ambrose introduced the hymni ac vigiliae into liturgical use and that both the first and the second were performed in the form of antiphons. In the end, we thus get only two types of hymns to St. Ambrose: hymni in the proper sense and psalmi-vigiliae. But whether these two types differed significantly in their content or whether the word vigiliae denoted a special kind of hymns that had a special purpose and use is impossible to determine. According to their content, the hymns of St. Ambrose are distinguished by their objectivity in the sense that Ambrose avoids everything personal in them, the outpouring of his own feelings and thoughts, preferring to them content that has general church interest. In this regard, according to Boehringer, the hymns of Ambrose can be called hymns of confession, as setting out “the essential grain of Christian teaching” 717. In particular, some of them are distinguished by their dogmatic content and, in this regard, represent a completely new phenomenon in the history of Western literature in general. These are hymns 3 (“Jam surgit hora tertia”) and 4 (“Veni Redemptor gentium”), of which the first reveals in some detail the doctrine of the Cross of Christ, by which the guilt of humanity is destroyed, the kingdom of death is destroyed and grace is bestowed; in the second, apparently written on the feast of the Nativity of Christ, the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Redeemer of the world is revealed: here we meet the doctrine of the birth of the Savior from the Virgin and the two natures of the Redeemer while maintaining complete equality with God the Father, and the descent into hell, ascension to heaven, etc.; The hymn is, however, based on the text of Psalm 18, and the teaching about Christ is presented under the image of the bridegroom. Hymns 1 and 2, on the contrary, although not completely devoid of a dogmatic element, are predominantly distinguished by their moral and didactic content; What is new here is only their Christian character, since moral and didactic lyrics were also known in classical Roman literature (the poetry of Horace) 718 . In hymn 1 (“Aeterne rerum Conditor”), the bishop calls the faithful to spiritual vigilance, while depicting the saving fruits of such vigilance; in hymn 2 (“Deus Creator omnium”), starting from the thought of God as the Creator and Ruler of the world, he indicates the feelings that we should have towards God 719 and sets out the will of God regarding the moral life of people. But if the hymns of St. Ambrose's content is a new phenomenon, but in the form of presentation their author tries to adhere to classical examples. Consisting of 8 stanzas of 4 verses each, all written in iambic meter; the longitude and brevity of syllables, characteristic of metrical versification, is strictly maintained in most cases. In the musical performance of hymns, each long syllable was indicated by a half or quarter note, and each short syllable by a quarter or eighth note. Based on the impression that the singing of hymns made on the people, one can judge their musicality. Already Ambrose, thus, laid the foundation for artificial church music in the West; after it, some more changes were made, and so the famous cantus figuratus was gradually formed. These changes were intended to bring more variety to singing. The fact is that music, where each long syllable was indicated by a half note, and each short one by a quarter, due to its systematic correctness, could seem somewhat monotonous. This prompted the replacement of a half note with two quarter notes, a quarter note with two eighth notes; By now combining these notes in every possible way, they could, avoiding monotony, create motives rich in their musical content. More than two centuries after St. Ambrose The Western Church tolerated this kind of music. But when, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Church, under the influence of a strongly developed ascetic ideal, began to break all ties with classical science and education, then the Ambrosian cantus figuratus was recognized as unsuitable for church use. Pope Gregory I Dvoeslov, having expelled the cantus figuratus from the church, replaced it with a new simple recitative, known as cantus firmus 720. Personality of St. Ambrose has long and repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers. Currently, scientific literature, numerous in its titles and diverse in nature, is devoted to it. Intending to touch on this literature by department, on different pages of the proposed work, we indicate here only studies that deal specifically or incidentally with the biography of St. Ambrose. In the first place here it is necessary to name 1) Förster's dissertation Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand. Halle. 1884. Presenting a monograph on St. Ambrose, his works and teachings, she devotes a lot of space to his life and practical activities. Even today it continues to be the best study about the Milanese bishop; although it must also be added that in some cases it seems to be significantly behind later studies. Then you should name the work: 2) Böhringer's Die Alte Kirche. Zehnter Theil-Ambrosius. Stuttgart 1877. This is also a monograph expounding both the life and teachings of Ambrose; but its more thorough first half is more important than the second, as it is too fragmentary and has the form of a very cursory and general outline; its use during independent research is greatly hampered by the fact that the author, as in his other monographs, does not have the habit of inserting quotations, even in those cases when he cites literal excerpts from sources and works. 3) Kellner. Der heil. Ambrosius, als Erklărer des Alt. Testaments. Regensburg 1893. As the title of the book indicates, the author is mainly interested in the Old Testament exegesis of St. Ambrose; but he prefaces this with a brief sketch of the bishop’s life, which, however, does not represent anything essentially new, and also devotes a lot of space to the chronology of his works and their literary dependence, although again from the point of view that interests him; in this case, his research seems very important. 4) Dr. R. Asslaber. Die persönlichen Beziehungen der drei grossen Kirchenlehrer: Ambrosius, Hieronymus und Augustinus. Wien. 1909. In his relatively small work (s.s. 1–134), which is also related to our topic and its 3 parts only in 2 (s. 1–59), the author sets out specifically to illuminate the personal relationships of the three above-mentioned fathers and teachers of the Western Church, contemporary to each other, using for this purpose everything that was possible. Many unclear aspects in this relationship, for example, the relationship of bliss. Jerome to the works of St. Ambrose, his reviews of them are sometimes favorable, sometimes very harsh, are explained here very successfully; but, on the other hand, sometimes, mainly when studying the issue of personal relationships between the blessed. Jerome and St. Ambrose, when trying to prove the existence of such relationships and personal acquaintance between them, the author is too generous with all sorts of assumptions, revealing a tendency to consider everything that was possible valid. 5) Ihm Studio Ambrosiana. Leipsie. 1889. Without giving a biography in the proper sense, Shm offers a reasonable list of chronological dates from the life of St. Ambrose, as well as regarding his creations, simultaneously resolving the issue of the authenticity of some of them: in this capacity, his book can serve as a good guide and reference book. 6) Broglie. Saint Ambroise. Paris 1899 andˆ7) P. de Labriolle. Saint Ambroise. Paris 1908. The first of these studies is devoted exclusively to the biography of St. Ambrose and mainly dwells on questions about the relationship of St. Ambrose to Emperor Gratian, and his diplomatic missions and relations with Emperor Theodosius. This is not even research in the proper sense of the word. The author gives a rather unsophisticated analysis of the relevant documents and evidence, often suffering from a lack of criticism, although he managed to make his book interesting with his very easy and entertaining presentation. Labriolle's work satisfies more stringent requirements and can even be considered one of the very good textbooks on our topic. Keeping abreast of all the latest research on Ambrose, he offers the reader a superbly presented monograph containing a critical assessment of the most important ancient biography of St. Ambrose, outlines his life, dwelling in detail on his political role, gives a chronological list of literary works, a description of his exegesis, morality and dogmatic treatises and speeches; and although this monograph cannot claim to be exhaustive and complete, nevertheless, almost everything that is essential is indicated by its author and in some places with some new considerations and comments. From the Russian biographies of Ambrose, we point to ˆ8) Aleksinsky’s article “St. Ambrose" in the Orthodox Review for 1861, vol. IV. In addition to the listed monographs and studies, in introducing both the personality and activities, and the era of Ambrose from its external and internal sides, the following more general courses and studies are very important: 9) Riohter Das Weströ mische Reich. Berlin. 1865; 10) A.A. Spassky. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. I. Sergiev Posad 1906 (characteristics of the era); 11) V. Samuilov. History of Arianism in the Latin West (353–430). St. Petersburg 1890; 12) Gibbon. The history of the decline and destruction of the Roman Empire. Translation from English by Nevedomsky. Part III. Moscow. 1884; 13) Boissier, The Fall of Paganism. Translation from French edited by Korelin. Moscow 1892 All this kind of evidence is collected and printed together in Min: PL 14. Both biographies are printed in the same volume 14 of the Minya patrol. See: PL 14, 27.45. Paulinus Mediohinensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 1, PL 14, 27. Nec putet mequisquam studio amorisaliquid quod fidecareat, posuisse (And let no one think that I have stated with partiality something that needs to be trusted] (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 2, PL 14:27). Labriolle P. Ch. de. Op. cit. P. 2–3. See: PL 14,45–46, nota a. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 5 et 8, PL 14, 28–29. Cp.: Baronins Caesar. Annales ecclesiastici. T.IV, p. 239. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 3, PL 14.48. Εἰς βαϑὺ γῆρας ἐλάσας τε ἡμερῶν γινάμενος, ἀνεπαύσατο ἐν εἰρήνῃ. [Having lived to a ripe old age, full of (many) days, he rested in peace] (Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 33, PL 14:65). Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 3, PL 14, 28. Ambrosias Mediolanensis. Exhortatio virginitatis, 82, PL 16, 360. I consider it my duty to warn here that in what follows I quote the works of Ambrose from two editions: 1) PL 14–16 and 2) CSEL 32. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 4, PL 14, 28. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 59, 4, PL 16, 1183. Nos autem objecti barbaricis motibus, et bellorum procellis, in medio versamur omnium molestiarum freto, et pro his laboribus et periculis graviora colligimus futurae vitae pericula [We, having been subjected to the unrest of the barbarians and the storms of wars, are in the middle of a sea of ​​all [these] troubles, and to these hardships and dangers we add even greater dangers to the future life] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 59, 3, PL 16:1182). Auctor incertus. Vita sancti Ambrosii ex ejus potissimum scriptis collecta, 4, PL 14, 67–68. Selecta veterum testimonia. Nicolai papae 1 ex epist. ad Photium, PL 14, 118. