Глава XVIII. «...с уходом из жизни такого человека, Италии будет угрожать гибель»

(Peacock. Life of Ambrose, 45) After Eugenius was defeated and Theodosius became its sole ruler for the last time in the history of the Roman Empire, Ambrose experienced a short but brilliant period of serene episcopacy. Heretics were outlawed by the decrees of pious emperors, paganism was not only defeated, but was generally deprived of the right to exist, relations between church and state in the person of Ambrose and Theodosius were full of harmony and mutual understanding. In his letters of this time, Ambrose does not hide his admiration for the emperor, who firmly guarded the interests of the church and did nothing to displease its powerful prelate. Peacock in his biography of Ambrose reports that the bishop, in order to make sure that Theodosius would fulfill his request, expressed in letters, to pardon Eugene’s accomplices, he himself went to Aquileia. According to the biographer, Ambrose easily managed to achieve the forgiveness of those for whom he asked, since the Christian emperor threw himself at the feet of the bishop and said that he had been saved by his merits and prayers (Peacock. Life of Ambrose, 31). Obviously, the biographer, as usual, embellished this meeting of the two arbiters of the destinies of the Roman Empire, but he is right in another way: largely thanks to the activity of Ambrose, Theodosius refrained from repression. Stormy government activity and difficult military campaigns undermined the health of Theodosius. At the end of 394, while in Mediolan, the emperor fell ill and, in anticipation of his imminent death, summoned his son Honorius from Constantinople. With his arrival, he felt better, appointed equestrian competitions in his honor and even spent half a day at the circus. However, after dinner he felt unwell, and by nightfall the emperor died. This happened on January 17, 395, two days before the 16th anniversary of his reign. After 40 days, Ambrose of Milan delivered a speech “On the death of Theodosius” over the body of the emperor in the presence of Honorius and Stilicho. To a large extent, this funeral speech has a political connotation: Ambrose makes an attempt to outline for the heirs of Theodosius a form of government characteristic of a Christian emperor and almost ideal in the eyes of the bishop. Theodosius left as a legacy his piety the grace of Christ and the loyalty of the troops, says Ambrose, and this was proof that God patronizes piety and punishes treachery. The bishop specifically addresses the troops and states that their victories were achieved thanks to the faith of Theodosius, and the faith of the troops will be the strength of his sons. And he calls on the soldiers to be as devoted to the children of Theodosius as to himself. In the face of the new power, Ambrose does not miss the opportunity to speak about his love for Theodosius, mentions the emperor’s repentance, and notes that even on his deathbed Theodosius was looking for his bishop. Particular attention is paid to the fact that Theodosius, before his death, was more concerned about the position of the churches than about his own dangers. Ambrose is confident that in paradise Theodosius will meet with Constantine, who was the first of the emperors to believe and left behind a legacy of faith for the sovereigns. What follows is an illustrative excursion about how Helen, Constantine’s mother, found the remains of the Holy Cross, and how Constantine inserted a nail from this cross into his diadem, thereby symbolizing the connection of imperial power with the Christian faith. Ambrose's speech ends with an appeal to Honorius, the new emperor of the west, regarding the transfer of Theodosius' ashes to Constantinople. The bishop says that his father made him emperor, and God confirmed this appointment. It should be noted that Ambrose is quite cautious in this speech. He completely avoids directly expressing his principles of relations between the church and the state, although the mention of Theodosius’s repentance probably sounded quite convincing, especially since this was first spoken about publicly and for the edification of Theodosius’s heirs. In Ambrose's speech, the image of an ideal Christian emperor, which had developed by the end of the 4th century, is quite clearly visible. The main virtues of this type of ruler in the eyes of Ambrose are: piety and the grace of Christ, the reins of piety and faith, intolerance towards pagans and heretics, generosity and mercy towards his subjects, faith in God as a guarantee of military victories and loyalty of the troops, humility in government, approval of those who accuse more than those who flatter, constant concern about the position of the churches. Thus, in the listed qualities of the emperor, and in Ambrose’s entire speech, there are practically no features of the ancient understanding of the ideal ruler. In general, a political concept is also visible in the works of Ambrose. According to researchers, Ambrose considered democracy as an ideal state, which was destroyed by the lust of power. This lust is a sin, therefore, imperial power is a consequence of sin, but under existing conditions, monarchy is necessary. Stupid people need discipline to make them obey laws. Authority is generally established by God and should be respected. Rebellions, usurpations and all armed attacks on the Emperor are strongly condemned. Punishment of bad rulers should be left to God. The difference between bad and good rulers is that the good ones love freedom, and the bad ones love slavery. Love for his subjects is the best defense of a ruler. Even an absolute sovereign has duties towards God. In addition to human laws, he, like other people, is subject to divine law. The emperor, even more than the common man, must show obedience to God, to whom he owes both his power and his victories. Such submission to God on the part of the ruler includes three things: conformity to moral rules in his private conduct, in public actions, and the exercise of piety, even though such exercise may sometimes seem unbecoming to the dignity of the emperor. It can hardly be said that Ambrose’s concept was accepted by the entire church, not to mention the public consciousness. However, it was precisely this concept that formed the basis of the medieval understanding of imperial power in the West. As for Theodosius, the assessment given to him by Ambrose completely coincided with the official opinion of the church, which awarded this emperor the title “Great”. In fairness, it should be noted that Theodosius’s compliance with this title should largely be credited to Ambrose. In general, as V. Friend correctly noted, both Theodosius and Ambrose share both good and bad reputations for the founding of the medieval church state. Biographers of Ambrose usually believe that with the death of Theodosius the political activity of the Mediolan bishop also ended. In fact, information about the last months of his life is very scarce. Our only source essentially remains Peacock, but, despite the fact that he was at that time next to the bishop, his story about this period of Ambrose’s life is so filled with miracles that even clerical historians doubt its reliability. However, Peacock conveys two episodes, which, if considered reliable, provide additional touches to the overall picture of Ambrose’s relationship with the highest representatives of secular power. After the death of Theodosius, real power in the west was in the hands of Stilicho, who was regent under the 11-year-old Honorius. Stilicho was from the German tribe of Vandals, distinguished by military talents and possessed the qualities of an outstanding statesman. He professed the Christian faith, but did not at all follow Theodosius in his relations with the church and even leaned in favor of the pagans, although he confirmed the privileges of the church. The first clash between Ambrose and Stilicho probably occurred in 396. According to Peacock, a certain Crescontius, condemned to be torn to pieces by wild animals for some crimes, fled and asked for refuge in the church. When people had already gathered in the circus for this bloody and ever-popular spectacle, Stilicho, at the request of the prefect Eusebius, sent soldiers to the church, among whom, as Pavlina notes, were Arians. Despite vigorous protests from Ambrose and his clergy, the soldiers captured Crescontius and escorted him to the circus. Ambrose was so shocked by this unprecedented incident that he mourned it for a long time, rubbing himself before the altar. Although Peacock gives a “prosperous” ending to this story, in which the leopards broke through the fence and tore to pieces those “who celebrated a triumph over the church” (Life of Ambrose, 34). the violation of the authority of Ambrose and the rights of the church is obvious here. Why couldn't the bishop fight back? It can be assumed that he was taken by surprise, that the soldiers acted decisively and unceremoniously, that, finally, his parishioners were at that time in the same circus and, despite the prohibition of the church, also thirsted for blood. However, the main explanation is that the new government took a rather tough position towards the church and Ambrose himself, and with this intervention Stilicho made it clear that in necessary cases he would not stop at using force, despite church sanctions. By an evil irony of fate, 12 years later, having found himself in disgrace due to the intrigues of the courtiers, Honorius Stilicho himself was forced to seek refuge at the church altar. Neither the church, nor heaven, nor the Emperor Honorius came to his aid: he was lured out of the church and killed... The second clash between Ambrose and Stilicho occurred over the latter's freedman (Paulin does not name him). Ambrose, as the biographer reports, freed this freedman from the evil spirit and, on the recommendation of the owner, left him to serve in the basilica. However, this person began to falsify documents, with the help of which some persons illegally took advantageous