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 9, PL 14, 30. Cp.: Selecta veterum testimonia. Nicolai papae I ex epist. ad Photium, PL 14,118. Edoctus liberalibus disciplinis [(Ambrose) learned the liberal sciences...] (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 5, PL 14:28). καὶ πειϑοῖ τῇ ἐλληνικῇ καὶ μούσῃ γεγυμνασμένος. [(Ambrose) learned both Greek eloquence and poetic art] (Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 3, PL 14:48). Boissier G. Quote. op. P. 134 et seq. Ego enim raptus de tribunalibus atque administrationis infulis ad sacerdotium, docere vos coepi, quod ipse non didici. Itaque factum est, ut prius docere inciperem, quam discere. Discendum igitur mihi simul et docendum est; quoniam non vacavit ante discere [For, having been taken to the priesthood from judicial and civil matters, he began to teach you what he himself had not learned. And it so happened that I began to teach rather than learn. Therefore, I must study and teach at the same time; since I did not have time for that before] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De officiis ministrorum I, 4, PL 16, 24–25). Non in Ecclesiae nutritus sinu, non edomitus a puero [He was raised in the Church, was not accustomed from childhood...] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De poenitentia II, 72, PL 16, 514–515). Cp.: Broglie J. V. A. de. Op. cit. P. 16. Asslaber P. Op. cit. S. 8–9. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 5, PL 14, 28. Spassky A.A. Quote op. pp. 344 et seq., 397 et seq.; Samuilov V. Quoted. op. pp. 1–5. Richter N. Op. cit. S. 194. Eiken G. History and system of medieval worldview / Transl. V.N. Linda. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 10. Richter N. Op. cit. S. 372–376, 557–560. Samuilov V. Quoted. op. P. 119 et seq. Richter N. Op. cit. S. 241; Aiken G. Quoted. op. P. 14. Sulpicius Severus. Historia sacra II, 39, Callandi. T. 8. P. 388. Inibi multa secundum leges et publicam disciplinam pro quiete et tranquillitate perorasset [...There he said a lot in accordance with the laws and civil order for the sake of (restoring) peace and tranquility] (Rufinus Aquileiensis. Historia ecclesiastica II, 11, PL 21:521). Cp. also a similar review of Sozomenus about Ambrose: τόν σύμβουλον τῆς όμονοίας (...symbol of unanimity...) (Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 24, PG 67:1353). Serva, Domine, munus tuum, custodi donum quod contulisti etiam refugienti [Save, O Lord, Thy gift given to me, who flee (from him)] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De poenitentia II, 73, PL 16:515). Cp.: Broglie J. V. A. de. Op. cit. P. 16. Paulinos Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 6–7, PL 14, 28–29. Ἐβόων Ἀμβρόσιον ἄξιον εἶναι τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, αὐτόν τε χείουν οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἕνωσίν τε ἕξειν τὸν λαόν, καὶ στέρξειν τὴν περὶ τὴν πίστιν ὁμόνοιαν [...they shouted that Ambrose was worthy of the bishopric, and everyone decided elect him; for only in this way will the people gain unity and strengthen like-mindedness in the faith] (Socrates. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 30, PG 67:544). Cp.: Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 24, PG 67, 1353. Gibbon E. Quoted. op. P. 87. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 2–3, PL 14, 47; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 6, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 954. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 4–6, PL 14, 47–50; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 6, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 954–955. Missa relatio est ad clementissimum imperatorem tunc Valentinianum, qui summo gaudio accepit quod judex a se directus ad sacerdotium peteretur (A report was sent to the then meek Emperor Valentinian, who with the greatest joy learned that the judge he had appointed was elected to the priesthood) (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 8, PL 14:29). See footnote No. 43 (“Serva, Domine, munus tuum...”). Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 8, PL 14, 29. The peacock calls it clarissimus: Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 9, PL 14, 30. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 9, PL 14, 30. Baronius Caesar. Annales ecclesiastici. T.IV, p. 388. Joannes Scylitzes. Synopsis historiarum // CSHB. Bonnae, 1838. T. 1. P. 545. Οἱ ἐν Μεδιολάνῳ πρότερον διεστῶτες, δι’ αὐτὸν τότε ἡνώϑησαν [Those which in Milan were previously divided, thanks to him (Ambrose) were then united] (Socrates. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 30, PG 67:544). Post Auxentii seram mortem, Mediolani Ambrosio constituto, omnis ad rectam fidem Italia convertitur [After the late death of Auxentius and the installation of Ambrose in Mediolan, all Italy turns to the true faith] (Auctores varii. Selecta veterum testimonia, Hieronymi ex Chronico, PL 14:114), - the remark, of course, is somewhat exaggerated. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 38, PL 14, 40. Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones V, 23–24, PL 32, 717–718; VI, 1–3, PL 32, 718–720. Coclibatus autem ejus mihi laboriosus videbatur [His celibacy seemed painful to me] (Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones VI, 3, PL 32:720). Cp.: Veterum testimonia de sancto Ambrosio, PL 14. Erat monasterium Mediolani plenum bonis fratribus, extra urbis moenia, sub Ambrosio nutritore [In Mediolan, outside the city walls, there was a monastery full of good brothers under the care of Ambrose] (Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones VIII, 15, PL 32:755). Cp.: Veterum testimonia de sancto Ambrosio, PL 14. Eum quidem in populo verbum veritatis recte tractantem omni die dominico audiebam [I listened to him every Sunday, faithfully teaching the people the word of truth] (Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones VI, 4, PL 32:721). Cp.: Veterum testimonia de sancto Ambrosio, PL 14. Dicet aliquis: Tu nobis quoteidie virginum canis laudes [Someone will say: you sing before us the praises of the virgins every day] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus I, 57, PL 16:204). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus I, 57, PL 16, 204. Et quoniam pleraeque absentes nostri desiderabant sermonis usum, volumen hoc condidi (And since many absent [here – virgins] expressed a desire to hear [our] word, I made this scroll) (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus II, 5, PL 16:208). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus I, 58, PL 16, 205. Basilius Magnus. Epistula 197, 2, PG 32, 712. That Ambrose really knew Basil the Great and now sent a letter to him follows quite clearly from the words of St. Vasily in a reply letter: ? friend: one through a personal meeting, and the other through written communication] (Basilius Magnus. Epistula 197, 1, PG 32:709). What is the transfer of the relics of St. Dionysius occurred soon after the election of Ambrose to the episcopal see, which is proven by the fact that in his response letter to St. Vasily speaks of it as an event that happened in very recent times: εἰς τὴν τῶν ποιμνίων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιμέλειαν [now from the reigning city (such) a husband... brought in as guardian of the flock Christ] (Basilius Magnus. Epistula 197, 1, PG 32:709). See the whole letter in general. Tales ego ambio defensores, tales milites habeo: hoc est, non saeculi milites, sed milites Christi. Nullam de talibus invidiam timeo, quorum quo majora, eo tutiora patrocinia sunt [Such protectors I desire, such warriors I have: that is, not warriors of this world, but warriors of Christ. I am not afraid of hatred because of those whose patronage is the more reliable the greater it is] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 22, 10, PL 16:1022). Eruuntur nobiles reliquiae e sepulcro ignobili, ostenduntur coelo tropaea [Glorious remains are dug up from an inglorious grave, trophies appear to the sky] (Ambrosius Mediolanetisis. Epistula 22, 12, PL 16:1023). (Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 17 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 192). Richter H. Op. cit. S. 277–278. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 19 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 193. Γρατιανῷ μὲν τὰ Κελτικὰ φῦλα καὶ ἡ Βρεττανικὴ νῆσος ἀπεκληροῦτο, Οὐαλεντινιανὸν δὲ ἐδόκει τὴν Ἰταλίαν τε καὶ Ἰλλυριοὺς καὶ τὴν ὅλην ἔχειν Λιβύην (Ibid.). Richter N. Op. cit. S. 294. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 19 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 193; Richter H. Op. cit. S. 372, 376, 377. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 35 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 214. Ibid., IV, 36 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837, pp. 216–217. Richter believes that this rite of presentation to Gratian and the addition of the title took place much later, approximately after the order about the altar of Victory and the pagan cult (Op. cit. S. 552–554). But we see no reason to postpone this event so far, both because in this case the extraordinary slowness of the Roman pontiffs remains completely incomprehensible, and because Zosima seems to date this event to the beginning of his reign (κατὰ τὸ σύνηϑες) and, in any case, knows nothing about this delay. There is an opinion that Gratian’s inspiration in this case and in other orders against heretics was St. Ambrose (see: Richter N. Op. cit. S. 303:379). It is unlikely, however, that this can be assumed, at least with regard to the law of 376. This law was issued very soon after the accession of Gratian, and, moreover, not in Milan, but in Trier, the residence of the emperor. In addition, we cannot allow that Ambrose, who so recently tried to reconcile the warring parties, to be the first to speak out against the Arians. His subsequent performances were not caused by an offensive, but by defense against the Arian offensive. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 1, 3 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. F. 174, 176. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 20–24 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 193–200; Theodoretus Cyrrhertsis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 4, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1021. This letter was published along with the letters of Ambrose in Min. See: PL 16, 875–876. Festina igitur ad me, religiose Dei sacerdos, ut doceas doctrinam vere credentem [Hurry to me, faithful priest of God, to teach the doctrine to the true believer] (Gratianus. Ad Ambrosium epistula, 1, PL 16:875). Reddidisti enim mihi quietem Ecclesiae, perfidorum ora, atque utinam et corda, clausisti: et hoc non minore fidei, quam potestatis auctoritate fecisti [You restored to me the peace of the Church, but the lips of the wicked (oh, if only the hearts!) you concluded: and this you did no less by the power of faith than by the power of power] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 1, 2, PL 16:877). Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 5, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1021–1022. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 6, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1023–1024; Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 24 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837, pp. 200–201. Samuilov V. Quoted. op. pp. 78, 95. The too active and even seemingly exclusive performance of women in Sirmium may suggest that at the moment the chances of Arianism in Sirmium were rather weak, and that the whole story was inflated by Justina to satisfy her vanity. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 11–12, PL 14, 30–31. So, at least, said Bishop, who was tried at the Council of Aquileia. Palladium: Imperator noster Gratianus jussit orientales venire [Our Emperor Gratian ordered the eastern to assemble] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 8, PL 16:918). We use the acts of the Council of Aquileia according to the publication of the Minya of the works of Ambrose; in volume 16 of this edition between letters 8–9 of St. Ambrose and these acts were printed (PL 16, 916–939). Again, if you believe the testimony at the council of the same Palladius: Sed ne venirent tua petitio fecit: sub specie falsae voluntatis hoc impetrasti, et distulisti concilium [But your petition made it so that they did not gather: under the guise of a false desire you received it and dispersed the council] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 8, PL 16:918). Vestro studio factum est, sicut dictat lectio sacra a vobis prolata, ut non esset generale et plenum concilium. Ut orientales in orientis partibus constituti haberent concilium, occidentales in occidente (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 7, PL 16:918). The question of the chronological date of the Council of Aquileia has long been controversial, and is currently being resolved differently. In particular, in our Russian church historical literature we find two different solutions to this issue: in A.A. Spassky and V. Samuilov (both in the works already cited). IN. Samuilov, apparently, is inclined to assume that the Council of Aquileia took place shortly after the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, and proves it in this way: in the acts of the Council of Aquileia its date is marked as September 3 or 5, 381; the message of our Aquileian Council, known under the name “Quamlibet” (about the unfair relations of the East towards Bishop Timothy of Alexandria and Paulinus of Antioch), came to the East after the second Ecumenical Council, as can be seen from the response to the Western fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 382, ​​which began to consider “Quamlibet”; The response message was preserved by Theodoret in the “Ecclesiastical History”, where we read: ?? Ἀκυληΐᾳ σύνοδον πρὸς τὸν ϑεοφιλέστατον βασιλέα Θεοδόσιον ἐπισταλϑέντων [According to the letters sent a year ago by Your Holiness after the Council of Aquileia to the most God-loving Emperor Theodosius, we gathered in Constantinople] (Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 9, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1030). See: Samuilov V. Quoted. op. Applications. pp. 28–30. A.A. Spassky, on the contrary, dates our Council of Aquileia to 380, since “Quamlibet,” as can be judged by its content, was written, undoubtedly, earlier than the Council of Constantinople in 381: the authors of “Quamlibet” do not yet know about the death of Meletius of Antioch, which followed during the council of 381; “The Council of Constantinople of 382 is in polemic with the Sanctum, which is proved by its entire content.” This “Sanctum” is usually considered to be the epistle of the Council of Milan in 381, although the Council of Constantinople calls it Aquileian: the misunderstanding is eliminated if we assume that the council of 381 took place in the West not in Milan, as is usually completely unfoundedly assumed, but again in Aquileia (Cit. cit. p. 629. Note 1; p. 633. Note 3). We, for our part, completely take the side of this second opinion and to all the listed arguments we can add only one: ep. Palladius, judged by the same council to which the "Quamlibet" belongs, places great hopes on the eastern bishops who stand in his dogmatic position; but it is unlikely that he could have placed such high hopes on the eastern bishops if he had known about the Council of Constantinople in 381, when the eastern fathers decisively took the side of the Nicene confession. Quam necessarius autem conventus hie fuerit, rebus ipsis patescet [How necessary this meeting was, the deeds themselves show...] (Concilium Aquileiense. Epistuia 9, 2, PL 16:940). In addition to special editions, all the messages of the council with its acts were printed between the letters of Ambrose. Concilium Aquileense. Epistuia 12, 3, PL 16, 948. Idem. Gesta, 11, PL 16, 919. P. Non est auctoritatis tuae, ut hoc a me quaeras... Quia quasi ad concilium plenum veneram, vidi non convenisse consortes meos, ut convenirem, et dicerem secundum jussionem ageretis in praejudicium futuri concilii [Palladium. It is not in your power for you to ask me about this... Because I, having come as if to a full council, saw that my comrades did not come; you forced me to come and speak according to orders to the detriment of the future council] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 11, PL 16:919). Ibid., 14, 25, 66, PL 16, 920, 923, 936. Ibid., 19, 65, PL 16, 921, 936. Concilium Aquileense. Gesta, 20, PL 16, 922. Ibid., 19, 65, 66, PL 16, 921, 936. Absque Filio alius genitus non est [Besides the Son, no one else is born] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 20, PL 16:922). Deum verum unigenitum Filium Dei: Quid mihi profiteris, quod non est scriptum? ["That the only begotten Son of God is true God." What do you profess that is not written [anywhere]?] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 70, PL 16:937). Deum verum unigenitum Filium Dei: Quid mihi profiteris, quod non est scriptum? (“That the Only Begotten Son of God is true God.” What do you confess that is not written (anywhere)?] (Concilium Aquileiense. Gesta, 27, PL 16:924). There is no information about the condemnation of Secundian in the acts of the council, since the acts themselves have come down to us in incomplete form (cf. Samuilov V. Cited op. p. 100). But it is hardly possible to allow the council to treat him leniently. Concilium Aquileense. Gesta, 52, PL 16, 932. Epistles of the Council to the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius (Quamlibet): Concilium Aquileiense. Epistula 12, 3, PL 16, 948. These four letters were addressed: to the Gallic bishops (1 letter); to Gratian and his co-rulers (epistles 2–4). All of them are printed in a series of letters to St. Ambrose: Concilium Aquileiense. Epistula 9–12, PL 16, 939–947. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 18, PL 14, 33. Richter H. Op. cit. S. 550–552; Boissier G. Quote. op. pp. 413–414. The chronological date of this event is determined very easily. In a letter to Valentinian II regarding the Senate's petition to restore the taken away privileges, Ambrose makes it clear that Gratian's order was followed ante biennium ferme [two years] earlier (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 17, 10, PL 16:963); and since this letter and the petition of the Senate date back to the beginning of Valentinian’s independent reign, approximately the beginning of 384, it follows that Gratian’s order took place in the middle or at the end of 382. Symmachus. Relatio, 1, PL 16.966. This report is printed together with the letters of Ambrose between letters 17 and 18. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 17, 10, PL 16, 963–964. Symmachus. Relatio, 1, PL 16, 966. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 35 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837, pp. 214–215. We have seen that Gratian's law on the statue of victory was issued in 382, ​​and two years later Valentinian II ruled his part of the empire without Gratian; consequently the latter died between these two years. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 37 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 217. Broglie J.V. A. de. Op. cit. P. 67. De pace nobis legationem commissam (Atnbrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 7, PL 16:1037). This is clear from the fact that in letter 24 Ambrose repeatedly speaks of Maximus's reluctance to return Gratian's body. See: Atnbrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 9–10, PL 16, 1038. Gloriosum mihi est hoc pro salute pupilli imperatoris. Quos enim episcopi magis, quam pupillos debemus tueri? [Glorious for me is that it is to save the orphaned emperor. For whom should we bishops care for more than orphans?] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 5, PL 16:1037). Propterea et ego veni, quia prima legatione, dum mihi credis, per me deceptum te esse asserebas [And I came, because at the first embassy, ​​while you believed me, you claimed that you were deceived thanks to me] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 5, PL 16:1037). In this year 383, when this embassy took place, Valentinian was 12–13 years old, since in 375 he came to the throne in the fifth year of his life. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 7, PL 16, 1037. Quid illi reliquias germani abnegas, qui tibi adversum se auxilia non negavit? Sed vereris, ne exuviarum reditu renovetur militibus dolor [Why do you refuse to give the remains of your brother to someone who did not refuse to help you against himself? But you are afraid that when this booty is returned, the soldiers’ grief will resume] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 9–10, PL 16:1038). Non ego, inquit, eum jussi occidi... Sed, inquit, si ipse sibi vim non intulisset, jusseram eum deduci Cabillonum, et ibi vivum exuri [He, he says, ordered to kill him... But, he says, if he had not killed himself, I would have ordered him to be taken to Cabillon and burned alive there] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 11, PL 16:1039). We use this story in the publication by A. Gallandi: Bibliotheca veterum patrum. T. 8. Hilgenfeld A. Priscillianus und seine neuentdeckten Schriften // Zeitschrift für wissenschaftlichen Theologie. 35. Jahrgang. Leipzig, 1892. S. 3–6, 47–70 u. A. Hilgenfeld himself tries to establish the influence of Manichaeism on Priscillian. Felix profecto, si non pravo studio corrupisset optimum ingenium (Sulpicius Severus. Historia sacra II, 46, Callandi. T. 8. P. 390). Priscillianus. Tractatus 5, CSEL 18. p. 65. Hilgenfeld A. Art. cit. S. 57, 58, 66. Prisdllianus. Tractatus 6, CSEL 18. p. 69. Idem. Tractatus 3, CSEL 18. p. 53. Idem. Tractatus 6, CSEL 18. p. 69. Prisdllianus. Tractatus 3, CSEL 18. p. 53. Idem. Tractatus 1, CSEL 18. p. 28. Priscillianus. Tractatus 6, CSEL 18. R. 70. Idem. Tractatus 7, CSEL 18. p. 82. Sulpicius Severus. Historia sacra II, 46, Gallandi. T. 8. P 390. Detailed description of this Macedonia: Richter N. Op. cit. S. 523–524. Sulpicius Severus. Historia sacra II, 48. Sulpidus Severus. Historia sacra II, 51; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 25, 2–9, PL 16, 1040–1042; Idem. Epistula 26, 3, 12, 18–20, PL 16, 1042, 1045, 1046. Symmachus. Relatio, 8, PL 16, 968. Symmachus. Relatio, 9, PL 16, 969. Ibid., 6–7, PL 16, 967–968. Ainbrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 17, PL 16, 961–966. Ibid., 17, 2–3, PL 16, 961. Ibid., 18, 2–3, PL 16, 972. Ibid., 4–7, PL 16, 972–973. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 7, PL 16, 973–974. Ibid., 11–12, PL 16, 975. Ibid., 13–14, PL 16, 976. Ibid., 17–18, PL 16, 977–978. Ibid., 22, PL 16, 978–979. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 23, PL 16, 979. Ibid., 23–26, PL 16, 979. Ibid., 27–28, PL 16, 979–980. Boissier G. Quote. op. P. 437. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 13, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1041. Ambrosius Medtolanensis. Epistula 20, 20, PL 16, 1000. Debeo et ego unam basilicam habere [And I must have one basilica] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 19, PL 16:1000), Emperor Valentinian instructed Ambrose to say. Ambrosius Medtolanensis. Epistula 20, 1–3, PL 16, 994–995. Idem. Epistula 21, 2, PL 16, 1003. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 1, PL 16, 994. Idem. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 22, PL 16, 1013–1014. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 12, 15, PL 14, 31, 32. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 1–2, PL 16, 1007–1008. Ad imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem Ecclesiae (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 19, PL 16:999). Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum est, non sacrorum (Ibid.). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 35, PL 16, 1018. Imperator enim intra Ecclesiam, non supra Ecclesiam est [The Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 36, PL 16:1018). Bonus enim imperator quaerit auxilium Ecclesiae, non refutat [The good emperor seeks help from the Church, and does not reject (it)] (Ibid., 36, PL 16:1018). Sed in Ecclesia unam imaginem novi, hoc est, imaginem Dei invisibilis [But in the Church I know one image, this is the image of the invisible God] (Ibid., 32, PL 16:1017). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 23, PL 16, 1001. Idem. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 35, PL 16, 1018. Si tributum petit, non negamus (Ibid., 33, PL 16:1017). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 22, PL 16, 1001. Idem. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 33, PL 16, 1017. Ego in basilica veteri totum exegi diem. Inde domum cubitum me recepi, ut si quis abducere vellet, inveniret paratum. Ante lucem ubi pedem limine extuli, circumfuso milite occupatur basilica [I spent the whole day in the old basilica. Then I went home to rest, so that if anyone wanted to take me away, he would find me ready. Even before dawn, when I left my home, the basilica was surrounded by soldiers] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 10–11, PL 16:997). In terms of their strength of patience and steadfast devotion to their bishop, Ambrose compares them with Job: In singulis vobis Job revixit, in singulis sancti illius patientia et virtus refulsit [In each of you Job has come to life, in each of you the patience and strength of this saint have shone] (Ibid., 14, PL 16:998). Cum fratribus psalmos in ecclesiae basilica minore diximus [My brothers and I repeated the psalms in the minor basilica of the church] (Ibid., 24, PL 16:1001). Compare: Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 13, PL 14, 31. Hymnorum quoque meorum carminibus deceptum populum ferunt [They also say that the people are deceived by my hymns] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 34, PL 16:1017). Milites ipsi, qui videbantur occupasse basilicam, cognito quod praecepissem, ut abstinerentur a communionis consortio, ad conventum hunc nostrum venire coeperunt [The soldiers themselves, who seemed to have occupied the basilica, as soon as they learned that I had ordered abstinence from communicating with them, began to come to our meeting] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 13, PL 16:997). Venerunt gentes, sed vere in haereditatem tuam venerunt; Qui enim gentes venerunt, facti sunt christiani. Qui ad invadendam haereditatem venerunt, facti sunt cohaeredes Dei. Defensores habeo, quos hostes putabam: socios teneo, quos adversarios aestimabam [The Gentiles have come, but truly they have come into Your inheritance; for those who came as pagans became Christians. Those who came to seize the inheritance became joint heirs with God. I have defenders whom I considered enemies; I have allies whom I considered opponents] (Ibid., 21, PL 16:1000). This fact usually dates back to the time of the struggle with the court over the basilica, and Peacock himself seems to provide a basis for this, inserting the story of the discovery of the relics right in the middle of the story about the struggle with the Mediolan court (Vita sancti Ambrosii, 13–15, PL 14, 31–32). However, Ambrose himself does not mention this event in the documents we examined, outlining the history of the struggle with Justina (Sermo contra Auxentium, PL 16, 1007; Epistula 20, ad Marcellinam, PL 16:994). Ambrose notifies his sister of this in a special letter (Epistula 22, ad Marcellinam, PL 16:1019). Finally, during the unveiling of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius, Orthodox Christians already have the opportunity to make solemn processions around the city. All this, taken together, gives reason to attribute the event in question to the time after the open struggle with Justina. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 14, PL 14, 31. Ibid., Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 22, 2, PL 16, 1019. Cum ego basilicam dedicassem [...when I dedicated the basil] (Idem. Epistula 22, 1, PL 16:1019). Sicut Romanam basilicam dedices (Ibid.). Ambrosias Mediolanensis. Epistula 22, 9, PL 16, 1022. Asslaber P. Op. cit. S. 43, 46, 47. Augustinus Hipponensis. Contra Julianum I, 10, PL 44, 645. Asslaber P. Op. cit. S. 46. Asslaber P. Op. cit. S. 49–50. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 14, PL 14, 53; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 14, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1042–1043. Ambrose could only find a place for Maximus in the underworld to show quam durum sit arma suis principibus irrogare [how terrible it is to raise arms against your sovereigns] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Theodosii oratio, 39, PL 16:1398). Maximus’ letter was caused by the Mediolan events caused by the above-mentioned law of 386, therefore, the second embassy of Ambrose to him should have taken place in the same 386, and no later than 387. Labriole suggests that this embassy took place one or two years earlier, during the winter of 384–385, since in the 24th letter written about this embassy (Epistula 24, 12, PL 16:1039) Ambrose testifies that in Trier he avoided communication with bishops who demanded the execution of heretics, by which one can only mean the Priscillians; according to Labriol, this shows that the heretics executed in 385 were still alive at that time (Op. cit. R. 96–97). But it is very difficult to understand why exactly the expression of the letter: me abstinere ab episcopis... qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad peset petebant [I shunned the bishops... who wanted the death of some, although they had deviated from the faith] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 12, PL 16:1039); must certainly indicate that the execution of heretics during the second embassy has not yet taken place. In addition, no less incomprehensible would be the great slowness that Maximus should have discovered after the unsuccessful embassy of 384–385 in the implementation of his ambitious plans for Milan and Valentinian II; and this is all the more so since the events that followed after 385 in Mediolanus should have been extremely favorable for him. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 19, PL 14, 33. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 24, 2–3, PL 16, 1036. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 9–10, PL 16, 1038. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 42 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 225. Ibid., IV, 42. P. 226; IV, 43. P. 426–427. Cp.: Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 14, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1043. This can be assumed on the basis of a brief remark by Paulinus about a time very close to this: Ambrosio vero episcopo constituto Aquileiae [...Ambrose the bishop stayed in Aquileia...] (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 22, PL 14:34). Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 42 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 226. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 43–44. R. 227. The exact date of Maxim's defeat is unknown. Ambrose's second embassy took place in 386–387; it took at least about a year to equip the second embassy, ​​Maximus’s campaign to the walls of Aquileia, Justina’s crossing to Thessalonica, negotiations between Justina and Theodosius, which apparently were quite lengthy, and finally, Theodosius’s campaign to Aquileia took at least about a year; hence, the probable year of the fall of Maxim can be considered 387–388, and some even directly attribute this event to 388 (Ihm M. Op. cit. S. 9). Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 46 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 230. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 22, PL 14, 34. Τὴν μέν οὖν βασιλείαν πᾶσαν Οὐαλεντινιανῷ παρέδωκεν, ὅσην ἔτυχεν ἔχων ὁ τούτου πατήρ (Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 47 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 231). Ac tuis institutis tantam devotionem erga Deum nostrum induerat [By your (Theodosius) instructions he (Valentinian) acquired such piety towards our God] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 53, 2, PL 16:1165). Cp.: Richter H. Op. cit. S. 662. Tanto in me incubuerat affectu, ut quem ante persequebatur, nunc diligeret: quem ante ut adversarium repellebat, nunc ut parentem putaret [He (Valentinian) was so imbued with feeling for me that he, whom he had previously persecuted, now loves; me, whom he formerly persecuted as an enemy, now considers me a parent] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 53, 2, PL 16, 1165–1166). Dona patri filium, fratri germanum suum, quorum utrumque imitatus est: alterum fide, alterum devotione... Quod patri defuerat adjunxit: quod frater constituit, custodivit [Return to the father his son, his half-brother, whom he imitated: one in faith, the other in piety... What the father lacked, he added; what the brother established, he preserved] (Idem. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, 55, PL 16:1375). Et eum quidem in populo verbum veritatis recte tractantem omni die Dominico audiebam [I heard him among the people every Sunday, faithfully dividing the word of truth] (Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones VI, 4, PL 32:721). Cp.: PL 14. Et magis magisque mihi confirmabatur omnes versutarum calumniarum nodos, quos illi deceptores nostri adversus divinos Libros innectebant, posse dissolvi [And more and more I became convinced that it was possible to unravel all the slanderous intricacies that those deceivers wove against the Divine Books] (Ibidem). Huc venerunt, ne superesset locus, in quo non damnarentur [...they came here so that there would be no place left where they would not be condemned] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 42, 12, PL 16:1128). Jovinianus, Auxentius, Germinator, Felix, Plotinus, Genialis, Martianus, Januarius et Ingeniosus [Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 42, 14, PL 16:1128]. Cp.: Siriciuspapa. Epistula ad Mediolanensem ecclesiam, 6, PL 16, 1123. Sincius papa. Epistula ad Mediolanensem ecclesiam, 6, PL 16, 1123. Nullam virginitatis gratiam, nullum castitatis ordinem servare, promiscue omnia velle confundere, diversorum gradus abrogare meritorum, et paupertatem quamdam coelestium remunerationum inducere [...