positions. When this was reported to Stilicho, he did not punish the perpetrators, although he relieved them of their positions. At the same time, the regent expressed displeasure to Ambrose regarding his freedman, indirectly holding him responsible for the scandal. Ambrose had no choice but to give this freedman again to the power of the evil spirit, according to Peacock. Although Peacock apparently wanted to show Ambrose’s connection with otherworldly forces with this episode, it is still possible to understand that the relationship between the bishop and the regent was not smooth, and that Ambrose failed to impose his model of relations between church and state on Stilicho. The time has not yet come for the complete triumph of papism. Ambrose soon fell ill and was bedridden for many days. The same Stilicho, having learned about the bishop’s illness, as Pavlinus reports, said that “with the passing of such a person, Italy will be threatened with death.” Then he gathered the noble people of the city, who enjoyed the love of Ambrose, and begged them to go to the bishop so that they could persuade him to beg God for an extension of life. After listening to them, Ambrose replied: “I did not live among you in such a way that I was ashamed to live or afraid to die, because we have a good Lord!” In the last hours before his death, Ambrose prayed incessantly, stretching out his hands in the form of a cross. The bishops present saw his lips move, but his voice was no longer heard. According to the testimony of these bishops, Paulinus reports, the Lord Jesus himself appeared to him and smiled as he looked at him. On April 4, 397, the soul of Ambrose of Milan said goodbye to his body. Ambrose's body was transferred first to the main church of Mediolan, where he withstood the siege with his faithful flock on the same April days several years ago. On Sunday, after the Easter rituals, Ambrose's body was transferred to the basilica named after him, where the burial took place. He was accompanied on his last journey by crowds of Milanese of all ages and classes, and among them were not only Christians, but Jews and pagans. Hundreds of people these days were baptized, being born again to a new life with the name of God and Saint Ambrose on their lips. In the multifaceted activities of Ambrose of Milan as a church politician, three main directions are clearly distinguished: the fight against paganism, the fight against heresies and, first of all, against Arianism, and the fight to establish an optimal model of relations between church and state in those historical conditions. In all these three areas, Ambrose managed to achieve significant success. Largely thanks to his efforts, the anti-pagan decrees of Gratian were issued, separating the ancient religion of the Roman Empire from the state. Ambrose failed all attempts by the pagan part of the Senate to achieve the return of what was lost to paganism and won a convincing victory in the dispute with Symmachus. This victory marked a major ideological and political defeat of paganism. Ambrose's opposition to the regime of Eugene, although it pushed this usurper into the camp of the pagans, nevertheless was a significant factor in the consolidation of Christian forces and was one of the factors in the victory of Theodosius, and with it the failure of the last attempt to restore the old cult. The role of Ambrose was also significant in the anti-pagan policy of Theodosius, especially in the development of an edict that actually prohibited the pagan cult. Thus, largely thanks to the activities of Ambrose, paganism at the end of the 4th century. such a strong blow was dealt that it never again claimed to be the state religion of the Roman Empire. In the fight against Arianism, Ambrose acted cautiously, but consistently and decisively. His influence with Gratian allowed him to strike decisive blows against this heresy, which resulted in a sharp decline in the importance of Arianism in the western provinces of the Roman Empire. This allowed the bishop, in the fight against the Arian imperial court of Valentinian II, to rely on the people and skillfully use dissatisfaction with the emperor’s policies in the interests of the church and to strengthen his own authority. Ambrose's victory in the conflict over the basilica clearly demonstrated the strength of the church and the weakness of the imperial power in the west, and the Arian heresy for a long time ceased to pose a serious danger to the orthodox church in the west and moved to the periphery among the barbarians. Ambrose's clashes with imperial power at the end of the 4th century. were an important symptom of the crisis in the political institutions of the western part of the Roman Empire, which led it to 476. However, the theme “Ambrose and the Emperors” is unique in its own way. What Ambrose allowed himself in relations with the emperors could not be allowed by any bishop of his era, and subsequently the popes had to wage a long struggle for the real approval of those ideas that were proclaimed