(they) do not observe any grace of virginity, no order of purity, they strive to mix everything, reject the degrees of different merits and introduce a certain poverty of heavenly retribution] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 42, 2, PL 16:1124). This follows from the Orthodox objection directed against them: Quae potest laus esse conjugii, si nulla virginitatis est gloria? [What praise can there be for marriage if there is no glory of virginity?] (Ibid., 3, PL 16:1124). Indirect evidence can also be seen in the words of Orthodox bishops: Si doctrinis non creditur sacerdotum... [If they do not believe the teaching of the bishops...] (Ibid., 5, PL 16:1125). Virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit (Ibid., 4, PL 16:1125). Ibid., 9–10, PL 16, 1127. Siricius papa. Epistula ad Mediolanensem ecclesiam, 3, PL 16, 1122. This date can only be taken approximately. Ambrose seems to mention this council in his letter to Emperor Theodosius regarding the bloody history in Thessalonica. Quando primum auditum est, propter adventum Gallorum episcoporum synodus convenerat [As soon as we heard (about this), a council of bishops met regarding the coming of the Gauls] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 51, 6, PL 16:1161). More on this below. Quos sanctitas tua damnavit, scias apud nos quoque secundum judicium tuum esse damnatos [Know that those whom your holiness has accused, we also accuse according to your (them) judgment] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 42, 14, PL 16:1128). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De institutione virginis, 35, PL 16, 314. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 53 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 237. Ibid., IV, 53. P. 237–238. Paulinas Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 30, PL 14, 37. Ὠχύρωτο γὰρ ὁ Ἀρβογάστης τῇ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἁπάντων εὐνοίᾳ (Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 53 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 238). Ambrosias Mediolanensis. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, 23–25, PL 16, 1366–1367. Ante diem mortis templorum privilegia denegavit, his urgentibus, quos revereri posset [The day before his death, he refused to return the benefits of the pagan temples, although he was forced [to do so] by those whom he had to respect] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, 52, PL 16:1375). Peacock only erroneously reports that regarding precisely this petition in Gaul, Ambrose wrote a praeclarissimum libellum [a most beautiful book] in refutation of Symmachus’s report (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 26, PL 14:36). This, as we have seen, happened much earlier. Valentinian first took the throne in 375 and, according to Ambrose, died in the eighteenth year of his reign (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, 57, PL 16:1376). Some, however, consider the year of Valentinian’s death to be 392 (Ihm M. Op. cit. (chronology department); Förster Th. Op. cit. S. 70). Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 54 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837, pp. 238–239. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 26, PL 14, 36. Oblitus fidei suae concessit [He yielded, forgetting his faith] (Ibid.). Declinans magis sacrilegi viri aspectum [...more rejecting the appearance of the blasphemer] (Ibid., 27, PL 14:36). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 57, PL 16, 1174. Cp.: Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 27, PL 14, 36. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 31, PL 14, 37. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 55 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 240. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 55 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837, pp. 243–244. Paulinas Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 31, PL 14, 37. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 41 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 223; Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica VII, 23, PC 67, 1488. The reasons for accepting this particular date are as follows: according to Theodoret, at the time of the Antiochian uprising, Theodosius’s wife was already deceased (Theodoretus Cyrrhcnsis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 19, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1054), and we already know that she died shortly before the defeat of Maximus in 387–388. But, on the other hand, from Zosima’s story it is clear that at the time we are considering Maximus was still alive (Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 41–42 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 223–225). Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 41 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 224; Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica VII, 23, PG 67, 1488; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 19, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1052–1053. Zosimus. Historia nova IV, 41 // CSHB. Bonnae, 1837. P. 224; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 19, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1053–1055. The event in question took place after the Antiochian uprising (Ambrosias Mcdiolanensis. Epistula 40, 32, PL 16:1112). But, according to the testimony of Peacock, Maximus was deposed very shortly before this: at the moment Theodosius is already in Mediolan, and Ambrose has not yet managed to return from Aquileia, where he fled with the news of Maximus’s approach (Paulinus Mcdiolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 22, PL 14:34). Then, this was already after the famous attack in 383 (Ihm M. Op. cit. S. 9–10) by the Arians of Constantinople on the house of the Orthodox Patriarch Nektarios (Ambrosius Mediohwensis. Epistula 40, 13, PL 16:1106). Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 22, PL 14, 34; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 40, PL 16, 1101. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 40, 7, 16–18, PL 16, 1104, 1107. Ibid., 6, PL 16, 1103; Paulinus Mcdiolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 22, PL 14, 34. This is epistula 40 (PL 16:1101), which we have already quoted several times. Sed neque imperiale est libertatem dicendi denegare, neque sacerdotale, quod sentias, non dicere [But neither the emperor can deny freedom of speech, nor the bishop not say what he thinks] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 40, 2, PL 16:1101). In causa vero Dei quern audies, si sacerdotem non audias, cujus majore peccatur periculo? [...in divine matters, who will you listen to if you do not listen to the priest, and what is greater than this sin?] (Ibid., 4, PL 16:1103). Ibid., 13–14, PL 16, 1106. In causa vero Dei quem audies, si sacerdotem non audias, cujus majore peccatur periculo? [...in divine matters, who will you listen to if you do not listen to the priest, and what is greater than this sin?] (Ibid., 15, PL 16:1107). Ibid., 30–31, PL 16, 1112. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 23, PL 14, 34. The church historian Sozomen dates the event in question to the time of the deposition of Eugenius, therefore not earlier than 394 (Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica VII, 25, PG 67:1493). If the name of Eugene cannot be explained only by corruption of the original text of history, then here we have one of the many historical errors of Sozomen. We are not talking about the fact that at that moment Ambrose could not have been in Mediolan, and even more so that council on issues of internal church life could not have been formed, which, as we have already seen, met in Mediolan in the year of the Thessalonian uprising (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 51, 6, PL 16:1161). Ambrose shows quite clearly that at this time there was more than one legitimate emperor in the empire (cf.: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 51.14, PL 16:1163), therefore, this event took place during the lifetime of Valentinian the Younger. The event happened after the story with the synagogue, because in the letter regarding the order to restore the synagogue, Ambrose does not say a word about Theodosius’s repentance for the Thessalonian massacre, although if the fact of public repentance had already happened, then this would only give Ambrose another argument to change his anger to mercy in relation to the Christians who destroyed the synagogue. Finally, at this time Theodosius still lived in Mediolan (cf.: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 51, 1, PL 16:1160). Since after the defeat of Maximus Theodosius stayed in the West for about 2-3 years, we can date the latest Thessalonian uprising to 390. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 19, PL 14, 56; Theodoretus Cyrrliensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 17, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1045. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 24, PL 14, 35. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 19, PL 14, 56; Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia ecclesiastica V, 17, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1045–1046; Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 24, PL 14, 35. Auctor incertus. Vita et institutum, 19, PL 14, 56; Theodoretus Cyrrliensis. Historia ecclesiastica IV, 17, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1046. Amhrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 51, 6, PL 16, 1161. Ibid., 7–12, PL 16, 1161–1162. See the whole letter in general. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Theodosii oratio, 27, PL 16, 1394. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Theodosii oratio, 34, PL 16, 1396. In the book of Broglie we quoted, the reader can find a rather extensive story about how Ambrose once from the church vestibule forbade Theodosius to enter the church before he repented of his sin, and how Theodosius agreed to repent only under pressure from the bishop (Op. cit. R. 155-156). Among ancient historians, this story is found in the anonymous author of the biography of Ambrose (Vita et institutum, 20–25, PL 14, 56–60), in Theodoret (Historia ecclesiastica V, 17, Sirmondi. T. 3. P. 1045) and in a more abbreviated version in Sozomen (Historia ecclesiastica VII, 25, PG 67:1493). However, almost all modern researchers of the life of St. Ambrose doubt the authenticity of this story, and quite rightly. First of all, he does not have any external authoritative witnesses for himself. What is important here is not only that Ambrose himself makes no mention of this story anywhere, as Foerster points out (Op. cit. pp. 67-68), but also that the story of it appears only in later Eastern historians, while the more ancient Western witnesses Paulinus and Rufinus know almost nothing about it. Rufinus reports only the fact of the public repentance of Theodosius without the eastern details of this story (Rufinus Aquileiensis. Historia ecclesiastica II, 18, PL 21:525). As for Peacock, in addition to mentioning the public repentance of Theodosius, although rather vaguely and vaguely, he speaks of the act of Ambrose excommunicating the emperor from church communion: copiam imperatori ingredienti Ecclesiam denegavit: nec prius dignum judicavit coetu ecclesiae, vel sacramentorum communione, quam publicam ageret poenitentiam [he (Ambrose) refused the emperor entering the church, and decided that he would be worthy of a church meeting and participation in the sacraments not before he brought public repentance] (Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 24, PL 14:35); however, this can also be doubted: Ambrose’s letter, appealing only to the emperor’s conscience, does not contain such excommunication. In addition, Theodorit’s story itself contains many inconsistencies. Thus, the law, which, according to Theodoret, was written by the order of Ambrose by the emperor to cancel his order regarding the inhabitants of Thessalonica, is in the Code of Theodosius back in 382 and, therefore, appeared long before the conflict between the emperor and the bishop. Further, according to the same Theodoret, Theodosius, on the basis of this very law, spared the Antiochian rebels, whereas in fact this indignation occurred, as we have seen, much earlier than the Thessalonian massacre (Labriolle R. Ch. de. Op. cit. P. 140–142). Finally, it must be borne in mind that here we are not dealing with the original story: our historians only attributed to St. Ambrose what they had already found in other authors and regarding other persons. We encounter something similar for the first time in St. John Chrysostom in his story about the conflict between Babyla of Antioch and Emperor Philip the Arabian; Later, similar features were included in the biography of St. himself. John Chrysostom and Epiphanius of Cyprus. See about this: Baur Ch. Zur Ambrosius-Theodosius Frage // Theologische Quartalschrift, 90. 1908. S. 401–409. Paulinus Mediokmensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 34, PL 14, 39. Selecta vetcrum testimonia. Paulini ex epist. ad Alypium, PL 14, 116. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 32, PL 14, 38. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 84. The question of the authenticity and chronological sequence of the works of St. Ambrose from the works mentioned already in the presentation of his biography, among other things, are studied by Förster, Kellner and Im. In addition, here you need to name: Ebert A. Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande. 2 Aufl. Leipzig, 1889; Schermann Th. Die pseudoambrosianische Schrift “De sacramentis” // Romische Quartalschrift, 17. 1903; Prokhorov V. Creations of St. Ambrose of Milan and their chronology // Christian reading. 1911. January. pp. 102–116; February. pp. 252–261 (and separate reprint). Hymns to St. Special literature is also dedicated to Ambrose: 1) Kayser J.W. Beitrage zur Geschichte und Erklarung der altesten Kirchenhymnen. 2 Aufl. Paderborn, 1881; 2) Dreves G.M. Aurelius Ambrosius, der "Vater des Kirchengesanges". Freiburg I.B., 1893; 3) Steier A. Untersuchungen über die Echtheit der Hymnen des Ambrosius. Leipzig, 1903; 4) Walpole A.S. Notes on the Text of the Hymns of St. Ambrose // The Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford, 1908. Vol. 9. P. 428–436 – a small article of an exclusively textual-critical nature. See: CSEL 32, 1. R. VI (preface by the publisher Schenkl). De paradiso in superioribus pro captu nostro, ut potuimus, quod Dominus infudit, sensus invenit, digessimus, in quibus Adam atque Eva lapsus est comprehensus [About paradise, to the best of our understanding, as much as we could, what the Lord put in, and received the feeling, we discussed in previous books in which the fall of Adam and Eve was considered] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Cain et Abell, 1, PL 14:315). Kellner J.V. Op. cit. S. 89. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 45, 1, PL 16, 1142. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus II, 39, PL 16, 218. Bene accidit, fratres, ut quoniam tribus libris superioribus de virginum laudibus disseruimus, viduarum tractatus incideret... [It happened well, brothers, that after the praise of virgins in the three previous books a discussion about widows appeared...] (Idem. De viduis, 1, PL 16:234). Hoc docuit hodierna quae decursa est, lectio... [This is what today's reading teaches...] (Idem. De virginitate, 14, PL 16:269). Audistis hodie dicentem Dominum Jesum... [You heard today how the Lord Jesus said...] (Ibid., 121, PL 16:298). Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 88. All three last works belong to the few works of Ambrose translated into Russian. The translation was edited by prof. Pisarev and published by KazDA. See: Ambrose of Milan. Works on the issue of virginity and marriage: On virgins; About widows; About virginity; About raising a virgin; About the Fall of the Maiden / Transl. A. Voznesensky, ed. L. Pisareva. Kazan, 1901. Petis a me fidei libellum, sancte imperator, profecturus ad praelium [When you go to battle, you ask me, holy emperor, for a book on faith] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fide I, 3, PL 16:528). See also: Ibid., II, 136–138, 140, PL 16, 587, 588. Misi autem duos libellos, quorum jam, quia tuae clementiae sunt probati, periculum non verebor [I have sent two books from which I will not expect danger, since they were approved by your meekness] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 1, 7, PL 16:878). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fide III, 142, PL 16, 618. Ibid., IV, 119, PL 16, 640. Ibid., III, 1, PL 16, 589; IV, 1, PL 16, 617. Volens in pluribus experiri, quern in paucis probasti (Ibid., III, 2, PL 16:589). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fide III, 1, PL 16, 589. This word is the second book “On the Death of Brother Satyr” in the Latin patrolology of Min. Accordingly, when quoting we write De excessu fratris sui Satyri II, etc. - Ed. MDA-2006. Idem. De excessu fratris sui Satyri II, 2, PL 16, 1315. Ibid., I, 30–31, PL 16, 1300. Both of these words have long been translated into Church Slavonic by Archpriest of the Moscow Intercession Cathedral Ioann Kharlamov and published with the blessing of the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg in 1778. Prokhorov V. Quote. op. P. 260. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Spiritu Sancto I, 63, PL 16, 720. De Spiritu vero interim veniam descriptioni peto (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula I, 7, PL 16:878). Cp.: Ibid., 9, PL 16, 879. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Spiritu Sancto I, 18, PL 16, 708. Cp.: Ihm M. Op. cit. S. 33. Debitum, fratres, cupio solvendum [I want, brothers, to repay my debt] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento, 1, PL 16:818). Ibid., I, PL 16, 818–819. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Apologia prophetae David, 85, PL 14, 884; CSEL 32, 2, pp. 354–355. Cp. Preface to Schenkl's edition. Tantas bellorum pertulissemus acerbitates... publico quodam totius orbis funere appetiti necem regis exsolvimus [We have suffered such disasters of war... by being at a public worldwide funeral, we atone for the murder of the king] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Apologia prophetae David, 27, PL 14, 862; CSEL 32, 2. P. 316). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam III, 38, PL 15, 1605. Idem. De poenitentia II, 73, PL 16, 515. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 90. "De poenitentia" was also translated into Slavic and printed with the books "De excessu fratris sui Satyri". Ambrosias Mediolanensis. De Tobia, 39, PL 14, 773; CSEL 32, 2. p. 540. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 86. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 19, 4–5, PL 16, 983–984. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 87. Ihm M. Op. cit. S. 19–20. Kellner I.B. Op. cit. S. 123. Sed et vos beati, qui audistis et credidistis... [But blessed are you also, who have heard and believed...] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam II, 26, PL 15:1561). Ut compleretur illud quod hodie lectum est... [...so that what was read today would be fulfilled...] (Ibid., VII, 202, PL 15:1753). Pulchre mihi hodie legitur [It’s wonderful that they read to me today...] (Ibid., VIII, 73, PL 15:1787). Ibid., IV, 76, PL 15, 1634; CSEL 32, 4. p. 177. Ibid., VIII, 73, PL 15, 1787; CSEL 32, 4. p. 428. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam VII, 52, PL 15, 1712; CSEL 32.4. P. 303. Haec tibi, frater, de generatione Christi non incognita putavi prolixius prosequenda; ne quis cum ista in Evangelio minus attento animo recenseret, aliquatenus fluctuaret [This, brother, is what I thought you should know about the genealogy of Christ; so that no one, paying little attention to these places in the Gospel, deviates somewhere...] (Ibid., III, 50, PL 15, 1612; CSEL 32, 4. P. 138). Hie vir... secundum Lucam exponeret Evangelium [This man (Ambrose)... expounded the Gospel of Luke] (Augustinus Hipponensis. Contra Julianum I, 10, PL 44:645). Audis quid dixerit hodie Apostolus [Hear what the Apostle said today] (Ambrosius Меdioltmensis. Expositio in psalmum David CXVIII, sermo 18, 42, PL 15:1467). Ibid., sermo 14, 38, PL 15, 1406. Ibid., sermo 11, 22, PL 15, 1357. Ibid., sermo 6, 16, PL 15, 1273. Ut statim meridianis horis adveniendum sit in Ecclesiam, canendi hymni, celebranda oblatio [...at midday one must come to the church to sing hymns and make offerings] (Ibid., sermo 8, 48, PL 15:1314). Augustinus Hipponensis. Contra Julianum II, 4, PL 44, 674; Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, 29, PL 44, 632. See: CSEL 32, 1. P. XXIV (praefatio). Requiescamus in eo ab omni istius mundi sollicitudine, quam quoteidie diversis exagitationibus sustinemus... ipsarum Ecclesiarum diversos fluctus tempestatesque vel praesentes subire, vel animo recipere, quis tarn fortis ut patienter ferat? [Let us rest in Him from all the disturbances of this world, which we daily endure through various trials... who is so strong as to patiently endure the various currents and calamities in the Churches themselves?] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Noe et area, 1, PL 14, 363; CSEL 32, 1. P. 413). Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 88; Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 15. Kellner J.V. Op. cit. S. 96. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Noe et area, 60, PL 14, 390; CSEL 32, 1. p. 456. Ibid., 1, PL 14, 361; CSEL 32, 1. p. 413. Ibid., 6, PL 14, 364; CSEL 32, 1. p. 416. Ibid., 2, PL 14, 363; CSEL 32, 1. p. 414. Ibid., 3–4, PL 14, 363–364; CSEL 32, I.P. 414–415. Compare: CSEL 32, 1. R. IX (praefatio). Cum his mihi sermo est, qui ad gratiam baptismatis nomen dederunt [My word to those who have given their name to receive the grace of baptism] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Abraham I, 23, PL 14, 430; CSEL 32, 1. P. 518). Qui ad gratiam Domini tenditis [...striving for the grace of the Lord...] (Ibid., I, 25, PL 14, 431; CSEL 32, 1. P. 519). Fortasse audientes haec, filiae, quae ad gratiam Domini tenditis [Perhaps, hearing this, you daughters, striving for the grace of the Lord...] (Ibid., I, 89, PL 14, 452; CSEL 32, 1. R. 540). Quoniam de anima superiore libro sermonem aliquem contexuimus, faciliorem viam putamus de bono mortis conficere aliquod [Since we have already composed a certain word about the soul in the previous book, we believe that it is now easier to expound something about the good of death] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De bono mortis, 1, PL 14, 539; CSEL 32, 1. P. 703). Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 117. Sicut legi audisti hodie [...you heard today how I read] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata II, 23, PL 14, 623; CSEL 32, 2. P. 45). Sanctorum vita ceteris norma vivendi est. Ideoque digestam plenius accipimus seriem Scripturarum; ut dum Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob, caeterosque justos legendo cognoscimus, velut quemdam nobis innocentiae tramitem virtute eorum reseratum enitentibus vestigiis persequamur [The life of the saints is for others a model of life. And therefore, for our better perception, Scripture observes a certain sequence of their life stories; so that, as we read, we learn about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other righteous people and follow in their footsteps, as if along some path of innocence, paved by their virtue] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Joseph patriarcha, 1, PL 14, 641; CSEL 32, 2. P. 73). Ibid., 33–35, PL 14, 656; CSEL 32, 2. p. 97. The letter reports the Arians' demand to cede the basilica to them and other events related to this demand. See: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, PL 16, 994. Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 16, 17; Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 97–98. Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 118. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron VI, 1, PL 14, 241; CSEL 32, 1. p. 204. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron I, 24, PL 14, 135; CSEL 32, 1. R. 23. Ibid., III, 24, PL 14, 165; CSEL 32, 1. p. 75. Ibid., V, 35, PL 14, 222; CSEL 32, 1. p. 119. Ibid., III, 5, PL 14, 157; CSEL 32, 1. P. 61. Cum responsoriis psalmorum, cantus virorum, mulierum, virginum, parvulorum, consonus undarum fragor resultat [Singing of husbands, wives, maidens, children with antiphons of psalms in tune with the measured noise of the waves) (Ibid., III, 23, PL 14, 165; CSEL 32, 1. P. 75). Ibid., CSEL 32, 1. P. 60. Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 78. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De interpellatione Job et David IV, 31, PL 14, 850; CSEL 32, 2. p. 296. Ibid., IV, 24, PL 14, 846; CSEL 32, 2. p. 262. Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 126–127. Hymni dicuntur, et tu citharam tenes? Psalmi canuntur, et tu psalterium sumis aut tympanum [Hymns are being chanted, but are you holding the kithara? The psalms are sung, and do you take the psalter or the tympanum?] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Elia et jejunio, 55, PL 14, 717; CSEL 32, 2. P. 445). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Elia et jejunio, 62, PL 14, 719; CSEL 32, 2. p. 448. Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 121; Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 93. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fuga saeculi, 16, PL 14, 577; CSEL 32, 2. p. 176. Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 109; Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 18–19. About Hoe and about the ark alio loco etiam altius interpretati sumus [we have already discussed elsewhere above] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De officiis ministrorum I, 78, PL 16:46). Namque alter Arianae infestationis tempore, fidem deseruit [...One (of them) left the faith during the Arian persecution] (Ibid., I, 72, PL 16:45). This work has been translated into Russian several times. For the first time it was published in a Slavic translation with the blessing of St. Synod in Moscow in 1776. Then in the 70s of the XIX century. A rather free translation, with large omissions, appeared in Kyiv, belonging to Pospelov. Finally, in 1908, the work appeared in a new translation in Kazan. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De institutione virginis, 35, PL 16, 314. Together with other works of Ambrose on virginity, this work also appeared in Russian in the already mentioned Kazan translation, edited by Pisarev. Qui ad convivium magnum invitantur, apophoreta secum referre consueverunt. Ego ad Bononiense invitatus convivium, ubi sancti martyris celebrata transiatio est, apophoreta vobis plena sanctitatis et gratiae reservavi [Those who are invited to the great feast have the custom of bringing gifts with them. Having been invited to a feast in Bononia, where the transfer (of the relics) of the holy martyr was celebrated, I also reserved for you gifts full of holiness and grace] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Exhortatio virginitatis, 1, PL 16:336). Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 29, PL 14, 37. The book was also translated into Russian under the editorship of Pisarev. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 95. Ejus ergo principis et proxime conclamavimus obitum, et nunc quadragesimam celebramus, assistente sacris altaribus Honorio principe [Recently we mourned the death of him (Theodosius), and now on the fortieth day we commemorate him in the presence of Honorius the Emperor, standing at the holy altar] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De obitu Theodosii oratio, 3, PL 16:1386). Both “De obitu Valentiniani consolatio” [“A consoling word on the death of Valentinian (emperor)”] and “De obitu Theodosii” [“A word on the death of Theodosius (emperor)”] in the Slavic translation were published together with the book “De poenitentia” [“On repentance”]. Et de resurrectione quidem plurima divinarum Scripturarum sunt testimonia, quae non praetermisimus in libris consolationis et resurrectionis [And about the resurrection there are many testimonies of the Divine Scriptures, which we have not forgotten in the books about consolation and resurrection] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 1, 51, PL 14:949). Ibid., in p.s. 47, 1, PL 14, 1145. Ibid., in p.s. 47, 24–25, PL 14, 1155–1156. Ibid., in p.s. 48, 1, PL 14, 1155. Ibid., in p.s. 61, 29, PL 14, 1178. Ibid., in p.s. 61, 24–26, PL 14, 1177–1178. See: PL 14, 951–952, 967, 1039, 1057, 1067. Exstiterunt Ariani regali subnixi potentia, qui templum Domini putarent sibi esse tradendum, supplicia acerba minitantes [Arians appeared, relying on royal power, who believed that the church of God should be handed over to them, and threatened with severe punishment] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 36, 19, PL 14:976). The circumstances of Eugene's defeat are described: Quod etiam proximo accidit bello, cum infideles ac sacrilegi lacesserent aliquem in Domino confidentem, et regnum ejus ereptum ire contenderent, Ecclesiis Domini persecutionum saeva minitantes; ut subito ventus oriretur, qui infidelibus excuteret scuta de manibus, ac tela omnium, atque missilia in peccatoris exercitum retorqueret [This (once) happened during a war, when the infidels and wicked harassed one who trusted in the Lord, seeking to take away his kingdom and threatening terrible persecution against the Church of the Lord; when suddenly a wind arose, which tore the shields from the hands of the infidels and turned all their spears and arrows back on the army of the sinner] (Ibid., in ps. 36, 25, PL 14:980). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 37, 43–45, PL 14, 1031–1032. Paulinus Mediolanensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 42, PL 14, 41. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 1, PL 16, 389. Augustinus Hipponensis. Retractationes II, 4, 2, PL 32, 632. Idem. Contra Julianum II, 14, PL 44, 683. Schermann Th. Op. cit. S. 38–39. Cp. also: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 42, PL 16, 402 and Idem. De sacramentis III, 8, PL 16, 434; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 47, PL 16, 404 and Idem. De sacramentis IV, 24, PL 16, 444. See: Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 70. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De sacramentis III, 5, PL 16, 432–433. We are talking about the custom of the Roman Church to fast on Saturday, which Ambrose did not consider necessary to follow in his home in Milan. See: Auctores varii. Selecta veterum testimonia, Augustini ex Epistula 54, PL 14, 115. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De sacramentis V, 18 sqq., PL 16, 450 sqq. Augustinus Hipponensis. Enchiridion ad Laurentium, 116, PL 40, 286. Schermann Th. Op. cit. S. 48–49. Cp.: Schermann Th. Op. cit. S. 49. CSEL 32, 2. P. VU-X; Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 134, 136. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 97. Augustinus Hipponensis. Contra Julianum I, 10, PL 44, 645; cp. other testimonies of Augustine. See: Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 72. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Apologia prophetae David, 15, PL 14, 857 and Idem. Apologia altera prophetae David, 7, PL 14, 889; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Apologia prophetae David, 16, PL 14, 858 and Idem. Apologia altera prophetae David, 16, PL, 14, 892. Cp.: Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 72. Uno enim die vel per angustias ingenii, vel per fragilitatem vocis omnem seriem non possum implere tractatus [Whether due to the limitations of my talent or the weakness of my voice, I cannot complete the whole argument in one day] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Apologia altera prophetae David, 28, PL 14:897). Idem. De lapsu virginis consecratee, 16, PL 16, 371; Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 97. See: Patin W.A. Niceta, Bischof von Remesiana als Schriftsteller und Theologe. München, 1909. S. 20–23. Ibid., 27, 32, PL 16, 374, 376. Inhaere poenitentiae usque ad extremum vitae, nec tibi praesumas ab humana die veniam dari; quia decipit te qui hoc tibi polliceri voluerit [Repent until the very end of your life, and do not think that you are given forgiveness from human judgment, and the deceiver is the one who would want to promise you this (forgiveness)] (Ibid., 38, PL 16:379). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De virginibus II, 6, PL 16, 208. Ibid., I, 5, 19, PL 16, 189, 194. Ibid., II, 19, PL 16, 211. Quid facies coram Maria, Thecla et Agne, et immaculato choro puritatis? [What will you do in the presence of Mary, Thekla, Agnia and before the immaculate face of chastity?] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De lapsu virginis consecratae, 10, PL 16:369). This work was translated into Russian under the editorship of Pisarev, along with other works of Ambrose on virginity. We have at hand this work in the Sirmondi edition, vol. 4 (Halae, MDCCLXXII). Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Eranistes, dial. 2, Sirmondi. T. 4. P. 139–146. Οὐ συναΐδιον ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίας οὐρανόϑεν ἐπιφερόμενον σῶμα... [...not a body coeternal with His own essence, brought from heaven...] (Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Eranistes, dial. 2, Sirmondi. T. 4. P. 140). ...ἡ οὐρανόϑεν τούτο κεκομικέναι [...or that it [His body] was brought from heaven] (Ibid., Sirmondi. T. 4. R. 141). ...