by the Mediolian bishop back in the 4th century. Ambrose's relationship with the Roman emperors predetermined the fierce struggle that was waged throughout the political history of the Western European Middle Ages between the Roman Catholic Church and secular feudal lords for the dominant role in society. Ambrose deserves the credit that he was the first Christian figure not only to put this problem on the agenda, but also to try to solve it in practice, and this attempt was generally successful, which provided him with so many followers. The birth of the doctrine of papism in the form in which the Middle Ages perceived it was largely the result of the practical activities of Ambrose. Moreover, thanks to Ambrose already in the 4th century. and after him papism became a reality. When characterizing Ambrose of Milan as a person, it should first of all be noted that his image bears a vivid imprint of the era. He extremely harmoniously combined the type of an ancient statesman and the type of a high-ranking priest of the future Middle Ages. As an ancient figure, Ambrose is characterized by extraordinary organizational and administrative abilities, “indoctrination” in Roman law, an almost unerring political sense, a flexible response to the political situation, mastery of intrigue, and a wide circle of acquaintances in the upper echelons of society, truly Roman patriotism and irreconcilability towards the enemies of the fatherland and barbarians, a practical inclination of character and stoic courage in troubles and difficulties. As a Christian figure, converted to the future era, Ambrose is distinguished by the fact that he invariably puts the interests of the church at the forefront, decisively and mercilessly fights against its opponents, using a variety of, including “non-Christian” means, puts the church above the state and achieves the subordination of everyone, even the emperors themselves, actively manipulates public opinion, recruiting many adherents of the new religion, firmly defends the positions of the dogmatic majority who adhered to the Nicene faith, and strictly respects the interests of the Western Church, while recognizing the priority of Rome. Ambrose's biographer Pavlinus cites a number of Christian virtues of the famous bishop and paints an image of the saint, among whose qualities his simplicity and accessibility in communication are especially striking (the same qualities are noted by Augustine). It is these qualities, one must assume; and were the basis of his popularity among the general population of Mediolan and the western provinces of the empire. However, Ambrose came from among the Roman aristocracy and always retained the nobility and courage, severity and dignity characteristic of the best of the Romans even at the end of antiquity. Ambrose was an original thinker, although he did not reach in his work the heights to which his most talented student Augustine rose. Ambrose was to a certain extent “pressed” by the burden of ancient pagan education, which probably prevented him from reaching a new philosophical vision of the world, although he achieved certain merits in this area. His contribution to Christian dogma, exegesis and ethics turned out to be so significant that his works were included in the golden fund of Christian literature, constantly quoted and used by church and secular authors. The role of Ambrose is also peculiar in that he, through his works and activities, prepared the West for the perception of Augustinianism, and his creative legacy was a significant and important step in the formation of medieval philosophy and the worldview of the future era. In his political and episcopal activities, Ambrose, as a rule, acted in accordance with the needs of the time. However, in many ways he was already ahead of his era. He was one of those people who not only went down in history, but left a deep and vivid mark on it. After the manuscript of this book was given to the publisher, and preparations for its publication began, the author had the opportunity to work for several months at one of the world's most significant centers for the study of Christianity - at the Catholic University of America. It was here that many parallel translations of ancient Christian texts were prepared, hundreds of articles were compiled for various reference and periodical publications, and dozens of interesting monographs were created. There are powerful scientific schools with great authority and long-standing traditions here, public lectures on Christian issues are given by scientists from all over the world, students from different countries and professing different religions, including non-Christian ones, study here. On the territory of the Catholic University in Washington, there is the largest Catholic church in the Western Hemisphere - the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, built relatively recently and bearing on its walls images of almost all the saints of the Catholic Church. Of course, I was very interested to know what role in