ἢ τὰς δύο φύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ ἀνάκρασιν συγχυϑείσας μίαν γεγενήσϑαι φύσιν [...or that the two natures of Christ, as a result of mixing and merging, became one nature] (Ibid., Sirmondi. T. 4. R. 141). Ibid., Sirmondi. T. 4. R. 141. See: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae, PL 15, 1961. Wilbrand G.S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit. Monasterii Guestfalorum, 1909. P. 21–29. Ihm M. Op. cit. P. 62–63. Brewer H. Das sogenannte athanasianische Glaubensbekenntnis ein Werk des hi. Ambrosius. Paderborn, 1909. Augustinus Hipponensis. De Trinitate I, 8, PL 42, 824; Quicumque, 15–16. Cp., for example: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam VII, 9, PL 15, 1701; Epistula 22, 21, PL 16, 1025; Brewer H. Op. cit. S. 27–31. Brewer H. Op. cit. S. 44–89. Augustinus Hipponensis. Confessiones IX, 32, PL 32, 777; XI, 35, PL 32, 823. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron V, 88 sqq., PL 14, 240 sqq. Augustine quotes two verses of the hymn: hoc ipsa petra Ecclesiae canente, culpam diluit (Augustinus Hipponensis. Retractationes I, 21, 1, PL 32:618), attributing them to Ambrose. Compare with the 4th stanza of the hymn. Ambrose in hymno suo dicit [says in his hymn]: Votisque praestat sedulis, (Augustinus Hipponensis. De natura et gratia, 74, PL 44:284). Cp. the last two verses of the 2nd stanza of the hymn. Walpole A.S. Art. cit. R. 432. See: Collandi. T 9. R. 304. Compare: Steier A. Untersuchungen über die Echtheit der Hymnen des Ambrosius. Leipzig, 1903. S. 555. Steier A. Op. cit. S. 629 ff. Dreves S.M. Aurelius Ambrosius, der "Vater des Kirchengesanges". Freiburg i. B., 1893. S. 59 and all research in general. Kayser J.W. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Erklärung der ältesten Kirchenhymnen. 2 Aufl. Paderborn, 1881, pp. 435–441. Pat in IV.A Op. cit. S. 15–19. Augustinus Hipponesis. Retractationes II, 4, 2, PL 32, 631–632. Idem. Contra Juliunum II, 14, PL 44, 683. Idem. Epistula 31, 8, PL 33, 125. Cp.: Idem. Retractationes II, 4, 2, PL 32, 631. Idem. De gratia Christi et de peccato originali I, 54, PL 44, 384. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 89, PL 16, 1284. Literature: Especially important CSLL, praefatio [preface] to all parts and notes to the text. Then the studies of Förster, Kellner, Im, Samuilov, already known to us. Among the new ones we should name: 1) Schermann Th. Die griechischen Quellen des hl. Ambrosius in II, III de Spiritu sancto. Müchen, 1902 (magazine article in a separate reprint); 2) Stolz E. Didymus, Ambrosius und Hieronymus // Theologische Quartalschrift, 87. 1905. S. 371–401; 3) Plass P. De Basilii et Ambrosii excerptis ad historiam animalium pertinentibus. Marpurgi Cattorum, 1905; 4) Gossel G. Quibus ex fontibus Ambrosius in describendo corpore huniano hauserit. Lipsiae, 1908; 5) Wilbrand G.S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit. Monasterii Guestfalorum, 1909; 6) Ihm M. Philo und Ambrosius // Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie. 1890. Bd. 36; 7) Cannata P. De S. Ambrosii libris qui inscribuntur de officiis ministrorum quaestiones. Modica, 1909; 8) Article by prot. Molodensky ""De officiis" of Cicero and St. Ambrose of Milan" in the magazine "Faith and Reason" for 1887, vol. 2, part 2. About this wed. in the above article by Ima. Kellner J.V. Op. cit. S. 110. On this see: Wilbrand G. Op. cit. P. 1–20. Schermann Th. Die griechischen Quellen... S. 10 ff., 22–23. Nuper Ambrosius sic Hexaemerum Origenis compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur [Recently Ambrose processed Origen's Hexaemerum in such a way that he more closely followed (in this matter) the opinions of Hippolytus and Basil] (Auctores varii. Selecta veterum testimonia, Hieronymi ex epistula 65, ad Pammachium, PL 14:114). Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 81. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron IV, 31–32, PL 14, 203–204; CSEL 32, 1. p. 137. Ibid., IV, 32, PL 14, 204; CSEL 32, 1. p. 138. Ibid., V, 79, PL 14, 238; CSEL 32, l.P. 197. Basilius Magnus. In Hexaemeron homilia 9, 6, PG 29, 208. Ambrosias Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron VI, 44 sqq., PL 14, 259; CSEL 32, 1, pp. 231–233. For more details see: Kellner J.V. Op. cit. S. 81–82. See: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 1, 1–7, PL 14, 921–923. Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 121–122. Compare: Förster Th. Op. cit. S. 113. Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 144. Origenes. In psalmum 118, PG 12, 1586. Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 44. Cp.: Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 165. Wilbrand G. Op. cit. R. 30–37. Stolz E. Op. cit. S. 399–440. Leipoldt J. Didymus der Blinde von Alexandria. Leipzig, 1905. S. 12. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De fide II, 70, 84–85, PL 16, 574, 578; Basilius Magnus. Contra Eunomium lib. IV, PG 29, 688D–689A. Didymus Alexandrinus. De Spiritu Sancto, 1–15, PG 39, 1033–1047; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Spiritu Sancto I, 1–5, PL 16, 709–719. Cp.: Stolz E. Op. cit. S. 393–394, where many other parallels are also given. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 8, PL 16, 391. Didymus Alexandrinus. De Trinitate II, 14, PG 39, 696B. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 12, PL 16, 393. Didytnus Alexandrinus. De Trinitate 11, 14, PG 39, 697A. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 14, PL 16, 393. Didymus Alexandrinus. De Trinitate II, 14, PG 39, 697A. Didymus Alexandrinus. De Trinitate 11, 14, PG 39, 708A. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De mysteriis, 23, PL 16, 395. Wilbrand G. Op. cit. Ρ. 38–41. Schurer E. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1898. Bd. 3. S. 393–394; Heinisch P. Der Einfluss Philo auf die älteste christliche Exegese (Barnabas, Justin und Clemens von Alexandria). München, 1908. S. 26. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata 1, 1, PL 14, 597. Περὶ λογισμοῦ, p. 2. Cp.: Schurer E. Op. cit. S. 394. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata I, 4, PL 14, 600; CSEL 32, 2. p. 6. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata I, 3, PL 14, 599–600; CSEL 32, 2. p. 6; Περὶ λογισμοῦ, p. 1. Ibid., I, 5–6, PL 14, 601; CSEL 32, 2. pp. 7–8; Περὶ λογισμού, p. 3. Ibid., I, 7, PL 14, 601; CSEL 32, 2. P. 8; Περὶ λογισμοῦ, p. 3. Ibid., I, 6, PL 14, 601; CSEL 32, 2. p. 8. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata I, 9, PL 14, 602; CSEL 32, 2. p. 9. Nec sic luna inter Stellas refulget, ut inter filios mater, et cum eos ad martyrium illuminatura deduceret, refulgebat, et cum amplexata victores in medio filiorum jaceret [The moon does not shine among the stars as much as a mother shone among her sons when she exhorted them to martyrdom and, embracing the victors, lay down among them] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Jacob et vita beata II, 56, PL 14:638). See: Ihm M. Op. cit. R. 80 sqq. Wilbrand G. Op. cit. P. 42–46. Ebert A. Op. cit. Bd. 1. S. 146, 157. Cicero. De officiis I, 1–6. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De officiis ministrorum I, 2, PL 16, 23–24. Cicero. De officiis I, 10; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De officiis ministrorum I, 27, PL 16, 31–32. Cicero. De officiis I, 93–94 sqq. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De officiis ministrorum I, 30 sqq., PL 16, 32 sqq. Cp.: Ebert A. Op. cit. S. 161. Compare: Molodensky V., prot. Quote op. pp. 233–235. Forster Th. Op. cit. S. 99–100. Kellner J.B. Op. cit. S. 83. From this side, the issue is sufficiently examined in the mentioned brochure of Cannata: Cannata R. Op. cit. R. 19–29. See: Plass P. Op. cit. P. 40, 41 sqq. Gossel G. Op. cit. P. 12–13. See: CSEL 32, 1. P. XVI–XVIII (praefatio). Plass P. Op. cit. P. 53–55. Böhringer G.F. Ambrosius, Erzbischof von Mailand. 2 Aufl. Stuttgart, 1877. S. 93. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron III, 1, PL 14, 155. Ibid., III, 51, PL 14, 177. Ibid., IV. 31 PL 14, 203. Ibid., V, 58, PL 14, 231. Ibid., VI, 16, PL 14, 247. Ebert A. Op. cit. S. 152. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Elia et jejunio, 12–14, PL 14, 711–715. Ibid., 15–17, PL 14, 716–719. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De Nabuthe Jezraelita, 1, PL 14, 731. Ibid., p. 3, 5, 13 etc., PL 14, 733, 736, 747. For more information about this, see: Rozynski F. Die Leichenreden des hl. Ambrosius. Breslau, 1910. S. 10 ff., 95 ff. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron IV, 4, PL 14, 189. Idem. Debono mortis, 16, PL 14, 548. See about this in more detail: Förster Th. Op. cit.S. 236–238. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam X, 48, PL 15, 1815; CSEL 32, 4. p. 473. Idem. De fide I, 123–124, PL 16, 556–557. Idem. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam X, 21, PL 15, 1809; CSEL 32, 4. p. 463. Idem. De Spiritu Sancto 1, 164, PL 16, 742. Socrates. Historia ecclesiastica VI, 8, PG 67, 689–692. Rus. lane pp. 470–471. Boissier G. Quote. op. pp. 251–264. Hoc in tempore primum antiphonae, hymni ac vigiliae in ecclesia Mediolanensi celebrari coeperunt [At that time (during the famous persecution of Justina in 386 - Author) antiphons, hymns and vigilians began to be sung for the first time in the Mediolanian Church] (Paulinus Mediolatiensis. Vita sancti Ambrosii, 13, PL 14:31). Tunc hymni et psalmi ut canerentur secundum morem Orientalium partium, ne populus moeroris taedio tabesceret, institutum est [Then (in 386 - Author) it was decided to sing hymns and psalms according to the custom of the Eastern Church, so that the people would not be completely worn out in melancholy and sadness] (Aistores varii. Selecta veterum testimonia, ex lib. IX Confessionum, 6 (7), PL 14:115). Ebert A. Op. cit. S. 178. Hymnorum quoque meorum carminibus deceptum populum ferunt. Plane nec hoc abnuo. Grande carmen istud est, quo nihil potentius. Quid enim potentius quam confessio Trinitatis, quae quotatidie totius populi ore celebratur? Certatim omnes student fidem fateri, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum norunt versibus praedicare. Facti sunt igitur magistri, qui vix poterant esse discipuli [They (also) say that the people are being misled by the singing of my hymns. Of course, I don’t deny this either. Great is this singing, of which there is nothing stronger. For what could be stronger than the confession of the Trinity, which is daily pronounced by the lips of the whole people? Everyone is vying with each other to confess their faith, and they know how to exalt the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in verse. Thus, those who could hardly have been students became teachers] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, 34, PL 16, 1017–1018). Et ex illo in hodiernum retentum, multis jam ac pene omnibus gregibus tuis et per caetera orbis imitantibus [From then to this day this custom has been observed, many have already adopted it, and almost all your flocks in the rest of the world] (Auctores varii. Selecta veterum testimonia, ex lib. IX Confessionum, 6(7), PL 14:115). Exactus est totus ille dies in moerore nostro: scissae tamen ab illudentibus pueris cortinae regiae. Ego domum redire non potui; quia circumfusi erant milites qui basilican) custodiebant. Cum fratribus psalmos in ecdesiae basilica minore diximus [We spent the whole day in sadness, but the royal veil was torn by children playing. I could not return home because there were soldiers all around guarding the basilica. My brothers and I repeated the psalms in the small basilica of the church] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula 20, 24, PL 16:1001). Böhringer G.F. Op. cit. S. 90–91. Ebert A. Op. cit. S. 183. (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hymnus 2, PL 16:1409) Cp.: Förster Th. Op. cit. S. 267–270.