modern Catholicism on the other side of the ocean is assigned to Ambrose of Milan and, while examining the church, I, of course, looked for a bas-relief with his image. My search was soon crowned with success: the bas-relief of Ambrose is located on the south wall of the Basilica, facing the building of the Mullen Library of the Catholic University, on the entrance of which is engraved the wise saying: Omnia vincit veritas (Truth conquers all). True, it should be noted that the image of Ambrose is not so significant in execution and appearance if we compare it, for example, with Augustine, who is nearby. When I drew attention to this detail from the head of the Program for the Study of Early Christianity, Professor S. Griffiths, he said that indeed in modern Catholicism Ambrose is valued and revered somewhat less than other famous saints due to the fact that he was more of a church politician than a theologian. And yet, I was soon able to make sure that Ambrose is not only not forgotten in America, but again and again makes us pay attention to himself. On December 7, on the day of St. Ambrose according to the church calendar, a completely unusual and most interesting liturgy took place in the Caldwell Chapel of the Catholic University: from beginning to end it was carried out according to the script developed in the 4th century by Ambrose of Milan himself. The entire service was conducted in Latin, the famous Ambrosian antiphonal chant sounded, the chapel was illuminated by candles, which created a mysterious and at the same time solemn twilight, the priests were dressed in special robes and during the service constantly communicated with the flock, as was customary in ancient times (for example, the ritual included the exchange of kisses with the priest and the direct participation in some episodes of the liturgy of persons who do not have a clergy rank). Another event that caused a certain resonance in the scientific circles of America, and not only America, was the publication of Neil McLynn's book “Ambrose of Milan. Church and courtyard in the Christian capital." This monograph, without a doubt, is a major contribution to Ambrose studies and contains fundamentally new critical and sometimes hypercritical approaches to well-known and established facts in science from the life of Ambrose and the history of the 4th century. A Catholic University church historian of mine, Professor Inow, called McLynn's book "revisionist" in the sense that it challenges established opinions. When I began to read it myself, I became convinced that this was indeed the case and that using McLynn’s conclusions or arguing with him would lead to a significant revision of the present edition, which is hardly advisable to do when the book is ready for publication. I leave this for the next edition, if the need arises, which, however, is for the reader to judge. And one more American experience that is worth mentioning in conclusion and with prospects for future research. At the Catholic University I was fortunate to carry out part of the study of the large and complex problem of the Christianization of the Roman Empire using a method that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. Thanks to Chadwyck & Healey Inc. in 1993–1995 A unique re-release of the Latin patrolology of Min in a computer version was carried out. The use of this enormous database promises to yield interesting scientific results and carry out types of research that were unthinkable in the recent past. But this is the topic of the next book. Ambrose of Milan - man, politician, bishop KUZISCHIN V.I. (Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University) So, the Roman Empire in the 4th century and Ambrose of Milan. A great state, a world empire and the Archbishop of Milan: their interaction and mutual repulsion. Isn’t this statement by the author of the book offered to the reader by M.M. Kazakov, if not pretentious, then at least incorrect? We can say unequivocally: it is not. And for several reasons. One of the first and general reasons is that the role of a great personality (and the head of the Milan bishopric was just such) in the historical process is very great. And this role is not so much in the fact that a bright personality, as it were, cuts history according to arbitrary standards, but in the fact that it accumulates still unclear trends, formalizes them into more or less clear forms and begins to implement them in specific historical actions. The activities of Ambrose of Milan are a vivid example of this. The scion of one of the Roman aristocratic families, genetically programmed to adore the imperial power and greatness of the Roman state, himself in his youth included in the orbit of the imperial bureaucracy, Ambrose unexpectedly becomes the shepherd of the Mediolan Christian community, sharply breaks with the traditional imperial ideology, puts forward as the highest true principle the authority of the Gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven, to which, as the highest principle, earthly people must be subordinated kingdoms, including the most powerful of them - the Roman Empire. It was a decisive epochal revolution, marking a radical change in ideologies. But it followed from this that the keepers of the commandments of Christ - the Christian church as a whole and its individual ministers as bearers of divine grace - must be shepherds of their followers, including the highest authority and the almighty emperor himself. Thus, the church and its clergy received the right to interfere with the orders of the authorities, including the emperor. The appearance of such a concept in the 4th century. was an unheard of thing, a genuine revolution in people's ideas. After all, the 4th century is the century of the establishment of dominance, unlimited by the laws of absolutism of the emperor, who, as the Supreme Pontiff, was the de facto head of traditional religion. This was a century of ideological ferment in the Christian Church, which was still unsteady on its feet and had a vested interest in supporting the imperial power. And the Empire itself, in the person of Constantine, Constantius, Valentinian, and Theodosius, firmly held in its hands the levers of control of the strengthening church. And in these conditions of the dependence of the church on the empire, Ambrose, elected bishop of Milan in 374 and a newly baptized major official of the empire, began to formulate and implement policies that ultimately led to the supremacy of the church over the empire. The policy was fundamentally new and, it seemed, not supported by the historical situation. And it was here that Ambrose’s powerful beginning came into play as an extraordinary personality and historical figure, who not only foresaw (largely intuitively) the future greatness of the church, but also brilliantly used a specific historical situation. In fact, the election of Ambrose coincided with a serious crisis in the imperial house. The capable and intelligent emperor Valentinian unexpectedly dies, his young and inexperienced successor Gratian fears the machinations of his stepmother Justina and half-brother Valentinian P. Gratian at that moment is in dire need of a mentor and leader, and it is not difficult for the experienced Ambrose, who headed the capital's bishopric, to become such a mentor. Soon, the rebellion of Maximus, who was proclaimed emperor in Gaul, broke out, and Ambrose became a mediator in negotiations between the usurper and the legitimate emperor. His political and spiritual authority, personal and as head of the bishopric, increases sharply. Using his increased influence over the young Valentinian II, Ambrose managed to overcome the Arian crisis caused by the Empress Justina and return her reigning son to the fold of Nicene Orthodoxy. Finally, Ambrose turned out to be a welcome ally and mentor of the powerful eastern emperor Theodosius, an excellent commander and a man who deeply believed in the omnipotence of Christ and the need to submit to the will of God. A subtle psychologist, an experienced politician and a passionate Christian, Ambrose used these qualities of Theodosius and, taking advantage of the episode in Thessalonica, decided to personally demonstrate the supremacy of the king of heaven over the king of earth, excommunicating the all-powerful Roman autocrat. Theodosius's submission to this excommunication and subsequent repentance became an important historical event. Theodosius (and more broadly, the Roman Empire) with this fact, so to speak, officially recognized the supremacy of spiritual power over secular power, the supremacy of the kingdom of heaven over the kingdom of earth. Of course, we cannot simplify the complex political situation. Ambrose did not so much develop the concept of the supremacy of spiritual power over secular power as a theologian (although he worked actively here too), but rather, through his practical actions and his policies, he asserted and paved the way for this concept. That is why, based on his personal experience, on his concrete actions (as well as on his writings), it was easier for his student Augustine to transform individual elements of the emerging concept of Ambrose into a deeply developed theory of two kingdoms and the absolute supremacy of the civitas Dei (City of God) over the civitas imperatoris (Imperial City), a theory that dominated Western Europe in the Middle Ages. That is why the author of this book had every right to call it exactly that: “The Roman Empire and Ambrose of Milan.” And one last thing. The name of Ambrose of Milan is not very popular in Russian scientific and theological literature. There is no need now to talk about the reasons for such an attitude towards one of the most prominent fathers of the Church, a major politician and, as shown in the book, a great historical figure. In this sense, the book by M.M. Kazakov, written brightly, interestingly and at the same time professionally, will fill the gap in Russian historiography and introduce our reader to one of the notable personalities of world history.